Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
I started a new thread prompted by the 'happy constitution' thread, not piss on anyone's parade but to start a debate.
Anyone who relies on a piece of paper for their freedoms is not free, the American constitution was written by and for the establishment, which is why ordinary Americans were not given the vote and slaves were still slaves immediately after its publication. The thought of universal sufferage had not entered the heads of its authors, it was about a legal framework in which the establishment and the monied classes operated.
The American constitution has proved to be no more than a charter for lawyers and a ideological manifesto for manipulative politicians. The quasi-religious significance of its text has curtailed the political and philosophical debate about what freedom actually is amongst ordinary Americans. The position of the constitution in the American psyche has curtailed freedom, not promoted it, hence the on going debate about Americans need for guns to defend their freedoms from encroachment of the state. The American constitution has given ordinary Americans nothing that other westerners don't enjoy. It was a conservative document when it was written which is why it still in place and it remains a conservative document
Freedom is in the head, not on a piece of paper that defines what freedom is. As Sartre noted, 'We (the French) were not so free as when we were occupied by the Germans.' (Think about it)
Thoughts...
errr yah all of the above sort of.
Possibly one of the most obvious results of the constitution is our love affair of arms. I think that is a direct result of the constitution and an understanding of why we stipulated our right to bear. Taking into consideration that the US is the most heavily armed country in the world with more personal arms than all other countries and militaries combined, (and that is only the weapons they know about). With a known weapons count of 1 gun per person in the us i would have to say that the constitution "can" work at least with the "simple concept" of a gun.
As LE pointed out we do have a piece of paper to fall back on, yes it has been amended but it was never intended to be a "growing" charter that matched the "emotional moods" of the times, nor was it ever intended to be amended in such a manner that it became the a cesspool of civil law. Its whole intent is to define and limit the powers of government to insure that the people do have power within and ultimately "over" the government albeit by a very fine line, and that very fine line is the point we are willing to pick up arms. (When a man is will to lay his life down he is serious.)
The constitution is based on christian principals as much as many people do not like that idea, and that can be seen in many of the writings of the founders where they come right out and say it. Inalienable rights, otherwise known as "Natural Rights", that originated from judeao-christian principals sauteed in greko-roman flavor.
This is america, we have been "lead" to believe we have "leaders" in office and we were never intended to have leaders we were intended to have "administrators" in office. This misconception is to our own detriment.
The whole point was to have a contract with the government to be upheld by both the people and the government that was really designed and intended to create a "balance" of power between the people and the government. The governemnt is not upholding their part and many people have accepted bribes not to uphold their part frankly and the rest who have not or understand right from wrong are "scared" to do anything about it. Take 911 as a recent example, a few years ago many people were even afraid to speak about it and they whispered to one another under their breathe. Is that Liberty?
One of the founders said "I fear what will happen once people realize they can vote themselves money"
Money and a desire for non-accountability and "INVISIBLE CONTRACTS" is what is fueling our consistantly growing nationalist and centralized government.
State politicians want to wash their hands of things like gun issues and so forth so they consistantly try to push it off on the feds giving up states rights and consequently ours at the same time.
Federal (national), (socialist), programs of money redistribution programs lock states into agreements with the central (federal), government, and give the feds jurisdiction over who gets the money and for what purpose and how much, how they spend it, and "THE RULES" that must be "CONFORMED TO" to be eligible for it etc.
Then people who use these programs, (unknown to them), further sign off and acquiesce their "personal" rights by "using" the programs, such as education and there is never a secondary system put into place just the governments sytem of choice. By law these people are considered to acqueisce to (all strings attached), of the programs offered by the feds which includes all rules that go along with these programs which is structured to give the feds control over both the states and "GIVE THE FEDS CONTROL OVER EVERY PART OF OUR LIVES", slice by slice by our ignorance, greed, free handout attitude and this results in our involuntarily waiving of our constitutional rights... Hence an invisible contract. Hence the proliferation of centralized government.
Now the truly sad part is that people here are to ignorant, keeping in mind 50% are barely literate enough to work at mickey D's all the way up to and including those who are very educated but so indocrinated to the system that they cannot even conceputalize another way of doing things much less to know and realize that this can be done differently with the same social outcome where the people can retain their rights, however that will never happen within my lifetime with the 50% illiteracy problem (thanks to gov controlled schooling since 1900), as that is only the tip of the iceburg of the depth of the education problems we have here.
To be ignorant and free is an oxymoron.
Our parents allowed so much to go through, (through ignorance) that impowers the central government and the people now have huge investments in these systems with expectations based on gov promises made when selling it to the people. Fed programs continue to grow as people look more and more to the gov to resolve problems they are frankly to stoopid to resolve on their own. Hence we make our own bed.
With the consistantly increasing number of "fed dependants" it goes without saying there there is a decreasing number of people who are willing to work to fix it. First because they bite off their own nose despite their face, (entitlements), and second because it is so unpopular to those who have made huge monetary investments in the same.
So now today, we have so many people on the "welfare roll" in one way form or another that no one wants to change the system and lose those "hard earned and fought for entitilements".
Take social sec'screwity' for instance. Try and do something with that to fix it today and people will revolt. Not only because they have little to no understanding of the system and all the invisible contracts involved, (like taxes), they also have no clu how this can be done without the feds as the "direct" central "controlling" government.
I do agree with freedom, (i prefer liberty), is in the head of the beholder. Few imo understand its boundaries and how to maintain a system that protects not only my liberties but yours as well.
Case in point when i made the statement that as far as gun rights go i have the "constitutional right" to pull out a firearm and shoot it off in the air in a mall as long as there is no damage incurred from my act. This is strictly constitutional. Lucky refuted that in support of unconstitutional civil laws with an "emotional" response that went something like: "real has no consideration for whos ears he is damaging etc" and so forth and so on, suggesting the need for civil law to be imposed to prevent the action when constitutional law already has it covered. Atypical government thinking.
To remain in a constitutional republic all a person need do is show damage has occured in a court, the jury decides the judge rules and if damage did occur then real pays for the damage setting a precedence for others not to do the same. No law required.
Creating a civil "law" however is nothing more than the color of law laid upon and piggy backing constitutional law offers no addition protection but gives attorneys a nice shelf full of books to impress customers with. It gives the impression our lawmakers are actually doing something worthwhile and makes a complete shit mess out of the whole system while transforming the republic to, well everything but a republic.
Point being that there is no need to make an unconstitutional do not fire your weapon in the mall "law" and take a "slice" out of our rights when "constitutional" redress already exists.
Of course it does now give more power to the states who are discovering they really do not want the hassle and are passing it to the feds who are for the most part ineffective, but it does work well for transferring blame.
I would agree that freedom is in the head, but people have been over the years so distanced from "freedom/liberty" in its original intent that they no longer know what it is and worse neither do they know "how to defend it".
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
Freedom and the American constitution. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread