To answer your initial question about American conservatives: I think the specter of Jacobinism and fear of it play a large role in American conservatism. In quiet moments, many of them may agree with you, but fundamentally they are scared. Scared that anything other than the Constitution as written leads to the guillotine or the 21st century equivalent. They prefer the Devil they know (but of course they would never refer to it as the Devil). In their minds 200+ years of okayness can't be wrong.
You expressed quite clearly what I've felt about my most die-hard proponents of the US Constitution et al. Well done. I'd hope that you might find my own discovery of a solution to be of interest, since it remedies all of the fatal flaws you so precisely articulated.
The current paradigm, in a way, is the individual vs the group (or state, mob, etc. call it what you will). In order for individualists to be engaged in the current form of government, they must use collectivist methods. Of course the status quo, corruption notwithstanding, favors the collectivists, especially those with Bolshevik methods.
The converse of the individual vs the group would be an individualist utopia, where free persons are immune to herd dynamics. Even if possible, this too would be faulty, since humans (like any social creatures) benefit from both individualism and social participation. As Steven Covey wrote in '7 Habits,' one must first become independent and then develop interdependencies.
With this in mind, the system I propose is one that puts the individual on equal footing with the group. Both are essential, and one would not benefit at the expense of the other. But theory isn't enough. This new system must have the capability of, to borrow a modern term, going viral. The secret is a combination of mathematical principles, common to all living things, that puts natural selection into play. Borrowing another phrase, it's so simple even a caveman could do it. In fact, he did to great effect.
Happy to discuss further, should you find this new system to be a tempting idea. Suffice it to say, this will use methodology that is consistent with the Founding Fathers' goals, rather than being in opposition.
Thanks again for such a clear and salient article. Nicely done, sir.
Thank you for the kind words and your intriguing response.
Needless to say, I agree with you on the individual vs. the collective dichotomy. That is as central in human life as the persuasion vs. coercion (maker vs. taker) dichotomy.
Can you summarize your idea in a way that is simple enough for me to get? ("Damnit, Jim, I'm a philosopher not a mathematician.")
Whatever it is, in a properly liberated condition of voluntary order, you would be free to create a system/polity based on your idea, and to try to attract members/adherents/subscribers/citizens. Just as I would mine and the Amish would theirs. Just as individuals would be free to join nothing and simply pay private agencies for security, protection, and law.
It's not even "Let the best system win." It's just "let everyone choose"!
Let me start by saying the Damnit Jim remark makes me chuckle every time. I've just subscribed and I'll let my attached comment speak for itself.
Regarding a summary of this novel yet ancient system, permit me to first share an introductory statement, one that is a natural and logical extension of what was so profoundly written before our time.
###
I, the Person, am an autonomous member of society. As such, I am neither slave nor master, in whole or in part. My associations are voluntary, as is my cooperation with my fellow members of society.
I decide what is best for my life, what betters my relations, and what benefits my home in this world. As such, I refuse to rule others, and reject those who would rule me.
I alone own my thoughts, I alone define my words, and I alone must account for my decisions and actions.
Your subscription and kind message were the first thing I saw this morning. I had wanted to send you a personal email of thanks, but I forbore for fear of invading your private email address. So please allow me to express my heartfelt thanks here! I loved your message. And please do feel free to comment, challenge me, ask questions, and keep in general touch. I will always answer.
Your introductory statement is truly excellent. In the months ahead, I KNOW we will be talking about it further, for it echoes work I am doing myself at this very moment.
Regarding the comment about slavery in the article--the Framers sought and did, abolish the SLAVE TRADE (importation of foreign slaves) as soon as the Constitution allowed (to the day). The Framers did not ever originally intend federally to end slavery itself, which was a State-organized institution (which the 13th Amendment ultimately later did, in 1865).
President Jefferson signed into law an 1807 Act that outlawed the trading in foreign slaves (Volume II, Statutes at Large, Page 426, 1807 [effective January 1, 1808 {the day first allowed by U.S. Constitution, at Art. I, Sect. 9, Cl. 1}]) and the foreign slave trade became an act of piracy, punishable by death, in 1820 (III Stat. 600).
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 is what I was referring to. My main point there was essentially this…
Patriotic conservatives tend to look at things this way: There was some time in the past when the Constitution and the system it inaugurated actually matched the principles that motivated the Framers, and that if we can only return to that point, things will be good. I no longer believe that. The Constitution creates and empowers a morally impermissible (because it is non-consensual) system, there was no mythical time in the past when it was morally acceptable, AND it never properly actuated the Framers' principles or hopes for it, even from the start. That last bit is the reason I pointed out the Sedition Acts and the fact that any plans or laws to end slavery did not work out as intended.
I apologize if I failed to make that sufficiently clear in the piece.
The clause of the Constitution we both speak to--Art. I:9:1--speaks only to the "Migration or Importation" of foreign slaves into the United States. It speaks not to slavery itself. Art. I:9:1 could not, and did not, ever intend to eradicate slavery.
Art. I:9:1 did EXACTLY as the Framers intended, on the first possible day it could do it. You cannot use Art. I:9:1 as an example for your intended cause, that it failed, because it actually proves the opposite (that the Constitution proved to do exactly as the Framers intended).
Now, the Alien and Sedition Acts were another thing entirely.
That the Constitution failed to do as the bulk of the Framers intended does not necessarily mean that it is legally wholly insufficient, and that with one small change, can fully restore the intended legal effect.
Now, I'm not going to argue the moral aspect, of it being individually consented to.
I would, however, argue that if we corrected its intended legal effect (which is quite easy, I argue in my dozen public domain books and dozens of public domain newsletter issues [available at www.PatriotCorps.org]), that countless Americans would indeed individually consent to it.
So, we lessen the moral dilemma, by correcting the legal dilemma.
Thankfully, with the U.S. Constitution requiring oaths of all who exercise its delegated powers, each and every member of Congress and federal official becomes bound to its terms.
Therefore, NOTHING any of them have ever done, has EVER changed the Constitution OR changed any of the powers that they may exercise directly throughout the Union.
Thus, all their actions that falsely appear beyond the Constitution may be fully cast aside, no matter who wins elections or no matter who is appointed to any political office, because nothing has ever changed.
The fastest way to throw off 95% of federal action (all that beyond the spirit of the Constitution) is to ENFORCE the Constitution fully, by ending the charade of using District of Columbia exclusive legislation, beyond District boundaries.
I respect any argument that finds a legal loophole, seeks to correct it, and promises an improvement in the existing system as a result of the correction. I like improvements, and I am generally not keen on letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. That being said, I have concerns.
First, while I am obviously not versed at all in the specific fix you propose, I have serious doubts about the likelihood of any such legal fixes ever being allowed to see the light of day. Something that takes away nearly all of the Federal government's power? There are numerous reasons why the Federal government has, for decades, been arming its agencies with better weapons and ammunition—including agencies that are not strictly law-enforcement agencies. They have no intention of going quietly, and even less intention of allowing themselves to be rendered irrelevant by actions taken WITHIN the system.
That is of course my humble opinion. I would be happy to be wrong. But, over our history, they have knowingly and completely warped "General Welfare" to mean something that it was not meant to mean. They have warped the Commerce Clause to the point where growing crops to feed your own hogs is regulable as "interstate commerce." They have vomited all over Article 1, Section 8's enumerated powers by claiming and enforcing plenary authority…an authority that Madison promised—PROMISED!—us they would not have. I am a layman when it comes to Constitutional law, but I do not need a degree to see that they stopped caring what the Constitution actually says very early on. And each branch of the government has been complicit at one time or another. This gives me little hope that they will allow themselves to be unmade by any act that must be undertaken within the system.
Second, and more importantly (to me, at least) is that I cannot ignore the moral issue. As I say, I am happy to take any improvements that allow me to enjoy my natural freedom to a greater degree than I enjoyed the day before, but I cannot ignore the moral argument, which is crux of the issue for me. If a system uses voting to produce actions that result in the initiation of coercive force against non-aggressive people, that system is non-consensual and thus a violation of human self-ownership. There will never be anything resembling peace in human civilization so long as such a system is the >>starting point<< of our social and political infrastructure.
We face federally but one political issue--which is how members of Congress and federal officials, all of whom must swear an oath to support the Constitution, signifying their subservience to it, nevertheless being able to bypass or ignore their normal constitutional parameters with impunity.
All else are but symptoms of that fundamental cause.
You write, ultimately spouting off claims of our opponents' omnipotence, that they "have knowingly and completely warped 'General Welfare' (clause)" and "warped the Commerce Clause," as if do have the power they claim.
No, THE ONLY THING they do is ignore the Constitution only where the Constitution allows itself to be ignored--which is for the District Seat and other exclusive legislation lands.
Indeed, the Constitution was never meant to limit or restrain Congress in any way under members' exclusive legislation authority for D.C., where they exercise State-like authority since no State has any authority therein.
But, unlike the States which must also follow their respective State Constitutions, there is NO State, State-like, or District Constitution there guiding and directing members in the exercise of their exclusive legislation powers.
Thus, members MUST make up all their own rules there, as they go along.
Since the U.S. Constitution doesn't copyright words and phrases therein prohibiting the States from changing the meaning of the same words used in a State Constitution, then members of Congress may indeed provide new definitions for words and phrases found in the U.S. Constitution, but now meaning something else, IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Quit acting like we face all-powerful wizards and magical genies, who indeed have "no intention of going quietly" or "allowing themselves to be rendered irrelevant by actions taken WITHIN the system," it is the false extension of an allowed special system beyond District borders that they are powerless to prevent (once we pull back the curtain hiding their deception).
We need only expose The Make-Believe Rule of Paper Tyrants, who cannot stop the truth the removes their false extension of an allowed power beyond its true boundaries.
While the U.S. Constitution DIVIDED governing authority into enumerated federal powers and reserved State powers for some 97% of the American land mass, in approximately 3% of the current area are found the exclusive legislation lands (D.C., and ceded forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings), where ALL governing powers are UNITED in CONGRESS and the US GOVERNMENT.
Yes, they have legitimate exclusive legislation in those special federal enclaves to do almost anything they want (they simply cannot do the things expressly forbidden them), they cannot extend those allowed special powers beyond those legal boundaries except by deceiving the American populace, who don't know what is going on to stop it.
Thankfully, nowhere does the U.S. Constitution expressly prohibit the direct extension of allowed special powers beyond legal boundaries, even as it allows it (currently) indirectly.
But, we can change that omission, and directly prohibit even the indirect extension of exclusive powers beyond exclusive boundaries, and end 232 years of legal shenanigans.
I do not believe they are omnipotent; quite the contrary. I simply do not have much confidence in anyone—local, state, or federal—initiating, let alone successfully implementing, the legal remedy you describe. However, let us set my skepticism aside for the moment, for I believe we are talking somewhat at cross purposes. Please describe, if you would, what that legal remedy would look like—what it would do, and what my life (vis-a-vis the government) would be like afterward.
My point is that you repeat their claim (that they may change the meaning of words found in the Constitution, to give themselves more power, for direct exercise throughout the whole Union), thereby building up their lie even further.
My point, is not say "See how bad they are, they do these magical things that are absolutely horrible). It is like Dorothy describing the magnified image bellowing thunderous, hot air in a forbidding manner and asserting he is an all-powerful wizard).
Instead, we need to follow the lead of Toto and sniff about until we find the source of the stench, pull back the curtain, and then bark like crazy at the only thing that matters--the man behind the curtain, who is not all-powerful, but merely an accomplished fraud.
The wizard, munchkins, nor anyone else in Oz "initiated" or implemented any legal remedy.
Instead, those who are being tricked pull back the curtain to expose the method of constitutional bypass to the bright light of day, and we understand how we were tricked and once that cat is out of the bag, there's no going back to a false perception fully revealed.
Later, AFTER we throw off a false rule, we propose and ratify an amendment to either contain the allowed special powers of DC to DC (saying that Article VI "shall not be construed" to include Art. I, Sect. 8, Cl. 17--that the exclusive legislation powers of Congress shall never be considered part of the supreme Law of the Land that can ever bind any State.
That would allow all the nonsense to continue, but would contain all the nonsense to DC boundaries (et al).
Or, we repeal Art. I:8:17 entirely, retrocede DC back to Maryland, and all exclusive legislation forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings back to the particular State originally ceding them, and we repeal the exclusive legislation power entirely.
Thereafter, all governing powers throughout every square foot of the Union are necessarily divided into enumerated federal powers or reserved State powers, period.
Thereafter, Congress and the U.S. Government would be incapable of doing anything beyond implement the enumerated powers using necessary and proper means (which those words/phrases meaning as they meant, at time of ratification).
Those who swear an oath to support the Constitution are POWERLESS to ever change it, or their allowed powers they may directly exercise throughout the Union.
NOTHING they have ever done has ever changed the Constitution or their allowed powers everywhere exercised.
ALL they have ever done any different is necessarily only for exclusive legislation parcels. So, we may contain all that travesty to those parcels, or we may repeal all of them, with one of two alternate amendments.
But, even before those amendments correct matters for all time, we can still contain DC exclusive legislation powers to exclusive legislation parcels, by exposing their bypass mechanism to the bright light of day.
Only before an amendment doing it automatically in every case, we'll have to be intentional about doing it individually, in every case.
We can contain all the nonsense to DC or repeal it everywhere, by exposing lies. I'll let you to imagine, the Constitution strictly-construed and followed also in spirit (no Federal Reserve, no entitlements, no foreign aid, no U.N. involvement, limited taxation for express federal purposes [no wage withholding], no Social Security, no education mandates, etc.
The States would be free to go forward 50 different ways on all their reserved powers, no longer with invalid federal mandates on everything beyond the spirit of the Constitution.
Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers allowed the most corrupt of political seeds into the Constitution and “bad actors” (Alexander Hamilton and Chief Justice John Marshall [and later, others of their ilk]) nurtured that seed, that has today grown into a large and overgrown forest.
The seed took root in colonial America in 1766, at its planting, by King George III and British Parliament, in their infamous Declaratory Act, enacted on the same day they pulled their notorious Stamp Act which was far, far less threatening.
In the Declaratory Act, king and Parliament declared they were invested with “full power and authority to make laws…of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.”
The American colonists fought politically for a patient decade, to kill that evil plant, that Britain claimed—the unlimited power to “bind” the American colonists “in all cases whatsoever,” without the colonists’ consent and against their will.
But, those who boldly proclaimed that omnipotent power would not yield. So, to pull out that vile root, we declared our independence from and took to arms to pull out its root.
And, we succeeded.
However, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution later replanted that same seed, couched in the words that Congress may (for the District Seat and “like-Authority” federal enclaves) exercise “exclusive” legislation “in all Cases whatsoever.”
Yes, one could easily argue that the vast bulk of Framers meant to contain that seed in the District Seat and other exclusive legislation parcels, used for forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings.
But, like a bamboo shoot known to overtake everything in its path, it only took two years for Hamilton to resort to that exclusive legislation power to get support for his 1791 bank.
And, Marshall later pried open that exclusive authority, using it for “1803 Marbury and 1819 McCulloch. And, in 1821 Cohens v. Virginia, he let it fully loose, saying: “The clause which gives exclusive jurisdiction is, unquestionably, a part of the Constitution, and, as such, binds all the United States.”
In other words, he ruled that since Art. I, Sect. 8, Cl. 17 is *part* of “This Constitution” which Art. VI, Cl. 2 expressly declares to “the supreme Law of the Land” which binds the States through their judges, then even congressional laws enacted “in pursuance” of even Cl. 17 may then bind the States.
At least when the States do not squarely object, and call out the false extension of an allowed special power, beyond allowable boundaries.
So, Spooner was right, even as he never allowed for us to diagnose the single political problem that has been with us since 1789 so that we can excise it once and for all, so we may live happily-ever-after.
While the Constitution doesn’t currently prevent the indirect extension of an allowed special power beyond its true boundaries, doesn’t mean that we can’t follow the lead of the 11th Amendment and simply declare that Article I:8:17 “shall not be construed” to be any part of the supreme Law of the Land that ever binds the States under Article VI.
I appreciate this long and erudite response. Even before I got to the part where you said, "Spooner was right," that was the response I was planning to give. Spooner was clearly right.
Where I get confused, vis-a-vis your reply, is exactly what we can excise in order to solve the more fundamental problem: that the Constitution engages in the evil of imposing a 'social contract' on a body of people who did not consent to it, claims that their consent was 'tacit,' and then uses violence to make them to do a bunch of stuff to which they also did not consent.
Spooner was right ONLY to the effect that the Constitution as currently worded does not expressly prohibit the false extension of an allowed power beyond District boundaries.
But, thankfully, that doesn't prevent us from CHANGING that Constitution, to expressly prohibit the indirect extension of exclusive legislation Acts beyond District boundaries.
Again, let's get the legal aspects corrected, and the moral issue can become almost entirely resolved.
I fully argue that if we correct this one defect in the Constitution, then we throw off 95% of the federal government, and probably 95% of the people would voluntarily consent to it.
To answer your initial question about American conservatives: I think the specter of Jacobinism and fear of it play a large role in American conservatism. In quiet moments, many of them may agree with you, but fundamentally they are scared. Scared that anything other than the Constitution as written leads to the guillotine or the 21st century equivalent. They prefer the Devil they know (but of course they would never refer to it as the Devil). In their minds 200+ years of okayness can't be wrong.
I substantially agree with you, sir. That is a very big part of it.
You expressed quite clearly what I've felt about my most die-hard proponents of the US Constitution et al. Well done. I'd hope that you might find my own discovery of a solution to be of interest, since it remedies all of the fatal flaws you so precisely articulated.
The current paradigm, in a way, is the individual vs the group (or state, mob, etc. call it what you will). In order for individualists to be engaged in the current form of government, they must use collectivist methods. Of course the status quo, corruption notwithstanding, favors the collectivists, especially those with Bolshevik methods.
The converse of the individual vs the group would be an individualist utopia, where free persons are immune to herd dynamics. Even if possible, this too would be faulty, since humans (like any social creatures) benefit from both individualism and social participation. As Steven Covey wrote in '7 Habits,' one must first become independent and then develop interdependencies.
With this in mind, the system I propose is one that puts the individual on equal footing with the group. Both are essential, and one would not benefit at the expense of the other. But theory isn't enough. This new system must have the capability of, to borrow a modern term, going viral. The secret is a combination of mathematical principles, common to all living things, that puts natural selection into play. Borrowing another phrase, it's so simple even a caveman could do it. In fact, he did to great effect.
Happy to discuss further, should you find this new system to be a tempting idea. Suffice it to say, this will use methodology that is consistent with the Founding Fathers' goals, rather than being in opposition.
Thanks again for such a clear and salient article. Nicely done, sir.
Thank you for the kind words and your intriguing response.
Needless to say, I agree with you on the individual vs. the collective dichotomy. That is as central in human life as the persuasion vs. coercion (maker vs. taker) dichotomy.
Can you summarize your idea in a way that is simple enough for me to get? ("Damnit, Jim, I'm a philosopher not a mathematician.")
Whatever it is, in a properly liberated condition of voluntary order, you would be free to create a system/polity based on your idea, and to try to attract members/adherents/subscribers/citizens. Just as I would mine and the Amish would theirs. Just as individuals would be free to join nothing and simply pay private agencies for security, protection, and law.
It's not even "Let the best system win." It's just "let everyone choose"!
Glad to have you here.
Let me start by saying the Damnit Jim remark makes me chuckle every time. I've just subscribed and I'll let my attached comment speak for itself.
Regarding a summary of this novel yet ancient system, permit me to first share an introductory statement, one that is a natural and logical extension of what was so profoundly written before our time.
###
I, the Person, am an autonomous member of society. As such, I am neither slave nor master, in whole or in part. My associations are voluntary, as is my cooperation with my fellow members of society.
I decide what is best for my life, what betters my relations, and what benefits my home in this world. As such, I refuse to rule others, and reject those who would rule me.
I alone own my thoughts, I alone define my words, and I alone must account for my decisions and actions.
###
Your subscription and kind message were the first thing I saw this morning. I had wanted to send you a personal email of thanks, but I forbore for fear of invading your private email address. So please allow me to express my heartfelt thanks here! I loved your message. And please do feel free to comment, challenge me, ask questions, and keep in general touch. I will always answer.
Your introductory statement is truly excellent. In the months ahead, I KNOW we will be talking about it further, for it echoes work I am doing myself at this very moment.
You're most welcome to write via my private email. Look forward to hearing from you. And thanks for asking, of course.
Regarding the comment about slavery in the article--the Framers sought and did, abolish the SLAVE TRADE (importation of foreign slaves) as soon as the Constitution allowed (to the day). The Framers did not ever originally intend federally to end slavery itself, which was a State-organized institution (which the 13th Amendment ultimately later did, in 1865).
President Jefferson signed into law an 1807 Act that outlawed the trading in foreign slaves (Volume II, Statutes at Large, Page 426, 1807 [effective January 1, 1808 {the day first allowed by U.S. Constitution, at Art. I, Sect. 9, Cl. 1}]) and the foreign slave trade became an act of piracy, punishable by death, in 1820 (III Stat. 600).
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 is what I was referring to. My main point there was essentially this…
Patriotic conservatives tend to look at things this way: There was some time in the past when the Constitution and the system it inaugurated actually matched the principles that motivated the Framers, and that if we can only return to that point, things will be good. I no longer believe that. The Constitution creates and empowers a morally impermissible (because it is non-consensual) system, there was no mythical time in the past when it was morally acceptable, AND it never properly actuated the Framers' principles or hopes for it, even from the start. That last bit is the reason I pointed out the Sedition Acts and the fact that any plans or laws to end slavery did not work out as intended.
I apologize if I failed to make that sufficiently clear in the piece.
The clause of the Constitution we both speak to--Art. I:9:1--speaks only to the "Migration or Importation" of foreign slaves into the United States. It speaks not to slavery itself. Art. I:9:1 could not, and did not, ever intend to eradicate slavery.
Art. I:9:1 did EXACTLY as the Framers intended, on the first possible day it could do it. You cannot use Art. I:9:1 as an example for your intended cause, that it failed, because it actually proves the opposite (that the Constitution proved to do exactly as the Framers intended).
Now, the Alien and Sedition Acts were another thing entirely.
That the Constitution failed to do as the bulk of the Framers intended does not necessarily mean that it is legally wholly insufficient, and that with one small change, can fully restore the intended legal effect.
Now, I'm not going to argue the moral aspect, of it being individually consented to.
I would, however, argue that if we corrected its intended legal effect (which is quite easy, I argue in my dozen public domain books and dozens of public domain newsletter issues [available at www.PatriotCorps.org]), that countless Americans would indeed individually consent to it.
So, we lessen the moral dilemma, by correcting the legal dilemma.
Thankfully, with the U.S. Constitution requiring oaths of all who exercise its delegated powers, each and every member of Congress and federal official becomes bound to its terms.
Therefore, NOTHING any of them have ever done, has EVER changed the Constitution OR changed any of the powers that they may exercise directly throughout the Union.
Thus, all their actions that falsely appear beyond the Constitution may be fully cast aside, no matter who wins elections or no matter who is appointed to any political office, because nothing has ever changed.
The fastest way to throw off 95% of federal action (all that beyond the spirit of the Constitution) is to ENFORCE the Constitution fully, by ending the charade of using District of Columbia exclusive legislation, beyond District boundaries.
I will reply to your other comment here as well.
I respect any argument that finds a legal loophole, seeks to correct it, and promises an improvement in the existing system as a result of the correction. I like improvements, and I am generally not keen on letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. That being said, I have concerns.
First, while I am obviously not versed at all in the specific fix you propose, I have serious doubts about the likelihood of any such legal fixes ever being allowed to see the light of day. Something that takes away nearly all of the Federal government's power? There are numerous reasons why the Federal government has, for decades, been arming its agencies with better weapons and ammunition—including agencies that are not strictly law-enforcement agencies. They have no intention of going quietly, and even less intention of allowing themselves to be rendered irrelevant by actions taken WITHIN the system.
That is of course my humble opinion. I would be happy to be wrong. But, over our history, they have knowingly and completely warped "General Welfare" to mean something that it was not meant to mean. They have warped the Commerce Clause to the point where growing crops to feed your own hogs is regulable as "interstate commerce." They have vomited all over Article 1, Section 8's enumerated powers by claiming and enforcing plenary authority…an authority that Madison promised—PROMISED!—us they would not have. I am a layman when it comes to Constitutional law, but I do not need a degree to see that they stopped caring what the Constitution actually says very early on. And each branch of the government has been complicit at one time or another. This gives me little hope that they will allow themselves to be unmade by any act that must be undertaken within the system.
Second, and more importantly (to me, at least) is that I cannot ignore the moral issue. As I say, I am happy to take any improvements that allow me to enjoy my natural freedom to a greater degree than I enjoyed the day before, but I cannot ignore the moral argument, which is crux of the issue for me. If a system uses voting to produce actions that result in the initiation of coercive force against non-aggressive people, that system is non-consensual and thus a violation of human self-ownership. There will never be anything resembling peace in human civilization so long as such a system is the >>starting point<< of our social and political infrastructure.
We face federally but one political issue--which is how members of Congress and federal officials, all of whom must swear an oath to support the Constitution, signifying their subservience to it, nevertheless being able to bypass or ignore their normal constitutional parameters with impunity.
All else are but symptoms of that fundamental cause.
You write, ultimately spouting off claims of our opponents' omnipotence, that they "have knowingly and completely warped 'General Welfare' (clause)" and "warped the Commerce Clause," as if do have the power they claim.
No, THE ONLY THING they do is ignore the Constitution only where the Constitution allows itself to be ignored--which is for the District Seat and other exclusive legislation lands.
Indeed, the Constitution was never meant to limit or restrain Congress in any way under members' exclusive legislation authority for D.C., where they exercise State-like authority since no State has any authority therein.
But, unlike the States which must also follow their respective State Constitutions, there is NO State, State-like, or District Constitution there guiding and directing members in the exercise of their exclusive legislation powers.
Thus, members MUST make up all their own rules there, as they go along.
Since the U.S. Constitution doesn't copyright words and phrases therein prohibiting the States from changing the meaning of the same words used in a State Constitution, then members of Congress may indeed provide new definitions for words and phrases found in the U.S. Constitution, but now meaning something else, IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Quit acting like we face all-powerful wizards and magical genies, who indeed have "no intention of going quietly" or "allowing themselves to be rendered irrelevant by actions taken WITHIN the system," it is the false extension of an allowed special system beyond District borders that they are powerless to prevent (once we pull back the curtain hiding their deception).
We need only expose The Make-Believe Rule of Paper Tyrants, who cannot stop the truth the removes their false extension of an allowed power beyond its true boundaries.
While the U.S. Constitution DIVIDED governing authority into enumerated federal powers and reserved State powers for some 97% of the American land mass, in approximately 3% of the current area are found the exclusive legislation lands (D.C., and ceded forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings), where ALL governing powers are UNITED in CONGRESS and the US GOVERNMENT.
Yes, they have legitimate exclusive legislation in those special federal enclaves to do almost anything they want (they simply cannot do the things expressly forbidden them), they cannot extend those allowed special powers beyond those legal boundaries except by deceiving the American populace, who don't know what is going on to stop it.
Thankfully, nowhere does the U.S. Constitution expressly prohibit the direct extension of allowed special powers beyond legal boundaries, even as it allows it (currently) indirectly.
But, we can change that omission, and directly prohibit even the indirect extension of exclusive powers beyond exclusive boundaries, and end 232 years of legal shenanigans.
I do not believe they are omnipotent; quite the contrary. I simply do not have much confidence in anyone—local, state, or federal—initiating, let alone successfully implementing, the legal remedy you describe. However, let us set my skepticism aside for the moment, for I believe we are talking somewhat at cross purposes. Please describe, if you would, what that legal remedy would look like—what it would do, and what my life (vis-a-vis the government) would be like afterward.
My point is that you repeat their claim (that they may change the meaning of words found in the Constitution, to give themselves more power, for direct exercise throughout the whole Union), thereby building up their lie even further.
My point, is not say "See how bad they are, they do these magical things that are absolutely horrible). It is like Dorothy describing the magnified image bellowing thunderous, hot air in a forbidding manner and asserting he is an all-powerful wizard).
Instead, we need to follow the lead of Toto and sniff about until we find the source of the stench, pull back the curtain, and then bark like crazy at the only thing that matters--the man behind the curtain, who is not all-powerful, but merely an accomplished fraud.
The wizard, munchkins, nor anyone else in Oz "initiated" or implemented any legal remedy.
Instead, those who are being tricked pull back the curtain to expose the method of constitutional bypass to the bright light of day, and we understand how we were tricked and once that cat is out of the bag, there's no going back to a false perception fully revealed.
Later, AFTER we throw off a false rule, we propose and ratify an amendment to either contain the allowed special powers of DC to DC (saying that Article VI "shall not be construed" to include Art. I, Sect. 8, Cl. 17--that the exclusive legislation powers of Congress shall never be considered part of the supreme Law of the Land that can ever bind any State.
That would allow all the nonsense to continue, but would contain all the nonsense to DC boundaries (et al).
Or, we repeal Art. I:8:17 entirely, retrocede DC back to Maryland, and all exclusive legislation forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings back to the particular State originally ceding them, and we repeal the exclusive legislation power entirely.
Thereafter, all governing powers throughout every square foot of the Union are necessarily divided into enumerated federal powers or reserved State powers, period.
Thereafter, Congress and the U.S. Government would be incapable of doing anything beyond implement the enumerated powers using necessary and proper means (which those words/phrases meaning as they meant, at time of ratification).
Those who swear an oath to support the Constitution are POWERLESS to ever change it, or their allowed powers they may directly exercise throughout the Union.
NOTHING they have ever done has ever changed the Constitution or their allowed powers everywhere exercised.
ALL they have ever done any different is necessarily only for exclusive legislation parcels. So, we may contain all that travesty to those parcels, or we may repeal all of them, with one of two alternate amendments.
But, even before those amendments correct matters for all time, we can still contain DC exclusive legislation powers to exclusive legislation parcels, by exposing their bypass mechanism to the bright light of day.
Only before an amendment doing it automatically in every case, we'll have to be intentional about doing it individually, in every case.
We can contain all the nonsense to DC or repeal it everywhere, by exposing lies. I'll let you to imagine, the Constitution strictly-construed and followed also in spirit (no Federal Reserve, no entitlements, no foreign aid, no U.N. involvement, limited taxation for express federal purposes [no wage withholding], no Social Security, no education mandates, etc.
The States would be free to go forward 50 different ways on all their reserved powers, no longer with invalid federal mandates on everything beyond the spirit of the Constitution.
Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers allowed the most corrupt of political seeds into the Constitution and “bad actors” (Alexander Hamilton and Chief Justice John Marshall [and later, others of their ilk]) nurtured that seed, that has today grown into a large and overgrown forest.
The seed took root in colonial America in 1766, at its planting, by King George III and British Parliament, in their infamous Declaratory Act, enacted on the same day they pulled their notorious Stamp Act which was far, far less threatening.
In the Declaratory Act, king and Parliament declared they were invested with “full power and authority to make laws…of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.”
The American colonists fought politically for a patient decade, to kill that evil plant, that Britain claimed—the unlimited power to “bind” the American colonists “in all cases whatsoever,” without the colonists’ consent and against their will.
But, those who boldly proclaimed that omnipotent power would not yield. So, to pull out that vile root, we declared our independence from and took to arms to pull out its root.
And, we succeeded.
However, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution later replanted that same seed, couched in the words that Congress may (for the District Seat and “like-Authority” federal enclaves) exercise “exclusive” legislation “in all Cases whatsoever.”
Yes, one could easily argue that the vast bulk of Framers meant to contain that seed in the District Seat and other exclusive legislation parcels, used for forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings.
But, like a bamboo shoot known to overtake everything in its path, it only took two years for Hamilton to resort to that exclusive legislation power to get support for his 1791 bank.
And, Marshall later pried open that exclusive authority, using it for “1803 Marbury and 1819 McCulloch. And, in 1821 Cohens v. Virginia, he let it fully loose, saying: “The clause which gives exclusive jurisdiction is, unquestionably, a part of the Constitution, and, as such, binds all the United States.”
In other words, he ruled that since Art. I, Sect. 8, Cl. 17 is *part* of “This Constitution” which Art. VI, Cl. 2 expressly declares to “the supreme Law of the Land” which binds the States through their judges, then even congressional laws enacted “in pursuance” of even Cl. 17 may then bind the States.
At least when the States do not squarely object, and call out the false extension of an allowed special power, beyond allowable boundaries.
So, Spooner was right, even as he never allowed for us to diagnose the single political problem that has been with us since 1789 so that we can excise it once and for all, so we may live happily-ever-after.
While the Constitution doesn’t currently prevent the indirect extension of an allowed special power beyond its true boundaries, doesn’t mean that we can’t follow the lead of the 11th Amendment and simply declare that Article I:8:17 “shall not be construed” to be any part of the supreme Law of the Land that ever binds the States under Article VI.
I appreciate this long and erudite response. Even before I got to the part where you said, "Spooner was right," that was the response I was planning to give. Spooner was clearly right.
Where I get confused, vis-a-vis your reply, is exactly what we can excise in order to solve the more fundamental problem: that the Constitution engages in the evil of imposing a 'social contract' on a body of people who did not consent to it, claims that their consent was 'tacit,' and then uses violence to make them to do a bunch of stuff to which they also did not consent.
Spooner was right ONLY to the effect that the Constitution as currently worded does not expressly prohibit the false extension of an allowed power beyond District boundaries.
But, thankfully, that doesn't prevent us from CHANGING that Constitution, to expressly prohibit the indirect extension of exclusive legislation Acts beyond District boundaries.
Again, let's get the legal aspects corrected, and the moral issue can become almost entirely resolved.
I fully argue that if we correct this one defect in the Constitution, then we throw off 95% of the federal government, and probably 95% of the people would voluntarily consent to it.