The Constitution Party (political)

DoubtingThomas
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
The Constitution Party (political)

A booth at this weekend's Music Festival had a big sign "Constitution Party". They were trying to get people to sign petitions against eminent domain and get the Party listed on the 2008 elections. (They were founded in 1994.) They would not give me a straight answer as to what their policy and beliefs were. Noticing that two of their flyers had Confederate flags on them was disheartening.

With a 3-way conversation (them, me, and a Conniticut visitor) on if the Party was bigoted, they kept saying no. I took the flyer, listed below, but did not read it until I got home. Good thing. Neither they or the local church booth next to them would have enjoyed having a new orifice added to their body.

If you see these folks any place, give them as much flack as you can. Peacefully, of course. Notice that there are multiple reasons.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

LEAGUE OF THE SOUTH CORE BELIEFS STATEMENT

At its founding meeting in June 1994, The League of the South adopted the following Statement of Purpose: We seek to advance the cultural, social, economic, and political well-being and independence of the Southern people by all honourable means."

League of the South

Our Core Beliefs Statement is a more detailed explanation of our views on the four areas set forth above - the cultural, social, economic and political.

I. Cultural Independence

The League of the South believes that Southern culture is distinct from, and in opposition to, the corrupt mainstream American culture. Therefore, we stand for our own sublime cultural inheritance and seek to separate ourselves from the cultural rot that is American culture. We believe that

· The South still reveres the tenets of our historic Christian faith and acknowledges its supremacy over man-made laws and opinions; that our Christian faith provides the surest means of securing the welfare of all mankind; and that our primary allegiance is to the Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Church.

· Our strongest and most enduring earthly affections and allegiances are to those people and places closest to us-family, friends, neighbors, villages, towns, cities, counties, and States. Conversely, our weakest attachments are to far-off abstractions such as "the nation," "the environment," or the "global community."

· Southern artists, writers, poets, musicians, and playwrights have produced world -class works of art and literature. Such endeavors must be nurtured and preserved for future generations of Southerners.

· Southerners are a people bound closely to the land. It is more than just a resource for production; it is who we are. It defines both our character and world view.

· Southerners have respect for human life, in all its stages, as a gift from God. Life should be preserved, nurtured, and protected.

II. Social Independence

The League of the South asserts that Southern society is radically different from the society impressed upon it by an alien occupier. American society today is egalitarian and Marxist and is devoid of any grace or charm. In contrast, we believe in a Southern society that

· Upholds the ontological or spiritual equality of all men before God and the bar of justice, while recognizing and rejoicing in the fact that is has neither been the will of God Almighty nor within the power of human legislation to make any two men mechanically equal.

· Is structured upon the Biblical notion of hierarchy. In short, a recognition of the natural societal order of superiors and subordinates where Christian charity (as found in the second Table of the Law) toward our neighbors produces harmony and stability. Christ is the head of His Church; husbands are the heads of their families; parents are placed over their children; employers rank above their employees; the teacher is superior to his students, etc.

· Recognizes and promotes the sanctity of Christian marriage as an image of the relationship between Christ and His Church; understands that loving and stable families are the backbone of society; stigmatizes perversity and all that seeks to undermine marriage and the family.

· Teaches and practices good manners and the famed "Southern hospitality, which are outward manifestations of the recognition that our fellow men are made in the image of God and should be treated according to God's law.

· Perpetuates the chivalric ideal of manhood -respect for, and protection of, our women, and the development of the virtues of honesty, courage, honor, and humility.

· Values and sustains true freedom of association for individuals, families, organizations, and other human institutions.

· Believes in the rule of law and the wise, benevolent, and righteous application of justice by ecclesiastical and civil authorities.

III. Economic Independence (omitted)

IV. Political Independence

The South's political ideals and principles are rooted in the Jeffersonian tradition as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Namely, that our unalienable rights are a gift from God, not privileges that are granted or denied by any governmental authority; that a truly free people has the right and power to determine its own form of government; that governmental power should reside as close to the people as possible and that competing governmental bodies should have meaningful checks on one another's use of power. Another certainty is that the American Empire that now occupies the South believes in none of the aforementioned ideals and principles. To be truly free and self- governing, the South must throw off the yoke of imperial oppression. Therefore, The League of the South advocates the secession and subsequent independence of the Southern States from this forced union and the formation of a Southern republic. We envision a free Southern republic that

· Is a true constitutional confederation of sovereign, independent States who separately order and control their own internal affairs while working in unity with their sister States to conduct foreign affairs.

· Recognizes State representation in the legislature of the confederated States.

· Acknowledges that the individual States have constitutional rights of nullification, interposition, and secession.

· Practices a foreign policy of armed and vigilant neutrality (i.e. commerce and friendship with all, entangling alliances with none).

· Maintains secure borders and strictly limits immigration.

· Revives the use of State Militias in place of maintaining large, standing armies.

· Does not infringe upon the individual or collective right to purchase and own firearms of any type suitable for self-defense

· Restricts the right to vote solely to those who are recognized as citizens of one of the member States of the confederation.

This Core Beliefs Statement is not meant to be a thorough discussion of The League of the South's vision for an independent Southern republic. For a more in-depth treatment of these and other issues, see our Grey Book: Blueprint For Southern Independence (2004).

Deo Vindice,

Michael Hill, Killen, Alabama

For Additional Information Contact or Mail check or money order to:

League of the South P.O. Box 760

Killen, Alabama 35645

On-line at www.DixieNet. org

A Free and Prosperous Southern Republic in the 21st Century

"What the world needs is an enema." Jack Nicholson, "Batman"


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
What asshats.

What asshats.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
I'm pretty sure this is

I'm pretty sure this is unconstitutional.


IzzyPop
IzzyPop's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
I had seen their website

I had seen their website quite a while ago and enjoyed the delicious irony of the Constitution Party proposing such unconstitutional items.  I think the people that came up with the name were later hired by the Bush administration to name their various initiatives and bills.

"When you hit your thumb with a hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a special kind of atheist to jump up and down shout, 'Oh, random fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!'"-Terry Pratchett


DoubtingThomas
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
While reading the flyer, I

While reading the flyer, I thought I was having flash-backs of High School history class on why the Civil War started. Seemed like the same comments made in 1859-1861.

I am confused as to if their comment "Therefore, The League of the South advocates the secession and subsequent independence of the Southern States from this forced union and the formation of a Southern republic." is unconstitutional. It should be. Don't see it as any worse than the Phelps family antics, the American Nazi party, or other hate groups.

The growing number of Latinos, in California mainly, calling for the land stolen from Mexico during the Spanish-American War to be returned to Mexico is a more realistic possibility. Their population is taking over there and in the near future will have the political power to attempt it.

Neither of these groups realize that if the "American Empire that now occupies the South" packs up their money and goes home, their economies will go belly-up.

Freedom of speech is a great thing and allows every nutbag to expression their beliefs. As long as they do not try to take physical action (in these cases), there is nothing that can be legally done. Only with enough people confronting them about their arrogance will they be forced out of existence.

A harder task is stopping the Fundamentalists from turning the U.S. into a theocratic state.

 

"What the world needs is an enema." Jack Nicholson, "Batman"


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
DoubtingThomas

DoubtingThomas wrote:
Noticing that two of their flyers had Confederate flags on them was disheartening.

Why exactly? I'd buy the stars and bars before I'd put the stars and stripes on anything I call my property. 

The Constitution Party doesn't deserve the name it gets, it should be called the Traditionalist Party. A Constitution-based platform is inherently arbitrary and unjust if for no other reason, then because the US Constitution was illegitemately ratified, the vast majorityof the population was opposed to it when it was ratified by stacked conventions, and even the Articles of Confederation which preceded them were as valid as a supposed treaty between the man in the moon and the tooth fairy. Anyone who needs ammunition against the Constitution Party just needs to read or listen to a copy of "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" by Lysander Spooner. That essay was written in the 1860s, shortly after the so-called civil war.

What you put up sounds like a secessionist platform for a revival of the CSA. However stupid their ideas about religion and the US Constitution, I'd like to see them succeed in secession.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10639
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley wrote: I'm

Jacob Cordingley wrote:
I'm pretty sure this is unconstitutional.

Agreed. The idea that a party would call itself the constitution party yet stand for tearing it up suggests that they know they're wrong, and they hope to hide their real position with smoke and mirrors. Good thing they haven't a chance at election, even with them being christian.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Jacob

Vastet wrote:
Jacob Cordingley wrote:
I'm pretty sure this is unconstitutional.
Agreed. The idea that a party would call itself the constitution party yet stand for tearing it up suggests that they know they're wrong, and they hope to hide their real position with smoke and mirrors. Good thing they haven't a chance at election, even with them being christian.

Whatever group the quote in the OP came from is not a constitutionalist organization but likely an affiliate's literature. The affialiate is a southern secessionist group. They would probably like to bring back the Confederate Constitution, likely save the clauses pertaining to protection of slavery.

There's nothing unconstitutional about secession. Article 1 section 8 lays out the powers of congress and Amendments 9 and 10 say that whatever powers the federal government has not been explicitly granted are reserved to the states or the people. Secession is a right reserved by the states. What they want to do is perfectly constitutional, unless one accepts the Lincoln fascistic, imperialistic premise that people can be compelled to live under a government which they do not want, and even then, it is a precedent, not an explicit constitutional issue.

But it's a moot point whether or not it is unconstitutional, because the constitution lacks any authority to do anything those acting in it's name tend to do. It is no contract, it is no law, it is nothing but a piece of paper, nobody can be forced to abide by it based on nothing but birthplace, it's as antithetical to justice as you can get. The question of constitutionality assumes relevance of constitutionality, and relevance of constitutionality assumes obligation under the constitution, which can't be assumed to exist anymore than god can without evidence supporting it. And such evidence doesn't exist.

The next person to mention the constitution without establishing it's relevance deserves a punch in the face. 


DoubtingThomas
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Would have gotten back to

Would have gotten back to you sooner, but the maid skipped town, then had to pull the plug on every thing due to tornado watches and lightening storms.

Zhwazi wrote:
DoubtingThomas wrote:
Noticing that two of their flyers had Confederate flags on them was disheartening.


Why exactly? I'd buy the stars and bars before I'd put the stars and stripes on anything I call my property.

Why was I disheartened? The bulk of the people I have met who display the Confederate flag are nothing but narrow minded, self-centered, bigots. The "if you are not a white male, you are trash" mentality. Have a few farm boys in this area who are proud of that mentality. I am ashamed I was one, back when I was young, dumb, and gullible. Even put their flag on the front of Mama's car. She complained a little, Papa was proud of it. Spent too many summers visiting relatives in Georgia while growing up.

Zhwazi wrote:
The Constitution Party doesn't deserve the name it gets, it should be called the Traditionalist Party. A Constitution-based platform is inherently arbitrary and unjust if for no other reason, then because the US Constitution was illegitemately ratified, the vast majorityof the population was opposed to it when it was ratified by stacked conventions, and even the Articles of Confederation which preceded them were as valid as a supposed treaty between the man in the moon and the tooth fairy.

Anyone who needs ammunition against the Constitution Party just needs to read or listen to a copy of "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" by Lysander Spooner. That essay was written in the 1860s, shortly after the so-called civil war.


This last statement confuses me. Everything else you wrote gives support to the dogma of the League of the South. So why point to ammunition against them? Their idea of Financial Independence (the section I omitted) matches that of Lysander Spooner. A little common sense with some knowledge of world government history and human nature shuts down everything the League of the South and Lysander Spooner advocate. None of their ideas will ever work on an individual or societal basis.

I attempted to read the "No Treason:" article. Got bored from the beginning due to the repetitions and what looked like circular logic. Started looking for the hip-waders and gas mask after the first page. The only valid and rational aspect was that a free-based government can not continue to exist without the consent of the population. A government has to have authority to tax, form a military, and dictate the social/legal/business laws.

The Article of Confederation failed as the central government had no power (authority). Each state held their own power and their leaders (property/business owners, large church leaders who were not elected) did whatever they felt like doing. Each state was a mini dictatorship run by the wealthy.

Was the Constitution pushed thru illegitimately? Of course. The validity of that depends on one's perspective and understanding of what life was like in 1776 thru 1789. The bulk of the 3 million people living in the 13 Colonies were illiterate farmers. Doubtful that very many could count past 10 without taking their shoes off. (Does not seem much better these days.)

How would they react to anyone coming around asking them to vote for the details of a new form of government? I can visualize a lot of blank stares. Since they only had church leaders and community approved local governments telling them what to do for roughly 170 years, why would they approve any form of high level government. (If the British had backed off on the heavy taxes and some of the strong-arm tactics, we might still be singing the British anthem.)

Be thankful that the Constitution writers and supporters (a minority of the population) had the intelligence and perseverance to attempt this unique form of government. They were protecting the future of their property and wealth as much, if not more, than all the dirt farmers. Think about what form of government they could have formed. Not pleasant options for the majority or the future of the country. Would 13 Nation-States have worked better? I don't think so.

Spooner partially stated why a 100%, or even a majority consensus for any specific form of government will never happen:


No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, NO. VI, section II:
At the present time {1867}, it is probable that not more than one-sixth of the whole population are permitted to vote. Consequently, so far as voting is concerned, the other five-sixths can have given no pledge that they will support the Constitution.

2. Of the one-sixth that are permitted to vote, probably not more than two-thirds (about one-ninth of the whole population) haveusually voted. Many never vote at all. Many vote only once in two, three, five, or ten years, in periods of great excitement
. (underline is mine)

The exact same thing can be said about 1787, 2000, 2004, 2006, etc., even though voting rights have been extended. Our government stays in place, for better or worse, because only a minority of eligible voters speak their voice. Technically, (not officially), does a person who does not vote in the elections have no moral(?) right to complain about the form of government they live under?? They have one other option if they don't like the conditions: they know where the door is.

I have a bad habit of saying "if D.H. gets in office" or laws are changed a certain way, that I will pack my bags and move to Canada or the Far East. No disrespect meant towards our Canadian friends, but too cold there. Had the opportunity to stay, and wanted to, in the Far East 40 years ago, but would have had to stay in the military. Hated the religiosity and closed minds of this country, not the form of government. Would I ever leave? No. Agree to any state seceding? Never.

Zhwazi wrote:
What you put up sounds like a secessionist platform for a revival of the CSA. However stupid their ideas about religion and the US Constitution, I'd like to see them succeed in secession.


Plainly printed that they are a secessionist organization that wants a total theocratic government.

Have you signed up with the League of the South yet? They need supporters to get on the 2008 national ballots.

"What the world needs is an enema." Jack Nicholson, "Batman"


DoubtingThomas
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: Whatever

Zhwazi wrote:
Whatever group the quote in the OP came from is not a constitutionalist organization but likely an affiliate's literature. The affialiate is a southern secessionist group. They would probably like to bring back the Confederate Constitution, likely save the clauses pertaining to protection of slavery.

The group "The League of the South" are calling their self "The Constitution Party". From their literature, they want far more control over society than the CSA ever advocated. To me, it read like an overview of an Iran type government.

The alarm bell went off in my head when I saw the CSA flag on their literature. When the woman from Connecticut asked if they were bigoted and the man swore up and down they were not, I thought "Some thing is not right here". Reading the literature later proved the man was lying out his ass. It's the smoke and mirrors was mentioned earlier.

Zhwazi wrote:
The next person to mention the constitution without establishing it's relevance deserves a punch in the face.

Since I have not studied or read anything on the Constitution details in 35 years, I can only give an Old Fart, man on the street, relevance to the Constitution.

1. As I understand it, the Constitution is only a document that outlines how our federal government should function. It was implemented by the minority. Thank them for doing that and having the moral fortitude to do what was, in the long term, right for the majority.

2. It took the writers, what, 2 years to reach a compromise on the final form? Not bad for a first try with the different agendas of each state leader and they had no idea what they were getting into. A more powerful central government would put it close to what they wanted to get away from. That is British law. Any weaker, it would have been as bad as the Articles of Confederation. Useless. It would have been nice if they had given more detail in some areas, such as freedom of speech and church/state seperation.

From an article I read recently, the intent of the writers, Thomas Jefferson in particular, they hoped to review it every 5 to 10 years to improve on it. That never happened. Too many of the Politicians put in office after the founders died off have tried to read between the lines to distort the "intent" of the Constitution to fit their own agendas and that of their wealthy friends. This has been really bad the last 6 years.

3. Since no one has come up with a better form of government, or attempted to correct the loop-holes and deficiencies, and the citizens have given "consent", either by voting or through silence, for the Constitution form, nothing will change. Not a good situation, for sure.

4. The debate on if secession is unconstitutional will last until jebus floats out of the sky. I have wondered if Lincoln's decision was based on practicality, not constitutionally. What would have happened to this country if he, or anyone else, had said to the CSA "Okay, fine. Go do what you want."?? The possibilities stagger the mind, but all come to one conclusion: There would not be a "United States of America". Just a bunch of small Nation-States fighting between their selves over land, resources, and control of their citizens. The way Europe has lived for roughly 1,500 years.

The probability of any of those Nation-States having any form of democratic government is minute. Human nature would have prevented it. The greedy, power hungry, and delusional will always attempt to control the masses. Our Constitution, as weak as it is, stifles those people.

5. If the U.S. Constitution has to be held irrelevant, then all 50 state Constitutions will have to be also. They were not approved by the majority either.

 

I will whole heartedly agree that the Constitution needs a serious updating. The Federal government has grown too large and too controlling in some areas. With the low grade of politicians we keep putting into office and the low comprehension of the masses, I don't foresee any practical agreement of what should be changed and how it is worded. It will again take the minority, who are concerned about the welfare of the majority, not their own deification, to make those changes. 

I will take that punch in the face now. Would not be the first time, or the last. As my comment lines says. . . .

"What the world needs is an enema." Jack Nicholson, "Batman"


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10639
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: Vastet

Zhwazi wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Jacob Cordingley wrote:
I'm pretty sure this is unconstitutional.
Agreed. The idea that a party would call itself the constitution party yet stand for tearing it up suggests that they know they're wrong, and they hope to hide their real position with smoke and mirrors. Good thing they haven't a chance at election, even with them being christian.

Whatever group the quote in the OP came from is not a constitutionalist organization but likely an affiliate's literature. The affialiate is a southern secessionist group. They would probably like to bring back the Confederate Constitution, likely save the clauses pertaining to protection of slavery.

There's nothing unconstitutional about secession. Article 1 section 8 lays out the powers of congress and Amendments 9 and 10 say that whatever powers the federal government has not been explicitly granted are reserved to the states or the people. Secession is a right reserved by the states. What they want to do is perfectly constitutional, unless one accepts the Lincoln fascistic, imperialistic premise that people can be compelled to live under a government which they do not want, and even then, it is a precedent, not an explicit constitutional issue.

But it's a moot point whether or not it is unconstitutional, because the constitution lacks any authority to do anything those acting in it's name tend to do. It is no contract, it is no law, it is nothing but a piece of paper, nobody can be forced to abide by it based on nothing but birthplace, it's as antithetical to justice as you can get. The question of constitutionality assumes relevance of constitutionality, and relevance of constitutionality assumes obligation under the constitution, which can't be assumed to exist anymore than god can without evidence supporting it. And such evidence doesn't exist.

The next person to mention the constitution without establishing it's relevance deserves a punch in the face. 

I didn't say anything about sucession. I remarked it was an unconstitutional party, and a 5 second peek at their mission statement would give even a 6 year old the proof that it is.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
DoubtingThomas wrote: Why

DoubtingThomas wrote:

Why was I disheartened? The bulk of the people I have met who display the Confederate flag are nothing but narrow minded, self-centered, bigots. The "if you are not a white male, you are trash" mentality. Have a few farm boys in this area who are proud of that mentality. I am ashamed I was one, back when I was young, dumb, and gullible. Even put their flag on the front of Mama's car. She complained a little, Papa was proud of it. Spent too many summers visiting relatives in Georgia while growing up.

So you're bigoted against bigots?

Quote:
This last statement confuses me. Everything else you wrote gives support to the dogma of the League of the South. So why point to ammunition against them?

Because they're partially wrong and partially right. I can't point out both?

Quote:
Their idea of Financial Independence (the section I omitted) matches that of Lysander Spooner.

Where did you find any writings of Lysander Spooner on the topic of financial independence to make that comparison in the first place? 

Quote:
A little common sense with some knowledge of world government history and human nature shuts down everything the League of the South and Lysander Spooner advocate. None of their ideas will ever work on an individual or societal basis.

Dismissing them does not make them wrong. Lysander spooner had more than a little knowledge of common sense and world government history and human nature.

Quote:
I attempted to read the "No Treason:" article. Got bored from the beginning due to the repetitions and what looked like circular logic.

1. A writted instrument is not inherently binding upon anybody. It only binds if it's a contract signed by the people to be bound by it.

2. The Constitution is not a contract signed by the people to be bound by it.

Everything else is just nails in the coffin. 

Quote:
A government has to have authority to tax, form a military, and dictate the social/legal/business laws.

Taxation is theft and telling other people what to do with no reguard for consent is slavery. You just admitted that government was intrinsically criminal.

Quote:
The Article of Confederation failed as the central government had no power (authority).

That's just plain stupid. The articles of confederation were essentially just a treaty between 13 countries to stick together. Countries have existed for thousands of years making treaties which didn't create seperate organizations, it's just stupid to say that a certain 13 countries' treaty failed because they didn't create a separate organazition and then give it power they didn't want it to have. You've got a really long shot on the burden of proof you just took on.

Quote:
Each state held their own power and their leaders (property/business owners, large church leaders who were not elected) did whatever they felt like doing. Each state was a mini dictatorship run by the wealthy.

Yep. States should have been abolished too.

Quote:
Was the Constitution pushed thru illegitimately? Of course. The validity of that depends on one's perspective and understanding of what life was like in 1776 thru 1789. The bulk of the 3 million people living in the 13 Colonies were illiterate farmers. Doubtful that very many could count past 10 without taking their shoes off. (Does not seem much better these days.)

Define "Bulk".

"In New England, the literacy rate was over 50 percent during the first half of the 17th century, and it rose to 70 percent by 1710. By the time of the American Revolution, it was around 90 percent." -Wikipedia

Quote:
How would they react to anyone coming around asking them to vote for the details of a new form of government? I can visualize a lot of blank stares.

Their opinion at the time was more like "We just threw off our old government, and we really don't want a new one." Rather than speculating howzabout you look at history? 

Quote:
Since they only had church leaders and community approved local governments telling them what to do for roughly 170 years, why would they approve any form of high level government. (If the British had backed off on the heavy taxes and some of the strong-arm tactics, we might still be singing the British anthem.)

Exactly. Nobody wanted it. They didn't want it, they didn't need it. The Constitution was extremely unpopular at the time.

Quote:
Be thankful that the Constitution writers and supporters (a minority of the population) had the intelligence and perseverance to attempt this unique form of government.

Thankful for what? They did nothing good at all. Their actions helped produce the government we have today. 

Quote:
They were protecting the future of their property and wealth as much, if not more, than all the dirt farmers. Think about what form of government they could have formed. Not pleasant options for the majority or the future of the country. Would 13 Nation-States have worked better? I don't think so.

How about 3 million nation-states? What everyone liked about America back then was that it was a "Kingdom of Kings", everyone was a sovereign.

How has Europe functioned for the last 500 years or so as a dozen nationstates? Why would America not fare better? 

Quote:
Spooner partially stated why a 100%, or even a majority consensus for any specific form of government will never happen:

While that's not what he was saying, you are right that 100% consent will never be had from any large number of people. The point is, you don't need 100% consensus. Democracy is bullshit in the first place.

 

Quote:
The exact same thing can be said about 1787, 2000, 2004, 2006, etc., even though voting rights have been extended. Our government stays in place, for better or worse, because only a minority of eligible voters speak their voice. Technically, (not officially), does a person who does not vote in the elections have no moral(?) right to complain about the form of government they live under??

They have a moral right to complain about anything they want. The government, who has no contract with the individuals governed, robs, enslaves, and in some cases murders those individuals, with no right to do so. Of course those people have a right to complain.

Quote:
They have one other option if they don't like the conditions: they know where the door is.

Does taking residence in the ghetto make it consentual when your TV is stolen? No. Taking residence in America does not make it right that people are governed without consent. 

Quote:
I have a bad habit of saying "if D.H. gets in office" or laws are changed a certain way, that I will pack my bags and move to Canada or the Far East. No disrespect meant towards our Canadian friends, but too cold there. Had the opportunity to stay, and wanted to, in the Far East 40 years ago, but would have had to stay in the military. Hated the religiosity and closed minds of this country, not the form of government. Would I ever leave? No. Agree to any state seceding? Never.

You are not obligated by birthplace or residence by any contract entered into by anybody else such as you would need to have a legitemate government. If the government is illegitemate (as you have said, the constitution was illegitemately ratified, making the government based on it illegitemate) then it's actions can be seen not as the acts of people acting rightly, but as the actions of a band of robbers, tyrants, and murderers.

You have no obligation to consent if you stay. You have no obligation to leave if you do not consent. You do not have the right to decide for any person or group of people whether or not they may stay or leave or whether or not they consent. You don't have to agree to any state seceding because you are not made victim of the termination of a contract which was never binding upon anyone in the first place, you have no right to say to anyone or any region "you may not leave." None whatsoever. This renders your opinion of state secession as irrelevant as my opinion of how you use your money. 

Quote:
Plainly printed that they are a secessionist organization that wants a total theocratic government.

Have you signed up with the League of the South yet? They need supporters to get on the 2008 national ballots.

Why the hell would an anarchist who rejects politics as a lie on par with religion and reguards the Constitution as binding upon humanity as the Bible, support anyone in politics who is religious or believes in the obligations of the Constitution or the Bible? Absolutely stupid. I wouldn't sign up with them in a thousand years.

 

DoubtingThomas wrote:
The group "The League of the South" are calling their self "The Constitution Party".

The Constitution Party is a seperate organization. 

Quote:
From their literature, they want far more control over society than the CSA ever advocated. To me, it read like an overview of an Iran type government.

But you're bigoted against bigots anyways so why should your opinion be trusted?

Quote:
The alarm bell went off in my head when I saw the CSA flag on their literature. When the woman from Connecticut asked if they were bigoted and the man swore up and down they were not, I thought "Some thing is not right here". Reading the literature later proved the man was lying out his ass. It's the smoke and mirrors was mentioned earlier.

What's wrong with being a bigot? 

Quote:
Since I have not studied or read anything on the Constitution details in 35 years, I can only give an Old Fart, man on the street, relevance to the Constitution.

Proving that the constitution is relevant to society? Great. Nobody's ever been able to do this. 

Quote:
1. As I understand it, the Constitution is only a document that outlines how our federal government should function. It was implemented by the minority. Thank them for doing that and having the moral fortitude to do what was, in the long term, right for the majority.

This does nothing to demonstrate relevance. You said earlier that the Constitution was illegitemately ratified, that makes whatever government is imposed in it's name illegitemate. That makes the government morally indistinguishable from a band of robbers, tyrants, and murderers. And how is the founding document of an illegitemate organization relevant to anyone other than those in the illegitemate organization? 

Quote:
2. It took the writers, what, 2 years to reach a compromise on the final form? Not bad for a first try with the different agendas of each state leader and they had no idea what they were getting into. A more powerful central government would put it close to what they wanted to get away from. That is British law. Any weaker, it would have been as bad as the Articles of Confederation. Useless. It would have been nice if they had given more detail in some areas, such as freedom of speech and church/state seperation.

 From an article I read recently, the intent of the writers, Thomas Jefferson in particular, they hoped to review it every 5 to 10 years to improve on it. That never happened. Too many of the Politicians put in office after the founders died off have tried to read between the lines to distort the "intent" of the Constitution to fit their own agendas and that of their wealthy friends. This has been really bad the last 6 years.

You've already totally lost sight of what you were supposed to be doing. Nothing here establishes any relevance whatsoever.

Quote:
3. Since no one has come up with a better form of government, or attempted to correct the loop-holes and deficiencies, and the citizens have given "consent", either by voting or through silence, for the Constitution form, nothing will change. Not a good situation, for sure.

There we go. Something that might establish relevance and make it binding upon the people. At least you tried.

Part 2 of "No Treason" established quite thoroughly that voting is no sign of consent whatsoever. I could copypaste it here but it takes up a lot of space.

It cannot be said that anybody gives consent through silence, especially when they are not silent. It is especially absurd if not voting is what you mean by silence. By that standard, if they vote, they consent, if they do not vote, they consent because they are silent. So I'll assume you don't mean that kind of silent, because that would just be stupid and I think you're smarter than that.

The people are not silent. They weren't silent in 1861. They did not consent. They made it explicit, too, that they did not consent. What was the result? They were commanded to obey at gunpoint. You are not obligated to obey a mugger once he as left you, nor are you obligated to obey a government when their guns are no longer pointed in your direction. The constitution binds nobody. 

Quote:
4. The debate on if secession is unconstitutional will last until jebus floats out of the sky. I have wondered if Lincoln's decision was based on practicality, not constitutionally. What would have happened to this country if he, or anyone else, had said to the CSA "Okay, fine. Go do what you want."?? The possibilities stagger the mind, but all come to one conclusion: There would not be a "United States of America". Just a bunch of small Nation-States fighting between their selves over land, resources, and control of their citizens. The way Europe has lived for roughly 1,500 years.

Tell an anarchist "There would not be a 'United States of America'" as if they aren't perfectly aware of the implications of what they're suggesting?

Europe lived for 1500 years in feudalism. That's very different from what America would be without the US. America was one of the few places in the world at the time where feudalism had no affect on the structure of society. And the bulk of those 1500 years were lived in before the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution would not be replealed with the disollution of the United States. 

Quote:
The probability of any of those Nation-States having any form of democratic government is minute. Human nature would have prevented it.

Good. Democracy sucks.

Quote:
The greedy, power hungry, and delusional will always attempt to control the masses. Our Constitution, as weak as it is, stifles those people.

No it doesn't. It gives them a means to do it in a way that most people do not recognize.

Quote:
5. If the U.S. Constitution has to be held irrelevant, then all 50 state Constitutions will have to be also. They were not approved by the majority either.

That's right. They're all illegitemate too. 

Quote:
I will whole heartedly agree that the Constitution needs a serious updating.

No, it just needs one amendment:

"Articles I, II, and III are hereby repealed."

Quote:
The Federal government has grown too large and too controlling in some areas. With the low grade of politicians we keep putting into office and the low comprehension of the masses, I don't foresee any practical agreement of what should be changed and how it is worded. It will again take the minority, who are concerned about the welfare of the majority, not their own deification, to make those changes.

Like the minority which cares about the majority (a tiny minority indeed) is going to completely displace a minority looking out for itself...sure.

Quote:
I will take that punch in the face now. Would not be the first time, or the last. As my comment lines says. . . .

 *punches Thomas in the face*

Vastet wrote:
I didn't say anything about sucession. I remarked it was an unconstitutional party, and a 5 second peek at their mission statement would give even a 6 year old the proof that it is.

Alright, what part of the Constitution does it violate? 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10639
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
1st amendment: Congress

1st amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Core belief excerpts of the Constitution Party:

Quote:
The South still reveres the tenets of our historic Christian faith and acknowledges its supremacy over man-made laws and opinions; that our Christian faith provides the surest means of securing the welfare of all mankind; and that our primary allegiance is to the Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Church.

Namely, that our unalienable rights are a gift from God

Now I'd have gone to their site to get it more solidly, but apparently I get an HTTP error. This will have to suffice.

For the record, I have no problem with the idea of sucession. I firmly believe every community should have the right to seceed from it's state, as long as the majority of those in the community desire it. But I also think these guys want to put god in the government, which I find unacceptable.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Oh, so it's not the

Oh, so it's not the organization, it's the beliefs. There's a big difference.

There's nothing unconstitutional about anything that isn't under the authority of the constitution. If they seceded, they wouldn't be acting under the authority of the constitution anymore, making it no longer unconstitutional. And as a separate organization from the federal government, nothing they do or believe can be unconstitutional, only actions can be unconstitutional, and only actions under the authority of the constitution.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10639
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline

Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
I did say that the

I did say that the Constitution Party and the secessionist group that the OP got literature from were different, but I might not have said it where you would have seen it.

The boldened part of the quote says "biblical common-law". This is very different from "biblical law". The US Constitution is supposed to be read in light of the common law, that is the English common law, which came from England, a supposedly bible-based rule-by-divine-right state. I believe that's why the word "biblical" made it in there (and also to please the idiot demographic that thinks if we just go back to what we had in 1787 we'll end up with something other than what we have right now come 2207). All the justifications for natural rights which the common law was written along had been religiously based on "god given rights", as nobody had concieved an alternative source of those rights.

They are by no means advocating a theocracy, they just aren't trying to appeal to the young atheist demographic (and thus are failing miserably at doing so, as your misinterpretations show).


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10639
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Interesting. My mistake.

Interesting. My mistake.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.