That the constitution is a fairy tale I don't really agree with. Unfortunately, I think many Americans have become complacent with the fact the constitutional rights we have now are default, in-alienable rights and take them for granted. I remember going to Europe one summer and one of my friends assuming that his constitutional rights existed there, stating "it's a free country, I can do what I want." Does an Americans entitlement to free speech extend to the country of Latvia for example? No.
Also, take what you said for example. You have basically publicly displayed no confidence in a government mandate. Would you be as comfortable saying that in china? China has a very
I would say that Executive Orders themselves are unconstitutional, many of those issued have been at least.
In the end, no constitution can prevent dictatorship, in fact they generally exist today as a myth, a night-time fairy tale that allows us all to sleep better. It doesn't take much looking to realize how little the US Constitution still matters.
A good quote I found:
"Constitutions, bills of rights, statements of principle, party platforms, and all other Guarantees can never be more than self-imposed restrictions which cease to affect the people who run a government the instant they cease to believe in their rightness, or as soon as it is clear that the people will not punish the government for ignoring them."
~ Per Christian Malloch, "The Theory of Anarcho-Capitalism and its Libertarian Opponents" (unpublished)
As far as I can tell, we have one legislator or executive official that is actually committed to maintaining the constitution, with everyone else merely playing lip service, while avoiding it anytime it is inconvenient.
A constitution is perhaps one of the only remedies available for a dictatorship, and further to the identification of a dictatorship in the first place. Athens, Rome, Imperial England, etc. have all had some form of constitution that underlined the rights of citizens. And when there was some infraction against that document, it is usually that violation that decries a dictator and calls for reform.
I certainly do not follow how a constitution can show a dictatorship is the natural form of a law-ruled state. This seems axiomatic. Subsequently, I do not follow the rest of your suppositions. It seems like you have more of a beef with organized government than with constitutional incorporations.
The above quote is quite careless with regards to establishing any type of enlightening statement. EVERY SINGLE CONCEPT OR CONSTRUCT of defined rights can NEVER transcend the mere fragile simplicity of an individual(s) state-of-mind into some magical unmovable rigidity of absolute guarantees(idealism).The question then becomes how much quality-state-of-mind beliefs individual(s) are willing to extend or self-imposed based on the continuing self-evident success of the accepted Construct. Any attempt to provide an alternate valid process would be complete lunacy.
Mr. Fight the Power,
I think I can see where you are coming from. From what I gather, you state that a legal document is binding agreement in so far as the ones in power adhere to it. Simply, the ones in power have the power to uphold or throw out the principles of the document at any time. The complacency in the constitution is then not a bad thing, but a good thing because that complacently affirms some level of those rights being "natural." That could very well be the case.
You may want to elaborate on this becuase it seems like a very good point.
The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no
authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and
man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between
persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract
between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in
1869.] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between
persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be
competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore,
we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people
then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to
express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those
persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now.
Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. AND
THE CONSTITUTION, SO FAR AS IT WAS THEIR CONTRACT, DIED WITH THEM. They
had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children.
That is just the way it is being sold.....and you bought it....
If indeed we need an official document showing the 'rulebase' we are all (an not jus most) going to allow ourselves to be government by, don't you think we'd need just such an official document stating that the people writing the 'rulebase' actually are representatives of all the populace? And subsequently, wouldn't we need a document proving that the people who wrote the legitimising document for the people who were about to write the 'rulebase' and so on?
-That constitutes a regressus ad infinitum, and is a phallacy. The constitution proves nothing, apart from the fact that some people dreamed themselves the masters of all.
If indeed we need an official to write the 'rulebase' we are all going to allow ourselves to be governed by, don't you think that we'd need something to prove the legitemancy of the writer?
- That constitutes a petitio principii and is a phallacy. Being an official proves nothing, apart from the fact that the populace allowed themselves to be ruled over in previous times by those 'officials'.
If indeed we need an official base for any such document to be written, don't you think that at the very least we'd need an official representative to state said rulebase?
- Saying an individual is an offical is a decisio and a phallacy. It requeres a 'leap of faith'.
- Saying a document is 'official' is a decisio and a phallacy. It requeres a 'leap of faith'.
It seems that we can not find any way to legitimise any document, nor any official without one of the munchhauser trilemma, showing the phallacy. If indeed we always use phallacies to create the 'illusion' of an official 'rulebase', then perhaps we should concluded that it is a refutation to claim that any such document could possibly be 'official'. the kind of reasoning I am referring to is abundently explained in Aristotles' 'On Sophistical Refutations'.