Lysander Spooner of American Letter Mail Company fame as well as many other things once said

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

I used the quote in a discussion and had somebody wonder why I am a CFL member if I agree with the quote. This is my response. I hope it clarifies.

I think that it is a clear statement of the facts as they exist but not as they should exist. We have to be able to view the world as it is and not as we wish it were.

Quoting Spooner does not mean I think we should throw away our constitution. I do think we need to recognize that the constitution is in some small way broken.

Broken?

Is it realistic to say that our constitution has sufficiently restrained the federal government?

As Madison said the constitution is only adequate to govern a moral people and it is unfit to govern any other. He was right, it governed a moral people just fine. We don't have a moral people any longer.

We have a nation of people that believe they can live at the expense of everybody else. As long as they launder the money through government it's not stealing.

Orwell once wrote "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"

Or Ron Paul "Truth is treason in an empire of lies"

Truth? The constitution as it is currently written has not lived up to its primary task; to guard liberty.

Am I wrong? I think the evidence speaks for itself. Without changes that put some type of enforcement mechanism in the hands of the states or the people, someone aside from SCOTUS and the federal government, America will always wind up where we are now. And that assumes we can somehow stuff the federal government back into the box where it belongs.

The problem is the wife beater is in charge of determining the size and scope of the marriage contract.

deTocqueville as well as others predicted this. "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

I don't think the constitution needs to be thrown away or even changed radically. I do think we need to look at it objectively, like a broken kite. We need to figure out what small adjustments we can make that will allow the kite to fly without applying so much duct tape that it won't get off the ground.

If we refuse to even consider the possibility that the constitution might be broken, we cannot fix it. We also deny the words of the founding fathers as evidenced by the fact that they purposely provided for an amendment mechanism to cover situations such as we currently have.

If, as I think, the entire purpose of the constitution was to defend liberty, it is not doing what it was supposed to do. In this sense, Spooner's quote, was correct.

Franklin said "Where liberty is, there is my country"

Are we Americans because of the soil we occupy? Or because of the ideals we cherish?

Another Ron Paul quote, "Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy."

I think the words "the constitution" could be used interchangeable with democracy in that quote because the constitution was created to preserve liberty not the other way around. The founding fathers did not determine to write a constitution and as part of the deliberation process decide to use that constitution to protect liberty. They were determined to protect liberty and decided a written constitution with proper checks and balances was the most appropriate way to accomplish the goal. Soldiers don't swear to protect and defend the constitution because it is by itself important, they swear to protect and defend the constitution because of the ideals that are embodied within it.

The constitution was not written to be revered it was written to be used.

Every aspect of the constitution was designed for the purpose of preserving liberty. Some directly protect liberty as in the case of free speech. Some indirectly, as is the case of having senators appointed by the states instead of being directly elected. (We already screwed up that balance of power.)

There have been many amendments to the constitution. Some have had tremendous impact on the actual working of the constitution. We do not live under the same constitution as Jefferson or Washington or Adams. They would not recognize the incorporation process of the 14th Amendment. They would not recognize the 16th amendment as legitimate. When the doctrine of incorporation was adopted, the old constitution, a contract between the states, ceased to exist. When the 16th Amendment was enacted every freedom guaranteed under the constitution was instantly and radically abridged. There is not one of the original amendments in the bill of rights that is protected, respected or held sacred by the federal government and because of the 17th Amendment; the states are powerless to enforce the constitution.

The 16th Amendment is particularly offensive to liberty. These thirty words entirely undid every other part of the constitution. Thirty words nullified the six-thousand words that proceeded them. Thirty words erased the right to free speech, religion, firearms, to avoid self incrimination, to an attorney, to a jury trial, to confront your accuser, to be secure in your person, houses, papers and effects.

Don't think so? Never heard of a church being threatened with loss of exemption for endorsing a candidate?  The IRS frequently lets people know if they bring an attorney to an audit they will be punished for it. More than one church (yes, they are crackpots) has lost exemption for stockpiling guns, what you want to use two rights at once? How about signing a 1040 return on penalty of perjury every year? Have you seen what happens to those who refuse to sign? Want a jury trial? Sorry you get IRS administrative court instead. Are you seriously wondering about IRS search and seizures? Did you know the IRS assigns fake IDs to agents? Want to confront your accuser? Sorry he doesn't work here anymore he maka pizza. The 16th Amendment is a Declaration of Ownership by a federal government that recognizes no limits on its power to tax or regulate every aspect of our lives.

Many think the problem with the income tax is the IRS. If only we could domesticate those guys the income tax would be OK. This is naive. How could you have an income tax without a draconian IRS? Elected officials love to blame and pretend to tame the bureaucrats of the IRS but if they ever did gentrify the IRS, the income tax would stop working. Nobody would pay. I don't like the IRS anymore than anybody else but the truth is they are doing the job congress gave them. (Of course there are some who, unfortunately, like the job they were given a little too much. Tyranny is like that.) The problem with the IRS is rooted in, and cannot be separated from, the existence of an Income Tax and the 16th Amendment.

I suspect any objection to Spooner's quote is primarily related to the final sentence in it "In either case, it is unfit to exist."  An unlimited power to tax supposedly free men, at any rate and under any conditions government might choose, is entirely at odds with the primary purposes of government which is to protect and preserve liberty. As long as the 16th Amendment is a part of the constitution; it is unfit to exist.

What am I doing at CFL if I think the constitution is broken? I assume Campaign for Liberty is about advancing the cause of Liberty. If Ron Paul is the "spiritual" founder of CFL and he is to be taken at his word, as quoted above, I am in the right place.

I love my country (the soil) and I love the ideals embodied in the Declaration and the Constitution.

If forced to choose between the two, I choose the ideals.

If truth is treason I hope I have done enough to be found guilty.

Agree? Disagree? If I haven't educated you..... Educate Me.