Obama Deception Video
- Thread starter liquid
- Start date
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
With that music, I was waiting for Obama to come toward the screen and say, "I'm here to deliver your pizza, ma'am" and then Michelle to say, "I didn't order a pizza...sir". Bow chicka-wow-wow.
lutherblsstt
Guest
LOL! :why:
roids1
Banned
All of our elitist politicians are part of an alien reptile race, sent here to enslave us all. Go ahead and close your eyes to the truth!
lutherblsstt
Guest
:laugh2:
fightbackhxc
Well-known member
very interesting video
thegodfather
Well-known member
I second that.
liquid
Well-known member
lol I know what you mean with the blood boiling.
I just wanted to share some things I find interesting within this gov through this vid.
somewhatgifted
Registered User
Well that is a tough one to swallow... I think very open mindedly and love alot of the words of david icke but the reptilian thing is hard to comprehend and of course prove...
The movie the obama deception is not IMO alarming at all since i have known alot of that info before hand and credit alex jones for putting it together in that way it was done. The problem is most people think that they still live in the greatest country in the world, blindly patriotic, they may but it is not run by great people anymore. Such a "reality check", regaurdless of the complete truth of the obama deception is easily discredited by the first small detail one takes exception to.
It may be 85% true but the one misleading statement or exageration turns people away.
It is simply easier to stay the way we are and its easy to justify your life when you try to pretend theres nothing you can do or nothing you need to do.
But throwing alien or reptillian statements out there may hurt the fact that Obama has
1) lied
2) not produced a birth certificate
3) came out of nowhere to run the slickest most well funded campaign in history
4) Made a campaign based on change, being different and believing,
This made it easy to like him due to him not taking any hard stances and therfore giving you less reasons to pick apart his details.
Obama is a bystander in government and doing nothing good for the people.
He is a PR guy for wallstreet and the global elite.
The real problem with Obama isnt obama, its the people who put such faith and enthusiasm into a man acting on select buisnessmen. His support and the zealotry of his followers will allow him to continue to damage the constitution unopposed by the people.
somewhatgifted
Registered User
I think its great to have a completly different look at things, this video does offer that. I personally loved it and it supports alot of things i see on a day to day basis with the changes to our freedoms, rights and health. It simply doesnt make sense to allow us to be the batteries powering the wealthy and perpetuting dominance by choosing to stay laying down. Democracy is now a joke, rights are nothing, the men who made america great will have died in vain if people keep believing everything they are told by the media and sitting in their arm chairs on medication.
liquid
Well-known member
I totally agree with you, and you made many valid points which I, and among others would agree to.
Zero V
Well-known member
Our founding fathers would spit on our countries face, and kick dust in its eyes, and walk away and disown it. I feel ashamed to call myself American anymore.
Honestly I feel lonely, tired, and frustrated. Because more often than not I feel like I am the only one who gives a damn, and would die to restore this nation. I know there are many others who think the same, but we are far outnumbered by the incapable brainwashed inbred masses.
fightbackhxc
Well-known member
exactly people have been criticizing me for reposting that video but in my mind its not far fetched at all if any.
DerickVonD
Well-known member
I agree 100%. Sadly I think America is the easiest country of all to brainwash.
EasyEJL
Never enough
you are half right at least, their goal is to enslave us all.
Jayhawkk
Legend
I don't know the education level or experience with American history that any of you have but I wonder how many of you are simply yelling what you've seen elsewhere. Our founding fathers were far from perfect and not all of them can be idolized on values and morals based off some documents and foundations that led to our becoming a new country. Some of you are also using examples of where our country is as if it has somehow changed in any true respect to where it was 10, 20, 50 years ago.
I don't agree with a lot of his policies_at_all but let's not suddenly forget that we're not in a new situation where the government is going in a direction that many of it's people don't agree with. Focus on the issues and try not to cloud fact with things like "never showed a birth certificate" or other such fluff.
I don't agree with a lot of his policies_at_all but let's not suddenly forget that we're not in a new situation where the government is going in a direction that many of it's people don't agree with. Focus on the issues and try not to cloud fact with things like "never showed a birth certificate" or other such fluff.
Jayhawkk
Legend
Plus, how many presidents do you know of that:
1. Didn't lie
2. Ran a campaign on "not changing a damn thing"
3. Followed through with all things promised during their campaigning
4. Able to completely follow through with their political, moral and ethical platforms/promises.
Politics are an elitist game of power and persuasion used by most to get to the end game... there's a reason why so many politicians are discovered doing the exact thing they either oppose or downright champion against. There's a reason that most people have the same view of politicians regardless of political affiliation. It's been like this since day one in our system and every other system where so much authority is given to individuals with limited supervision.
And even if you do get a wholesome, well intentioned politician in the rankings, they are too rare and have no influence to do anything of any importance.
1. Didn't lie
2. Ran a campaign on "not changing a damn thing"
3. Followed through with all things promised during their campaigning
4. Able to completely follow through with their political, moral and ethical platforms/promises.
Politics are an elitist game of power and persuasion used by most to get to the end game... there's a reason why so many politicians are discovered doing the exact thing they either oppose or downright champion against. There's a reason that most people have the same view of politicians regardless of political affiliation. It's been like this since day one in our system and every other system where so much authority is given to individuals with limited supervision.
And even if you do get a wholesome, well intentioned politician in the rankings, they are too rare and have no influence to do anything of any importance.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
I would be willing to contribute to your campaign if you would run under this parody platform.
EasyEJL
Never enough
bioman
Well-known member
Agreed Jay. I think a lot of the fluff comes from simply not wanting to play ball anymore. Part of the country didn't get their guy in office so now it's time to trash the whole darn country...F' it all, there's a black liberal in office so let's paint him as Muslim terrorist who's out to control our minds. It's seriously ridiculous and it makes me ill.
I've never agreed 100% with the actions of any politician and I never will, but politics is about compromise and we won't even get to that point because of all the fiction and anger being thrown around. The people throwing around language encouraging civil war really need to read up on their history about our first Civil War. Killing your own ain't all it's cracked up to be and the memoirs of those who did are not happy reading.
I've never agreed 100% with the actions of any politician and I never will, but politics is about compromise and we won't even get to that point because of all the fiction and anger being thrown around. The people throwing around language encouraging civil war really need to read up on their history about our first Civil War. Killing your own ain't all it's cracked up to be and the memoirs of those who did are not happy reading.
CDB
Registered User
Good points. However, how many presidents do you know of that also:
1) Surrounded themselves with far left wing, outright devout communist freaks who had as their ultimate goal the reshaping of the United States into what the USSR supposedly might have been?
2) Had an FCC 'diversity czar' who has suggested white people step down so blacks can have more power, and that "hard structural rules" be put in place regarding broadcasting because the fairness doctrine "(wasn't) enough," and who thinks Hugo Chavez, a ****ing dictator, is just swell?
3) Had a 'science czar' who put his name on papers advocating forced sterilization, shot gun marriages and forced abortions for single mothers, while claiming all could be within the bounds of the constitution based on a population crisis which echos Paul Ehrlich's ravings in the Population Bomb, a guy whose claims have been nothing if terminally wrong? Forced sterilization and abortion constitutional? This guy needs to be shot.
Seriously, if you pick almost any Obama appointee besides Hillary and run their name for quotes you get a book of far left insanity back, people advocating positions so far to the left that it gives the frigging Swedes pause to wonder about their mental stability.
Know any of those presidents? This guy and his cohorts seem to have been locked in the very center and most isolated of the proverbial liberal echo chambers for the last 40-50 years, and they came out not realizing socialism is failing almost everywhere and fully determined to impose it here. At least the neocons limit most of their nutball fantasies to foreign policy. These guys are trying to implement it here. As a response to George W. Bush our country handed its government to a stoned college dorm room bull session and a bunch of people who, so far as I can tell, have almost never had to earn a living at a real job but who basically went from the mother's tit straight to the government's tit.
Know any of those presidents?
I was willing to give Obama chance in the hope he wouldn't **** things up too badly here and that we'd get a positive change in foreign policy. So far his change in foreign policy seems to be to wink at anyone who walks by and hand them a dildo and tube of astro glide, and he seems more determined than anything else to make damn well sure the government sucks up my paycheck and then some by the end of the day. I could have taken a liberal, I'd kill to have Bill Clinton back. The more I'm exposed to this guy and his administration, the more convinced I am that this team is totally off the ****ing rails. They said "Bye bye!" to reality a loooooong time ago.
1) Surrounded themselves with far left wing, outright devout communist freaks who had as their ultimate goal the reshaping of the United States into what the USSR supposedly might have been?
2) Had an FCC 'diversity czar' who has suggested white people step down so blacks can have more power, and that "hard structural rules" be put in place regarding broadcasting because the fairness doctrine "(wasn't) enough," and who thinks Hugo Chavez, a ****ing dictator, is just swell?
3) Had a 'science czar' who put his name on papers advocating forced sterilization, shot gun marriages and forced abortions for single mothers, while claiming all could be within the bounds of the constitution based on a population crisis which echos Paul Ehrlich's ravings in the Population Bomb, a guy whose claims have been nothing if terminally wrong? Forced sterilization and abortion constitutional? This guy needs to be shot.
Seriously, if you pick almost any Obama appointee besides Hillary and run their name for quotes you get a book of far left insanity back, people advocating positions so far to the left that it gives the frigging Swedes pause to wonder about their mental stability.
Know any of those presidents? This guy and his cohorts seem to have been locked in the very center and most isolated of the proverbial liberal echo chambers for the last 40-50 years, and they came out not realizing socialism is failing almost everywhere and fully determined to impose it here. At least the neocons limit most of their nutball fantasies to foreign policy. These guys are trying to implement it here. As a response to George W. Bush our country handed its government to a stoned college dorm room bull session and a bunch of people who, so far as I can tell, have almost never had to earn a living at a real job but who basically went from the mother's tit straight to the government's tit.
Know any of those presidents?
I was willing to give Obama chance in the hope he wouldn't **** things up too badly here and that we'd get a positive change in foreign policy. So far his change in foreign policy seems to be to wink at anyone who walks by and hand them a dildo and tube of astro glide, and he seems more determined than anything else to make damn well sure the government sucks up my paycheck and then some by the end of the day. I could have taken a liberal, I'd kill to have Bill Clinton back. The more I'm exposed to this guy and his administration, the more convinced I am that this team is totally off the ****ing rails. They said "Bye bye!" to reality a loooooong time ago.
somewhatgifted
Registered User
The civil war was backed finacially by the rothschilds, they put in place a private banking system which andrew jackson ousted and then they managed to get back in place. The american people have not since controlled or had their own currency. Until you can get control of the money flow you cannot say it is a democracy. All this hes not perfect, nobody was is wasted argument for the true power structure, said whithin this video, is the real control making choices, starting wars, controlling the currency and printing bills with no backing.
There will always be someone with a real good idea about fiction but its just that. This whole system, left, right, liberal, conservative is a ficticious ring designed to distract.
There will always be someone with a real good idea about fiction but its just that. This whole system, left, right, liberal, conservative is a ficticious ring designed to distract.
Jayhawkk
Legend
CDB- good points and I'll have to conceed until I have to time proof some of my opinions on past conservative presidents and their reported/known associates. I do believe there are a few examples that can be used. However, I do agree with the points you made in regards to Obama's appointees and affiliations. You're constructing those arguments based off disagreements with policy and administration. Not using generic banter lacing it with muslim fears and birth certificate nonsense.
CDB
Registered User
Oh they have their nut jobs. But their nuttiness on domestic policy is limited to abortion and teaching the Bible in science class. Incredibly stupid, yeah, but not too hard to fight off and no real impact in the end. Their main insanity is their view of foreign policy, which seems to be to bomb everyone. Even our allies at times. Bomb everyone, station troops everywhere, and try to solve every single foreign policy dispute by detonating tons of explosives and shooting people.
I'm more than willing to conceed that's just as nuts as anything Obama is doing, but he's doing his nuttiness here. He's ****ting where I eat, so to speak. Conservatives to date have been polite enough to pester other people for the most part. You know, over seas and across borders. Obama and his crew seem determined to piss people off here as opposed to abroad.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
I can't believe a post that puts Hillary as the highest quality presidential "appointee", and a rational voice, would get my support.
That alone is saying something about how far this has gone.
wontstop985
Active member
You are disillusioned about our "founding fathers." They weren't such great guys. You've got some reading to do (to make a huge understatement)...
CDB
Registered User
Yup. Aside from Jefferson most of the founders were *******s. But, I do think they'd be shocked at how far we have taken things overall, even if only in a I Wish I'd Thought Of That kind of way.
Bass Master
New member
To say that our founders weren't 'such great guys' just goes to show your ignorance. You are living in a country where (although some freedoms are being taken away) you are enjoying your freedom, are you not? This is because of our founders. They chose to fight for our freedom, so that we can grow up in a great county. The only problem is, Americans are becoming lazy and stupified and don't care too much about what made us great anymore. Just as long as they have their iphones and American Idol. Perhaps, while you're bashing the people who fought and died for your freedom before you were even born, you can say that the soldiers who fought and died defeating Hitler in WW 2 weren't that great either.
Our founders were human beings, just like you and me. Everyone makes mistakes, but the great thing about our country ISN'T exactly about who founded it, but the ideals/principles in which it was founded upon (the constitution, etc.). Nevertheless, line our founders up with most of the politicians in office today and then call me back, because you can't even compare. You couldn't compare a great president like Andrew Jackson to someone like Bush or Obama. Period. I think MANY people get mixed up with our founders and the ideals they fought/died for. The fact is, the more we ignore the orginal rule of law and the principles that made us great, the further this country goes down it's dark path. Our constitution itself is a living document. It is important to true freedom in this country. This is what our founders wanted to get across. After all, when you take the oath in the military, you swear to uphold and defend the constitution, NOT the greatness of a certain founding father.
Bionic
Well-known member
Any coincidence that David Mayer de Rothschild is at the forefront of the "Climate Change" crowd? :33:
somewhatgifted
Registered User
Yeah another great way to dig a daily, weekly and monthly amount of our blood sweat and tears. I tell ya i shed a tear for "an incovenient truth" then i seen Al Gores "climate footprint". Soon we will pay a Carbon Tax for everything and the rich will have "green" companies.. Im sure you know this post isnt for you. Anyone who took the time to get to know the rothschilds could easily dicern some of the farces we live by, argue to the death and some claim to be experts in knowing the game they are playing in.
somewhatgifted
Registered User
Yup. The ideology behind said documents are lost to the disenfranchised couch riding weekend warrior. I mean the founding fathers weren't perfect and paper is so last century.
They had a fresh start to attempt to leave the "old blood" corruption and madness in Europe. Well it didnt stay away long.
EasyEJL
Never enough
was so funny, when al gore was called out for the amount of energy he used heating his pool, limo, private jet, etc what did he do? He formed a company doing carbon offset stuff so he could pay himself to fix his own energy issue, and somehow make a profit off it. amazing
CDB
Registered User
The same thing can be said about any country that stops short of planned genocide. Not exactly a high standard to be measuring by.
If your knowledge of history doesn't go beyond a sixth grade government approved text book level, sure. In reality the foudners were a diverse bunch mostly united by the fact that they didn't like British impositions beyond what was constitutionally traditional. But, the British constitution being unwritten, it was easy for parliment to innovate and try and exact more and more money from the colonies. The debates over the constitution show clearly that a few founders wanted a free state, most just wantedd British traditional rule without Britain, and a good deal wanted to out do Britain in terms of mercantilism and despotism, proposing executive powers that were extreme and the like.
The constitution itself was ramrodded in, Federalist types using every trick in the book from buying off legislatures who promised to vote against it to delaying Anti Federalist mail to stop their mobilization against the document, and from the begining our 'founders' were using construction to expand the central government's powers. What's more, simply citing the 'founders' doesn't do justice to the colonial tradition from which the United States developed, and much of which was much more pure and individual rights oriented than the final union, because it allowed for nullification, interposition, etc., and generall took a union of sovereign states to be just that. The constitution and the union, and the subsequent Civil War, were all massive moves towards centralization of power over what was previously a decentralized and more free society.
Irrelevant BS. Americans are no more lazy than they were before or are likely to be, their ideology has changed is all. They are quite active in proposing the state as the solution to all of their problems aqnd busy making it happen, so lazy doesn't quite encompass their reality.
Benajmin Franklin, a rutting prick who loved the idea of paper money, especially since his print shop was to be awarded the contract for printing it, and who recommended friends to become stamp tax collectors and the like before the revolution.
Alexander Hamilton, a man who wanted the new American union to mirror the British empire and eventually supplant it. An advocate of central banking and a funded public debt from the beginning.
George Washington, a weed smoking dip**** of a general about whom not much can be said.
John Adams, a putz who complained of tyrrany at every step while at the same time enacting things like alien and sedition, which basically fined and jailed people for daring to criticize him or the congress he had in his pocket, exempting of course from this protection his VP, Jefferson. And, who defended the British after the Boston massacre.
Thomas Jefferson, who basically became a nice practical stateman when he was in office and left the ideals he espoused beforehand, which were great, to his followers so they could measure him against them and find him wanting.
The list goes on, but far from being superior to our current crop of useless state slugs, they're about on the same level and in many cases far worse.
Oh he did some good stuff. He also slaughtered a ****load of Indians in case you missed it, and was a slavery advocate.
That's because they are inseperable. Few if any of the founders of this nation fought and died for some Lockian/Spoonerist vision of a nation with government restricted to natural law and individual liberty. Most were just pissed at the level of exaction the British were pulling, not the concept itself.
Which means it is meaningless and subject to the whims of the time and the judge who looks at it. Assuming they even bother to look at it.
Constitutions do not restrain government nor protect individual liberty. Their effect is to centralize power and judgement of the proper exercise of power, and eventually lead to a destruction of freedom and liberty. Hoppe has written extensively on this. No where in history has a paper constitution, no matter how clear a guarantee of liberty it was supposed to be, no matter how clear its wording, not been rendered meaningless through successive construction and outright neglect.
Bass Master
New member
The word "mistake" is so universal, so there naturally is no standard to be set, really.
No, that's not true at all. The constitution, if you've read it, limits the power of government. This is because it was also written to restrain government. How can you say the constitution was a major move towards the centalization of power when it specifically outlines what the governments role is? For example, in Article I Section 8 of the constitution, it clearly limits the governments power by allowing for a congress that has specific enumerated powers. This allows for checks and balances. The constitution itself provides checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government. Anyone who is educated on constitutional law will tell you that to say such a document led to the centralization of power makes no sense whatsoever. You are throwing in your (very) unfounded opinions and mixing them up with facts. The only thing that has led to a large centalization of power is our current government not following their own laws that are outlined in the constitution.
Again, not true. The educational system in America has continued on a stupefying downward slope for many years now. Many kids today are not as educated as they should be about U.S. history, including constitutional law. People who are not educated on a certain subject can make bad choices.
You're right. Benjamin Franklin loved 'paper money' so much that he was for having our currency linked to silver/gold. A lot of sense being made there.
Alexander Hamilton was a big government Federalist who did want to mold the newly founded union into another British empire, but why are you speaking about him like our founders all agreed with him on this? They did not. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was completely against this and that is one reason why they both are so popular when it comes to American history.
So being the first president of the Untited States isn't something that many people can talk about? And so what if he smoked marijuana. I myself do not smoke it, but I believe people have the right to put what they want into their bodies. Furthermore, all this means is we had a man who was in the military, who won and fought many battles, even though he smoked marijuana. This is great. I would be very embarrassed if I lost to an army of soldiers or great leaders who smoked marijuana and were still able to defeat me.
Once again, when did I say our founders were perfect? Many powerful leaders have abused their powers one way or another. Nevertheless, I think you missed my point about the ideals that forged the constitution, rather than the people.
Once again, another unfounded, personal opnion, which is what your post is full of. This is irrelevant. The fact is he had good ideas and these ideals, not the persons errors/flaws, is what made this country great.
In many cases worse? How so? They're not even touching the same level.
America was young. It was expanding. This was war. He also reduced the U.S. national debt to it's lowest level in history and left office with a sound currency, all while fighting the bankers. You couldn't compare this with any of our 'leaders' today. You also forgot to mention the fact that long before Andrew Jackson, the native American Indians were running around killing each other. They were NOT united, so don't twist things. Once again, irrelevant.
And the leaders, like George Washington, who fought alongside and led the soldiers don't count? You forget that soldiers need great leaders and wars are not won without them. Our founders were leaders who lead soldiers to independence, to victory. Furthermore, if our founders were not that angry with the overall concept, then how come they crafted a documented (the constitution) that was completely different than that of the British? You are wrong. Nevertheless, another personal opinion. Totally irrelevant and unfounded.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Barriers to entry will be insurmountable for ANY new companies.
CDB
Registered User
As I said, no written constitution in the history of the planet has restrained or limited the growth of any government. Our government has exceeded its enumerated powers, used construction to build the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses into catch alls, passed ammendments solidifying its power and nullifying checks against that power. Saying the constitution limits the power of the American government is an analysis worthy of a freshman intro to history paper. The fact is, it hasn't limited the power of the government. The fact is that every enhancement of the power of the government has been built on its existing constitutional powers through construction and reinterpretation. The fact is, if the goal was to limit centralized government then one sure fire stupid way to hamstring that goal was to... create a central government.
This is the difference between state propoganda and reality, theory and actuality. Every fourth graders knows about the supposed seperation of powers and the existence of checks and balances. The point of the matter is have they actually worked? No. Were they even intended to work? Arguably no, since people like Jefferson were warning against the dangers of construction and coming up with the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798 so soon after the constitution was ratified. Hans Hoppe has argued quite convincingly in Democracy the God That Failed, that written constitutions serve no end but to strengthen the government they are ostensibly supposed to limit.
Are you even aware of the existence of the Articles of Confederation? The constitution was surely a massive step toward centralization from there, wouldn't you agree?
Once more, freshman analysis. Has it actually worked? No.
What you are missing, or unaware of, is that people were making the same exact choices way back when in the golden years.
Once more, the difference between theory and reality. No paper money, once instituted, has stayed connected to gold. The steps are thus: control the mint; control the issuance of money receipts and substitutes; severe the tie to the commodity. All governments have followed those three basic steps in that order. Our first experiences with paper money were during the colonial times when MA printed money to pay their soldiers for unsuccessful raids of the French to the north. And by golly, they made a pledge to pay it all back in gold and silver in a few months and never print any more money again. They never stopped printing until parliment outlawed paper money issues in the colonies, within one year their notes had devalued 40% from par, and they thus created the great shortage of specie which itself was used as a justification for more paper money.
Once more, the difference between theory and historical fact.
I'm not. I'm pointing out that the founders were no different in the range of opinions as politicians are today. There were very few people who truly wanted limited government. Then as now, people wanted to use the government to cripple their competition and loot their neighbor.
Jeffersonians didn't want this. Jefferson himself when he was in office was less pure of a libertarian than is usually thought.
See above. I could care less about Washington. The point once more is the range of personalities and opnions.
He lost the majority of his battles.
No, I completely disagree. Ideals did not forge the constitution, people did. And those people were just as fallible and questionable in their methods and motives respectively as people are today. The whole reason we have a first ammendment is because of the animosity between Christian religious sects for example. No one trusted the other with the issue of state religion, so they just had the federal government stay silent on it. Several states already had established churches at the time. The constitution and the subsequent union weren't spun out of whole cloth, they are an evolution of the colonial experience, and on a continuum of freedom to tyranny they represent a massive step in the direction of the centralization of power, not the other way around.
This does not excuse attempted genocide.
Yes he did, and from Van Buren on until the Civil War we probably had the best banking system we've had so far. So what? It's gone now, never likely to return too. The overall trend in our country has been to centralize more and more power. If the constitution limits the governments, how has it grown so massive?
Actually there's a strong base of scholarship that supports my opinion, but it sounds like all you've read is approved histories and nothing that upsets the apple cart. See Conceived in Liberty, by Murray Rothbard. See Democracy, the God that Failed, by Hans-Herman Hoppe. See 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, by Thomas E. Woods. See Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom by various authors.
If the constitution was such a good thing, why were so many legislatures against it until they were essentially bought off? Why did the Federalists use their positions of power as in the post office for example, to stop the mobilization of Anti Federalist opposition? If the constitution limits the power and growth of government, why is it currently the behemoth it is? If the checks and balances do the same, same question? Name one paper constitution that has actually worked to restrict a government in the entirety of history. It hasn't happened, ever. And perhaps that's because, like every other piece of legislation that gets through any law making body, it's a political decision made and influenced more by special interests than anything to truly do with the will or good of the people to be governed. When steel tarrifs go up no one thinks it's because far sighted businessmen and legislators think it's a wise decision and in our interest. It's because enough steel industrialists agitated for it to make it happen. All legislation, even the most basic stuff like the constitution, is subject to a similar analysis.
Bass Master
New member
Not true. The U.S. constitution HAS restrained the power of government to a certain degree, for SOME time. However, it will ALWAYS be up to the people to remain ACTIVE and vocal when it comes to protecting liberty. The U.S. constitution was written to restrain the government. The entire document does nothing but limit governments power by allowing checks and balances and allowing us rights to overthrow that form of government if it becomes tyrannical. When did I say the constitution restrains the government indefinitely? Once again, you are not reading what I wrote properly. I said the constitution itself has not led to the centralization of government, etc. I never said that it will protect Americans if they become lazy and don't remain watchful and protective when it comes to freedom. In fact, quite the contrary. The constitution is a key that was given to us to use. You can either throw it away, or use it to help ensure our freedom. That is what I said. The constitution in CONJUNCTION with watchful Americans is what's required. After all, our founders often talked about this. They did not just write the constitution and expect it to do all of the dirty work. Why on earth do you think they put in the Second Amendment? If they had aboslute faith in future American generations, they would not have done this. Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman, "What kind of government have you given us?" Franklin responded, "A Republic if you can keep it." None of our founders just wrote the constitution and thought everything was going to be okay from that point on. In fact, if you read their quotes you will see a large amound of pessimism when it comes to the future of America. What you said about all constitutions not restraining government is null and void because you obviously misread my post.
Yes, BUT that is not my point. My post originally was about WHY the constitution was framed and what it was written for, not if it worked or not. You are now twisting the conversation to your liking because you were wrong. I will guide you back to the above post: these checks and balances DID work for some time, but they are now very weak, due to the large growth of governmnet and it's somewhat fascist ideals, in conjunction with a public that does not hold government accountable for it's actions.
Once again, they did work, otherwise the newly founded Union would have become a fascist dictatorship by it's 80th birthday. Again, the constitution was a KEY that was given to us, much like a gun. If someone is breaking into your house to harm you and your family, you can either take that gun and defend yourself by shooting the intruder or just ignore it and not use the gun and potentially watch yourself and your family die. I know, it's a violent and extreme analogy, but it fits what I am saying quite perfectly I believe. The constitution is just that: a weapon. If Americans become lazy and unresponsive when it comes to protecting their freedoms then it OBVIOUSLY will not work because of governments nature. I will say it again: I, nor any of our true founding fathers, never said the constitution alone will protect a public who doesn't care about their freedom. This is all Jefferson was saying. Completely irrelevant to my original post.
No. In fact, I would violently disagree. Do you even know why the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were replaced by the U.S. Constitution in 1788, after it's short life? It was a one size fits all document. At that point, various Federalist factions were still unhappy with that document and wanted to make it into something completely different, that allowed a bigger, more centralized government. Some wanted a strong Federation with no real checks and balances, while others did not. Anyway, back to the point. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union did not allow for the necessary checks and balances that a free society needed. In fact, one of the determining factors for it's quick demise was it's "one-state, one-vote" plank. So how on earth could you say a document (The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union), which did NOT have any real checks and balances and did not allow us basic fundamental rights, like those provided by the Bill of Rights, was, in that sense, more of a precursor to true liberty than a document (the U.S. Constitution) that did allow for these checks and balances and basic fundamental rights? How on earth could such a document that allows for states rights over the Federal governments say be a 'massive step' to a large, tyrannical, centralized government? What you said is completely turned upside down. In fact, I will further elaborate: If so, then through what mechanisms did the U.S. constitution allow a much bigger, centralized government? I am dying to hear this rebuttal.
Ahhh, scathing remarks: a sign of ignorance and bad education. I think the only freshman analysis here is the one that says the Bill of Rights and 1st & 2nd Amendment could lead to a large, centralized bureaucracy, rather than an apathetic and uncaring public.
To a certain degree, yes. Nevertheless, your opinion, not fact.
Yes, but the number of dirty politicians has dramatically increased in numbers since then, along with a dumbed down society that is rotting from the inside out.
If it were a theory, it would of never happened.
Yes, but, again, that is because of governments nature and the failure of the public to hold that government accountable for it's actions.
Yes, and this always leads to economic disaster. Nevertheless, the above rebuttal also applies to this statement.
Yes, I already know. I am well-versed on American history. What does the economics of paper money have to do with the morality of paper money? Furthermore, what does this statement have to do with the fact that our founders were for silver and gold currency and that's why they wrote that in the U.S. constitution? Once again, going off topic.
Yes, and, other than completely going off topic, you proved my point: paper money always fails and that is why our founders outlined that in the U.S. Constitution. You seem rather mixed up.
No, they were different. Yes, they, like you and me, had flaws, but, once again, those flaws cannot be compared to the pure greed and corruption of todays politicians.
Once again, you proved my point. Yes, and that's why the U.S. Constitution has not been working for the past few decades at keeping the growth of government at bay: an ignorant, apathetic, uncaring public. Nevertheless, mankinds nature and/or ignorance does not make it right, now does it? Therefore we should not falter. Dogs will always go back to vomit, does that mean we should let our dogs eat their vomit when they get sick? I hope not.
Not exactly true, since 1. that breed of libertarians were new and evolving and 2. not if you're judging by todays standards, which isn't a real standard to begin with.
And what's your point? When did I say he won most of his battles? The fact is, he, along with many others, won the war, which means he won the battles that counted. This is 101 in warfare.
No, becaused these ideals came from the people who physically forged the U.S. Constitution. They put those ideals down on paper.
Once again, another personal opinion.
Wrong. The First Amendment was established to protect unpopular - not popular - speech as a whole.
No, not exactly. That is because society was also evolving and we dealt with those issues as we evolved (for example, slavery, etc.). This has happened to various degrees in many other countries. We also have the separation of church and state.
No, the constitution is a document of BASIC principles that never age, no matter how much society evolves. We should always have the right to free speech, to bare arms, etc. This, like most of what you said, falls in the realm of theory and personal opinion, not historical fact.
I already debunked this nonsense. No such mechanism in the U.S. Constituion allows for a such a centralization of power, since those mechanisms involved clearly limit the power and scope of government.
Again. This was war, not genocide. Big difference. Also, I like how you left out the part about the Indians killing each other long before Andew Jackson. And various Native American tribes raping and pillaging/destroying other Native American villages doesn't mark close to genocide? Your one-sided story obviously doesn't hold any water.
"So what?" You were the one naming all of Jackson's flaws. So I named some great things he did. You seem very lost in your own argument.
I never denied this fact. But the difference is, this tend stems from two mechanisms: 1. the governtment and 2. the publics failure to hold them accountable, not the U.S. constitution. It's that simple. The historical fact is, when the U.S. government obeyed the U.S. Constitution, we were more free. When the government started ignoring it and grew larger, the less free we became. This clearly shows us that it's the government and the public that is at fault here, not a document.
Once again: 1. the government and 2. the publics failure to hold them accountable.
No, I often read both sides of the story, but these books are nothing more than theory. I have stated everything using obvious, historical facts, not theoretical jibber.
Once again: 1. the government and 2. the publics failure to hold them accountable by obeying the U.S. Constitution.
What do Federalists have to do with the U.S. Constitution itself? The Hammilton Federalist agenda is anti-U.S. Constitution. These were men on powertrips who rose to power in one way or another and abused their power. The constitution 'allowed' this only because the public and government officials did not use it as a weapon or a guideline. Nevertheless, the same answer remaines: 1. the government and 2. the publics failure to hold them accountable by obeying the U.S. Constitution.
Again: 1. the government and 2. the publics failure to hold them accountable by obeying the U.S. Constitution.
Same rule applies to all countries when it comes to the rise of tyrannical governments. Again: 1. the government and 2. the publics failure to hold them accountable by obeying the their constitution. You forget that the U.S. Constitution is simply a guideline, rather than something to babysit an apathetic public and take care of all of their problems.
That is because people do not keep dirty polticians in check. Nearly every single fascist government that has ever came to be IS a byproduct of an apathetic, uncaring public that does not safeguard it's freedoms and hold government accountable accordingly. Their constitutions are simply just guidelines for them to do so. That's it. The government and the publics failure to hold them accountable by obeying the U.S. Constitution has led to the current massive centralization of power. A public that is not politically active and aware of what's going on is also a breeding ground for Washington D.C. political bacteria which festers and leaves no room for honest politicians. The end result: everyone has their hand in the pie.
ChrisSanderso
Member
Does anyone here read the bible. The antichrist is a decendant from the middle east and brings the world to deception to create one world order.
I don't know about you guys but what a coincidence!!!
I don't know about you guys but what a coincidence!!!
ChrisSanderso
Member
Daniel 8:23-25 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.
And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
And through his policy also he shall cause craft (fraid, deceit, treachery)to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand."
And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
And through his policy also he shall cause craft (fraid, deceit, treachery)to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand."
CDB
Registered User
Then let's ignore all the BS and concentrate on the core of the issue. I claim the constitution was a massive move toward the centralization of power, you say it wasn't. I say you're wrong. You're wrong for several reasons.
One, The articles of confederation posited a much looser union. I disagree with your one size fits all comment, but that's aside from the point. The point is it is inarguable that the constitution represented the formation of a much stronger central government than had existed prior. Prior to the constitution being ratified each state was sovereign and could literally take or leave decisions made by other governing bodies, continental congress or anything else. There was no superior central government to speak of prior to the constitution, there was one afterward. Whatever supposed limits the constitution put on that government, every power granted to it was one not exercised prior. As such it is inarguably an expansion and centralization of power from the previous state of affairs.
Two, the constitution was ramrodded through the legislatures of the time by the Federalists. You asked what the Federalists had to do with constitution, they were its main proponets. Or did you miss "The Federalist Papers," that series of essays by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay arguing for the ratification of the constitution? Murray Rothbard has a nice history of this process in Conceived in Liberty where he details convenient shifts in legislatures from opposing the constitution because it represented a centralization of power to being in favor of it after favors and bribes were delivered, where he details how the Federalists used their control of the post office to stop the mobilization of Anti Federalists against the ratification, their opinion as expressed in the Cato letters written as responses to the Federalists. As with any other piece of legislation the 'limitations' on government you seem so intent on were nothing of the sort. They were the trade offs necessary to buy people into supporting the constitution and central government at all. They were not inserted as a matter of intent of those who were pushing for a central government who would gladly have left all restrictions aside, but as placations for those who were initially opposed.
This leads into the regular type of power elite analysis that's pretty standard. Analogously, anti trust is supposed to stop monopolies. At least that's how it was sold to the public. In reality it facilitates the imposition of cartels on people, and when you examine its history you see that the people lobbying for it were not against monopolies but trying to cripple their competition, who were expanding production faster than anyone else and lowering prices faster than anyone else. The constitution is not some holy document, it's really just another piece of legislation the same as any other. Some compromise was necessary to get it through, those comromises specifically are the supposed 'limitations' on the power of the central government to placate the state governments into believing they were maintaining their sovereignty when in reality the people pushing the constitution wanted a strong central government, not a limited one.
Three, as an aside this analysis is supported by a lot of modern scholarship that has looked back on the reality of how things were pushed through and the constitution ratified. you have to look deeper than the song sung to the public to see what was really going on. As Lew Rockwell described Hoppe's position:
Further from Invalid Link Removed:
And this is so not because virtuous men put in place a constitution to limit government and it just didn't work. It's because the constitution was, is, and in general always will be a tool for the assertion and codification of state power, pushed by those who want such, and limited only to the extent that any opposition can be raised to demand such small changed and limitations here and there, which are all shortly rendered irrelevant via construction. The constitution doesn't limit the government because it was never meant to do so in the first place.
One, The articles of confederation posited a much looser union. I disagree with your one size fits all comment, but that's aside from the point. The point is it is inarguable that the constitution represented the formation of a much stronger central government than had existed prior. Prior to the constitution being ratified each state was sovereign and could literally take or leave decisions made by other governing bodies, continental congress or anything else. There was no superior central government to speak of prior to the constitution, there was one afterward. Whatever supposed limits the constitution put on that government, every power granted to it was one not exercised prior. As such it is inarguably an expansion and centralization of power from the previous state of affairs.
Two, the constitution was ramrodded through the legislatures of the time by the Federalists. You asked what the Federalists had to do with constitution, they were its main proponets. Or did you miss "The Federalist Papers," that series of essays by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay arguing for the ratification of the constitution? Murray Rothbard has a nice history of this process in Conceived in Liberty where he details convenient shifts in legislatures from opposing the constitution because it represented a centralization of power to being in favor of it after favors and bribes were delivered, where he details how the Federalists used their control of the post office to stop the mobilization of Anti Federalists against the ratification, their opinion as expressed in the Cato letters written as responses to the Federalists. As with any other piece of legislation the 'limitations' on government you seem so intent on were nothing of the sort. They were the trade offs necessary to buy people into supporting the constitution and central government at all. They were not inserted as a matter of intent of those who were pushing for a central government who would gladly have left all restrictions aside, but as placations for those who were initially opposed.
This leads into the regular type of power elite analysis that's pretty standard. Analogously, anti trust is supposed to stop monopolies. At least that's how it was sold to the public. In reality it facilitates the imposition of cartels on people, and when you examine its history you see that the people lobbying for it were not against monopolies but trying to cripple their competition, who were expanding production faster than anyone else and lowering prices faster than anyone else. The constitution is not some holy document, it's really just another piece of legislation the same as any other. Some compromise was necessary to get it through, those comromises specifically are the supposed 'limitations' on the power of the central government to placate the state governments into believing they were maintaining their sovereignty when in reality the people pushing the constitution wanted a strong central government, not a limited one.
Three, as an aside this analysis is supported by a lot of modern scholarship that has looked back on the reality of how things were pushed through and the constitution ratified. you have to look deeper than the song sung to the public to see what was really going on. As Lew Rockwell described Hoppe's position:
Further from Invalid Link Removed:
And this is so not because virtuous men put in place a constitution to limit government and it just didn't work. It's because the constitution was, is, and in general always will be a tool for the assertion and codification of state power, pushed by those who want such, and limited only to the extent that any opposition can be raised to demand such small changed and limitations here and there, which are all shortly rendered irrelevant via construction. The constitution doesn't limit the government because it was never meant to do so in the first place.
Bass Master
New member
A much stronger (limited) central government: yes. A centralized bureaucracy with no checks and balances: no. There is a big difference. The central government did need to be a little stronger and better organized, as it was not under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The fact is, if the Federal government still followed the constitution to a T, it would be no where near as centralized as it is today, therefore you cannot say the U.S. Constitution is responsible for todays centralized nanny state. Furthermore, you still cannot state the mechanisms of the constitution that were, as you say, responsible for todays centralized government. That is because there aren't any. All you have done thus far is cite theoretical jibberish.
Under the U.S. Constitution, every single state is still sovereign. Although there really is no Constitutional procedure for State secession, states will not be stopped from seceding under the penalty of law, therefore it is still possible. Furthermore, don't act like the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, when originally written, were established to not form a more perfect Union and a stronger centralized government. Why do you think it was called "The Articles of Confederation AND PERPETUAL UNION?" They wanted the union to be "perpetual". The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was nothing more than a precursor to the U.S. Constitution. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union lacked the perfect balance between a weak centralized government that couldn't do it's job and a centralized, tyrannical bureaucracy like what we have today. The U.S. Constitution, however, met this balance, which gave us a strong central BUT limited government that could do it's job without becoming overgrown and tyrannical. Our government, as stated before, is in the latter state ONLY because it has been ignoring it's own constitution. The simple, historical fact still remains: the more the government ignored it's own constitution, the bigger and more centralized it has become. This clearly shows us that the state governments and the people of this country are clearly at fault here, not the U.S. Constitution, otherwise the government would not have to disobey it in order to become so big and centralized.
First of all, let me explain something to you. Not all Federalists had the same politics and not everyone who backed the U.S. constitution was a "Federalist" in the sense that you speak of. I am talking about the Federalists, like Hammilton. In reality, many of his ideals were pretty much "anti-U.S. Constitution." In fact, only a few Federalists, such as Hammilton, had a more extreme way of thinking. Not all Federalists agreed with him, so the Federalists that weren't as extreme may have wanted a more stronger, centralized Federal government, but nothing to the extent of what the more extreme Federalists, like Hammilton, wanted. Not all Federalists agreed with everything that was written in "The Federalist Papers", even though today, it is still not known if all of the material that makes up the Federalist Papers were written by Hammilton, Madison, and John Jay. In fact, the Federalists themselves were fighting with each other too. So, once again, do not paint a picture that all of the "Federalists" got together and agreed on an overgrown, centralized bureaucracy. You have the extreme Federalists mixed up with those who were much less extreme. Also, in Federalist NO. 84, Hammilton basically says that there is no need to add in the Bill of Rights, so, like I said earlier, most of his ideals were pretty much "anti-U.S. Constitution" and if it were up to him alone, he would have written the U.S. Constitution MUCH differently. He just went with the U.S. Constitution because it provided a stronger central government and that was better than nothing, as in a launching ground for future modifications that would mold us into another British empire. Most of the other Federalists did not think the same way. In other words, 5 bucks is better than 2 bucks, but it still isn't good enough because I want a million dollars. Nevertheless, our current form of government would shock even the most extreme Federalist, with MAYBE an exception to Hammilton.
Of course I am aware of "The Federalist Papers", but, once again, they have nothing to do with the constitution itself when talking about it's laws and how it led to todays overgrown bureaucracy. We started talking about the U.S. Constitution and what it was written for and how it led to the centralized bureaucracy that we currently have, so that is why I asked you what does the Constitution itself (as in how it led to todays centralized power) have to do with the Federalists who backed it. I should have worded that better, but I was rushing through it. Anyway, how the Constitution led to the current form centralized power that we now have really doesn't have anything to do with those who backed it, since not all the Federalists agreed on every single thing. We did not start off talking about what person was a Federalist and what kind of Federalist they were, so, once again, that has nothing to do with the constitution in that respect. You went from talking about how the U.S. Constitution led to an overgrown, centralized power to the Federalist agenda, which is, once again, irrelevant because 1. as I already stated, not all Federalists agreed with each other and 2. the Federalists backing the constitution doesn't have much to do with it leading to todays overgrown, centralized government, especially since most Federalists would not agree with how overgrown our government is today. If you wanted to get into the Federalists who backed the U.S. Constitution, then you should have said that about the Federalist Papers to begin with. Make your point clearly and my rebuttals will be clear. Nevertheless, I will guide you to the above rebuttal for the answer to this statement as well, since it perfectly fits the context.
This was simply Federalists and Anti-Federalists fighting, just like how todays major parties fight with each other, but on a much bigger scale. Many Anti-Federalists really had no real solution to the constitution that they were so against either, with maybe the exception of a few, like Jefferson, etc.
Once again, you are obviously misreading my post. I was talking about the constitution allowing for checks and balances in order to prevent a centralized, tyrannical bureaucracy, like what we have today. Back then, under the U.S. Constitution, we did not have a centralized bureaucracy, even though the Federal government was a bit more centralized and stronger. There is a difference between more centralized/stronger and an overgrown, centralization of power, like what we currently have. The Constitution, if the government today actually followed it, would not have allowed them to grow so big and, like I already said, most of the Federalists who backed the U.S. Constitution would not be happy with the current form of government and it's size. In fact, the Constitution that was ratified is not the exact same constitution that the more extreme Hammilton Federalists wanted because, due to the large and negative response from the anti-Federalists, state legislatures ended up voting to add the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which are the Bill of Rights.
Once again, your opinion. Irrelevant. The U.S. Constitution was pretty much the first of it's kind when it came to true freedom. It is not just another piece of legislation. The Federalists who backed the constitution wanted a stronger central government, not what we have today. Major difference. The states still maintain their sovereignty, to a certain degree, today. The only thing that threatens this is them not holding the Federal government accountable to the U.S. Constitution. I have nothing against a stronger government, but it should always have checks and balances and not be too centralized and overgrown, as it is under the original constitution, not todays central government. There is such a thing as limited, but stronger government.
Lew Rockwell is just giving his opinion at the end of the day. It's just that: an opinion. Our founders wanted a stronger, BUT limited government, that is why we only have three main branches of government under the U.S. Constitution, not six or nine. The fact is, when you read and go over the U.S. Constitution, you will find that many of the Amendments put in place DO limit government. For example, under the U.S. Constitution, only silver and gold can be legal tender. That in itself restrains government because they cannot just create money out of thin air for their spending so that they can grow much larger and abuse their powers. But this has still happened. Why? Because the constitution says it's alright? No. Because 1. the government is abusing the constitution by disobeying it and ignoring it and 2. state governments and the American people are not holding them accountable for doing so. This creates an overgrown, centralized, tyrannical bureaucracy because they are not held accountable, NOT because the U.S. Constitution allows them to do so.
ChrisSanderso
Member
I guest the point is that our government has already been pre-planned for us before some of us were even born.
CDB
Registered User
According to who? You? Me? Historians? Libertarians? Totalitatarians? The argument here isn't whether you think the constitution or a stronger central government was a good idea, that's a normative opinion for another thread, I say it's bunk and we can discuss that later if you want.
The argument is over what the constitution did and didn't do, currently does and doesn't do, and what it was originally meant to do. It did not limit exsting government powers; it expanded them, codified them, and centralized them. It does not currently limit government in any way shape or form; it does through construction give justification for any and every expansion of power by those who still see fit to even look for constitutional authority before doing something, and by the neglect of those who do not see fit to look for that authority, it holds no authority and imposes no limitations at all on them. It was not meant to limit government, ever; it was meant to establish and delegate to a central government powers previously vested in a King through tradition, it codified what was presumed, created offices that did not previously exist, provided for the exercise of powers that did not previously exist, and was only 'limited' by the scruples of those few who were able to mobilize some objection to it. The limitations, the checks and balances you seem so intent on, were irrelevant to the people pushing it, and were only regarded and were in fact only the concessions made to the few objectors who had enough time and resources available to oppose it.
You can't say you want to limit something when your overall goal is to establish that very thing. It's contradictory. Either you do or you don't want it. The constitution did not limit the federal government, it was used to establish that very government by the very same people who had no problem with Britain's powers per se, but who just wanted to be the masters of those powers rather than subjected to them. The limitations, checks and balances 'built into it' are no different than the politically correct addendums that get added on to any bill that currently goes through congress in order to get votes from this congressman or that one, or this group of them or that one. The intent of those pushing the bill itself isn't to get the riders through, those riders represent nothing more than that which they were willing to compromise on anyway, and so were included at the behest of others who otherwise would have opposed the bill, or not given a damn and voted 'present'.
If congress were to get a bill going to give tax breaks for health insurance purchases, thats the bill and the idea and the intent. Say the Republicrats are pushing it, their intent is to let people reduce their taxable income by the amount they pay for insurance. That's it. The Demopublicans see it and want to stick on some riders that say only so long as the insurance companies have a certain amount of this or that type of person working there, or some other PC gobbledeegook. The Republicrats don't agree necessarily, but also don't give enough of a **** to oppose the idea, so it's tacked on to the bill so it encounters less resistance and better chance of passing. In the same way the supposed government limitations in the constitution (enumerated and divided powers, different branches, bill of rights, etc.), were just the riders the pushers of the constitution had to include to silence dissent. And even that wasn't enough, there were still bribes and political maneuvering aplenty before it could get ratified. The only reason they are there is because enough people opposed the idea itself to raise enough of a furor to get some riders attached. The intent and goal of the proponents was to establish a central government that had not existed previously, and to give it powers no such government had exercised previously.
Sure I can. Most if not all of our nanny state is based on the general welfare clause and the inter state commerce clause. Had the constitution not existed, those justifications would simply not exist. The parts of it that aren't ostensibly based on the constitution can't be blamed on the constitution, but it obviously also didn't serve any purpose in terms of limiting or stopping those parts of the nanny state either. In other words no one gave a damn about the enumerated powers, checks and balances, original understanding and/or meaning, and just did what they wanted to anyway. The constitution doesn't carry blame for those parts, but they do serve as an example of the complete ineffectiveness of a written constitution in restraining government.
And you have cited... what exactly? You have stated the constitution didn't provide for the centralization of power while at the same time admitting it provided for the establishment of a central government which previously did not exist and explicitly gave it powers which the recently over thrown government had presumed but hadn't codified. Which is, well, confused to say the least. You try and excuse that by saying it was a 'necessary thing', which is arguable and a matter of extreme opinion, and does not in any way change the facts of the issue. There was no central government, then there was. There was no power to tax, then there was. There was no president, no congress, no cabinent, no judiciary, then there was. Just because you think it was a good idea and a dandy improvement and such doesn't change the fact that this is in fact what happened. I may shoot someone to stop them from committing a crime, so it's arguably a 'necessary' action. That doesn't change the fact that I did with regard to intent and action, shoot someone. So, as often happens in these arguments I notice, I'm pointing to the reality of what happened and saying that's what happened and likely what I think was intended. You're saying what happened didn't happen, and even though it did it was a good thing and here's your opinion of why it was a good thing. And I'm the theorist here?
Unless of course you want to argue that those pushing the constitution didn't want to establish a central government but did, I guess by accident or something? Like they were out running errands and when they were walking up their driveway to their door, they noticed that a central government followed them home. Got to keep it now, what if there's no one to feed it? So they let it in and oh, look, now we decided to keep it, we just sort of noticed that we have all these people around looking for positions of power in the central government. What a lucky find, that. Because nothing is worse than adopting a central government and not being lucky enough to find some good and honest people to staff the newly available positions of authority. Because people, they don't actually look for ways to expand their power and such through political means. Or if they do, they're honest about and just call it a power grab. No, more often than not they just sort of fall into it, the same way apparently guys occassionally trip and fall with their boners right in their best friend's wife's snatch or something. It's an accident, it's not intentional. Or they had intended to limit it, so they were playing Just the Tip, but it went all the way in anyway. Either way their intention was never to actually have sex.
Are you aware of he Civil War? The last states that tried that, well they lost I believe one out of every four of their male population at the end of their attempted secession, which ended with them still a part of the union. Yeah the supreme court, which technically had the right to rule, said they had the right to secession. Guess what? The executive branch didn't give a ****, and the constitutional interpretation of the court, while correct, did not limit the executive's power. And over a 100 years later most people celebrate that fact. You have to question the effectiveness of a document whose purported purpose is to limit the government in the face of several facts: the people in government by and large don't want their power limited; the people outside of government by and large don't want the power of government limited aside from a few Holy Cow issues that, as cows in India, are expected not to be messed with; and if all that's necessary to negate the limiting powers of a written constitution is to ignore it, well then that's kind of pathetic. Something with true power to do something can't simply be ignored on that issue, and if it can then it is powerless in and of itself.
However there are tons of people who did not ignore it, those are the people who moved into positions of power when the new government was formed, and those who have served in those functions and the many created since over the years to those in power this very day, which by all measures has done nothing but grow. So maybe, just maybe, that was its true intent, and that is what its true power is: to create, centralize, and expand, government power. When people tell you the function of X is to do Y, but it always seems to lead to Z in reality, and those self same people have a vested interest in your continued belief that the function of X is Y, maybe their real purpose is actually to accomplish Z. Theory has to prove its merit in reality. And reality says our government has always grown, always expanded, always centralized, and done so with and without constitutional support. So I think it's at least possible, more than likely in fact, that growth was the original intent with a sooth song of limitations to appease the few people who gave enough of a crap to maybe thing unlimited central government wasn't a great idea. The original pushers got most of what they wanted, and to date it doesn't seem like anyone has been denied to any great degree. And we're probably on the verge of losing the first and second ammendment for good at this point, as both parties seem hostile to both at root. Certainly Obama and Co. will have no problem limiting speech in various mediums, and will have plenty of precedent to go on with regard to regulation of the air waves and licensing of TV stations and such, speech codes and restrictions.
When did I say that? I said the constitution was a centralization and expansion of power and that was its intent. It was, and it was. The previous charters are relevant in that they were much looser unions and obviously, if people hadn't wanted the powers of the proto federal government centralized and expanded, they wouldn't have presented a new framework in the form of the constitution that did just that.
Let me explain something to you. Hamilton's ideals are ****. He spent half his life explaining why he didn't mean what he said in the other half. He was on board with the VA and KY resolutions of 1798 and spent his latter years explaing how he didn't actually mean what he said and apparently wrote, ditto with The Federalist Papers. So looking for consistency in Hamilton's positions is like looking for a live cat in a Chinese food restaurant. You're not going to find it. He was one of the main and most prolific authors of The Federalist Papers arguing in favor of the constitution, it is selective in the extreme not to mention intellectually dishonest to use his well known inconsistency in position to say he was against the constitution. He was for and against damn near everything depending on what portion of his life you choose to pick from. He probably disagreed with his choice of dinner for the night by the time he was ready for bed. Joseph Charles is one person who has commented on Hamilton's inconsistencies and chastized historians/biographers for glossing them over, as has Thomas E. Woods, Murray Rothbard, Thomas DiLorenzo, and plenty of others.
I say they do. You don't get to dictate the terms of the argument like Bill O'Reilly or something. If you want that type of debate, get yourself a TV show where you can decide what the reasonable terms of debate are and shout anyone down who offends your sensibilities or deviates from what you think is the acceptable opposition position.
And I have explained, more than adequately. I have yet to read an explanation of how the constitution both did and did not provide for the expansion, codification, and centralization of the government. That you think it was a good idea is irrelevant, it doesn't change what the intent of the constitution was, which was just that: the codification, expansion and centralization of power into a new federal governing body. The limitations on government that are supposedly built in were only allowed in as appeasement as any other legislative modification or rider is done today, just to make sure it goes through. To suggest the constitution didn't expand and centralize power when that's exactly what it did and what the intent of its drafters was, is ridiculous. And it is responsible for our current nanny state in that the limitations never really mattered to the drafters, nor apparently anyone else who followed, as the general trend has always been an expansion and further centralization of power.
And it makes perfect sense that this would be the trend if you regard it as any other piece of legislation. Analogously, the health care bill that the Democrats end up pushing under Obama will be intended as a step towards full nationalization of the US health care system. That they can't do nationalization right away and get everything they want because of a need to appease some Republicans and some significant portion of the population doesn't mean their intent is anything else. Nor will anyone but the clueless be surprised when full on nationalization and a single payer system is eventually proposed and passed. That is unless of course the dollar collapses first and we're all living in yurts by the end of Democrat control, in which case the Republicans will push through some watered down version of the same thing if possible because at base it's what they want too, just slightly modified.