@Sewblon With what I get from this video, no. The constitution doesn't require our consent because it only applies to the government. The constitution should only delineate what the government can/cannot do. If it inhibits our rights at all, or puts any limitation on the people, it is an "illegitimate" section and needs to be abolished, from what I understand. All it does is protect our rights, so all we must consent to are the people using the constitution and modern legislation.
I'm watching these out of order (because a later one appeared on my suggestions list), which is probably a disservice to you. The argument this video contains is brilliant, and to me it is original thinking -- if you originated it, I'm in awe, and if you found and adapted it, well done. BUT, what about the "Congress shall have the power to" parts of the Constitution; those are the ones individuals object to. Government has the power to tax us and arrest us -- that DOES have to do with us.
@tazztt1 I'm bewildered by your question. Which ones of what are those what? Which are the "Congress shall have the power to" parts of the Constitution? Primarily, Article 1, Section 8: Lay and collect taxes, provide for defense and "general welfare," borrow money, regulate commerce, coin money, grant copyrights and patents, declare war. The "general welfare" and commerce clauses have been interpreted to allow Congress to do basically anything it wants to.
@tazztt1 Don't start a flame war with me, you ignoramus. Article 8 begins "The Congress shall have power ..." Not responsibility, POWER. If you don't like that, argue with James Madison. Shanedk's position is that the non-consent of the governed does not matter, because the Constitution constrains only government. I admire that argument but respectfully disagree (I respect him; you, not so much). The Constitution empowers government to tax, regulate, and imprison us, with or without our consent.
@shanedk I agree. Tazztt1 is denying Congress has power, saying they only have the responsibility to serve. As you say, they can't have one without the other. So, they definitely DO have powers, and those powers can be used to affect the citizens who never gave their consent. Your thesis that the Constitution only restrains the government is not valid because it also gives Congress POWER over those citizens -- power it's supposed to use to serve, but power nevertheless.
@gmsherry1953 But they also have the responsibility to NOT use that power for anything other than the national defense or general welfare, and are restricted from using the power for many things under Section 9, the Bill of Rights, and other amendments.
@shanedk Let's go back to what started this. Your thesis in this video, as I understand it, is that the non-consent of the governed does not matter, because the Constitution does not apply to the governed, only to the government itself, which it limits or constrains. I am in awe at the originality and brilliance of that argument, but I still think it's wrong, because the Constitution gives the government authority -- empowers it -- to tax, regulate and imprison us. It DOES apply to us.
@tazztt1 Congratulations. I made a typo. Does that make you feel smarter? If so, enjoy the illusion. I meant Article 1, Section 8, which I got right the FIRST time, if you'd been paying attention then. I'm finished with you; you're not worth talking with.
@DrinkingClassPhlsphr Yes: the Supreme Court abrogated the Constitution by using the Commerce Clause outside of its meaning, allowing the Federal government to assume powers the Constitution doesn't give it.
@shanedk- I know that was kind of my point. It is funny that you bring up abrogating the Constitution when referring to judicial review of the SC. I would be interested to find where in the Constitution, it states the SC has the authority to validate, or invalidate, laws. Article III only covers the make up of the court and parties allowed to have their cases heard.
**I think that the application of JR by the SC is a positive thing, and think it should be added as an Amend to the Constituion.
@DrinkingClassPhlsphr Article III does give the Supreme Court jurisdiction in all controversies under the Constitution, so they do get to decide cases like that. But they do NOT get to make up their own interpretation of the Constitution and employ it at their whim, yet, they do so all the time.
@shanedk Agreed, but my argument is that, by the design, JR applies to each case on an INDIVIDUAL basis and does not AUTOMATICALLY negate any law of the same ilk, as the "informed" (judges, academics, media, politicians, etc) like to claim. Now logic would state that precedent will overturn it, but my contention is with the de facto automatic overturning being portrayed as de jure.
@DrinkingClassPhlsphr I think it's clear that this doesn't really happen. Look, for example, at how many gun laws continue to get passed no matter how much the Supreme Court says they violate the Second Amendment.
@shanedk- First off the 2nd Amend tends to be an exception, to just about all topics. Now dont mistake my "de facto" comment to refer to future laws. Due to the use of precedents in our judicial system, it doesnt make sense to pass a law that will, inevitablly, be overturned. The comment was intended to refer to the overturning of laws existing at the time of the decision (i.e. Buckley v. Valeo did not, in and of itself, overturn existing contribution laws).
@DrinkingClassPhlsphr No, but if prosecutors know that a judge is going to throw out a case because the Supreme Court called a similar case unconstitutional, the prosecutor won't try. That's the power of precedent.
@shanedk I understand that concept, and that is what my comment was about. A DA not pressing charges or politicians passing new laws to suspend/amend their version b/c of precedent would be de facto applications. The "if this, then that" ideology represented by the "informed" that law "X" is now null and void based on the sole premise of law "Y" being over turned is what I was referring to as the de jure.
First we have not been under "the Constitution" since the time of the civil war and what we have now does not even vaguely resemble such. Second, silence is consent as a moral and political principle. If the people do not object they have given tacit consent. Third Lysanders position is good, close, but a bit extreme and not accurate history. I agree with most. Tyranny is simply wrong. The majority have voted and that is more then tacit consent, it is participation. Enjoy the vid's thanks.
The Constitution never legitimized/authorized slavery. It was already an institution. Article 1, section 2, deals with counting of persons for representation/taxes. It says “…by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.” They chose to count 3/5ths of the slaves to limit the number of southern white representatives. Slave owners wanted the slaves counted fully = POWER!
Strangely the Constitution can be a paradox like life is. Especially when foreign nations are using our own Constitution against us and take away our rights. Usually using 'Free-Trade' as an excuse to justify communising our nation.
@Licmycat US Constitution is to protect Rights. When viewing our unalienable Rights from the vantage point of science, it becomes clear they apply to all Life, from bacteria to humans, and Social systems, including Charles Darwin’s research; as in some Grand Unification principle for all Living-systems (see my channel video). The Laws of Nature trumps mortals in power; a new understanding of these Rights may help make this world a better place to live.
@Mike10four Yeah. Isn't it horrible that too many lawmakers these days make up excuses for their perception of the Constitution to take AWAY our rights? In fact, it seemed sort'of glaring that an invasion of foreigners attempts to take us over using our Constitution against us. I'm wondering if they blame me as i used to leave copies of parts of the Constitution out in public....:( And I've had probs with issues attached ever since.
23 people live in comunist china, or north korea, or in a place where the thumbs down really means they liked the vid,or they are just really confused and have never lived in a nation where speaking contrary to the state results in execution,or life in prison.
The Living-constitution preamble: We the Oligarchy of the US, in Order to form a more perfect central government, establish only criminal Justice, insure controlling Tranquility, provide for the common redistribution, promote social Welfare, and secure Liberty to the Oligarchy and their Posterity, do establish this erratic unpublished constitution for the US.
As for the people, they are on the road to serfdom.
@funisverygood Rights do not need to have legitimacy. The force that would act against them does. And if that force is not legitimate, it should not be allowed.
@funisverygood Invalid question. By asking "who decides," you assume that it has to be decided by SOMEONE. That's an invalid assumption. No one has to decide what rights people have. Someone DOES have to decide to use force to take those rights away, and that someone MUST justify what he is doing.
Your fascistic proposal would shift the burden of proof on the person asserting his rights. That's tyranny, and it's evil.
@funisverygood Having a right to a free press does NOT give you the right to take money from others to pay for your means of printing and distribution, only that the government cannot interfere in your running a press.
Having a right to health care, therefore, does NOT give you the right to take money from others to pay for your procedures, only that the government cannot interfere with your ability to make health care decisions--but you want the government to do EXACTLY that.
@funisverygood If rights are subjective, then how do I defend things like the right to free speech and the right to due process to individuals who do not already believe in them?
@shanedk It occurs to me that people in the US already have a right to health care in PRECISELY the same sense that they have a right to a free press. And, if it wasn't for government meddling and support of the AMA and other cartels that act to restrict the supply of medical services, health care would be rather cheap (while still giving doctors an excellent living).
This is an eloquent discussion of the issue and has given me an even greater appreciation fo the Constitution and the government that our founding fathers intended. EXCELLENT!
This is an eloquent discussion of the issue and has given me an even greater appreciation fo the Constitution and the government that our founding fathers intended. EXCELLENT!
This is an eloquent discussion of the issue and has given me an even greater appreciation fo the Constitution and the government that our founding fathers intended. EXCELLENT!
"The contract that was signed in the USA is the Social Security card making you liable for the debt via the 14th amendment. Read "The Red Amendment"."
As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, your argument is that when a representative of the people takes the oath of office, consent is given by the people. This seems to work, but is not representation (at least, the way it is now) coercion for the people who lose, since even those who don't vote must accept the representation of the elected representative?
@Surhotchaperchlorome Fraud implies an intent to deceive that a later violation of their oath does not necessarily imply existed at the time of taking the oath. It would, however, fall under the general category of malfeasance (the taking of actions which you have previously formally agreed to not take). This is generally a civil issue, which would mean a government official doing this has to be recognized as not being authorized to do so in order to be sued for it.
@vspqbd Actually, intent is very important in many crimes, definitely including fraud. Fraud requires intentionally misleading someone as to the actual state of things to your betterment at their expense.
@evensgrey No, fraud is just misleading people. The intent covers the actions that lead to the people being misled, not to anyone's personal beliefs. In fact, a lot of con men buy their own cons and begin to believe they really can do the things they pretend to do. That doesn't make it any less a fraud.
@shanedk Con men who buy their own cons will fail stupidly at them, since cons only work if the person working them understands what they're doing.
In any case, being wrong is a very different thing than committing fraud. LOTS of people are wrong about all kinds of things without committing fraud. You have to know or suspect that your statements are wrong for it to be fraud.
@evensgrey Completely wrong. Just look at all the dowsers and palm readers. James Randi himself can verify that most of them honestly believe they can do these supernatural things.
@shanedk Yes, and that makes them idiots, not frauds. If they actually BELIEVE they can do things they actually can't, they're just being stupid, even if they claim that they can do things they can't actually do.
@evensgrey But if someone prosecutes them for fraud, and it's shown in court that they can't possibly be doing what they claim to be doing, they'll be found guilty and it won't matter how much they SAY they believe it.
@vspqbd Exactly. Intent in the legal sense of the word has to do with action--the action which led to the result was deliberate, as opposed to accidental, which would be negligence.
@shanedk If it were that easy, there would be public prosecutors doing it, since a good conviction rate is always good for a prosecutor's career. It would also be being done by private citizens on jurisdictions that allow private prosecutions.
As a libertarian in the Free State Project, I am excited to see the American consciousness being aroused with the interest in understanding our documents, learning law, talking, asking questions and becoming informed. We've been living in shittu conditions so long, it's a kneejerk reaction to frustration that engenders ideas of rejecting any governance at all. Given an opportunity to live with restored liberties and a thriving economy, all would see the beauty of American constititionalism.
I have a hard time understanding the people who question the fact that there is a governent at all, I don't think they have thought the entire thing through at all. It may not be perfect but the beginning of how this republic was set up is absolutely amazing and if it were to return to much of the original intentions combined with what we have learned throughout history e.g. Slavery is not good, prohibition not good, etc., we would be living in a near paradise.
Overall not bad except you seemed to not mention there are parts of teh Constitution that deal with us. I agree that the Bill of Rights is directed at the Federal/Central government (and now state/local governments) but the parts where it outlines what type of government we have, what each branches powers are, and that it can tax does deal with us.
There is no connection I know of that connects Tyndale to More, but, I'm open to info. Would you place the same derision on those such as Cromwell, and Elizabeth I for torturing, hanging, drawing and quartering innocent people for violation of unjust law? I hope so, b/c I am enjoying your channel, and my perception of your prejudice is dampening my enthusiasm. Please help me, here.
@tjttzcspplt Heck, even Wikipedia will help you out there:
"Moynahan writes that More 'despised, feared and loathed Tyndale; he, and his English Testament, were the obsessions of More's life...' Monynahan makes the case that More was a powerful factor in the betrayal and death of Tyndale."
@tjttzcspplt And yes, I have the same derision towards Cromwell and the others.
My stepfather is Scottish. He said that there was a disgrace in his family line where one of his ancestors was beheaded for treason against the Crown. I told him that, in all probability, it was a moral honor rather than a disgrace. He said he agreed.
@tjttzcspplt STOP LYING, and STOP telling people that I've blocked you. You are NOT blocked, so actually ANSWER the data put to you or SHUT THE FUCK UP.
@tjttzcspplt More was every bit as responsible for Tyndale's "execution" (murder) than anyone else, and hundreds more were executed during his tenure as Chancellor.
hey shane, interesting series. i have a question pertaining to individual states' rights. you mentioned in this video that the tacit consent argument is a poor argument as it applies to the u.s. constitution. however, isn't tacit consent more or less what our founding fathers had in mind by giving the individual states the right to govern things such as morality?
The states existed before the Constitution. It was the states that ratified the Constitution and created the Federal government. They didn't give states the "right" to do ANYTHING. They just placed certain limitations on them.
ok, but what i'm saying is is that tacit consent still holds true, does it not? if not on a national level, then at least on a state level, doesn't it?
i don't understand. i mean i know each state has their own constitution. so what happens if i live in a state where i feel the constitution of that state has a law or laws which restricts my freedom?
ok. but what happens if both of those avenues fail? take possession of marijuana for instance. won't a federal court just say it's a state issue? and if you lobby for legalization in your state, and it gets turned down, what then?
but why, if we are truly free, should that amount of citizen have to be any more than one voice? it doesn't make sense to me. as much as i'd like to believe that we are truly free, we aren't. we do sacrifice our freedom for security, every one of us. don't we?
also, let's consider something like seatbelt laws. most people don't like them for the very reason that they're not harming anyone by not wearing them. however, the death rate in auto collisions has decreased because of such laws. shouldn't this be taken into consideration?
If you're going to be THAT weaselly about it, you can use the concept to justify any old tyranny you want, including restrictions on sex and basic economic transactions.
They're money-making scams for the state. Every piece of data that exists says we're better off without them. When Montana had no speed limits, accidents and fatalities dropped dramatically.
well, that's certainly something to look into. could you direct me to any study which shows this? well, i gotta go for now. like i said, interesting series. i'll check out the others when i get a chance.
Shane, this is a great video. I will share this with as many people as I can. If Americans understood this short video, this would be a completely different country.
So, we don't have to consent to being a part of the United States because the government doesn't infringe on my natural rights due to the restraints provided in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Shane, I wish you could teach every high school student in the nation. Can you imagine if every student understood the Constitution and its meaning? Thanks for doing this series!
The vexing thing about this is that there's a course, taught in every high school in the US, that SHOULD explain all this (among other things). It's usually called 'civics', or something similar. It's also mandatory for immigrants to the US to pass a similar course before they can be naturalized and become citizens. If it taught the TRUTH about this stuff, things would have to be VERY different.
They have to take the oath because they are formally renouncing their prior obligations to other states and powers and officially accepting the obligations of citizenship in the US. I just checked the wording, and it does not include the notion of accepting restrictions on action in the Constitution, just it's defense. (Restrictions on action in valid laws are in place on all persons within the US anyway, so that doesn't come up.)
I love the sheer arrogance of this position. There are two positions on the Constitution that have been accepted since it was created: Originalist and Living Document. You come along and say that those two positions are wrong and came up with a third one.
Like someone else asked a week ago, what organizations are you referring to? You can't leave that one blank and expect people to accept it. Name the groups that are taking contradictory positions in regards to the constitution.
I didn't "come up" with a third one; I used the one the FOUNDERS THEMSELVES said to use.
If you haven't encountered anyone making the other two arguments, all I have to say is that you're not paying attention. I especially get inundated with the Living Text argument all the time!
WOW! This is the best proof ever that brain washing can override intelligence.
The first half of this video states the Anarchist position perfectly but then in the second part you completely throw out the idea of consent and say that the constitution limits government power and therefore its abuses are legitimate...
Talk about cognitive dissonance.
Please re-watch the first part of your video again and realize that a constitution does not address the issue of consent.
This argument sounds like you are implying the United States is a true democracy, one where every citizen should have a voice. This is not the case. We are a republic, one where we choose elected officials and they make the decisions for us.
We do not consent to the laws by being born here, but by being here. That is what the 200 years of constitutional law states. You misrepresent that point to something that is invalid.
Name the organizations you are complaining about, otherwise a strawman.
The founders were just 40 guys in that got together and wrote some stuff down on a paper and called it the constitution. How does that create an obligation on my part to pay taxes to them? Think about it. Should I have to pay taxes to every group of 40 people who write a constitution? What's so special about the constitution Tommy J. and his buddies wrote up? Like you said, I didn't agree to it. Can I write a constitution and collect taxes? If not, why?
Well actually I think the best thing about this logic of legitimacy is that the government CAN rightfully collect taxes... from THEMSELVES. Swearing an oath to uphold the constitution makes one liable for it's duties. They have given their consent to be governed. Those 40 people? They created a contract amongst themselves. Totally legit.
It's beautiful really. If this were a just country, you could simply ask state agents to show you a contract with your signature on it. Contract or no dice 8)
If any part of the constitution that restricts our rights is illegitimate then is the first article illegitimate when it talks about congress' power to lay and collect taxes (restricting our property rights)?
It's illegitimate if you think that article applies to people who haven't consented. Remember, consent is given when taking the oath to uphold it's duties and restrictions. Taxes can be collected from anyone who has taken that oath or the oaths of the state constitutions.
Well, i will be thrown in a cage where people are beaten and raped if i don't pay the taxes that congress lays so obviously it does apply to non state individuals.
Oh I won't argue with you about what they'll do to you. The argument always ends "but they'll do bad things to me" and rightfully so. Force is the man behind the curtain. They point a gun at us and cover it with the constitution...
But your question was about what the constitution does, not what people will do, and I answered that to the best of my ability in the context of shanedk's video as per my moniker 8)
As long as you don't confuse legitimacy with actuality, all is well in logic land XD
my question was about whether shanedk considers article 1 legitimate. If he doesn't then he's some kind of anti statist or anarchist or whatever and if he does then his reasoning is inconsistent. I just always thought he was a minarchist.
"Since you have the freedom to leave..." HAHAHAHA What dumbass wrote that? Maybe 5% can just up and leave but most are bound by their jobs and family and have no real means to just leave the country. That's one of the dumbest things I've heard. Tacit consent. LOL! It's like Stefan Mol. said, the gov rules with a gun and no one can tell it to go fark off because they WILL use the gun.
The patriot act changed ALOT of things. For example you can have a gun. The goverment will make it impossible to get the bullets. This is the root of the problem and the acts of govmnt we feel we are up against.
I was like 'Yes, finally', that was my first thought when the consent thing was braught up.
The constitution is there to limit government. That was actually one of my major problems with Prop 8 in California; any law that governs the people, not the government, does not belong in any constitution, in my opinion
So under that logic Obama can no longer be president after he blatantly violated the constitution (three times)?
40joel 1 month ago
@40joel If only it worked that way...
shanedk 1 month ago
I want to hug you. no homo
SilvaSquirrel 4 months ago
@SilvaSquirrel Aww!
shanedk 4 months ago
Imagine America as a grand pine tree.
Its roots are the Constitution, woven with love.
The trunk and lower branches are established growth.
At the top is the growth tip, amendments, cultural changes, improvements.
The tree must grow horizontally (conservatively) and vertically (liberally) to be healthy.
If you turn the tree upside down so the growth tip is buried and the Constitution is up top, the tree will die.
The Constitution must nourish the tree and keep it steady but not block its growth.
eastariel 6 months ago
@eastariel That is the most elaborate and confusing metaphor I have seen in my life.
Sewblon 1 month ago
@Sewblon
Sorry. I'll simplify it.
America needs both conservative and liberal parties (left wing and right) to grow and thrive.
The conservative party helps us benefit from old traditions, and the liberal party helps us to embrace new ones.
I'm a gardener. I like plant metaphors. But you can use an eagle if you wish. And eagle needs two wings to fly.
eastariel 1 month ago
@eastariel Ok fine. But the constitution, does it require our consent or not?
Sewblon 3 weeks ago
@Sewblon With what I get from this video, no. The constitution doesn't require our consent because it only applies to the government. The constitution should only delineate what the government can/cannot do. If it inhibits our rights at all, or puts any limitation on the people, it is an "illegitimate" section and needs to be abolished, from what I understand. All it does is protect our rights, so all we must consent to are the people using the constitution and modern legislation.
GuitarMannnnnn 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The state has always been illegitimate.
andyissemicool 7 months ago
I'm watching these out of order (because a later one appeared on my suggestions list), which is probably a disservice to you. The argument this video contains is brilliant, and to me it is original thinking -- if you originated it, I'm in awe, and if you found and adapted it, well done. BUT, what about the "Congress shall have the power to" parts of the Constitution; those are the ones individuals object to. Government has the power to tax us and arrest us -- that DOES have to do with us.
gmsherry1953 7 months ago
@gmsherry1953 ... I'm bewildered. Please tell us... which ones are those?
tazztt1 5 months ago
@tazztt1 I'm bewildered by your question. Which ones of what are those what? Which are the "Congress shall have the power to" parts of the Constitution? Primarily, Article 1, Section 8: Lay and collect taxes, provide for defense and "general welfare," borrow money, regulate commerce, coin money, grant copyrights and patents, declare war. The "general welfare" and commerce clauses have been interpreted to allow Congress to do basically anything it wants to.
gmsherry1953 5 months ago
@gmsherry1953 ... That's not 'the power to' bonehead... those are congress' responsibilities to SERVE the people, not POWERS.
tazztt1 5 months ago
@tazztt1 Don't start a flame war with me, you ignoramus. Article 8 begins "The Congress shall have power ..." Not responsibility, POWER. If you don't like that, argue with James Madison. Shanedk's position is that the non-consent of the governed does not matter, because the Constitution constrains only government. I admire that argument but respectfully disagree (I respect him; you, not so much). The Constitution empowers government to tax, regulate, and imprison us, with or without our consent.
gmsherry1953 5 months ago
@gmsherry1953 "Not responsibility, POWER."
You can't have one without the other.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk I agree. Tazztt1 is denying Congress has power, saying they only have the responsibility to serve. As you say, they can't have one without the other. So, they definitely DO have powers, and those powers can be used to affect the citizens who never gave their consent. Your thesis that the Constitution only restrains the government is not valid because it also gives Congress POWER over those citizens -- power it's supposed to use to serve, but power nevertheless.
gmsherry1953 5 months ago
@gmsherry1953 But they also have the responsibility to NOT use that power for anything other than the national defense or general welfare, and are restricted from using the power for many things under Section 9, the Bill of Rights, and other amendments.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk Let's go back to what started this. Your thesis in this video, as I understand it, is that the non-consent of the governed does not matter, because the Constitution does not apply to the governed, only to the government itself, which it limits or constrains. I am in awe at the originality and brilliance of that argument, but I still think it's wrong, because the Constitution gives the government authority -- empowers it -- to tax, regulate and imprison us. It DOES apply to us.
gmsherry1953 5 months ago
@gmsherry1953 ... Ignoramous? Wow, I'm offended. Article 8? Didn't know we had an article 8, please cite it for us.
tazztt1 5 months ago
@tazztt1 Congratulations. I made a typo. Does that make you feel smarter? If so, enjoy the illusion. I meant Article 1, Section 8, which I got right the FIRST time, if you'd been paying attention then. I'm finished with you; you're not worth talking with.
gmsherry1953 5 months ago
I particularly like this lecture......I can't believe I once called you a "nobody".....Good thing ignorance is not a character flaw..... ;)
ninjacatmagic 7 months ago
So it doesnt affect the individual? Care to explain "Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States?"
DrinkingClassPhlsphr 9 months ago
@DrinkingClassPhlsphr Yes: the Supreme Court abrogated the Constitution by using the Commerce Clause outside of its meaning, allowing the Federal government to assume powers the Constitution doesn't give it.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk- I know that was kind of my point. It is funny that you bring up abrogating the Constitution when referring to judicial review of the SC. I would be interested to find where in the Constitution, it states the SC has the authority to validate, or invalidate, laws. Article III only covers the make up of the court and parties allowed to have their cases heard.
**I think that the application of JR by the SC is a positive thing, and think it should be added as an Amend to the Constituion.
DrinkingClassPhlsphr 9 months ago
@DrinkingClassPhlsphr Article III does give the Supreme Court jurisdiction in all controversies under the Constitution, so they do get to decide cases like that. But they do NOT get to make up their own interpretation of the Constitution and employ it at their whim, yet, they do so all the time.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk Agreed, but my argument is that, by the design, JR applies to each case on an INDIVIDUAL basis and does not AUTOMATICALLY negate any law of the same ilk, as the "informed" (judges, academics, media, politicians, etc) like to claim. Now logic would state that precedent will overturn it, but my contention is with the de facto automatic overturning being portrayed as de jure.
DrinkingClassPhlsphr 9 months ago
@DrinkingClassPhlsphr I think it's clear that this doesn't really happen. Look, for example, at how many gun laws continue to get passed no matter how much the Supreme Court says they violate the Second Amendment.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk- First off the 2nd Amend tends to be an exception, to just about all topics. Now dont mistake my "de facto" comment to refer to future laws. Due to the use of precedents in our judicial system, it doesnt make sense to pass a law that will, inevitablly, be overturned. The comment was intended to refer to the overturning of laws existing at the time of the decision (i.e. Buckley v. Valeo did not, in and of itself, overturn existing contribution laws).
DrinkingClassPhlsphr 9 months ago
@DrinkingClassPhlsphr No, but if prosecutors know that a judge is going to throw out a case because the Supreme Court called a similar case unconstitutional, the prosecutor won't try. That's the power of precedent.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk I understand that concept, and that is what my comment was about. A DA not pressing charges or politicians passing new laws to suspend/amend their version b/c of precedent would be de facto applications. The "if this, then that" ideology represented by the "informed" that law "X" is now null and void based on the sole premise of law "Y" being over turned is what I was referring to as the de jure.
DrinkingClassPhlsphr 9 months ago
First we have not been under "the Constitution" since the time of the civil war and what we have now does not even vaguely resemble such. Second, silence is consent as a moral and political principle. If the people do not object they have given tacit consent. Third Lysanders position is good, close, but a bit extreme and not accurate history. I agree with most. Tyranny is simply wrong. The majority have voted and that is more then tacit consent, it is participation. Enjoy the vid's thanks.
donsdigitaldig 10 months ago
The Constitution never legitimized/authorized slavery. It was already an institution. Article 1, section 2, deals with counting of persons for representation/taxes. It says “…by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.” They chose to count 3/5ths of the slaves to limit the number of southern white representatives. Slave owners wanted the slaves counted fully = POWER!
ZakMckracken1 1 year ago
@ZakMckracken1 And the free states wanted them to not count at all, for the same reason. That's why it's called the "3/5ths compromise."
shanedk 1 year ago
Strangely the Constitution can be a paradox like life is. Especially when foreign nations are using our own Constitution against us and take away our rights. Usually using 'Free-Trade' as an excuse to justify communising our nation.
Licmycat 1 year ago
@Licmycat US Constitution is to protect Rights. When viewing our unalienable Rights from the vantage point of science, it becomes clear they apply to all Life, from bacteria to humans, and Social systems, including Charles Darwin’s research; as in some Grand Unification principle for all Living-systems (see my channel video). The Laws of Nature trumps mortals in power; a new understanding of these Rights may help make this world a better place to live.
Mike10four 1 year ago
@Mike10four Yeah. Isn't it horrible that too many lawmakers these days make up excuses for their perception of the Constitution to take AWAY our rights? In fact, it seemed sort'of glaring that an invasion of foreigners attempts to take us over using our Constitution against us. I'm wondering if they blame me as i used to leave copies of parts of the Constitution out in public....:( And I've had probs with issues attached ever since.
Licmycat 1 year ago
Thanks to Obama please stop your terrorism
Google
U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision: Constitution is Void
411American 1 year ago
I'd like to thank you for opening my eyes. I'd been a "tacit consent"er previously.
rkyeun 1 year ago
Comment removed
knowwaie 1 year ago
23 people live in comunist china, or north korea, or in a place where the thumbs down really means they liked the vid,or they are just really confused and have never lived in a nation where speaking contrary to the state results in execution,or life in prison.
justaman6972 1 year ago
The Living-constitution preamble: We the Oligarchy of the US, in Order to form a more perfect central government, establish only criminal Justice, insure controlling Tranquility, provide for the common redistribution, promote social Welfare, and secure Liberty to the Oligarchy and their Posterity, do establish this erratic unpublished constitution for the US.
As for the people, they are on the road to serfdom.
Mike10four 1 year ago 8
you freedom to object to the constitution is protected by the constitution
strawberEfieldz4ever 1 year ago
Where do the rights get their legitimacy shane ?
funisverygood 1 year ago
@funisverygood Rights do not need to have legitimacy. The force that would act against them does. And if that force is not legitimate, it should not be allowed.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk If they do not need legitimacy then who decides what rights people get?
funisverygood 1 year ago
@funisverygood Invalid question. By asking "who decides," you assume that it has to be decided by SOMEONE. That's an invalid assumption. No one has to decide what rights people have. Someone DOES have to decide to use force to take those rights away, and that someone MUST justify what he is doing.
Your fascistic proposal would shift the burden of proof on the person asserting his rights. That's tyranny, and it's evil.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
1) Some rights are positive eg healthcare.
2) who decides what is a legitimate force which takes away peoples rights?
funisverygood 1 year ago
@funisverygood The ONLY legitimate use of force is in the defense against or prevention of other force.
Your 1) is just a pathetic excuse for tyranny.
shanedk 1 year ago
@funisverygood Having a right to a free press does NOT give you the right to take money from others to pay for your means of printing and distribution, only that the government cannot interfere in your running a press.
Having a right to health care, therefore, does NOT give you the right to take money from others to pay for your procedures, only that the government cannot interfere with your ability to make health care decisions--but you want the government to do EXACTLY that.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk For the last time: RIGHTS ARE SUBJECTIVE NOT OBJECTIVE
funisverygood 1 year ago
@funisverygood Putting it in all caps doesn't automatically make it true. What is it about rights that are subjective?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Reminds me of Fringeelements saying that "Rights, especially property rights are an intersubjective consensus."
And respond to any criticism of this by saying that it is descriptive.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@shanedk So many debates are over rights: abortion , death penalty etc
funisverygood 1 year ago
@funisverygood I thought you looked familiar. Did you ever buy that basic econ textbook, or are you still spouting nonsense?
Considering that you're getting trounced in the comments here, I'll bet it's the latter.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@Virgil0211
As would I.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@funisverygood If rights are subjective, then how do I defend things like the right to free speech and the right to due process to individuals who do not already believe in them?
Sewblon 3 weeks ago
@shanedk It occurs to me that people in the US already have a right to health care in PRECISELY the same sense that they have a right to a free press. And, if it wasn't for government meddling and support of the AMA and other cartels that act to restrict the supply of medical services, health care would be rather cheap (while still giving doctors an excellent living).
evensgrey 1 year ago
This is an eloquent discussion of the issue and has given me an even greater appreciation fo the Constitution and the government that our founding fathers intended. EXCELLENT!
ObiWanBenKanobi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is an eloquent discussion of the issue and has given me an even greater appreciation fo the Constitution and the government that our founding fathers intended. EXCELLENT!
ObiWanBenKanobi 1 year ago
This is an eloquent discussion of the issue and has given me an even greater appreciation fo the Constitution and the government that our founding fathers intended. EXCELLENT!
ObiWanBenKanobi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The contract that was signed in the USA is the Social Security card making you liable for the debt via the 14th amendment. Read "The Red Amendment"."
Is that true?
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, your argument is that when a representative of the people takes the oath of office, consent is given by the people. This seems to work, but is not representation (at least, the way it is now) coercion for the people who lose, since even those who don't vote must accept the representation of the elected representative?
Psychosmurf547 1 year ago
@Psychosmurf547 No, when a representative takes the oath of office, THAT REPRESENTATIVE consents to be bound by the Constitution.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Oh O.K. I see now. It is only the representative that has to consent since the people are not subject to the constitution anyway.
Psychosmurf547 1 year ago
@shanedk
Does this mean that whenever a government official (e.g. politician, policeman, etc) violates the constitution, that that person is committing fraud?
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome They're violating their oath of office at least.
shanedk 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome Fraud implies an intent to deceive that a later violation of their oath does not necessarily imply existed at the time of taking the oath. It would, however, fall under the general category of malfeasance (the taking of actions which you have previously formally agreed to not take). This is generally a civil issue, which would mean a government official doing this has to be recognized as not being authorized to do so in order to be sued for it.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey
"Fraud implies an intent"
Intent means nothing.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd Actually, intent is very important in many crimes, definitely including fraud. Fraud requires intentionally misleading someone as to the actual state of things to your betterment at their expense.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey No, fraud is just misleading people. The intent covers the actions that lead to the people being misled, not to anyone's personal beliefs. In fact, a lot of con men buy their own cons and begin to believe they really can do the things they pretend to do. That doesn't make it any less a fraud.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Case in point: the government and health care.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@shanedk Con men who buy their own cons will fail stupidly at them, since cons only work if the person working them understands what they're doing.
In any case, being wrong is a very different thing than committing fraud. LOTS of people are wrong about all kinds of things without committing fraud. You have to know or suspect that your statements are wrong for it to be fraud.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey Completely wrong. Just look at all the dowsers and palm readers. James Randi himself can verify that most of them honestly believe they can do these supernatural things.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Yes, and that makes them idiots, not frauds. If they actually BELIEVE they can do things they actually can't, they're just being stupid, even if they claim that they can do things they can't actually do.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey But if someone prosecutes them for fraud, and it's shown in court that they can't possibly be doing what they claim to be doing, they'll be found guilty and it won't matter how much they SAY they believe it.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Wouldn't it be a thought crime, otherwise?
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd Exactly. Intent in the legal sense of the word has to do with action--the action which led to the result was deliberate, as opposed to accidental, which would be negligence.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk If it were that easy, there would be public prosecutors doing it, since a good conviction rate is always good for a prosecutor's career. It would also be being done by private citizens on jurisdictions that allow private prosecutions.
evensgrey 1 year ago
the line you made about gangsters and protection money is 100% the way it is right now. Thank you for putting it in the easiest terms EVER.
funder1der 1 year ago 6
excellent series.
burnhippiesforfuel 1 year ago
As a libertarian in the Free State Project, I am excited to see the American consciousness being aroused with the interest in understanding our documents, learning law, talking, asking questions and becoming informed. We've been living in shittu conditions so long, it's a kneejerk reaction to frustration that engenders ideas of rejecting any governance at all. Given an opportunity to live with restored liberties and a thriving economy, all would see the beauty of American constititionalism.
N1k1mon 1 year ago
I have a hard time understanding the people who question the fact that there is a governent at all, I don't think they have thought the entire thing through at all. It may not be perfect but the beginning of how this republic was set up is absolutely amazing and if it were to return to much of the original intentions combined with what we have learned throughout history e.g. Slavery is not good, prohibition not good, etc., we would be living in a near paradise.
N1k1mon 1 year ago
@N1k1mon i wish i could vote this one up more then once.
funder1der 1 year ago
Overall not bad except you seemed to not mention there are parts of teh Constitution that deal with us. I agree that the Bill of Rights is directed at the Federal/Central government (and now state/local governments) but the parts where it outlines what type of government we have, what each branches powers are, and that it can tax does deal with us.
WhitePowerForEngland 1 year ago
C,mon, Shane. I expect more of you than parroting the likes of Christopher Hitchens.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
There is no connection I know of that connects Tyndale to More, but, I'm open to info. Would you place the same derision on those such as Cromwell, and Elizabeth I for torturing, hanging, drawing and quartering innocent people for violation of unjust law? I hope so, b/c I am enjoying your channel, and my perception of your prejudice is dampening my enthusiasm. Please help me, here.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt Heck, even Wikipedia will help you out there:
"Moynahan writes that More 'despised, feared and loathed Tyndale; he, and his English Testament, were the obsessions of More's life...' Monynahan makes the case that More was a powerful factor in the betrayal and death of Tyndale."
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt And yes, I have the same derision towards Cromwell and the others.
My stepfather is Scottish. He said that there was a disgrace in his family line where one of his ancestors was beheaded for treason against the Crown. I told him that, in all probability, it was a moral honor rather than a disgrace. He said he agreed.
shanedk 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt In what way am I parroting Hitchens?
shanedk 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt STOP LYING, and STOP telling people that I've blocked you. You are NOT blocked, so actually ANSWER the data put to you or SHUT THE FUCK UP.
shanedk 1 year ago
Thomas More was the one arrested, tortured and executed. I'm not sure what you meant by that. Please elaborate.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt More was every bit as responsible for Tyndale's "execution" (murder) than anyone else, and hundreds more were executed during his tenure as Chancellor.
shanedk 1 year ago
Another good set of refutations of those arguments of consent:
freerepublic(DOT)com/focus/news/666806/posts
("Taxation is Theft" by sourcery)
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
/watch?v=K2MxiQR4CIQ ("'Love It or Leave It'" by FearsEdge)
Another rebuttal of that bogus argument.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
hey shane, interesting series. i have a question pertaining to individual states' rights. you mentioned in this video that the tacit consent argument is a poor argument as it applies to the u.s. constitution. however, isn't tacit consent more or less what our founding fathers had in mind by giving the individual states the right to govern things such as morality?
cristoballs 2 years ago
The states existed before the Constitution. It was the states that ratified the Constitution and created the Federal government. They didn't give states the "right" to do ANYTHING. They just placed certain limitations on them.
shanedk 2 years ago
ok, but what i'm saying is is that tacit consent still holds true, does it not? if not on a national level, then at least on a state level, doesn't it?
cristoballs 2 years ago
No, each state has their own constitution which deals with that.
shanedk 2 years ago
i don't understand. i mean i know each state has their own constitution. so what happens if i live in a state where i feel the constitution of that state has a law or laws which restricts my freedom?
cristoballs 2 years ago
If it restricts your freedoms as set out in the US Constitution, you take it to Federal court. If not, you lobby your state to change it.
shanedk 2 years ago
ok. but what happens if both of those avenues fail? take possession of marijuana for instance. won't a federal court just say it's a state issue? and if you lobby for legalization in your state, and it gets turned down, what then?
cristoballs 2 years ago
What do people ALWAYS do when liberty is denied them?
shanedk 2 years ago
i assume the answer you're looking for is revolution. but this is not ALWAYS the case. is it?
cristoballs 2 years ago
i mean, that may very well be the case when people feel they have little to lose, but the rule does not apply in every situation.
cristoballs 2 years ago
At that point, it's usually either revolution or slavery.
shanedk 2 years ago
i'm not sure i understand? at which point?
cristoballs 2 years ago
At the point which no amount of citizen outcry will change the government.
shanedk 2 years ago
but why, if we are truly free, should that amount of citizen have to be any more than one voice? it doesn't make sense to me. as much as i'd like to believe that we are truly free, we aren't. we do sacrifice our freedom for security, every one of us. don't we?
cristoballs 2 years ago
It shouldn't have to be. If you're not harming anyone else, you should be left alone.
shanedk 2 years ago
i agree to a certain point. the problem is, how does one define harm?
cristoballs 2 years ago
also, let's consider something like seatbelt laws. most people don't like them for the very reason that they're not harming anyone by not wearing them. however, the death rate in auto collisions has decreased because of such laws. shouldn't this be taken into consideration?
cristoballs 2 years ago
No. No one else is harmed by your decision whether or not to wear a seatbelt. Only yourself, so it's your choice.
shanedk 2 years ago
maybe not physically harmed. but there are a number of ways others can be affected by the death of another person.
cristoballs 2 years ago
If you're going to be THAT weaselly about it, you can use the concept to justify any old tyranny you want, including restrictions on sex and basic economic transactions.
shanedk 2 years ago
ok, fair enough. perhaps seatbelt laws are a bad example. what are your thoughts on speed limits?
cristoballs 2 years ago
They're money-making scams for the state. Every piece of data that exists says we're better off without them. When Montana had no speed limits, accidents and fatalities dropped dramatically.
shanedk 2 years ago
well, that's certainly something to look into. could you direct me to any study which shows this? well, i gotta go for now. like i said, interesting series. i'll check out the others when i get a chance.
cristoballs 2 years ago
I'll have to dig them up, but you should be able to find them on a Google Scholar search.
shanedk 2 years ago
Shane, this is a great video. I will share this with as many people as I can. If Americans understood this short video, this would be a completely different country.
Elasaltaculos 2 years ago
So, we don't have to consent to being a part of the United States because the government doesn't infringe on my natural rights due to the restraints provided in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
KagarBeardtooth 2 years ago
That's the idea. There's a difference between theory and practice, of course.
shanedk 2 years ago
Doesn't that make the Defense of Marriage Act an illegitimate law that is unconstitutional based on everything that was stated?
Tylonous 2 years ago
Shane, I wish you could teach every high school student in the nation. Can you imagine if every student understood the Constitution and its meaning? Thanks for doing this series!
rpetty 2 years ago
The vexing thing about this is that there's a course, taught in every high school in the US, that SHOULD explain all this (among other things). It's usually called 'civics', or something similar. It's also mandatory for immigrants to the US to pass a similar course before they can be naturalized and become citizens. If it taught the TRUTH about this stuff, things would have to be VERY different.
evensgrey 2 years ago
Comment removed
NoMorFear 2 years ago
Thanks for the video, I will put it to great use. Trust me :)
DarkAngelGRM 2 years ago
Shane, I (among many) appreciate your efforts here.
Regards
miamizsun 2 years ago
I believe naturalized citizen take the oath so they consent. Why should they have to take the oath?
realk1234 2 years ago
They have to take the oath because they are formally renouncing their prior obligations to other states and powers and officially accepting the obligations of citizenship in the US. I just checked the wording, and it does not include the notion of accepting restrictions on action in the Constitution, just it's defense. (Restrictions on action in valid laws are in place on all persons within the US anyway, so that doesn't come up.)
evensgrey 2 years ago
"If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure"
This quote found in Federalist #51 not in #10
realk1234 2 years ago
Thanks!
shanedk 2 years ago
I love the sheer arrogance of this position. There are two positions on the Constitution that have been accepted since it was created: Originalist and Living Document. You come along and say that those two positions are wrong and came up with a third one.
Like someone else asked a week ago, what organizations are you referring to? You can't leave that one blank and expect people to accept it. Name the groups that are taking contradictory positions in regards to the constitution.
malestrithe 2 years ago
I didn't "come up" with a third one; I used the one the FOUNDERS THEMSELVES said to use.
If you haven't encountered anyone making the other two arguments, all I have to say is that you're not paying attention. I especially get inundated with the Living Text argument all the time!
shanedk 2 years ago
WOW! This is the best proof ever that brain washing can override intelligence.
The first half of this video states the Anarchist position perfectly but then in the second part you completely throw out the idea of consent and say that the constitution limits government power and therefore its abuses are legitimate...
Talk about cognitive dissonance.
Please re-watch the first part of your video again and realize that a constitution does not address the issue of consent.
wizkid2000 2 years ago
NOWHERE did I EVER say that abuses of the government were legitimate. Watch the video again.
shanedk 2 years ago
Well good! Then we can both agree that all forms of statism are coercive including constitutional republics and are therefor illegitimate.
wizkid2000 2 years ago
If the state initiates force, yes, it's illegitimate.
shanedk 2 years ago
So doesn't that make the military and law enforcement illegitimate?
aunicornist 2 years ago
Not if they're using force defensively.
shanedk 2 years ago
Most of the time it's not defensively. Cops are more like state-sponsored thugs than anything.
aunicornist 2 years ago
Hence my use of the word "if."
shanedk 2 years ago
There's a difference between consenting to government and consenting to the constitution.
Virgil0211 2 years ago
when one is being coerced there can be no consent.
I as an anarchist, I believe people should be free to consent to governments or constitutions... just not Coerced!
If one can not opt out then whether its a constitutional republic, or a democracy or a monarchy or a communistic collective it is still tyranny.
wizkid2000 2 years ago 8
Arguments could be made for a moral benefit of slavery and for the greater good.
How many black people reading this who had ancestors which were slaves would rather live in uncolonialized Africa than America?
Tenestra 2 years ago
This argument sounds like you are implying the United States is a true democracy, one where every citizen should have a voice. This is not the case. We are a republic, one where we choose elected officials and they make the decisions for us.
We do not consent to the laws by being born here, but by being here. That is what the 200 years of constitutional law states. You misrepresent that point to something that is invalid.
Name the organizations you are complaining about, otherwise a strawman.
JakobAmbrose 2 years ago
Great video. Very informative. I await future installments.
ThiefofKnives 2 years ago
Anarcho-Captialism FTW!
LibertarianOnline 2 years ago
But what about the roads?!?! (just joking)
ArtinEmil 2 years ago
And won't somebody PLEASE think of the children???
(just messing. lol).
I've always wanted to say that. XD
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Haha ^^
ArtinEmil 2 years ago 2
The founders were just 40 guys in that got together and wrote some stuff down on a paper and called it the constitution. How does that create an obligation on my part to pay taxes to them? Think about it. Should I have to pay taxes to every group of 40 people who write a constitution? What's so special about the constitution Tommy J. and his buddies wrote up? Like you said, I didn't agree to it. Can I write a constitution and collect taxes? If not, why?
There is no way to make govt legitimate
LibertarianOnline 2 years ago
Well actually I think the best thing about this logic of legitimacy is that the government CAN rightfully collect taxes... from THEMSELVES. Swearing an oath to uphold the constitution makes one liable for it's duties. They have given their consent to be governed. Those 40 people? They created a contract amongst themselves. Totally legit.
It's beautiful really. If this were a just country, you could simply ask state agents to show you a contract with your signature on it. Contract or no dice 8)
enotdetcelfer 2 years ago
SO. FUCKING. AWESOME.
Great video on this. I wish they would teach this in school... oh wait, the schools are run by the state.
enotdetcelfer 2 years ago
If any part of the constitution that restricts our rights is illegitimate then is the first article illegitimate when it talks about congress' power to lay and collect taxes (restricting our property rights)?
Robinsonero 2 years ago
It's illegitimate if you think that article applies to people who haven't consented. Remember, consent is given when taking the oath to uphold it's duties and restrictions. Taxes can be collected from anyone who has taken that oath or the oaths of the state constitutions.
enotdetcelfer 2 years ago
Well, i will be thrown in a cage where people are beaten and raped if i don't pay the taxes that congress lays so obviously it does apply to non state individuals.
Robinsonero 2 years ago
Oh I won't argue with you about what they'll do to you. The argument always ends "but they'll do bad things to me" and rightfully so. Force is the man behind the curtain. They point a gun at us and cover it with the constitution...
But your question was about what the constitution does, not what people will do, and I answered that to the best of my ability in the context of shanedk's video as per my moniker 8)
As long as you don't confuse legitimacy with actuality, all is well in logic land XD
enotdetcelfer 2 years ago
my question was about whether shanedk considers article 1 legitimate. If he doesn't then he's some kind of anti statist or anarchist or whatever and if he does then his reasoning is inconsistent. I just always thought he was a minarchist.
Robinsonero 2 years ago
@Robinsonero ANTI-STATISM!!! WOOOOTTT!!!!
ghengisconrad 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if you want watch these free movies google them in google video, end game, ring of power, zeigeist
28danimal 2 years ago
Doesn't the Constitution grant government the right to regulate commerce, collect taxes, provide for the common defense.... etc. etc? (see Section 8)
These don't sound like restrictions of power to me so much as assignment of powers.
TZ3k 2 years ago
Government is the art of taking from one group and giving to another. - Voltaire
ArtinEmil 2 years ago
Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
irock58 2 years ago
"Since you have the freedom to leave..." HAHAHAHA What dumbass wrote that? Maybe 5% can just up and leave but most are bound by their jobs and family and have no real means to just leave the country. That's one of the dumbest things I've heard. Tacit consent. LOL! It's like Stefan Mol. said, the gov rules with a gun and no one can tell it to go fark off because they WILL use the gun.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
The patriot act changed ALOT of things. For example you can have a gun. The goverment will make it impossible to get the bullets. This is the root of the problem and the acts of govmnt we feel we are up against.
MyFartsRock 2 years ago
"The constitution has nothing to do with you"
I was like 'Yes, finally', that was my first thought when the consent thing was braught up.
The constitution is there to limit government. That was actually one of my major problems with Prop 8 in California; any law that governs the people, not the government, does not belong in any constitution, in my opinion
technologysucks 2 years ago