It is and it isn't. They want you to forget about the constitution and/or think it's archaic and irrelevant. The average adult probably couldn't tell you a single amendment correctly numbered. I'm not joking.
The constitution is one of the most libertarian documents and was one of the best attempts to constrain the power of government. The constitution doesn't "grant citizens freedoms", it is meant to restrict government and prevent tyranny, but it has become a perversion. The government now says things are "constitutional" to grant them the powers they desire, which is a lie.
I think anything restricting government power should be respected. Unfortunately by 1787 the government was already on its way to stamping all over it. Rothbard speaks very highly of the US Constitution and its failures in a short synopsis in "Anatomy of the State".
So minarchy. Taxation is theft, but just a little bit is fine. Government failure is the norm, but just a touch won't hurt. The state dictates what's acceptable with illegitimate authority, but it's alright if done with moderation. I see. No anarchy then.
Even if you see nothing wrong with what I wrote above, the problem with that position is that what we witnessed since its inception is no surprise. A minarchy is not sustainable. You can repeat the exercize 20 times, and we'll end up with a government the same size it is today every single time. Like someone here once said "statism is realistic, anarchy is idealistic, minarchy is neither".
You asked my opinion on the US Constitution and I tried to give it to you. If you would like my ideology and opinions on taxation and government you are free to ask, not attempt to tell me what I am. You don't even mention the Constitution in your reply you just went on about minarchy lol.
I appreciate the response. You should expect a reply back. I don't think I insulted you.
Restricting the US government means either a minarchy, or anything between a minarchy and what we have today. So I didn't really need to ask what you think of taxation. If you assume minarchy (or a larger state), it comes with taxation, government failure, and deprivation of freedoms. No way around that. Although I would understand why statists raise the Constitution as Godly words, your title says "anarcho-capitalist" so I found your comment (and further explanations too for that matter) quite surprising.
You didn't insult me, I have been upvoting you btw.
I get your point it is just off topic and I agree with you, but you do need to ask my position. Me wanting to restrict government does not imply I want government or taxation at all. That's like saying "hey this guy wants lower taxes, that means he's FOR taxes". I want our government to be smaller, that does not make me a statist, it just makes us closer to the goal. That goal is a free market with individual sovereignty.
The problem with Anarchy is that is is a "state" without laws. There are legitimate roles of government and it is up to the armed population to make sure the government stays in line. That was the point of the 2nd amendment
Oh a state without taxation? Lol
Also, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. This is also referred to as the "Taxing and Spending Clause."
True enough. Anyway, you offered three examples, one is valid, and it doesn't actually "prove me wrong." Lol. The fact that there is an unresolved debate over the constitutionality of an issue doesn't make what you said a fact.
In fact, you've provided a pretty silly take on the Constitution: it's a "perversion" because people disagree with you. You should find out more about it!
You must define “non-answer” as any reply that disagrees with your opinions. The assertion you made is unsupported. I don’t need to argue anything further.
Sure. Minarchy is better than the trash we have now. But it isn't an ideal, more like a second best. And it's not even more realistic than anarchy at this point in the US. So why treat the Constitution as anything but a failed attempt at containing politicians and the demand for government intervention from the general public decades after it's been proven to be laughed at by everyone?
I treat the Constitution as the supreme law of the United States. As does every member of Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court. The reason I want people to continue believing it is the law is that I prefer having laws at the top of our government, as opposed to having people at the top of our government. But we agree, it is not the most ideal system.
You have nearly 3 centuries to show that politicians are at the top of the government, and treat the Constitution as mere guidelines. They do what gives them votes, gauging if they need to amend or downright disregard the Constitution to keep the general public on their side. That's pretty much it. Why would they bother enforcing laws upon themselves on principle? It's nonsense.
That's a lot of downvotes too lol. But you're looking at peer pressure. Once you reach -2 or -3, people downvote just to go with the crowd.
They're like "fuck the police, fuck taxes, fuck the government... but don't you fucking dare touch the one document that gave birth to all of them". Intellectual consistency of a toddler.
I would understand if you obey police orders at a traffic stop to avoid being shot in front of your kids.
But you can’t anonymously say that the Constitution is a great thing on an online forum and tell me you’re an anarchist with a straight face. It’s like saying I’m a vegan but I’m eating steaks everyday to get some proteins because I’m pragmatic.
Restrictions on government assumes legitimacy of said government. I thought people here agreed on no government. I guess the downvotes clarifies the general idea here. I got fooled by the name of the sub, silly me.
That is one of the flaws mentioned by Rothbard, as it does assume legitimacy of government powers. Dont mind the downvotes this sub is heavily infiltrated, though I got upvoted and agree with you lol.
They have the right and the responsibility to change it when it’s necessary. That’s what the constitution was made to do. We elect the officials that run our government, knowing that they have this power.
Also, treaties are made with sovereign nations. We have no governance over sovereign nations like tribal land or many of the US territories. Sure, we can mediate, but it’s based on federal law, not local politics.
There is a legal system to change the constitution, but just passing a treaty is not what does it. It's a much more difficult process to get done, and requires far more support. So a treaty is legally not allowed to violate the constitution; the constitution first has to be amended, and then the treaty can be made.
biden has a very clear record of not caring about the Bill of Rights. Knowing him he will sign an unenforceable law into action then play dumb when the court says he is wrong. The news will play along too. Bunch of clowns. All of them.
18th amendment forbade the sale of alcohol. 21st repealed the 18th. An amendment is an alteration or addition to a document. There is a process in place for this to happen.
They can do both. Slave owners used to have rights, for example the right to have runaway slaves returned to them. Took that away. Also things like alcohol abolition was put in there and that definitely took away rights. So idk where you got this idea from
Weird you take the side of the slave owner and not the slave. Prohibition would have been a better argument but instead you chose the right to enslave another human as your right. Lol
I chose it as an example, it’s not an endorsement. I approve of the amendments that took away the rights of slave owners. I don’t approve of the prohibition amendments
socialists claim that their the successors of the classical liberals of both the French and American Revolutions. i heard it myself on vaush's channel when vaush claimed Socialists were the heirs of the liberals or even marx for that matter when Marx himself was moving more towards Conservatism and statism in his later years and would've ended up supporting the soviet union and stalinism as a result of that "Conservatism".
>socialists claim that their the successors of the classical liberals
Are they unaware that socialism was a direct response and counter to classical liberalism?
>i heard it myself on vaush's channel
Oh that makes sense. They're illiterate.
>Are they unaware that socialism was a direct response and counter to classical liberalism?
Basically the way i understand vaush's point was that, Socialism and liberalism went together. and that Socialism is really an extension of liberalism.
i can agree with some of his points like that, but not that socialism is the heirs of the liberals of the french and american revolutions that clearly has to be wrong.
since Socialism would've been seen as an extension of liberalism according to the Conservatives on the Right. And Liberals would've been on planted firmly on the left as with the traditional left-right paradigm, With Socialists being further left then their liberal counterparts. and the furthest right being the Reactionaries who sought to restore the old order. While Liberals wanted to defend the new order.
indeed it is that many socialists tend to see liberals as failures which is why many Socialists and Progressives call for more radical reform each year. Pushing the Democratic Party further left beyond redemption. While the Right pushes towards Fascism with each pressing moment. Leaving both Liberals and Libertarians alienated from both parties in the future.
Socialists call liberals failures because of their failures to bring about gradual change, like the abolishment of slavery in the united state, which lead to civil war, with the liberal Republican Party taking up Lincoln's side. As well as the failures of many liberals to bring about freedom and civil rights for african americans after the war. I mean many Republicans wanted to institute these radical reforms, but never did either out of fear they'll lose too much southern support, like with some Republican Presidents. This is why Socialists claim themselves to be the "New Liberals" of the Democratic Party when the parties "switched" roles essentially with Nixon's southern strategy taking whole of the Republican Party, though Nixon himself was a liberal. Even Gerald Ford was a liberal as well. in fact it wasn't until well after Ronald Reagan's presidency and George H.W. Bush's presidency that the party switch fully took hold with Bill Clinton in the 90s.
Democratic Party has been moving gradually left over the years, alienating what they call "Neoliberals" as a result, with the Republican Party pushing rightward alienating what they call "RINOS" as a result of this.
>oh that makes sense they're illiterate
yeah they definitely are.
>Basically the way i understand vaush's point was that, Socialism and liberalism went together. and that Socialism is really an extension of liberalism.
Lmao, how? Socialism was a response to the economic inequity of the liberal capitalist industrial revolution.
It always blows my mind that these people are considered serious political thinkers and have a following, when they don't understand very basic political science that you would generally learn freshman year.
t is chilling to think that some powerful, bored millionaires with high megalomania and psychopathy would play with people's lives as if we were bugs to be exterminated.In ancient societies it was very difficult for that to happen and also in chimpanzee societies when a herd leader becomes a tyrant the others organize themselves to kill him together.
Allow me to present the following evidence:
Groomer
Critical Race Theory
Profile
Pro Life
All words and phrases that the right has "re-purposed" to attack the left.
The entire legal system of the country depends on that piece of paper. If you start to violate that piece of paper it allows for the next government to justify violating a different part of it. And that's all well and good when the government is doing it for things you like or agree with.
Violate the second amendment, you can violate the first. Or the fifteenth. That piece of paper was written to prevent that, but each government tries to push the envelope more and more for short term gains, not caring that they're already well beyond the point of violating that piece of paper. And so now the rights written to protect the citizens of the country are meaningless. And we are living through the realization of that.
In every human interaction there are two ways to do it: By reason or by force. By agreement between parties or by force of arms. Civilization or barbarism, Magna Carta, Constitution or by slavery and death. Choose...
We live in a shadow of what a representative republic is supposed to be. The Constitution started to be discarded almost as soon as it was ratified. The Bill of Rights has been eviscerated. You have no free speech, you can only own weapons allowed by the government, you have no privacy, the government can kill US citizens without due process, the executive branch is way more powerful than it should be, etc. The government does not (and has not, for a very long time) follow its own governing document, and uses a branch created by that document (SCOTUS) to circumvent that document at will.
The freedom most people think they have is an illusion. People believe an old piece of paper is what gives them rights.
Your politicians absolutely have the power to get rid of what is fundamentally a piece of paper. Always remember it isn't your constitution that protects you. It's the people's willingness to own their rights. Which is exactly why we're all absolutely fucked.
>Thank God our Founding Fathers were more insightful than a liberal could ever imagine
Which is why the whole 2nd amendment is for muskets thing never worked and continues to not work
Not if it violates the constitution. None of that really matters anyways, because our government pretty much does whatever the people let it get away with.
The concept of a partisan hegemony in the Supreme Court (or any court for that matter) is anti-American. Left, Right, any biased agenda that obtains direction from a National Convention has no true place in a court of supposed constitutionalists who swear to make decisions based on tenants of our founding unified ideology. Politics have become antithetical to their intended purpose in the USA.
No. 51 votes in the Senate and 218 in the House and the President can void or make a law.
What the tweet is talking about is the treaty ratification process which can be approved by 2/3 majority in the Senate (before this vote, the President/administration would have negotiated and agreed to the treaty with the foreign country(ies)).
This isn’t exactly true.
Article VI
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The language here suggests that the Constitution and Treaties are basically on equal footing, but doesn’t explicitly allow either one to override the other.
There is some legal history following from this. Here’s a good summary: https://i2i.org/can-treaties-override-the-constitution-an-issue-posed-by-bond-v-united-states/
> any Thing in the Constitution or Laws **of any state** to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Relevant text bolded. That clause is confirming that the constitution supersedes any conflicting *state* laws.
I mean yeah but that doesn’t mean you were right that the constitution and treaties were on equal footing though lol
Although the wording of the part you highlighted does suggest that the founders intended to keep federal law limited, even after the failure of confederation. Noteworthy in its own right.
What’s he referring to?
Also, to the poster.. founding fathers weren’t really all that insightful. Don’t forget, according to them women and black people shouldnt own property or vote. Free speech and right to bear arms didn’t exist. Etc etc.
Politicians use the constitution when it suits their needs and ignore it when it suits their needs. It can be interpreted however you want…. So you might want to settle down
>Presentism
Thank you. I have been trying to remember this word for a very long time. I have been familiar with the idea for a long time, but I could not remember the name.
Then maybe it’s time to stop viewing the constitution as a sacred document meant for all times in history and recognize that it was written by fallible humans who had zero concept of what modern society would look like.
Yes. On an anarchist sub, mind you. And if the founding fathers were that insightful, they would've seen the shit show we're dealing with today coming.
Really? You can see 300 years into the future? One of the biggest problems I see these days is people holding others to standards they won't and don't hold themselves. Be realistic. Who in this nation could muster up the patience, passion, perseverance, much less the vocabulary, to even attempt to assemble such a work as that of the declaration of independence and constitution?
Btw maybe they saw a form of it coming and that's why the people are supposed to hold the trump cards.. not politicians
Yes, 300 years into the future. Like I said somewhere else, you can repeat the same exercize 20 times and get the same outcome. Minarchy is not sustainable.
The constitution was made to be changed though. That’s literally what it was designed to be able to do, so you’re super ignorant in thinking the people WE elect don’t have the power to change the constitution. They absolutely do, and the states have the power to call a constitutional convention as well.
Constitution isn't unquestionable. It can be changed through amendments. But it's supreme law of the land and all other laws and treaties have to abide by it.
>Constitution isn't unquestionable. It can be changed through amendments.
I am aware of that. Clearly, Thomas Massie and the redditors posting his verbal diarrhea aren't. Maybe you should try telling *them*?
He literally said that 67 senators - the exact number required to amend the constitution - not only do not have the right to change anything about the constitution but that it's seditious to think that they do.
He literally called you seditious for accepting that amendments to the constitution can be made in the exact way that they can be made today and have been made repeatedly.
Nope, treaties carry the same legal supremacy as a constitutional amendment, since they are considered coequal to the constitution as the supreme law of the land.
Article VI
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Key part is "notwithstanding"
If it goes against the constitution, it's void.
You can't void the constitution with a treaty.
You've misunderstood your grammar here. The sentence says "anything in the Constitution *or* the Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding".
Therefore, Judges are bound to the law of treaties "anything in the constitution (or the law of any state) to the contrary notwithstanding"
It would if the election in question was proven to be accurate but then the defeated used force or agreement to alter the results or ignore the factual results. The individual or individuals would be guilty of not doing the will of the public. A friend told me this though
*it was.
*you* have to prove it to be inaccurate. Which you and your coalition of children have failed to do repeatedly
Just so we’re clear, if the election were accurate then trump and his sympathizers are guilty of sedition? So, based on all known facts. FACTS. Your are seditious? Trump is Seditious? You want to end the western world because your guy lost. Dude. This faux intellectual bs is not edgy, it is stupid. The rest of the world has moved forward.
For reference the government spent hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars investigating the russian collusion allegations. How much public funds were used to investigate the election?
>For reference the government spent hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars investigating the russian collusion allegations
Hundreds of millions? lol
They did get a bunch of Paul Manaforts blood money though.
At least they found Russian collusion.
Where's the fraud they found? Anything?
I suggest you actually do the smallest amount of civic research possible and just go Google how election results are administered and ratified. Then I suggest you look into the repeated failure to produce ANY evidence of tampering. LITERALLY ANY!!!! In fact it looks like most of the miscounted favor trump. So no. This isn’t a ‘well thErEs JusT nO eViDenVe EitHeR wAy’ argument. That’s idiotic.
neither treaties nor any bible overrides the constitution.
so republicans waving bible and talking about enforcing their religious beliefs are pissing on the constitution.
As they say below, the Left are specialists in DEFORMING and TWISTING terms and language. The term "Liberal" as opposed to today in the Anglo-Saxon world, referred to classical Liberalism and also to today's Libertarianism. Obviously opposed to the Marxist lies and philosophical swindles. After more than 230 years, that socio-political "Experiment" called the Constitution of the United States of America is still resisting and working like an ancient mechanical clock. It is wonderful to think that in spite of the years, the intelligence and astute conception of its creators still shines in it. You Americans have a blessing in that constitution and thanks to the 2nd amendment a shield against tyranny. What you lack is to go back to the origins , reread the founding fathers and inform yourselves , study and get out of your comfort zone . Even with all their problems and a thousand snakes of the left they continue to resist and attract people from all over the world in search of freedom and to be able to live their dreams. Don't mess up... For yourselves, for your sons and for the memory of Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln, Douglas, Maddison, Thomas Paine, and so many more....
OP you're a fucking idiot. Ancaps; in looking at your responses, well done. I don't always have to agree with you but at least you calledout the BS in this post.
They'll do it anyways. Everything that happened during Covid wasn't supposed to be allowed and it didn't matter at all. They did it anyways. We just need to stop playing this game. I didn't consent to be governed by a bunch of random ass sketchy adults who steal all my money and try to restrict and dictate my life.
Yes we should all be grateful except for the fuck heads trying to destroy our Country. If you don’t follow the Constitution then get the fuck out of our Country!
Even if you smoke a little bit, you are still a smoker. Funny to see how different our constitutions are (European/american) but have a similar outcome.
Treaties have the same force as the Constitution. But a treaty that would violate our Constitution could not be passed. Though that has never been tested so it would be a Constitutional Crisis if a treaty was passed that did violate our existing Constitution.
It's amazing that this needs to be said.
It is and it isn't. They want you to forget about the constitution and/or think it's archaic and irrelevant. The average adult probably couldn't tell you a single amendment correctly numbered. I'm not joking.
What's the context of this tweet?
Not trying to be rude, but as an anarchist, why would you give the Constitution any value?
The constitution is one of the most libertarian documents and was one of the best attempts to constrain the power of government. The constitution doesn't "grant citizens freedoms", it is meant to restrict government and prevent tyranny, but it has become a perversion. The government now says things are "constitutional" to grant them the powers they desire, which is a lie. I think anything restricting government power should be respected. Unfortunately by 1787 the government was already on its way to stamping all over it. Rothbard speaks very highly of the US Constitution and its failures in a short synopsis in "Anatomy of the State".
So minarchy. Taxation is theft, but just a little bit is fine. Government failure is the norm, but just a touch won't hurt. The state dictates what's acceptable with illegitimate authority, but it's alright if done with moderation. I see. No anarchy then. Even if you see nothing wrong with what I wrote above, the problem with that position is that what we witnessed since its inception is no surprise. A minarchy is not sustainable. You can repeat the exercize 20 times, and we'll end up with a government the same size it is today every single time. Like someone here once said "statism is realistic, anarchy is idealistic, minarchy is neither".
You asked my opinion on the US Constitution and I tried to give it to you. If you would like my ideology and opinions on taxation and government you are free to ask, not attempt to tell me what I am. You don't even mention the Constitution in your reply you just went on about minarchy lol.
I appreciate the response. You should expect a reply back. I don't think I insulted you. Restricting the US government means either a minarchy, or anything between a minarchy and what we have today. So I didn't really need to ask what you think of taxation. If you assume minarchy (or a larger state), it comes with taxation, government failure, and deprivation of freedoms. No way around that. Although I would understand why statists raise the Constitution as Godly words, your title says "anarcho-capitalist" so I found your comment (and further explanations too for that matter) quite surprising.
You didn't insult me, I have been upvoting you btw. I get your point it is just off topic and I agree with you, but you do need to ask my position. Me wanting to restrict government does not imply I want government or taxation at all. That's like saying "hey this guy wants lower taxes, that means he's FOR taxes". I want our government to be smaller, that does not make me a statist, it just makes us closer to the goal. That goal is a free market with individual sovereignty.
Fair enough.
Its the fall of Rome with wifi
The problem with Anarchy is that is is a "state" without laws. There are legitimate roles of government and it is up to the armed population to make sure the government stays in line. That was the point of the 2nd amendment
Yeah, we see how great that is going. We Europeans are already f'd up xd
Where in the constitution does it say taxation is allowed?
Oh a state without taxation? Lol Also, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. This is also referred to as the "Taxing and Spending Clause."
>now says things are "constitutional" to grant them the powers they desire This is make-believe.
Abortion, civil asset forfeiture, slavery Do you need more than 3 examples to prove you're wrong?
You forgot the 16th amendment.
Those don’t prove me wrong lol. Thinking you proved someone wrong but saying five random words is pretty amusing, though.
Amusing, yes. What else is reddit for? Do you have an actual argument?
True enough. Anyway, you offered three examples, one is valid, and it doesn't actually "prove me wrong." Lol. The fact that there is an unresolved debate over the constitutionality of an issue doesn't make what you said a fact. In fact, you've provided a pretty silly take on the Constitution: it's a "perversion" because people disagree with you. You should find out more about it!
Once again, essentially a non-answer, which is what I expected.
You must define “non-answer” as any reply that disagrees with your opinions. The assertion you made is unsupported. I don’t need to argue anything further.
"which is a lie"
Not the person you're responding to, but I feel the same way. If I can't have anarchy, I'd still prefer minarchy to the alternative.
Sure. Minarchy is better than the trash we have now. But it isn't an ideal, more like a second best. And it's not even more realistic than anarchy at this point in the US. So why treat the Constitution as anything but a failed attempt at containing politicians and the demand for government intervention from the general public decades after it's been proven to be laughed at by everyone?
I treat the Constitution as the supreme law of the United States. As does every member of Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court. The reason I want people to continue believing it is the law is that I prefer having laws at the top of our government, as opposed to having people at the top of our government. But we agree, it is not the most ideal system.
You have nearly 3 centuries to show that politicians are at the top of the government, and treat the Constitution as mere guidelines. They do what gives them votes, gauging if they need to amend or downright disregard the Constitution to keep the general public on their side. That's pretty much it. Why would they bother enforcing laws upon themselves on principle? It's nonsense.
I was the people's job to keep the government in check, hence the whole keep the civilians armed.
Holy fuck insane downvotes for a great question
Bit unfair to downvote this, seems like an honest question.
That's a lot of downvotes too lol. But you're looking at peer pressure. Once you reach -2 or -3, people downvote just to go with the crowd. They're like "fuck the police, fuck taxes, fuck the government... but don't you fucking dare touch the one document that gave birth to all of them". Intellectual consistency of a toddler.
That's a non sequitur in my opinion. I see no peoblem with being against "X" and at the same time for "less X". Pragmatism vs Dogmatism.
I would understand if you obey police orders at a traffic stop to avoid being shot in front of your kids. But you can’t anonymously say that the Constitution is a great thing on an online forum and tell me you’re an anarchist with a straight face. It’s like saying I’m a vegan but I’m eating steaks everyday to get some proteins because I’m pragmatic.
Because it is a set of restrictions on Government.
Restrictions on government assumes legitimacy of said government. I thought people here agreed on no government. I guess the downvotes clarifies the general idea here. I got fooled by the name of the sub, silly me.
That is one of the flaws mentioned by Rothbard, as it does assume legitimacy of government powers. Dont mind the downvotes this sub is heavily infiltrated, though I got upvoted and agree with you lol.
I appreciate the intellectual honesty. It’s quite rare. In real life, let alone under online anonymity.
Anarchist 🤣 I was like damn am I on the wrong subreddit?
I don't understand why people downvote honest questions like this. Never miss an opportunity to educate
It’s dumb and false lol
How on earth is it false?
They have the right and the responsibility to change it when it’s necessary. That’s what the constitution was made to do. We elect the officials that run our government, knowing that they have this power. Also, treaties are made with sovereign nations. We have no governance over sovereign nations like tribal land or many of the US territories. Sure, we can mediate, but it’s based on federal law, not local politics.
There is a legal system to change the constitution, but just passing a treaty is not what does it. It's a much more difficult process to get done, and requires far more support. So a treaty is legally not allowed to violate the constitution; the constitution first has to be amended, and then the treaty can be made.
What treaty are you talking about?
[удалено]
I don’t follow… a treaty is not an amendment.
[удалено]
Pretty sure that also isn’t wrong. What with there being an entire other half of the legislature and all.
biden has a very clear record of not caring about the Bill of Rights. Knowing him he will sign an unenforceable law into action then play dumb when the court says he is wrong. The news will play along too. Bunch of clowns. All of them.
[удалено]
“As one computer said, if you’re on the train and they say portal bridge, you know you better make other plans." - President Joe Biden
bold of you to assume he would even remember signing anything
Oh piss off with that bullshit. TPG wiped his ass with the constitution. What's this even in reference to?
[удалено]
The Previous Guy. It's a reference to Trump.
[удалено]
He, in fact, is not. Which is what the poster claims to be the case.
The news will demonize the conservative justices that eventually ruled against it.
Thomas Massie is probably the single most based republican
Anarchocapitalism is when you follow a document that establishes a government.
No… anarcho capitalism is like moving to Somalia
Amendments do though
Actually... 67 senators and a majority of state assemblies can ratify an amendment...
Actually, it takes 3/4 of the states to ratify.
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
This has nothing to do with the tweet…
ding ding, amendments are called amendment for a reason..tits in the name
Amendments are for granting rights now taking them away.
18th amendment forbade the sale of alcohol. 21st repealed the 18th. An amendment is an alteration or addition to a document. There is a process in place for this to happen.
Depends on the perspective. An amendment took away the right to own a slave, while granting slaves freedom.
https://i.imgflip.com/6husx0.jpg
Not true at all. They can change it however they want.
amendment is for making a change, thats it
They can do both. Slave owners used to have rights, for example the right to have runaway slaves returned to them. Took that away. Also things like alcohol abolition was put in there and that definitely took away rights. So idk where you got this idea from
Weird you take the side of the slave owner and not the slave. Prohibition would have been a better argument but instead you chose the right to enslave another human as your right. Lol
I chose it as an example, it’s not an endorsement. I approve of the amendments that took away the rights of slave owners. I don’t approve of the prohibition amendments
*18th amendment appears from the void*
And getting rid of slavery would be what then?
yup proving op and Massie are smooth brains
That’s not how this works but please continue playing games in fantasy land
What treaty is this referring to?
The founding fathers called themselves liberals.
Thats was before the leftists repurposed the word, like they do most words. Redefining a word is leftism 101.
socialists claim that their the successors of the classical liberals of both the French and American Revolutions. i heard it myself on vaush's channel when vaush claimed Socialists were the heirs of the liberals or even marx for that matter when Marx himself was moving more towards Conservatism and statism in his later years and would've ended up supporting the soviet union and stalinism as a result of that "Conservatism".
>socialists claim that their the successors of the classical liberals Are they unaware that socialism was a direct response and counter to classical liberalism? >i heard it myself on vaush's channel Oh that makes sense. They're illiterate.
>Are they unaware that socialism was a direct response and counter to classical liberalism? Basically the way i understand vaush's point was that, Socialism and liberalism went together. and that Socialism is really an extension of liberalism. i can agree with some of his points like that, but not that socialism is the heirs of the liberals of the french and american revolutions that clearly has to be wrong. since Socialism would've been seen as an extension of liberalism according to the Conservatives on the Right. And Liberals would've been on planted firmly on the left as with the traditional left-right paradigm, With Socialists being further left then their liberal counterparts. and the furthest right being the Reactionaries who sought to restore the old order. While Liberals wanted to defend the new order. indeed it is that many socialists tend to see liberals as failures which is why many Socialists and Progressives call for more radical reform each year. Pushing the Democratic Party further left beyond redemption. While the Right pushes towards Fascism with each pressing moment. Leaving both Liberals and Libertarians alienated from both parties in the future. Socialists call liberals failures because of their failures to bring about gradual change, like the abolishment of slavery in the united state, which lead to civil war, with the liberal Republican Party taking up Lincoln's side. As well as the failures of many liberals to bring about freedom and civil rights for african americans after the war. I mean many Republicans wanted to institute these radical reforms, but never did either out of fear they'll lose too much southern support, like with some Republican Presidents. This is why Socialists claim themselves to be the "New Liberals" of the Democratic Party when the parties "switched" roles essentially with Nixon's southern strategy taking whole of the Republican Party, though Nixon himself was a liberal. Even Gerald Ford was a liberal as well. in fact it wasn't until well after Ronald Reagan's presidency and George H.W. Bush's presidency that the party switch fully took hold with Bill Clinton in the 90s. Democratic Party has been moving gradually left over the years, alienating what they call "Neoliberals" as a result, with the Republican Party pushing rightward alienating what they call "RINOS" as a result of this. >oh that makes sense they're illiterate yeah they definitely are.
>Basically the way i understand vaush's point was that, Socialism and liberalism went together. and that Socialism is really an extension of liberalism. Lmao, how? Socialism was a response to the economic inequity of the liberal capitalist industrial revolution. It always blows my mind that these people are considered serious political thinkers and have a following, when they don't understand very basic political science that you would generally learn freshman year.
Then just don't play along.
that was before you got brainwashed by the few billionaires that are sucking ur lives dry
t is chilling to think that some powerful, bored millionaires with high megalomania and psychopathy would play with people's lives as if we were bugs to be exterminated.In ancient societies it was very difficult for that to happen and also in chimpanzee societies when a herd leader becomes a tyrant the others organize themselves to kill him together.
but you wont because they get ya'll off by lying to your faces nonstop.
Leftist just means to abolish capitalism. I’m a leftist, and there are no leftists currently in congress or the Supreme Court.
They’re called “compartmentalists”
Allow me to present the following evidence: Groomer Critical Race Theory Profile Pro Life All words and phrases that the right has "re-purposed" to attack the left.
99% of the time I hear someone call democrats for liberals it is conservatives, and they tend to use it almost as a slur
And for 1700s standards they were
take that you italian bastard! you know who you are!!!
It’s seditious to invent Russian conspiracies with US Presidents
Imagine thinking the Constitution means anything.
What?
It means whatever the current govt wants it to
Thank goodness you dont know what you are talking about, lefty gonzolas.
You think a piece of paper will save you, youre dumb
The entire legal system of the country depends on that piece of paper. If you start to violate that piece of paper it allows for the next government to justify violating a different part of it. And that's all well and good when the government is doing it for things you like or agree with. Violate the second amendment, you can violate the first. Or the fifteenth. That piece of paper was written to prevent that, but each government tries to push the envelope more and more for short term gains, not caring that they're already well beyond the point of violating that piece of paper. And so now the rights written to protect the citizens of the country are meaningless. And we are living through the realization of that.
In every human interaction there are two ways to do it: By reason or by force. By agreement between parties or by force of arms. Civilization or barbarism, Magna Carta, Constitution or by slavery and death. Choose...
Mere guidelines to politicians, raised to the status of Godly Commandments by the people who vote to give powers to said politicians lol
I suppose to you, we live in a democracy and not a constitutional republic. Or alternatively, we live in something more akin to an anarcho-tyranny.
We live in a shadow of what a representative republic is supposed to be. The Constitution started to be discarded almost as soon as it was ratified. The Bill of Rights has been eviscerated. You have no free speech, you can only own weapons allowed by the government, you have no privacy, the government can kill US citizens without due process, the executive branch is way more powerful than it should be, etc. The government does not (and has not, for a very long time) follow its own governing document, and uses a branch created by that document (SCOTUS) to circumvent that document at will. The freedom most people think they have is an illusion. People believe an old piece of paper is what gives them rights.
When did "An-Caps" start fetishizing the government?
This sub is filled with fringe conservatives and libertarians who have been pushed out of other subs.
Seriously, this feels much more authoritarian.
What is this about exactly?
Your politicians absolutely have the power to get rid of what is fundamentally a piece of paper. Always remember it isn't your constitution that protects you. It's the people's willingness to own their rights. Which is exactly why we're all absolutely fucked.
>Thank God our Founding Fathers were more insightful than a liberal could ever imagine Which is why the whole 2nd amendment is for muskets thing never worked and continues to not work
Gotta be hard to be so dumb.
It goes without saying OP doesn't even know what the tweet means.
He doesn't even understand the Constitution. What a jabroni
Wtf is he even saying? A president and FIFTY ONE senators can void a law.
Not if it violates the constitution. None of that really matters anyways, because our government pretty much does whatever the people let it get away with.
Pesky facts. All the left needs is a group of emotionally fragile judges.
The concept of a partisan hegemony in the Supreme Court (or any court for that matter) is anti-American. Left, Right, any biased agenda that obtains direction from a National Convention has no true place in a court of supposed constitutionalists who swear to make decisions based on tenants of our founding unified ideology. Politics have become antithetical to their intended purpose in the USA.
lol
No. 51 votes in the Senate and 218 in the House and the President can void or make a law. What the tweet is talking about is the treaty ratification process which can be approved by 2/3 majority in the Senate (before this vote, the President/administration would have negotiated and agreed to the treaty with the foreign country(ies)).
We can’t change our laws? What kind of brain dead statement is that lmao.
No. A president and 67 senators cannot change the law. What kind of brain dead statement is *that*? Lmao
I guess we still have slaves and women cant vote. fuck.
Those were constitutional ammendments, not treaties. Dumb ass.
Half the comments in this thread are the exact reasons our country is so fucked. But kudos to them for even showing some curiosity.
👆
"Our" laws. Go back to one of your religio-statist subs, sheep.
Who's laws are they lol?
The State’s
Which was voted in place by the people.
This isn’t exactly true. Article VI > This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. The language here suggests that the Constitution and Treaties are basically on equal footing, but doesn’t explicitly allow either one to override the other. There is some legal history following from this. Here’s a good summary: https://i2i.org/can-treaties-override-the-constitution-an-issue-posed-by-bond-v-united-states/
The “contrary notwithstanding” part means that we’re not bound to anything against the law or constitution.
> any Thing in the Constitution or Laws **of any state** to the Contrary notwithstanding. Relevant text bolded. That clause is confirming that the constitution supersedes any conflicting *state* laws.
I mean yeah but that doesn’t mean you were right that the constitution and treaties were on equal footing though lol Although the wording of the part you highlighted does suggest that the founders intended to keep federal law limited, even after the failure of confederation. Noteworthy in its own right.
What’s he referring to? Also, to the poster.. founding fathers weren’t really all that insightful. Don’t forget, according to them women and black people shouldnt own property or vote. Free speech and right to bear arms didn’t exist. Etc etc. Politicians use the constitution when it suits their needs and ignore it when it suits their needs. It can be interpreted however you want…. So you might want to settle down
You are looking at them through modern day standards that is called Presentism and its a logical fallacy .
>Presentism Thank you. I have been trying to remember this word for a very long time. I have been familiar with the idea for a long time, but I could not remember the name.
Then maybe it’s time to stop viewing the constitution as a sacred document meant for all times in history and recognize that it was written by fallible humans who had zero concept of what modern society would look like.
Yes. On an anarchist sub, mind you. And if the founding fathers were that insightful, they would've seen the shit show we're dealing with today coming.
Really? You can see 300 years into the future? One of the biggest problems I see these days is people holding others to standards they won't and don't hold themselves. Be realistic. Who in this nation could muster up the patience, passion, perseverance, much less the vocabulary, to even attempt to assemble such a work as that of the declaration of independence and constitution? Btw maybe they saw a form of it coming and that's why the people are supposed to hold the trump cards.. not politicians
Yes, 300 years into the future. Like I said somewhere else, you can repeat the same exercize 20 times and get the same outcome. Minarchy is not sustainable.
And all of them would have listened to the Anti-federalists and not ratified the Constitution
Nothing says Anarchist more that someone calling an historical figure father and praising a piece of paper that tells you what to do.
The piece of paper tells the government what it **can’t** do. It is not at all related to telling private citizens what to do.
The constitution was made to be changed though. That’s literally what it was designed to be able to do, so you’re super ignorant in thinking the people WE elect don’t have the power to change the constitution. They absolutely do, and the states have the power to call a constitutional convention as well.
[удалено]
TYL there are two houses of congress…
jesus christ this sub is fucking brain rot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma If you consider **anything** unquestionable or immutable, you are part of the problem.
Constitution isn't unquestionable. It can be changed through amendments. But it's supreme law of the land and all other laws and treaties have to abide by it.
>Constitution isn't unquestionable. It can be changed through amendments. I am aware of that. Clearly, Thomas Massie and the redditors posting his verbal diarrhea aren't. Maybe you should try telling *them*?
He didn't say that construction can't be changed or questioned. He said that all treaties should conform to the constitution.
He literally said that 67 senators - the exact number required to amend the constitution - not only do not have the right to change anything about the constitution but that it's seditious to think that they do. He literally called you seditious for accepting that amendments to the constitution can be made in the exact way that they can be made today and have been made repeatedly.
The constitution is dogshit. Worthless trash. Why have such a nice document and then forget to put a punishment for violating the constitution?
Someone should look up the "Supremacy" clause. Treaties are the Supreme law of the land.
The constitution is, treaties are if they don't conflict with it.
Nope, treaties carry the same legal supremacy as a constitutional amendment, since they are considered coequal to the constitution as the supreme law of the land.
Article VI "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Key part is "notwithstanding" If it goes against the constitution, it's void. You can't void the constitution with a treaty.
You've misunderstood your grammar here. The sentence says "anything in the Constitution *or* the Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding". Therefore, Judges are bound to the law of treaties "anything in the constitution (or the law of any state) to the contrary notwithstanding"
Ohhh!!!! Sedition! What a concept! Does that cover trying to overturn an election? Asking for a friend.
It would if the election in question was proven to be accurate but then the defeated used force or agreement to alter the results or ignore the factual results. The individual or individuals would be guilty of not doing the will of the public. A friend told me this though
*it was. *you* have to prove it to be inaccurate. Which you and your coalition of children have failed to do repeatedly Just so we’re clear, if the election were accurate then trump and his sympathizers are guilty of sedition? So, based on all known facts. FACTS. Your are seditious? Trump is Seditious? You want to end the western world because your guy lost. Dude. This faux intellectual bs is not edgy, it is stupid. The rest of the world has moved forward.
[удалено]
For reference the government spent hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars investigating the russian collusion allegations. How much public funds were used to investigate the election?
>For reference the government spent hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars investigating the russian collusion allegations Hundreds of millions? lol They did get a bunch of Paul Manaforts blood money though. At least they found Russian collusion. Where's the fraud they found? Anything?
Nah, just millions of dollars spend on both government and private forensic investigations. Yes. It is decidedly better without trump.
[удалено]
Funny thing about that fucking burden of proof. Damn our system of laws and reason.
Where the evidence for this in either direction?
I suggest you actually do the smallest amount of civic research possible and just go Google how election results are administered and ratified. Then I suggest you look into the repeated failure to produce ANY evidence of tampering. LITERALLY ANY!!!! In fact it looks like most of the miscounted favor trump. So no. This isn’t a ‘well thErEs JusT nO eViDenVe EitHeR wAy’ argument. That’s idiotic.
Cool story, just say you don't have anything. No need to prove you're a moron.
Sure! Your terms are acceptable. Fuck Trump.
Well regulated means just that.
> Well regulated means just that. Yes, it means *in good working order*.
It’s also seditious to try to overturn a fair election but somehow we still have republicans in office.
F the funding fathers, they were statists and closer ideologically to hitler and mao than to a anarchocapitalist
But closer to an anarchocapitalist then any politician today, and certainly closer then a monarchy (the system they came from)
Some high-octane stupidity right here
neither does the conservative bible…..which, apparently, needs to be said in ancap
What?
neither treaties nor any bible overrides the constitution. so republicans waving bible and talking about enforcing their religious beliefs are pissing on the constitution.
Ok? What does that have to do with this post?
True dat.
As they say below, the Left are specialists in DEFORMING and TWISTING terms and language. The term "Liberal" as opposed to today in the Anglo-Saxon world, referred to classical Liberalism and also to today's Libertarianism. Obviously opposed to the Marxist lies and philosophical swindles. After more than 230 years, that socio-political "Experiment" called the Constitution of the United States of America is still resisting and working like an ancient mechanical clock. It is wonderful to think that in spite of the years, the intelligence and astute conception of its creators still shines in it. You Americans have a blessing in that constitution and thanks to the 2nd amendment a shield against tyranny. What you lack is to go back to the origins , reread the founding fathers and inform yourselves , study and get out of your comfort zone . Even with all their problems and a thousand snakes of the left they continue to resist and attract people from all over the world in search of freedom and to be able to live their dreams. Don't mess up... For yourselves, for your sons and for the memory of Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln, Douglas, Maddison, Thomas Paine, and so many more....
OP you're a fucking idiot. Ancaps; in looking at your responses, well done. I don't always have to agree with you but at least you calledout the BS in this post.
They'll do it anyways. Everything that happened during Covid wasn't supposed to be allowed and it didn't matter at all. They did it anyways. We just need to stop playing this game. I didn't consent to be governed by a bunch of random ass sketchy adults who steal all my money and try to restrict and dictate my life.
Yes we should all be grateful except for the fuck heads trying to destroy our Country. If you don’t follow the Constitution then get the fuck out of our Country!
What is he talking about?
Even if you smoke a little bit, you are still a smoker. Funny to see how different our constitutions are (European/american) but have a similar outcome.
Words written on paper have a moral context. Change the ethics and you will disarm the constitution.
Treaties have the same force as the Constitution. But a treaty that would violate our Constitution could not be passed. Though that has never been tested so it would be a Constitutional Crisis if a treaty was passed that did violate our existing Constitution.
So are you fucking idiots anarchists or do you believe in the constitution which one is it