I still feel that you have to have a referendum system to protect the majority from tyranny of a minority.

You MUST have a constitution of inalienable rights to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority.

I still feel that you have to have a referendum system to protect the minority from tyranny of a minority.

But that’s not really the point. I think people forget that our founding fathers were just politicians. And men, with flaws.

I never understood how these men who are put on the pedestal of freedom could tolerate slavery. It becomes pretty clear that for a lot of the people in that era manipulating politics, was for freedom from England going after their wealth, and less for liberty of the common man.

Those New England town hall meanings are much more compatible with liberty than NI4D. There’s even an anarcho element to them.

The colonies used to do most major decision making by majority vote in town hall meetings. They tried to get the Constitution ratified this way, but every time they put the Constitution up for ratification with slavery in it up to majority vote, it failed to be ratified.

So some of the rich elite from the southern states blackmailed James Madison. They would not go along with the Constitution without slavery, so they came up with this “delegate” system that allowed them to control the conventions, and with their money, control the drafting and ratification of the Constitution to include slavery.

So basically our Republic was designed to facilitate rule by the elite minority. When you look at our history’s politicians, up until today that is still pretty much the case. Elections are won with money in almost every case. And money from special interests and lobbyists controls our “delegates” in the form of our Congressmen and Senators.

And that’s how you get nuggets of freedom like Slavery, the Indian Removal act, The Patriot act, etc.

Read this interview I did with Bob Bird:

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/08/ipr-exclusive-interview-with-bob-bird/

Is he an “anarchist”?

Government under the Articles of Confederation was probably the least evil government ever known to man. The Constitution Party, by fact of its name, is for big government and Hamiltonianism.

Did the Constitution expand the powers of the federal government in “comparison” to the A of C? Yes. But that is not what my statement was about. The Constitution was designed to limit the federal goverment to certain powers. The fact that our governing representatives did not “follow” it is the reason that the federal government has grown beyond its proper function.

Everyone reading this can see that you are playing a game because you are too prideful to admit that you made a mistake.

Thanks for admitting that you are an Anarchist. It is a waste of time to debate with you because of this. You need to study history to see that Anarchy is not a stable form of government and simply leads to a dictatorship.

Anarchist often make this mistake because they want a government that doesn’t require the vigilance of the citizenry to make sure their governing representatives follow the rule of law. Liberty is unatainable otherwise.

Thomas Jefferson also gives rules about secession in the declaration on Independence. You have to have a legitimate reason to secede, not just do it for the halibut.”

Walter C. Davis discusses the issue of secession in the book he authored, “The Cause Lost Myths and Realities of the Confederacy.” He wrote:

“Of course, there is a myth about secession itself. Southerners then and later argued that it [secession] was a right inherent in the Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence . . .

Legalistic Southerners tried [and try] to view the Constitution as a contract. Unfortunately, that viewpoint breaks down when viewed as a lawyer views a contract. There are very few ways to legally break a contract unilaterally. One is if the agreement contains a specifically stated means of withdrawal or a time limit. Others include duress, fraud, mutual mistake of material fact–none of which applies to the union in 1860 or the Constitution.

If one party is guilty of noncompliance with the terms of the agreement, a withdrawal is possible, though questionable, unless the contract contains a noncompliance cause, which the Constitution does not. Nor at the time of secession was the Washington government guilty of noncompliance. As of December 1860 when South Carolina voted to secede, the federal government had done nothing to interfere with slavery [the cause of secession] or any other right, nor would it do so until two years after South Carolina had acted.

Moreover, Lincoln repeatedly promised in his speeches that he would make no attempt to interfere with slavery where it then existed. While there may have been no reason for Southerners to believe Lincoln at the time of secession there was no overt reason not to believe him. In short, the South seceded out of a fear of noncompliance, which any lawyer would testify is a legal position so perforated with holes as to be transparent.”

There is a contract. The states are party to the contract. As such states cannot unilaterally brake the contract and secede from the United States of America.

A “confimed liar?”

You don’t make any sense whatsoever. The Constitution is a document intended to limit the Federal government’s power to it’s proper functions. The fact that it expanded federal power in comparison to the A of C is irrelevant. You are trying to move the story.

The Constitution has nothing to do with the NAU. That’s a machination of NAFTA.

There is a difference between Liberty and Anarchy and until you get that, you probably should avoid these forums. They will only frustrate you.

That is a lie.

Unless you would agree that a North American Union that capped taxes at 99% would be “limiting” the power of the government.

The Constitution EXPANDED federal power. He then admits that.

People like Baldwin should stop spreading state-aggrandizing disinfo and listen to Bob Bird.