Taxes, Consent and the Constitution

[Travis Retriever]

That was why they put in the Second Amendment.

And how's that working out?
[yt]xvEUhtq3qBA[/yt]

[Travis Retriever]

The Constitution does not grant state rights or powers. It has nothing to say on that either way (except when it restricts state powers in various ways, such as Article I Section 10 and the Bill of Rights). Remember, the states existed before the Constitution. They already had their own state Constitutions drawn up. The US Constitution is a compact between these states.

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

I call bullshit.  The Federal government IS designed and given powers--or at least has them listed--as in the very verse I cited in the first post with the Constitution's verse on Congress.  That it's a 'compact between the states' doesn't change that the objective and descriptive fact that the federal government is its own separate entity and pretty much has been from the start (how could it make/collect debts too if it wasn't?  Why not just call them 'state debts?'--the very next verse of the Constitution says: "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;" or to do any of the other forgoing powers listed after that.)  But all this just begs the question:  what are the State Constitutions then?  Do they grant powers?

[dallen68]

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

I call bullshit.  The Federal government IS designed and given powers--or at least has them listed--as in the very verse I cited in the first post with the Constitution's verse on Congress.  That it's a 'compact between the states' doesn't change that the objective and descriptive fact that the federal government is its own separate entity and pretty much has been from the start (how could it make/collect debts too if it wasn't?  Why not just call them 'state debts?'--the very next verse of the Constitution says: "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;" or to do any of the other forgoing powers listed after that.)  But all this just begs the question:  what are the State Constitutions then?  Do they grant powers?

Establishing documents outlining the scope and form of the States' Governments. Yes. In fact, most of them have provisions that (supposedly) expressly forbid exercising powers not expressly granted by their respective constitutions.

[Skm1091]

That was why they put in the Second Amendment.

That amendment is meant to used AFTER the government has been completely corrupted (we are not at the point quite yet but we are getting there) This is to prevent the government from growing in the first place, Although now that I think about it I think my idea can also work with the  2nd amendment.

[MrBogosity]

That amendment is meant to used AFTER the government has been completely corrupted

Where does it say that in the Constitution? The amendment is meant to be used whenever and wherever it is needed. Look at the Whisky Rebellion.

[Skm1091]

Where does it say that in the Constitution? The amendment is meant to be used whenever and wherever it is needed. Look at the Whisky Rebellion.

Okay my mistake.

[Travis Retriever]

Where does it say that in the Constitution? The amendment is meant to be used whenever and wherever it is needed. Look at the Whiskey Rebellion.

I take it you meant the "Whiskey Rebellion."  Hence my correcting it in this quote.

[yt]p25Rz2eP7s8[/yt]
The one that Washington himself ordered troops to quell with force, thus establishing nonviolent means of protest as the norm (if Stef is to be believed. )?
It's not like people haven't tried to keep this thing--the government--in check; it's just failed every single time.  But then what do you expect when you give one group of people a violent monopoly on the moral right to initiate force in a geographic region and expect it to defend you from other sources of the initiation of force that haven't even happened yet?  Madness.  It's the fox guarding the hen-house.