The Self-Contradictory US Constitution

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Recently by Scott Lazarowitz: The Supreme Bureaucrats' Decision on ObamaCare

     

In my previous column I included some ways to protect ourselves from the tyrannically intrusive ObamaCare monstrosity, via the U.S. Constitution. However, in the same piece I questioned the Constitution's legitimacy and its logic.

The Constitution contains a self-contradictory structure that monopolist government bureaucrats and the police have been ignoring for many decades.

In fact, it is the very Constitutionally mandated monopolies that bureaucrats illegitimately have that violate our God-given rights.

Here are some examples of the Constitution's inconsistency: Part of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment states that "(no person) shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…"

Note how it does not stipulate, "except during a war," or "except during the U.S. government's War on Terror." That is because the Founders believed that there should be no exceptions to this rule.

And also, the Fifth Amendment specifies "in any criminal case," but not in other cases in which police (or military) or other private civilians could very well not be investigating any criminal case, but could just be on a Gestapo-like fishing expedition.

The right to presumption of innocence is part of our natural, inalienable rights, and history has shown that government power-grabbers are not particularly concerned for the people's right to presumption of innocence.

A century of government central planning has created generations of shortsighted, irresponsible rulers in America. With rule by emotion and not reason, we have police, legislative and court bureaucrats who do not seem able to see things form the point of view of an individual being criminally victimized by agents of the State.

The Fifth Amendment also states, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." It does not forbid the government from taking private property — it only states that when covetous government bureaucrats do take your property, with or without your consent, they are supposed to compensate you for it.

There is no provision in the Constitution that protects one's person and private property from a criminal intrusion. There is a hint of that in the Fourth Amendment, with the phrase, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…" But federal, state and local governments have repeatedly committed person- and property-invasion crimes against innocent civilians, and courts have repeatedly defended those State crimes.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is loaded with monopoly powers assigned to government that violate individuals' God-given, inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It gives so much monopolistic, centralized power to the federal government that many of the Founders knew that such powers would be misused and become the Leviathan tyranny the federal government now is.

In Article I, Section 8, Congress is given the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States." But who the hell is a government bureaucrat to interfere with or intrude into an individual's private contracts?

This immediately violates the individual's right to establish voluntary contracts with others. Contracts among individuals are the sole business of the parties to such contracts, and not the business of government bureaucrats. My philosophy is that if it's none of the neighbors' business, it's none of the government's business.

A federal government with its artificial authority over an entire territory implies that the government owns the territory, and that the bureaucrats employed by the government have some sort of territorial ownership rights of control, a very communistic structure if there ever was one.

And who the hell are government bureaucrats to "coin money"? That's also part of Article I, Section 8. Money is an important commodity and it is the individual's right to choose by what means one wants to trade with others. Giving government control of the people's money gives the government the power to steal from the people.

In contrast, the market would be efficient in the "regulation" of various media of exchange, that is, were the market freed from monopolistic, governmental bureaucratic intrusions.

Murray Rothbard explains the myth of "efficient government service."

And Hans-Hermann Hoppe covers the origin and stability of the State, and noted the absurdity of a society with government monopolies and the absence of a contract between the people and the State.

The truth is, there's really no need for a "Constitution" to maintain peace and civility in a free society. Just follow the rule of law, by forbidding the initiation of physical aggression, forbidding theft and fraud, and forbidding trespass.

Assigning a monopoly power to an institution — government — in which the people are compelled by law to use, with threats of violence to enforce such a relationship, is immoral and criminal in nature, and violates the individual's right to choose which services one wants to use.

In a free, civilized society, no one should be above the law, and no one has any legitimate authority over anyone else without voluntary consent.

And regarding any actual need for a centralized government with power and authority over the entire territory, I have addressed that here, here and here.

But everything in a society, particularly one as large as the United States, really must be controlled locally.

There are those who agree with localization, but worry about "national defense." But in reality, the original purpose of the federal government's Constitutionally mandated territorial security monopoly has long been forgotten. The bigger and more powerful the federal government had become, the more each temporary ruler has used such powers to intentionally act aggressively, inhumanely and belligerently against foreigners, the more they have done nothing but provoke foreigners to act against the people of the United States. I have addressed the federal government's central planning monopoly in territorial protection here, here and here. (And for more, see this, this [.pdf], and this.)

And here Hans Hoppe analyzes the association between democracies and war.

And we have been seeing, day after day, how the local governments' monopoly in community policing and security not only gives the government-monopolized police the power to be above the law, but many times now government police have been getting away with crimes of murder, assault, theft, rape, property destruction, and terrorizing innocent civilians. (Just see any of these LRC articles by Will Grigg to find many examples.)

And because of the power of local and state governments, as well as the federal government, to artificially make just about every civilian behavior a crime, no matter how harmless and innocent, the police are arresting people really for no good reason (except mainly to raise revenue to fund local and state bureaucrats' six-figure salaries that they probably would not be getting in a freed market). This is what America has come to: lawlessness and criminality mainly committed by the agents of the State.

In a community in which policing were done by voluntary groups and individuals, and by competitive firms, all individuals would have to live under the rule of law, all individuals would be equal under the law, and no one would be allowed to be above the law. (And that would also apply to George Zimmerman, whose initial act of stalking Trayvon Martin was questionable at best.)

Currently, many government-monopolized police do not obey the rule of law because they have monopoly status in which they are above the law. The truth is that such an unequal, artificial relationship between civilians and armed government bureaucrats seems to naturally lead to a system of institutionalized criminality.

And now, thanks to the passive, sheeple-like compliance and submissiveness on the part of the American people, these local government bureaucrats (as well as the federal bureaucrats) have more and more armed power, and our liberty and security are going down the drain (along with our economic prosperity that we used to have, thanks to the monetary and financial monopolists in Washington).

Monopolists are not accountable. No "Constitution" holds monopolists accountable — that's a fantasy, a dream that can never come true, because of human nature, and because no human being is an angel.

Giving people artificial armed power and authority over others has been the Founders' biggest mistake. But can we reverse this? Well, where there's a will, there's a way, that's for sure.

Eventually, Americans will have to face these truths and stop kicking the can down the road toward the necessary restructuring. And better sooner than later.

And no, there can be no Perestroika, or "reform," of government monopolies and central planning. It all needs to be abolished, as the Soviets did, and decentralization and localization must occur.

Americans need to take back their freedom, not just with their right to self-defense and their right to bear arms, but by removing monopolies from government bureaucrats.

Scott Lazarowitz [send him mail] is a commentator and cartoonist, visit his blog.

The Best of Scott Lazarowitz

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare