Our Constitution of Ethical Mutuality

[Max Eichelberger]

Americans have arrived at the point where, as a people, we are paralyzed with indecisiveness as our leaders happily discuss the systematic destruction of our nation’s health. Ironically, that colloquialism is not merely figuratively true but physically true. Most Americans agree (see WSJ/NBC poll) that Obama is not the right president for the job, and that Obamacare is the wrong prescription for our healthcare woes. Yet, many representatives seem willing to go ahead with a policy and a president the people disapprove of. The people they are to represent.

This is all done under the auspicious authority of the Constitution. A document, I remind my reader, that is a contract, a contract between “we the people.”

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The question that unerringly jumps to the front of my mind is when the contract is not forming a “more perfect Union,” what is America to do? When the county is not on a path to “secure the Blessings of Liberty,” do individual themselves have authority from the Constitution? I believe yes, the Constitution has only the authority you place in it. Like all contracts, the Constitution only exists at each party’s agreement. These two parties are you, the individual, and the Constitution embodied in the Federal Government. If one no longer wishes to be apart of such a contract, then even the weakest has the ability to remove themselves from its auspices.

To live out your life, in your house, without the intrusion of the Federal Government, should be the ultimate stick to which we hold our government accountable.

The wording makes it clear that the Founding Fathers never had the intention of binding future generations to an inviolable document. In addition, the concept of “Natural Rights,” in any interpretation, cannot be construed to mean the US Constitution applies to US Citizens merely by existence. Quite simply, like all contracts, US Constitution cannot be seen as supported by all US Citizens merely because they exist, and have not openly rebelled against the US Government. Instead, the US Constitution, like all contracts, requires the explicit approval of every individual within the country. Just like one is not obliged to buy a house your great-grandfather bought, merely because you exist. One is not obliged to accept the concept of the Constitution merely because a very dead, distant relation (or for new immigrants, no relation at all) signed for it.

Critics of this theory argue that the US Public has no choice in the matter. Such a statement is a moral dead end. What makes a contract, a contract, is its sanctity. Locke declares that when the government stops acting in coordination with society, “the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence.” That is the principle upon which our Constitution's sancticty was written on. The principle that this contract is, at any time, useless without our consent. Many times people understand in some abstract way that “the people,” have the ability to topple our government. Yet more often than not, the “why,” is left unanswered. The “why,” is self-evident: the Constitution is the contract of mutual authority. The authority of our mutual agreement. The authority granted to it by ourselves.

Socrates explained to Crito why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty; not because of the jailers decision, but what should be Crito’s. The argument is the theoretical ground for the distinction between duty to society and duty to government, the distinction that permits an argument for resistance without anarchy. Locke, and later Jefferson, all built off of this first dissertation.

The wording is implicit “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The only reference to later generations is not more than an aspiration. These men knew their Natural Rights, and they knew later generation’s Natural Rights. The concept of signing away someone’s ability to manage their own affairs; abridging the ultimate sanctity of a private contract, is not within our Founding Father’s intellectual ‘vocabulary.’ In the beginning of the paragraph, it directly mentions “We the People of the United States.” This is not “We the People of the United States of all eternity,” it is a specific group of men coming together to ensure certain freedoms for themselves at a certain time.

The Founding Fathers understood the importance of what they were crafting, and understood that countless other countries had fallen because of their inability to change the essence of their national government. They, and I, believe that the Constitution is not so much so, that it is so by only being so.

One of the criticisms that has been raised against this line of reasoning is if one believes the contract, which holds our union together, is void: why not fight? The answer is simple. If I was a Third-Wave Feminist, one who did not believe in killing rapists, would I then be implying rape is acceptable? Of course not. Implied consent is much more than not shooting the local IRS agent.

Further yet, such an attitude of “love it, or blow it up,” invites a Nietzsche dystopia.

What I, and so many others like me, seek to accomplish is reform. A peaceful, loving recalibration of the body politic.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Areopagitican

[Selene]

Max:

Love the AuH₂O Poster. That was always one of my favorite campaign buttons that I liked to wear in the field.

I like your approach to reforming the body politic.

Your analysis of the Constitution is interesting. However, I would wonder why you do not mention or utilize the different structural levels within the Constitution. The comity concept.

You are only focusing on the Federal level rather on the state and local levels in terms of reform.

I would like to see a Constitutional amendment regarding recalling a Congressman which cannot be done now.

Additionally, attacking at every level the exponentially burgeoning "administrative state" juggernaut is a greater threat to liberty than even the federal bayonet.

We as citizens have a more direct way to pull the bit in the run away federal horse and that is by increasing our deductions to the maximum and depriving the federal furnace of it's lifeblood ...our tax dollars.

You would have to sequester the money in an account just to be completely legal, but if just one million folks did it - the shock wave would shake these imperial imps where they can be legally hurt.

Adam

plotting and planning

[Max Eichelberger]

Max:

Love the AuH₂O Poster. That was always one of my favorite campaign buttons that I liked to wear in the field.

I like your approach to reforming the body politic.

Your analysis of the Constitution is interesting. However, I would wonder why you do not mention or utilize the different structural levels within the Constitution. The comity concept.

You are only focusing on the Federal level rather on the state and local levels in terms of reform.

I would like to see a Constitutional amendment regarding recalling a Congressman which cannot be done now.

Additionally, attacking at every level the exponentially burgeoning "administrative state" juggernaut is a greater threat to liberty than even the federal bayonet.

We as citizens have a more direct way to pull the bit in the run away federal horse and that is by increasing our deductions to the maximum and depriving the federal furnace of it's lifeblood ...our tax dollars.

You would have to sequester the money in an account just to be completely legal, but if just one million folks did it - the shock wave would shake these imperial imps where they can be legally hurt.

Adam

plotting and planning

What are the chances that you would refer to the Late Senator Goldwater as AuH2O? As luck would have it, that's the theme of my current shirt! As politicians sacrifice principles for political expediency, it's no question if we'll be joined by disenchanted Americans of all political stripes.

I honestly did not consider county, municipality, or a slew of other devolved levels of government. Certainly, if one considers the U.S. Constitution a contract, then it would logically follow that the same applies to State Constitutions. But for that, I never truly considered, even, my daily contract with my government applied water and power monopoly. I think another problem, and one I am just realizing, is that some people do not consider the Constitution contract. Instead, they consider it 'merely' the Supreme Law of the Land. I'm not sure, I have total respect for the document and do believe it is the Supreme Law of the Land, yet still a contract.

Can a contract be the Supreme Law of the Land? I don't think they are mutually exclusive terms, but I'm stumbling my humble way through.

Recalling a Congressional Representative? As a Californian who holds a varying respect for Voter-Initiatives and recall elections, and I may not be conceptualizing what you're saying accurately, I'm curiously open to the idea of pulling a Congressional Representative back from the Beltway pork barreling. Yet then, knowing how out of control Californian ballot initiatives have gotten already. I'm unsure if I want to expand the insanity to even more levels of the political process. Even if the process is horribly corrupt, so is recall elections.

Imagine if everyone did do that. It would be very interesting how the state bureaucracy would handle it. Not very well, I can imagine, but certainly; if millions withdrew their taxes... Though I can already imagine the New York Times' headline: "Millions Refuse to Pay Taxes: Minorities, Women, Worst Hit." It'd be "tea-bagger," styled coverage all over again.

[Selene]

Ahh, one of my favorite "Rushisms" - no matter what happens, women, children and minorities are the worst hit!

"Millions Refuse to Pay Taxes: Minorities, Women, Worst Hit."

Edited December 23, 2009 by Selene

[BaalChatzaf]

Can a contract be the Supreme Law of the Land? I don't think they are mutually exclusive terms, but I'm stumbling my humble way through.

It could be, if everyone in the Land consents to it.

Ba'al Chatzaf