Worship Revisited: Iím Still Fed Up!
Gary D. Barnett
by Gary D. Barnett: Osama
bin Laden Causes Yet Another†War? After†Heís†Dead?
Last year I
wrote an article titled "I'm
Fed Up With Constitution Worship!" Since that time it seems,
I hear more and more every day about "getting back to the constitution,"
mainly from "conservatives" and those of the Tea
Party persuasion. I always wonder not only have any of these
people ever read and studied the constitution, but also do they
even understand why it was secretly drafted in the first place?
All indications show that they arenít at all familiar with the enabling
power of that document to create a strong central governing system
that reduced severely the sovereignty of the states.
I have this
contrarian view not because I am cynical or pessimistic, but because
I have thoroughly studied this set of rules or "law of the
land," and found them to be antagonist to individual liberty
and stateís rights, and sympathetic to big government. When one
compares the constitution that was replaced, The
Articles of Confederation, there is little doubt of this truth.
Lysander Spooner said this:
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."
In my opinion,
there is no doubt that the constitution fully authorized the government
that we had and still have today. It is also true that any set of
rules is powerless to stop tyranny unless the people enforce and
demand compliance on a constant basis. This has never been the case.
Even if it had been followed to the letter, it is obvious that liberty
would still have been compromised.
current constitution was drafted, there was never any mention or
acceptance of the notion that there was a (U)nited States, or that
any single nation existed with power over the states. Quite the
contrary was the case. It is very troubling that so many Americans
have been fooled into believing that the constitution is the basis
of our freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth, and nothing
could be more misunderstood!
Mullen and Bill
Buppert have explained thoroughly why the constitution is not
what it is made out to be, and many others have properly denounced
this misleading document as well, but the general thinking is still
very misguided. Most continue to laud and worship this very flawed
piece of parchment, and continue to believe that it is the creator
and savior of liberty. Liberty lies in the essence of man, not in
documents secretly drafted in the dark of night by the few. The
free spirit of the people must awaken before any real freedom becomes
evident, and in that awakening they must realize the great importance
of the individual and of individual responsibility.
My intent here
is not to claim that our original constitution, The Articles of
Confederation, were a perfect set of rules, or that any set of rules
established by simple men could be perfect. My intent is to expose
the lie that is our current constitution. If we as a people could
see the truth of why our original constitution was completely scrapped
in favor of our current one, maybe a more widespread anger would
arise. Once it is accepted that the Hamiltonians in 1787 staged
a coup to destroy states rights in favor of federal power, and to
destroy individual liberty in favor of nationalism, then maybe more
will begin to question their false idolization of the constitution.
One could only hope for such an awakening.
constitution, there was no power whatsoever for the federal government
to tax. That was left entirely to the individual states. Now the
Feds have an unlimited power to tax. In Article 1, Section 8, the
taxing clause states, "Congress has the power to lay and collect
taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for the common defense and general
welfare of the United States." I see no limits mentioned here
whatsoever, and given the term "General Welfare" of the
(U)nited States, there is no reason to believe that any restriction
was intended. Many so-called constitutional scholars will argue
this, saying that all spending must be "constitutional",
or within the confines of the taxing and spending clauses, but these
arguments can easily be refuted given the broad and sweeping language
in this section. This was in my opinion done explicitly by design.
Article 1, Section 8 is nothing if it is not an all-encompassing,
unrestricted, and explicit enabler of unlimited governmental power.
check the definitions during that period by simply going to the
dictionary of that time, Samuel Johnsonís A
Dictionary of the English Language. It is immediately obvious
that there was little difference in the meaning of general welfare
at the time of the founding as there is today. But this is just
one example of the obvious misunderstanding by so many in modern
Under the Articles
of Confederation, there was no president. There was no supreme court.
There was no federal taxation, and certainly no immoral income tax.
This meant that there was no IRS. There was no federal control of
interstate commerce. Congress could not raise an army or draft troops.
What this meant, was that the states were sovereign, and no national
government existed in any real sense. Because of this, freedom flourished,
and tyranny was not evident. So how is it then that this very pro-central
government, federal controlling, and powerful national governing
system could be created by the same constitution that supposedly
set us free? Why were the Articles scrapped entirely if freedom
of the people and stateís rights were the objectives sought? I can
tell you; at no time did those who supported the drafting and ratification
of the U.S constitution in 1787 consider individual freedoms!
There are those
who would offer that the Bill of Rights adopted several years later
corrected the obvious problems that plagued the constitution, but
that thinking is based on the false logic of gullible minds. While
those amendments certainly were restrictions on government power,
they did nothing to change the original intent, that being one of
granting massive and in many cases unlimited power to a federal
allowed for the usurpation of power by the executive branch, it
allowed federal courts to approve and sanction authoritarianism
by the government over the people, it allowed for legalized forcible
theft by the federal government in the form of taxation, and it
allowed the federal government both the ability to collect taxes
for war, and to also prosecute those wars. These egregious powers
given by the constitution to the central government are completely
antithetical to liberty, and should never have been considered by
any men of character.
did not establish our constitution, nor was it inspired by divine
intervention as so many suggest. It would be difficult for me to
imagine that God would have a hand in the destruction of our inherent
and natural rights. No, this flagrantly flawed document was designed
and implemented by a few corrupt men led by Alexander Hamilton.
Their agenda was guided not by any desire to achieve liberty for
all, but by a grand lust for power and control. Had that not been
the case, the Declaration of Independence would have been the guide
for any new set of rules, and our original constitution would have
been even more scrutinized instead of being replaced.
224 years, we now have exactly what the original ruling class desired,
an all-powerful central government ruling over the lower classes.
This is a rule by the few over the many. As Aristotle said: "rule
by the few is aristocracy in its ideal form and oligarchy in its
perverted form." The elite class holds all the cards, while
the rest of us now struggle under the thumb of tyranny!
D. Barnett [send him mail]
is president of Barnett Financial Services, Inc., in Lewistown,
© 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Best of Gary D. Barnett