Why the Constitution Does Not Work

Why the Constitution Does Not Work

The Constitution is just a worthless scrap of paper with the purpose of providing propaganda and false hope.



Texas sent in a SWAT teams without any probable cause looking for anything they could trump up against The Garden of Eden community. The inhabitants had no drugs, weapons, or anything illegal. After handcuffing people, threatening them, all the police could do was arrest one person for a past-due traffic fine. They destroyed crops and generally acted as arbitrary as they possibly could. This is typical. When they are wrong, they often take it out on the people just because.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/12/18/texas-state-tried-to-shut-down-a-sustainable-community/

Raiding such a community WITHOUT probable cause is totally unconstitutional. This is my point about the Constitution — it is just a worthless scrap of paper with the purpose of providing propaganda and false hope.

The Constitution protects nobody. It was supposed to be a self-restraint upon government. It fails in every respect. Government agents can do as they like and it is the BURDEN of the citizen to prove that they violated the Constitution.

Even in France, when they enact a law, there is a constitutional review BEFORE it is passed. We lack that check and balance in the United States.

Those in government should NOT have any immunity including judges. Then there would be some caution before they act. They should have to get clearance from a Constitutional ruling by an independent panel BEFORE acting outrageously. For the police to do what they did in Texas is actually a criminal act (see 18 US §241). They violated the civil rights of those people.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-13

Of course, only the government can press charges, not a citizen. The citizen can complain and ask that they be criminally charged. The odds of the government criminally indicting anyone in government has as much chance as Obama winning reelection…

While I might not be the type of person to do nothing like that on some commune, that does not give me the right to prevent anyone else from looking for their dream in life. Government has to stop this idea that they can dictate to the people. Their assault on WACO was another outrage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

If those people were attacking others it is one thing. To merely possess weapons because they thought the end of the world was coming — that is their right if they feared a Mad Max event. To try to justify their acts claiming the leader was having sex with young girls was not the reason they were there. That is a separate issue to try to justify the killing of so many people. The group was suspected of weapons violations converting weapons to machine guns and a search and arrest warrant was obtained by the U.S. federal agency ended up in killing many in the compound for their religious beliefs.

John Stuart Mill said it best in his monumental work On Liberty. This is the real definition of LIBERTY and it is not the people who need to be restrained — it is government as Mill explained, and the US Constitution was intended to restrain government, but the courts reversed its entire purpose.http://armstrongeconomics.com/library/books/on-liberty-mill/

“… The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.“ ― John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), On Liberty.

Martin Armstrong | ArmstrongEconomics.com via LewRockwell.com