The Good Is The Enemy of The Perfect

constitutionKen in Tyler has responded to the Tom Lester piece on A Constitutional Convention?:

The demise of our Republic is not due to flaws within the Constitution. Rather it is caused by ignoring the principles and original intent of the authors and understood by the ratifiers. All three branches at the federal level are guilty of circumventing the limitations intentionally placed in that wonderful document.

The Congress has no concept of their authorized role within Article 1, Section 8.
The Courts have become filled with political hacks who have no desire to keep the other branches in check.
And for some time now, the chief executive, seeing that there is no limit to the power he might assume to his office, has become worse than King George ever was.

We the people have become we the sheeple and meekly permit- even invite- this assault on Liberty to continue. And now the “problems” can be fixed by some wordsmithing? Nay, the only thing that will keep us from continuing our decline is a change in the hearts of the people to reawaken the love of Liberty.

When the collapse finally arrives and the real pain of tyranny makes itself known to America, the best we can hope for is to rebuild with the existing Constitution as our guide and a commitment to hold fast to the principles of the Founders.

As Ken points out, there is nothing wrong with the Constitution. The problem is the men running the country that ignore this document.

There is an old saying: “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” It is a variant of the adage: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”. In short, both mean that you shouldn’t try to improve something that is working satisfactorily. In this particular case, we have something that isn’t working properly. But just what is it that is not working properly. It is not the Constitution.

democratsgesCalling a Constitutional Convention seems to be a juxtaposition of one of the adages above. It is the equivalent of stating that “the good is the enemy of the perfect.” There is nothing wrong with the Constitution. It is as close to perfect as anyone has ever achieved. Does anyone really think this group of retarded pygmies in Washington can improve anything, no less the greatest document ever penned? I shudder to think of what these clowns would produce.

Our problem is not the operating system that we call The Constitution, it is the operators (and that seems to be an especially appropriate term for these slimy creatures that inhabit our government).

Another reader, Bill, offers these thoughts:

… the Constitution states that a convention shall be called upon two thirds applications of the several state legislatures. There is no requirement regarding same amendment subject or any other term or condition except that two thirds of the states must apply for a convention call. This means 34 states, 34 applications. You can read the applications from 49 states and their 748 applications at http://www.foavc.orgThe reason a convention has not occurred is not because the states have not applied but because Congress refuses to obey the Constitution and call the convention.

What good is it to change a nearly perfect document when you have imperfect people who are willing to ignore it or whatever changes might be made to it? Our problem has nothing to do with an old piece of parchment which represents the best attempt at limiting power and maximizing freedom ever produced. The problem lies with the criminals who won’t adhere to the laws and restrictions that they swore to uphold. That is the problem and that is what needs to be fixed.

That cannot be fixed by changing the Constitution. It likely can only be fixed with torches, pitchforks and plenty of tar and feathers.

Related Posts

1 Comment

  1. Actually there is a lot wrong with the US Constitution, just as there is with all governments, even with those formed supposedly to protect the rights of their subjects as that of the US does.

    If governments are formed to protect the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property and the “just powers” of government are derived from the “consent of the governed,” as we are told in the Declaration of Independence, the nation’s founding document, then how is it that our government may legally violate all these rights, i.e., our property may be taken by force without our consent by the government (taxation, forfeiture, etc), our liberty may be taken–imprisonment–if we fail to obey the arbitrary commands(“laws”) issued by so-called legislators, and even our very lives may be taken if we sufficiently resist those “officials” who forcefully impose their opinions on us?

    If all governmental powers are not inherent but delegated by “we the people” then exactly how and where does this supposedly delegated authority originate? I cannot issue commands to my neighbor and take his property against his will to enforce them so how can I possibly hire someone else to do it for me? How is it possible for my agent to have more power than I do?

    The sad thing is that so few constitutionalists are familiar with Lysander Spooner, the 19th Century abolitionist lawyer who laid down the irrefutable logic that exposed the fallacy underlying all claims to authority by any constitution. I spent many years as a hardcore constitutionalist until I stumbled onto Spooner. No education can be complete without studying the arguments against the state as well as those in favor. I heartily encourage everyone to read Spooner’s “No Treason,” particularly “No Treason No. 6, The Constitution of No Authority,” which can be found free online here:

    “No Treason” is a real eye-opener which reveals how deeply the religion of statism has been embedded in virtually everyone’s thinking. If you are not a different person after reading Spooner you are a statist beyond hope of redemption.

    “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

Post a Comment