The Constitution Doesn’t Protect Your Rights

The constitution of the United States of America is a good document. It was truly one of the first of its kind, a document created not to enumerate the limitations of the behavior of persons, but rather to enumerate the limits and bounds in which the state may operate. Unfortunately, like all cases when a monopoly of force is granted to any one group, a piece of paper telling them what they may and may not do has very little impact. The constitution doesn’t protect your rights.

Just in the same way a law against guns will not prohibit immoral men from using guns to exercise force on other men, a law that says the state may not exercise force without just cause elicits the same response from the state as it does from the common criminal, perhaps a quick laugh, followed by the continuation of his immoral action. The solution of adding gun control laws to stop an armed robber does the same thing as a constitution does to a government, nothing. Lew Rockwell explains just how little the constitution actually does: “This solution can’t work. It suffers from a fatal flaw. The Constitution creates a government that is the judge of its own powers. The branches of the government, legislative, executive, and judicial, are in theory supposed to check and balance each other. The problem with this is that the Supreme Court, which as the Constitution has developed has become the highest arbiter of constitutional issues, is itself part of the federal government. In a dispute between the federal government and the people, it is unlikely to side against the government.”

Every time someone in submission to the state tries to flex their constitutional rights with a simple “I can do what I want” (ala Ron Swanson)

the state responds by saying “so can we” and flexing their superior firepower. If the constitution protected your rights, the Patriot Act wouldn’t exist, nor would the NSA. If the constitution protected your rights, the drug war would end. If the constitution protected your rights, the government wouldn’t be involved in massive redistributions of wealth, but it doesn’t, so the state continues on doing whatever they may please.

Libertarians may be idealistic, but there’s nothing more idealistic (or foolish) than ceding all the justifiable use of force to one group and then expecting them to limit the use of that power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that doesn’t change when you put a piece of paper with rules in front of the state and offer them the power to interpret it. The constitution doesn’t protect your rights, it never has, and it never will.



2 thoughts on “The Constitution Doesn’t Protect Your Rights

  1. You can certainly look at the Constitution as a failed experiment in limited government. Either it directly led to the leviathan government we have today or was powerless to prevent it (HT Lysander Spooner). But I still wouldn’t endorse it as a “good document.” One of the most significant evils of the Constitution is the bold exemption it gives the state to the 8th commandment of God. By claiming that a group of men have the right to expropriate the wealth of others (“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises…”) the result of an unjust government was sure. This principle is well illustrated by Larkin Rose:

    1. Solid point. I intended to communicate that it was on the better end of the spectrum historically, but I realize now I did that sloppy. Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s