Constitution not legally binding?

[taekwondave]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/spooner1.html

I found this a fun read.

[taekwondave]

"Where would be the end of fraud and litigation, if one party could bring into court a written instrument, without any signature, and claim to have it enforced, upon the ground that it was written for another man to sign? that this other man had promised to sign it? that he ought to have signed it? that he had had the opportunity to sign it, if he would? but that he had refused or neglected to do so? Yet that is the most that could ever be said of the Constitution. The very judges, who profess to derive all their authority from the Constitution – from an instrument that nobody ever signed – would spurn any other instrument, not signed, that should be brought before them for adjudication.

Moreover, a written instrument must, in law and reason, not only be signed, but must also be delivered to the party (or to some one for him), in whose favor it is made, before it can bind the party making it. The signing is of no effect, unless the instrument be also delivered. And a party is at perfect liberty to refuse to deliver a written instrument, after he has signed it. The Constitution was not only never signed by anybody, but it was never delivered by anybody, or to anybody's agent or attorney. It can therefore be of no more validity as a contract, then can any other instrument that was never signed or delivered."

[creekster]

DO you find this persuasive on eiother an intellectual or a practical basis?

[taekwondave]

DO you find this persuasive on eiother an intellectual or a practical basis?

Did you finish it already? I'm still reading.

[creekster]

Did you finish it already? I'm still reading.

I read enough. It is an old argument and has been around, as you can see from his death date, for a long time. I read this many years ago for some class or seminar or something or another. (or if not this, something very similar, but I recognize the guy's name so I think it was this).

So, do you find it persuasive?

[taekwondave]

I read enough. It is an old argument and has been around, as you can see from his death date, for a long time. I read this many years ago for some class or seminar or something or another. (or if not this, something very similar, but I recognize the guy's name so I think it was this).

So, do you find it persuasive?

Well, in response to your first question, I don't find it practical.

[taekwondave]

However, I must say, it evokes in my mind a small street of shopkeepers who one day are approached by "insurance salesman" offering insurance "just in case anything bad were to happen to your pretty little shop here." If those shopkeepers consented, then their children's children would be in an interesting position. Never knowing an existence absent the insurance guys, it may be impossible for them to imagine a world without them. I wonder sometimes if this is us today; if government really is the necessary evil we all think it is, or if it's truly possible to live in a purely voluntary, contractual society, without resorting to government entities to mediate. Having grown up with the insurance guys, it's hard to even fathom.

[taekwondave]

And that has me thinking of Plato's cave...

[pellegrino]

I read enough. It is an old argument and has been around, as you can see from his death date, for a long time. I read this many years ago for some class or seminar or something or another. (or if not this, something very similar, but I recognize the guy's name so I think it was this).

So, do you find it persuasive?

It completely ignores that the constitution was ratified by the states.

[il Padrino Ute]

It's been a 20+ years since I've heard his name - it was in a class that I took in school - but wasn't Spooner an anarchist? This seems like something tio which the OWS crowd would attach itself.

[il Padrino Ute]

It completely ignores that the constitution was ratified by the states.

That's just a meaningless technicality.

[taekwondave]

It completely ignores that the constitution was ratified by the states.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it accounts for this. The main argument is that it is not a contract and that even if it were, would be null and void after the death of those then living, since no contract can obligate someone's offspring under the mode of law that our system was spawned from.

[taekwondave]

It's been a 20+ years since I've heard his name - it was in a class that I took in school - but wasn't Spooner an anarchist? This seems like something tio which the OWS crowd would attach itself.

I think he would qualify, yes.

[creekster]

Actually, I'm pretty sure it accounts for this. The main argument is that it is not a contract and that even if it were, would be null and void after the death of those then living, since no contract can obligate someone's offspring under the mode of law that our system was spawned from.

Our government exists under a social compact, not an individual contract. The legitimacy of the government springs from the consent of the governed. Such consent was granted expressly through representatives in the first generation and is now granted implicitly through conduct. This is, I suppose (although who knows, as they never seemed able to articulate anything) one of the points of the OWS gang; they no longer consent. Sadly for them, most of us do and so government continues.

[taekwondave]

Our government exists under a social compact, not an individual contract. The legitimacy of the government springs from the consent of the governed. Such consent was granted expressly through representatives in the first generation and is now granted implicitly through conduct. This is, I suppose (although who knows, as they never seemed able to articulate anything) one of the points of the OWS gang; they no longer consent. Sadly for them, most of us do and so government continues.

He addressed everything you just said. Did you read the whole thing back then or did you get a paraphrased version and take your cue from the person giving the presentation? I don't mean to be rude, but you've just brought things up that were more than adequately addressed in his argument.