Russell Longcore on the Constitution
17 Jun 2011 in Constitution, Forums
My highly intelligent “friend” Russell Longcore, seen first with writings in LewRockwell.com and now rarely missing a day on his own DumpDC.com, delivered there a most intriguing article which I reposted if you wish read it in full. I quote his following gem about the validity of the Constitution:
So what exactly is this Constitution?
I think it could only be called a loose agreement between certain people at the time that it was written and ratified. It is not a treaty ratified between sovereign states, which would have the weight of law. It cannot be considered a legal contract, since legal contracts have characteristics that the old constitution does not have.
It was ratified by votes in the several states. But ratification in any form didn’t turn it into a legal document with enforceability and authority.
The old constitution’s sentiment seeks to secure blessings to themselves and their posterity, meaning future generation of citizens. But a loose agreement cannot by law or reason bind any future person to its details. Contracts cannot obligate persons who will live in the future, either. They can only obligate persons who are living presently and who sign and receive the contract.
The old constitution is not a legal contract. The Constitution never bound any two or more parties in a legal way, nor did it ever purport to bind anyone. A timeless principle in contract law is that the contract is not valid until the contract is signed by all parties and delivered to the parties, or the representative of any signatory party. Any party may refuse to sign or deliver a written instrument and thus invalidate the contract. The US Constitution was not signed by anyone or anyone’s legal representative. It was not delivered to anyone or their representative. No one in the USA, either alive or dead, has ever signed the Constitution as a legal contract between parties. So how could it be a legal document with binding authority or validity?
So we here today, in striving to write a new Constitution to replace our battered old Constitution, should somehow deal with exactly Longcore’s excerpt above. The essence of that is simple, one cannot be bound by a contract to which he was not a party and did not sign. Thus every American who ever lived thru some part of the many years under the present Constitution has been unwittingly coerced to live under the rule of a government created to which he has never agreed; nor was he given any opportunity to agree or disagree with that Constitution.
Today, even having now the available tools of (comparatively) fast post, a new census, FAX, and internet, whatever we might decide here can never come close to securing the signature of every American. Going beyond today, once children reach the age of “majority” they would become more unsigned citizens. Therefore, despite never having been “legally bound” everyone is Forced to comply.
If there be ports of entry where immigrants enter, of course their entry could be conditioned upon them signing certain documents. The same could be a condition of citizenship. But those many who sneak across the borders will of course never have such “opportunity”. The gaps grow larger.
Let’s hear the reader’s suggestions about how to address this very serious matter in a new Constitution for a Voluntary System, or for any system whatsoever.
Those out there sitting on the sidelines are invited to join in, of course!
+50
Tasine said on 08 Aug 2011
Not all Americans now sign on to the Constitution. If they did, we wouldn’t have people trying to change it all the time. I believe some efforts for change can be good, but mostly what I see liberals trying to do in changing the Constitution are changes I could not support.
As a first thought, my thinking would be that each state would be responsible for its own Constitution, and every adult citizen would sign it as denoting their approval, or that person could live in another state that more close fit his beliefs. No person living in any state that he would not sign the Constitution would be allowed to benefit from programs designed for the benefit of said citizens, i.e., those who did sign the state’s Constitution.
I’ve not thought this through adequately, but I offer it as my first impulse. I hope others will comment.
Dean Striker said on 08 Aug 2011
Well, actually NOBODY has signed onto the Constitution, although Oaths may have some such effect.
In a Voluntary System, Associations would generally have Membership Agreements, and at least some of the time would have competition from other Association(s).
All this is definitely something we should include in some discussion category here.
Perhaps you could gather your thoughts about States and their constitutions and begin a new subject? Merely getting rid of FedGov cannot avoid tyranny of a State. The Govern problem is everywhere!