What is the real purpose of a Constitution? Is it needed? Does it really protect?

[Kingpin]

Is the Constitution really supposed to protect people from tyranny?

It seems that it establishes an elite plutocracy that is able to temper the will of the people and provide them the illusion that they are free and have inalienable rights when in reality the government and the capitalists pretty much have free reign to interpret it however they wish and the people cannot do anything about it without being called terrorists, being imprisoned for espionage if uncovering wrong doing, etc.

Is it Constitution actually needed?

What are some posts that have refuted the "free social contract?"

[RGacky3]

Its not the Constitution that gives the plutocrats their power, its their money and the power the money entails.

[Bud Struggle]

People have no natural human rights other rights other than those written down in law.

A constitution is the most elemental listing in law of any rights a society may wish to give its citizens.

[Die Rote Fahne]

It's to lay a basis for laws. For instance, a socialist constitution would ban the use of wage labour and the like.

[hatzel]

Last time I heard the only reason to have a Constitution is so that somebody can prove they're a truly democratic sovereign, backed by the people and fulfilling their will, by...wait for it...just getting rid of it on a whim! Good work, Herr Schmitt, you're just so frigging awesome :tt1:

Or did I misunderstand something when I read Political Theology? :confused:

[Ocean Seal]

Is the Constitution really supposed to protect people from tyranny?

It seems that it establishes an elite plutocracy that is able to temper the will of the people and provide them the illusion that they are free and have inalienable rights when in reality the government and the capitalists pretty much have free reign to interpret it however they wish and the people cannot do anything about it without being called terrorists, being imprisoned for espionage if uncovering wrong doing, etc.

Is it Constitution actually needed?

What are some posts that have refuted the "free social contract?"
The Constitution is a convenient way to legitimize the power of the ruling class as first it provides the law (the unquestioned rule of the land). It also has an inherent reactionary character because it is in fact a 250 year old document which is very difficult to modify. Combined with the almost religious fundamentalist perspective common in America where the people ask is it "constitutional" in order to establish whether something is good. Its rather ironic that the same people who yell Sharia law every time they see a Muslim also defend the Constitution as if it were scripture.

Moreover, the Constitution under a strict interpretation was initially meant to protect the property rights of the American ruling class upon the establishment of the country. It was written by classic liberals who believed in the freedom to property life and liberty. The freedom of property was designed to prevent a monarchic system from being set up. Thus protecting the businessmen and plantation owners from competition.

The right to property was also a right designed to keep the working class oppressed, and until today the document is being used to keep the workers out of power.

Reasonable: Well we should nationalize these banks after they crashed, instead of giving them money
Constitutionalist: Is that provision in the Constitution?
Reasonable: Well, I'm not sure if protecting the integrity of a 250 year old document is as important as preventing massive job loss, criminal corruption, and millions from losing their home
Constitutionalist: So what you're saying is that people's lives are more important than the Constitution?
Reasonable: That sounds about right. Corporations have historically gotten away with a series of injustices and used the Constitution to defend themselves
Constitutionalist: The Constitution is what makes America a great country
Reasonable: A great country with an 8.9% unemployment rate
Constitutionalist: Yeah we'll that's capitalism. That 8.9% clearly don't want jobs enough.
Reasonable: Shouldn't we work to change that. I mean that's even above the natural unemployment rate--which if you ask me shouldn't exist.
Constitutionalist: No we shouldn't. Are you some kind of Nazi bent on taking my freedoms?
Reasonable: No, but I would like to make sure that everyone had the opportunity to have a job, and make the system benefit the greatest number of people while still growing as a whole.
Constitutionalist: Yeah we'll that doesn't happen anywhere. Get out of fantasy land. Because 8.9% unemployment is low and America is the greatest country ever.
Reasonable: This means that there are ~ 26.7 mln people unemployed. Shouldn't we do something to change that. Get it down to natural unemployment at least, and hopefully knock it down even further?
Constitutionalist: No, those people are lazy. And getting natural unemployment down further. No country has ever had unemployment below 6% for a good amount of time. Name one
Reasonable: Umm, the Soviet Union
Constitutionalist: See I knew you were a Nazi
Reasonable: :huh:

[eric922]

A constitution is needed and will be needed in a socialist state. It must guarantee individual rights while promoting the doctrines of the Revolution. Above all it must be enforced and followed or like, the U.S Constitution, it will become nothing more than a piece of paper used as tool by an oppressive ruling class to control the masses.

[Blackscare]

I think that you're confusing THE constitution with A constitution.


If there's one lesson that we can learn from "the" constitution is that the structure of government as layed out by a constitution can essentially cement class dominance. For instance, in the US constitution, representative democracy is the chosen model. There are many critiques of representative democracy out there (and, of course, those that focus on America's especially awful model), but suffice it to say that a "democracy" sufficiently abstracted from any on-the-ground participation becomes dominated by the rich; those with the money to fund campaigns for politicians that they favor. It really is a genius document, from the perspective of the protection of bourgeois society.

As you said in the OP, this country (I'm assuming you're referring to the US) is a plutocracy. This is for structural reasons, we don't have a popular, participatory democracy. If we used a different model, things could be different. It's really simple, people don't like to vote against their own interests. When electing representatives, people can be fed lines of BS or just straight up lied to regarding the intentions of politicians. There are all kinds of ways people are made to vote against their own self-interest but the fundamental problem abstraction and alienation from the democratic process.

We're all familiar with the image of the two-faced politician pandering to everyone and serving no-one (but the rich, of course). People participating in real, practical decisions about their own livelihoods would have to exercise more critical thinking, they're not simply electing a pretty face who may or may not serve them according to their desires. I'm a big proponent of a more "structural" approach to communism.

I think that a 'vanguard' (ok, I'm digressing) should exist to put in place a systemically proletarian democracy and safeguard it, but should stay away from policy. As Trotsky once said: "It is hard to imagine Henry Ford being elected as head of the Detroit Soviet".



So yes, I think constitutions are very important. They just need to be structured properly. If history has shown us anything, one properly worded constitution can do more to cement a given class' dominance than all the party apparatii in the world.

[RGacky3]

People have no natural human rights other rights other than those written down in law.


Those arn't even natural laws, those are just things written down, we had free speach in the constitution, but not ACTUAL free speach until a couple decades ago.

It being written downt does'nt mean much.

[Bud Struggle]

Those arn't even natural laws, those are just things written down, we had free speach in the constitution, but not ACTUAL free speach until a couple decades ago.

It being written downt does'nt mean much.

No one has nay natural rights. Every right is a compromise between the individual and society.

[RGacky3]

Btw, you don't ACTUALLY believe that.

[hatzel]

Every right is a compromise between the individual and society.

Oh you're such a contractarian...:rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

Btw, you don't ACTUALLY believe that.

I PERSONALLY believe in God given natural rights. One of those is the right to property. And these rights being natural were given to me by God in his act of creating the universe.

But if one posits "no God" as a giver of rights--as one must do in a civil society, one is then lost as to finding a "giver" of rights. Since human rights aren't part of any devine law of creation, there is only whatman says are rights--and these can only be the things mutually agreed on in society.

Without God there are no laws that are innate. There is only that which is.

[RGacky3]

Argue what you believe, if you believe we have actual rights state it, I believe that. (most people ultimately believe in smilar universal rights, they just ahve different rationals for it).

[Bud Struggle]

Argue what you believe, if you believe we have actual rights state it, I believe that. (most people ultimately believe in smilar universal rights, they just ahve different rationals for it).

Ther problem is we can never resolve your personal beliefs with my personal beliefs and a billion other people's personal beliefs. We have to start with a common basis if we are going to live together as a society. Me believeing God gave me the right to own a factory is a dead end in anydiscussion with a Communist.

We have to start from a place of humans having no rights (a position that has been amply proven through history) and move on from there.

[RGacky3]

Every belief is a personal belief, whether its based on religion or not.

[Bud Struggle]

Every belief is a personal belief, whether its based on religion or not.

Whthout God there are no natural rights. And in giving natural rights--God has been very vague.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Whthout God there are no natural rights. And in giving natural rights--God has been very vague.

So vague that you can't outline what any of these natural rights are?

[eric922]

If God gave people natural innate rights, then how could anyone take those rights away? Rights are created by men and protected by men. Rights aren't give by God, and to be honest I don't think we really have any rights in the U.S. right now, at least not when the conflict with the interests of the ruling elite.

[Gorilla]

Is the Constitution really supposed to protect people from tyranny?

It seems that it establishes an elite plutocracy that is able to temper the will of the people and provide them the illusion that they are free and have inalienable rights when in reality the government and the capitalists pretty much have free reign to interpret it however they wish and the people cannot do anything about it without being called terrorists, being imprisoned for espionage if uncovering wrong doing, etc.

Is it Constitution actually needed?

What are some posts that have refuted the "free social contract?"

A constitution is a written description of, or prescription for, the structure of state institutions. Many constitutions also enumerate various rights, etc. which are chiefly window-dressing and best ignored. The really important thing is the structure of state institutions. Reactionary garbage like bicameralism, separation of powers, staggered elections, representation on a geographical basis, most forms of federalism, they're poison. That's what we have to pay attention to. All this social contract bullshit is just a ruse to confuse liberals.

[Rafiq]

Ther problem is we can never resolve your personal beliefs with my personal beliefs and a billion other people's personal beliefs. We have to start with a common basis if we are going to live together as a society. Me believeing God gave me the right to own a factory is a dead end in anydiscussion with a Communist.

We have to start from a place of humans having no rights (a position that has been amply proven through history) and move on from there.


What 'rights' has your god given you? If 'god' gave man the right to life, liberty, and property, how come a minimal of five million people a year starve to death?

How come only 1/100th of the population has property?

Another question, since it's impossible for everyone to have property(means of production) who does god choose to have the 'right' to own it?



So we can come to the obvious conclusion: If your god exists, it didn't give humans any natural rights.

[Rafiq]

Whthout God there are no natural rights. And in giving natural rights--God has been very vague.

There are no natural rights encrypted into the hearts of human beings.


We can set up a system that gives us ''rights" to be born with, but that's only because the system was set up by Humans, not your imaginary friend.

[Amphictyonis]

The US constitution was written to legally justify the rule of a minority capitalist class over workers. As John Jay said "Those who own the country ought to govern it".

[Bud Struggle]

What 'rights' has your god given you? If 'god' gave man the right to life, liberty, and property, how come a minimal of five million people a year starve to death?

How come only 1/100th of the population has property?

Another question, since it's impossible for everyone to have property(means of production) who does god choose to have the 'right' to own it?



So we can come to the obvious conclusion: If your god exists, it didn't give humans any natural rights.



There are no natural rights encrypted into the hearts of human beings.


We can set up a system that gives us ''rights" to be born with, but that's only because the system was set up by Humans, not your imaginary friend.

You, I think, are missing my point. I agree there are no natural rights--or rather none that I can use as an argument in standard discourse. The only rights we have are those we as a society agree on. So that in the day--when society agreed that Blacks could be property of whites--that was the workable law of the land and indeed Blacks had no rights to be free.

If we agree in law that women have a right to abortion, then they do. If the law changes and a fetus has the rights and the woman doesn't--those are just the way things are.

If we agree the Jews have no rights and should be thrown into ovens--and we make that our law, then so be it.

All the rights we have as people are the ones society grants and nothing more.

There is nothing else. You could devise moralities that oppose or agree with the rights granted or not granted in law--but that's a personal matter again.

[Rafiq]

That's very materialist of you, comrade budd!

[Bud Struggle]

That's very materialist of you, comrade budd!

I LOVE Materialism. It separates the true Communists from the Liberals.

[Revolution starts with U]

Honestly any argument you could try to make against Bud's positions (which I share, strangley enough) will be merely an is-ought fallacy.

[L.A.P.]

As far as the US Constitution goes, I think it is important that it stays the supreme document of law even under a socialist state. You can edit it for it to be compatible to socialist principles and even add new amendments. Bringing in a completely new constitution would ruin the legitimacy of it, allowing any tyrant that comes into power to put in their own constitution.