The Constitution gives the U.S. too much Power

[webmaster]

Subject:The Constitution gives the U.S. too much Power
By: Jason Hommel, Silver Stock Report

Overview: I risk making myself very unpopular writing this essay, but please bear with me. The truth is self evident to every rational thinker. The truth is polarizing. The truth often makes people angry, especially people whose lives and livelihood are set up in ways contrary to the truth. I hope my presentation is easy enough to digest that it avoids misunderstandings that lead to unnecessary anger and false accusations. Please read this article in full, before emailing me your discontent.

Link: http://news.silverseek.com/GoldIsMoney/1236899403.php

[Golden]

I've read it and I agree with it totally.

[jonva325]

I will give a qualified agreement regarding immigration, but I respectfully disagree regarding debt and tariffs.

Debt and tariffs were essential parts of Alexander Hamilton's blueprint for industrialization, later known (in the 19th century) as the "American System of Political Economy." This is a continuous thread of economic policy linking Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Quincy Adams, and Abraham Lincoln.

"Free trade" inhibits industrialization. No nation has ever industrialized by following a "free trade" policy.

Furthermore, debt is necessary for industrialization, because of the long-term investments in infrastructure and factories necessary at the beginning of the process. If managed correctly, the process of industrialization and economic development creates plenty of real wealth to repay the debt with a net profit. This is the exact Hamiltonian blueprint followed by Japan toward the end of the 19th century. In modified form, it was the basis for the industrialization for several other countries as well.

In summary, the essential issue here, in my mind, involves the government policies necessary to foster industrialization.

[ThirdPartyGuy]

Like Jason Hommel, I too have recently started a business and mine just happens to be lecturing/teaching the Constitution and its original intent. I was ready to dismantle all arguments, one by one, but having read many of Jason's works I sort of understand where he is coming from. I do respectfully disagree, though.

There are a few points I would like to see reconciled instead of me posting a Constitutional seminar, which could alleviate some confusion:

1) "The government's job is to punish evil" - what is the suggestion for the funding of this government function? Through tithing?
2) "In my own life, I try to avoid debt." -This statement assumes that debt is sometimes unavoidable, yet when government cannot avoid it they are evil (assuming government only operates only within its enumerated powers).


Being unable to pass up an opportunity to teach on the Constitution, I must exercise this one.
"It is important to note, that we are not parties to the contract of the Constitution. It was a contract between the State Governments."
AND
"Interestingly, the reason the Constitution was created in the first place, is that the new revolutionary government was in debt..."

Before the Constitution was the Articles of Confederation which provided a very limited revenue stream to the Federal Government to "provide for a Navy, build Post roads, etc." Under these Articles, each State was to pay a portion of the war debt according to apportionment. Virginia had payed off in entirety their portion while a few other States had payed off a large portion, yet some had paid none. Then, six years later, the Constitution was ratified and the remaining war debt was redistributed amongst ALL the States, again according to apportionment. Virginia paid twice! America nearly never was because of this.

[Katwoman]

But the UK has done a fine job of showing the world how well free trade works for stimulating de-industrialization.

[mark2112gum]

Totally agreed, like totally!