Lenz: A Libertarian Polemic Against The Constitution

How did we get here? Literally?

Our Bill of Rights has become a bill of elusively evident, yet readily alienable requests, that among these are surveillance, tyranny, and the pursuit of search history. I think its time we start at the very beginning…

Did the states create a contract which formed the federal government? Or was it a compact between each state?

Perhaps Lincoln was right when he said people were the source of power. Is that why federal law is supreme?

We the people? Or we the states?

If the states created the federal government by entering into an agreement, known as compact theory, is our Constitution truly derived from the “Consent of the governed”?

Or was Lysander Spooner correct when he argued only those who voted to ratify the Constitution were bound by it?

No matter which side you fall on, we cannot ignore reality. A is A. In today’s environment there is nothing to stop the U.S. Government from illegally searching your home. Is it really unreasonable to think we might be quartering members of her majesty’s armed forces by 2016?

I think I’ll put in my request for Prince Harry now.

Prince Harry Libertarian

Ultimately, we are still left with the remnants of a federal constitutional republic. Its more of a non-participatory democratic republic than anything, but at least they have not taken away my beloved freedom of religion……although Rick Perry’s poll numbers are ticking up. I better fast track my conversion to the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster while I still can.

The big picture is that no one reading this article signed a contract. Which means the U.S. government entered you into a unilateral contract or forced you into a non-negotiable and henceforth illegal contract.

Personally, I believe the U.S. Constitution is a charter granted by state delegates on the authority of the people.

Why is this important? A charter grants authority or rights to a recipient with the understanding the recipient retains a lesser status in the relationship. Specifically, the former colonists agreed to the Constitution with the understanding “We The People” would always hold the monopoly on power.

However, the more popular school of thought believes the Constitution is a compact between the states and the federal government or a contract between the people and the federal government.

What is lacking?

A legal definition for the Constitution. Once we define it, we can work to trap our federal government back in it’s Constitutional cage.

Let’s take a look at a legal avenue:

1) The Federal Arbitration Act: This act allows two parties to relinquish their right to appeal in exchange for arbitration of contract disputes. What if every individual and state government in America filed for contract arbitration against the federal government?

First, we would need the court to accept the Constitution as a contract. But if that becomes it’s legal definition, we could simply end the contract due to it’s unilateral nature, or if it was defined as bilateral, the amendments would serve as agreed upon terms. Any judge in America would see the federal government has acted far beyond the scope of its delineated powers when being forced to view it as a contract. This would allow each individual to void the contract on grounds of misrepresentation.

I believe the strongest case for voiding it is on grounds of duress and undue influence. At the time of ratification our forefathers did not live to see the brutal consequences of secession. It was absolutely devastating to the South. Isn’t the threat of a treasonous death duress and undue influence? The Constitution is the offer you can’t refuse.

Personally, I think the government should be found liable and forced to pay restitution for unjust enrichment.  The accumulation of power by the U.S. Government is a clear example of unjust enrichment. In our case, it would not be expressed in financial terms, but in degrees of liberty. The government has enriched itself through the theft of explicitly guaranteed liberties laid out in the terms of the contract. As far as restitution goes, I’d settle for a return to strict constructionism and the repeal of the 16th amendment.

Next week: A new court system…

Over the next couple of weeks I’ll be writing about different strategies toward restoring liberty. Some routes will focus on legal procedure, others political, and even some counter economic strategies. The point is to brain storm. I’ve heard about nullification and other avenues over and over. Its time to stretch our minds for some new solutions. Please write us with any ideas  you come up with and send them to editor@wearelibertarians.com.


Share this

Greg Lenz is a reformed Conservative. I've slowly evolved my position from Conservative Republican to it's current status of Libertarian Republican. I'm aware people hate the Libertarian Republican label, but ultimately I'm a pragmatist. Economic issues are my primary concern therefore I do support Republican candidates from time to time (Rand Paul 2016). As of late, I find myself flirting with Minarchism. The writings of William F. Buckley, Ayn Rand, and Thomas Jefferson have played the biggest role in shaping my beliefs.

Further reading