I disagree with his take on "the consent of the governed." It undermines his whole thesis, because it was precisely that "consent" that the Revolutionaries thought they were not given---nor even asked for. The entire premise of the Constitution is based on a framework that the laws are derived only by the "consent of the governed." Now, of course NO ONE thought that meant "all the governed," or even (usually) a majority of the governed, but if you go to the origins of the Constitution, namely the drafts of the colonial charters, many of the governors, although they ruled at the appointment of the king, nevertheless were viewed as PURELY serving at the consent of the governed. The Plymouth covenant says so pretty explicitly, since most of these were COMPANIES and the "voters" were really "stockholders."
It is important to realize that the foundations for "consent" at all originated in medieval times as a result of a feudal arrangement between king and vassal, and this arrangement rested almost entirely on the bequeathing of LAND and a TITLE, for which the knights promised service. They did not have a vote, but their first right wa to property, and since then, property has been the foundational right of all the others---even some of the "Natural Rights" theorists saw the human person as "one's own property."
I do agree that the Constitution has become whatever a circuit court in CA wants it to be, and that needs to be reversed.
Congratulations on the Spooner Award..
I just ran across this thread on a former Spooner winner..
Why Care What The Constitution Says?
Address:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1115106/posts?page=47
Any comments?
64 jones
I disagree with his take on "the consent of the governed." It undermines his whole thesis, because it was precisely that "consent" that the Revolutionaries thought they were not given---nor even asked for.
The entire premise of the Constitution is based on a framework that the laws are derived only by the "consent of the governed."
Now, of course NO ONE thought that meant "all the governed," or even (usually) a majority of the governed, but if you go to the origins of the Constitution, namely the drafts of the colonial charters, many of the governors, although they ruled at the appointment of the king, nevertheless were viewed as PURELY serving at the consent of the governed. The Plymouth covenant says so pretty explicitly, since most of these were COMPANIES and the "voters" were really "stockholders."
It is important to realize that the foundations for "consent" at all originated in medieval times as a result of a feudal arrangement between king and vassal, and this arrangement rested almost entirely on the bequeathing of LAND and a TITLE, for which the knights promised service. They did not have a vote, but their first right wa to property, and since then, property has been the foundational right of all the others---even some of the "Natural Rights" theorists saw the human person as "one's own property."
I do agree that the Constitution has become whatever a circuit court in CA wants it to be, and that needs to be reversed.
74 LS
Barnett claims:
"I explain why the most commonly held view of constitutional legitimacy -- the "consent of the governed" -- is wrong because it is a standard that no constitution can meet."
I fail to see, given the basic simplicity of our Constitutions principles, why the ordinary person, [at some point prior to being given the privilege to vote], could not give his 'consent', an oath, -- to honor & support the Constitution.
[ the oath required for naturalized citizens would be an obvious model]
Do you touch on these subjects in your new book?
Any possibility that you could post an except, [like Bartletts] from your introduction?