This is the third article of my FreedomFest 2021 article. The second panel discussion was moderated by Mark Skusen. Panel members included Patrick Newman (a professor of economics in southern Florida and a member of the Mises Institute; also Rothbard Volume 5″Bred in freedom“, Anastasia Boden (Pacific Law Foundation) and John Norton Moore (Professor, University of Virginia, absent).
Skousen: Volume 5 is very controversial; it shows that the Constituent Assembly was a big mistake. This meeting will put forward the viewpoints that support and oppose Rothbard’s theory.
Newman: I will defend Rothbard’s argument that the constitution is a coup: its formulation and approval is a coup: it is illegal and goes beyond the amendment procedure of the clause; the approval process is nepotism and goes against the will of the public. The Federalists hope that the constitution will become an important government document.
- Coup d’etat: the illegal and unconstitutional seizure of power by a political faction, army or dictator
- The Constituent Assembly should revise the Confederate clause
- Delegates repeal the clause and “do their own thing”
- The Constitution is a huge amendment; however, it is still illegal because only nine conventions in 13 countries need to be ratified
- Federalists (strong central government) and anti-federalists (state rights and decentralization)
- The Federalists controlled the newspapers and the post office; they lied, bribed and used dirty tricks at the conference
- The Federalists hope that the constitution will become an important government document (the powerful central government provides crony privileges; necessary and appropriate clauses and general welfare clauses are the most flexible and effective nepotism and rule bending)
- The benefits of the constitution that liberals like to uphold can only be realized through a strategic interpretation in the direction of “strict constructivism” and after the Federalists lose power. For example, anti-federalists like Patrick Henry and George Clinton opposed the Constitution and then became strict constructivists.
Boden: I oppose Rothbard’s argument. I am here to defend the Constitution. “Rothbard burned history.”
- If the Constituent Assembly is a nationalist conspiracy, then it is a failure, because the Constitution is one of the most liberal documents in history.
- The constitution limits the powers of the federal government. The constitution is used for enumeration purposes.
- Even commercial clauses aim to increase freedom by restricting the state’s control over economic activities.
- The individual is the sovereign, not the state. This is a new concept, and rights are instantiated in the bill of rights.
- The Ninth Amendment is the key, because the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not contain a complete list of “certain rights enumerated in the Constitution and shall not be interpreted as denying or belittling other rights reserved by the people.”
- The constitution is legal because it protects our rights.
- We live in the freest country in the world; where do you want to live? The reality is the proof of the pudding.
- Localism is not an end in itself, and it is not necessarily better than the federal government in all situations. We expect it to be better, but freedom is the ultimate goal. The federal government can actually ensure freedom, for example, 14day The amendment corrects violations of individual rights in certain states.
- Alexander Hamilton is one of Rothbard’s least favorite founders. Hamilton once said: “It is easy to win a revolution; it is even harder to govern.”
Skusen: Summary of the absence of John Norton Moore
- Power must be bound by a constitution containing checks and balances
- Checks and balances should not be ignored in the U.S. Constitution
- Rothbard ignored the Ninth and Tenth Amendments
Newman: Thomas Jefferson thinks Scottish economist Adam Smith“The Wealth of Nations” is a good book; Alexander Hamilton disagrees. Rothbard’s criticism of Adam Smith was too extreme.
Borden: The fact that the government violated the Constitution does not invalidate the Constitution; it shows that the people allow this to happen. The rampage of the administrative state is a distortion of the constitution; bureaucrats and judges fail to uphold our freedom.
the end.
