Holy Scripture: The United States Constitution

Column by new Root Striker Entito Sovrano.

Exclusive to STR 

The Constitution of the United States of America has been the written document that the vast majority of people in both the freedom movement and the “truth movement” in the United States have referred to when advocating a better society. Whilst attempts to limit government through such a document were admirable (although it is ultimately a document that supports heteronomy) when it was first written, the clear failure of the Constitution – and “the people” themselves to uphold the values outlined in it – is glaring. Still, people hold onto that document as if it is a proven, trusty defence against all forms of tyranny. I argue that “constitutionalism” has, rather than defending individuals from the might of the state, actually enabled their usurpation.
Amongst those who consider themselves to be constitutionalists, there seems to be a great multi-personality cult surrounding “the Founders” of the United States. These individuals hold special significance – indeed they are venerated like saints amongst the most zealous constitutionalists. George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson are seen as a kind of establishment holy trinity. They are presented as being far above the average person in intelligence, abilities and character; indeed, practically no one alive today is supposed to even approach their apparent brilliance. Of course, only angels could have written the holy Constitution and thus the framers of it are regarded as nothing less.
Furthermore, since the Constitution is seen as a practically perfect document, the blame – for the failure of this piece of paper to defend the country from tyranny – is placed firmly upon the individuals (politicians) acting within the organisation that it has been fixed to. The “solution,” therefore, is argued to be the election of the “right” people rather than the “wrong” ones. These “right” people are the individuals who most closely adhere to the words of “the Founders.” The Founders of the United States, however, were far from perfect. Beyond their personal lives, one need only look at the Alien and Sedition Acts signed into law by John Adams in 1798 as the first clear breach of the Constitution. Indeed, if the supposed Founder saints managed to trample over the document all the way back then, what hope is there for anyone trying to mimic them, in the current age of centralised social-engineering, mass propaganda and low regard for autonomy?
It seems the history of the United States government is nothing more than the history of undermining that document so cherished by constitutionalists, which has in reality been little more than a museum piece the whole time. A system such as a “state” – which is controlled by political elites and is fed by a continuing drive to heteronomous consumption--cannot be held back by a document, nor by a people who accept heteronomy in their lives. Neither can a heteronomous organisation stand upon a foundation of supporting individual autonomy, since these principles are in a state of stark antithesis. The actors within the state (government) thus seek to diminish whatever acceptance of autonomy there exists over time. This process has clearly been in effect for over 200 years.
Another concern that springs from constitutionalism is related to the idealised view of the document itself. It seems enough for many to scream that a certain law is “breaking the Constitution” or that one “has the right” to this, that and the other. This concentration upon a document has led to reliance upon it that is completely unfounded. The philosopher Max Stirner once remarked: “…for one goes further with a handful of might than with a bagful of right.”
It seems that constitutionalists have held many a bagful of “right” with relatively little “might.” This adherence to their scripture has gotten them nothing, and yet they continue to cling ever more zealously to their cherished document as the system continues to undermine every value they hold dear.
I think it’s time to declare that not only is the incumbent paradigm not good enough, but that the “solutions” so popularised by constitutionalists – and indeed any group that supports heteronomous answers – are not good enough either.
Your rating: None Average: 8.2 (6 votes)
Entito Sovrano's picture
Columns on STR: 1

Entito Sovrano is an egoist philosopher and writer who draws from Stirnerite post-anarchism and Rothbardian libertarianism, but has created his own ‘flavour’ of philosophy which properly understood defies all labels.


GregL's picture

I had to look up "heteronomy", but nice article.

Glock27's picture

"The clear failure of the Constitution" I presume statements of this nature implicates the idea that the Russian or Chinese, or South African (as R.B. Ginsberg applauds) would be the perferd choice maybe.

"Enabled usurpation" If that were true this Nation would already be a tyranny or a monarchy which Adams desired.

"No one today is suppose to approach their Brilliance..." From my stand point this is a very accurate statement. Would you call the president more brilliant than Jefferson, and etc. Among the common mass they were and are and will continue to be. Now. They were not perfect and I have noted each in one way or another have made this clear. And my G_D look at Biden, Reid, Pelosey, then there are some dumb assed Republicans too. They could not hold a candle to these old gentelmen.

"...founders trampled document way back then." Can't argue that--anyway, I am not arguing, just making observations. However, the abuse today is far worse than it was in the beginning. I get the impression that you and a few others are far smarter than the framers. I am not convinced of that. What I am seeing from
you are emotional knee jerks to the Constitution

"...handfull of might than a bag full of right.." This seems to tag you as an aggressive anarchist. If you have a gun in your hand you have all the right you want.

You have argued the Constitution is flawed and maybe even bad, that even the founders started to deflower it, yet you offer nothing. I don't hear anything from anyone here who has anything to offer in its exchange except good old Ruth Bader Ginsberg. What I see are some of the most ignorant pricks running for office and know little to nothing about the Constitution and the the sheep vote for these morons.

I believe the Constitution has a solid foundation that could work, and seems to work up to a point. If the social animals would be honest and abide by the Constitution, it might honestly work the way it was intended to work. The current president and his bozo are amatures. You blame the Constitution, I blame the sheep and the pricks. Every society has some form of guidelines for the pack. Every pack will have a leader either througs concent or by force.

Since I recognize this, and know that we are going to have a government come hell or high water, I want it by concent, not by force.

Please note. I am merely making observations because I am neither a libertarian nor an anarchist, though I do have somewhat of a bent towards anarchist points of view.

Too frequently we see, but do not observe. I think Sherlock Holmes said something like that.

Sir William Blackstone's picture

You're right, the founding father worshipers are obsesive, however those do not substitute as arguements against the Constitution itself; I point that out because that was the main topic of your paper, at least as far as I could tell.

The example of the Constitution being trampled on by the Alien and Setition Acts was interesting, because it was nullified by two states because of their Constitutional authority. It was populary opposed and led to a lot of bums being thrown out, and the government went back to normal.

It's also interesting how you point out that there were many failures of the government under the Constitution. This is true, but there are problems with every government, it is government after all. Can you come up with a more successful system government that lasted for hundreds of years though? It seems to me that if there were no Constitution, tyranny would still would've resulted just as much.

I don't mean to attack you by the way, I too am a lover of freedom, it's just that this article doesn't make sense to me. I'm open to hearing your views however.