Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Constitution Day

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain: that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, "The Constitution of No Authority"


Reformed Patriot said...

Mad props for the Spooner quote. Ron Paul helps you to understand the Constitution and what it is supposedly about, Lysander Spooner exposes why it turned out to be crap. Both are noble in their own right.

Patrick said...

I've heard two interviews where Ron Paul has named dropped Spooner in reference to slavery.

Anyone know if Ron has read any of Spooner's other work--ie. No Treason?

Patrick said...

Also, does anyone else wish that Ron would put more emphasis on 'liberty' and less emphasis on 'the Constitution'?

But, I guess the punch that "Constitutional" rhetoric packs can't be matched. It still seems to have a very strong emotional significance to a lot of people...

Sheldon Richman said...

I do, Patrick. But I do not think that the Constitution was supposed to be about small government. As Lynne Cheney said on television yesterday, the men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 wanted stronger government. This is absolutely true. They may have been against arbitrary power in the hands of one person, but they were not for small central government. If they were, they would have stuck with the Articles of Confederation.