NO TREASON.
No. VI.
The Constitution of No Authority.
BY LYSANDER SPOONER.
BOSTON:
PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR.
1870.
No Treason
The Constitution of No Authority
I.
The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has noauthority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man andman. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract betweenpersons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contractbetween persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to havebeen a contract then only between persons who had already come to yearsof discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatorycontracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portioneven of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, orasked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in anyformal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consentformally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty,sixty, or seventy years. And the Constitution, so far as it was theircontract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make itobligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, inthe nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but theydid not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument doesnot purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" thenexisting; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right,power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves.Let us see. Its language is:
We, the people of the United States (that is, the people thenexisting in the United States), in order to form a more perfectunion, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the commondefense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessingsof liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain andestablish this Constitution for the United States of America.
[10]It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement,purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract betweenthe people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract,only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neitherexpresses nor implies that they had any intention or desire, nor thatthey imagined they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" tolive under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, ormust live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes andmotives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to theirposterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety,tranquility, liberty, etc.
Suppose an agreement were entered into, in this form:
We, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Governor's Island,to protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion.
This agreement, as an agreement, would clearly bind nobody but thepeople then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right, power, ordisposition, on their part, to compel their "posterity" to maintain sucha fort. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of theirposterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to