John Armstrong on Constitution- Close, But No Coconut

Mr. Armstrong has a few things right in his column today on the proposal to design a NZ Constitution. One of them is that Bill English and Pita Sharples and every other damn rorting thieving regulating unprincipled and racist denizen of the Beehive should not have a damn thing to do with it. They are the very people a Constitution should protect us from. What the damn hell would they know about drafting one?

He’s also right in saying that many of the matters in the Terms of Reference should be kept separate from the Constitution issue. Changes to the electorate for example are more a matter for parliamentary review. (My view is we badly need to return to state governments) That they are included seems like strategy to me. Make the issue so big it clouds what is really going on. He’s wrong on two things.

One is the TOW. This document should play no part in any Constitution as it is a race based document. See Lady Justice? She is wearing a blindfold. Any Constitution that makes distinctions based on race is immediately a flawed document. The TOW is history. It needs to be shelved and placed in a museum somewhere and otherwise forgotten about. No country can survive for long when rent apart by what the treaty has become today. A vile race based stain on NZ’s society. It was never meant to be this, but this is what racist opportunists supported by weak vacillating and vote seeking politicians devoid of principle have allowed it to become.

The second thing (wrong) is really something John doesn’t appear to get. What is the purpose of a Constitution? In my view, given the predatory and totalitarian nature of democracy today, its prime purpose has to be to limit the size and power of government, and to protect individuals from out of control politicians and bureaucracy. I want to see the vast government apparatus we have in NZ today dismantled and I never ever want to see such an abomination grow again. Everything else is superfluous. This objective makes the formation of the Constitution relatively simple. It must limit government and protect citizens from that government. There is really no other function for a Constitution, and unless we approach the issue from this direction, we’ll never get a real document. I’d say with the infestation of statists that this country is currently plagued with, its a very bad time to try for such an outcome.

See John Armstrong Disgraceful Plan Flawed At Every Step.

9 thoughts on “John Armstrong on Constitution- Close, But No Coconut

  1. The Americans are fortunate in that the constitution was framed and enacted by a non political process and before lawyers like Lincoln could tamper with it. His taking away of states rights was entirely criminal and proved his tryanny. The way this govt is going we deeply need a constitution that keeps us safe from a secret police and seeing people thrown in unmarked cars on the streets. My feeling is this govt will speeed through many laws before a constitution is drafted and a lot more before it is ratified. With Phils help of course.

    Like

  2. Well said, Red.

    In my personal opinion a constitution is meaningless if it is not founded upon Judeo-Christian morality, and ADDITIONALLY that those who were to write such a document both fear and know God; that they hold the view that government is fully accountable to the God who gives government its authority.

    I know I’m being entirely unrealistic in this day and age, but the above reasons are largely why the US constitution has stood the test of time.

    And it is because most of the politicians in our present parliament are nothing more than self-serving, treasonist, appeasing, racist, and minority interest group panderers, not to mention amoral atheists, that THEY should NOT be involved in formulating a New Zealand constitution.

    Like

  3. A constitution is a not a document for the people, it is for the government; that is, it is a set of rules and restrictions that are to be obeyed by the government, not the people.

    One could argue that a constitution should be drafted by the people. Whatever process this may take, there are so many people who are ill informed and misled by the mainstream media that they would be easily manipulated into drafting a constitution that would allow the government to continue to do as it pleases.

    Who can forget how a dumbed down population were duped into voting for MMP?

    Bill.

    Like

  4. National think they can get some kind of enduring deal with the apartheid party.This will come back to haunt them when their erstwhile partners jump into bed with whoever is offering a better deal.

    Like

  5. “that is, it is a set of rules and restrictions that are to be obeyed by the government, not the people.”

    That’s what is so sad. Its most probably that neither Sharples nor English nor any of our so called Parlimentary Representatives understand that simple fact. To them, the Constitution is just another piece of regulation, and Sharples of course is hoping it will bring special status to a certain race. A fascist concept.

    (BTW, always good to see you still around Bill)

    Like

  6. “This will come back to haunt them when their erstwhile partners jump into bed with whoever is offering a better deal.”

    ..and that they will do as quick as a wink. Armstrong claims National are resisting the Maori party. Damn, I’d hate to see what he might term as surrender.

    Like

  7. Hey Bill, I was with you until the MMP thing

    If we are being duped why is the govt trying to get rid of it with a binding referendum. Esp when they don’t listed to citizen initiated referendums?

    Red, I think these blogs are being infiltrated.

    Like

  8. “If we are being duped why is the govt trying to get rid of it with a binding referendum. Esp when they don’t listed to citizen initiated referendums?”

    MMP was heavily promoted in the mainstream media. It is a millstone around the necks of both voters and governments alike. The only ones who are advantaged by it are the small parties who are able to exert political influence that greatly exceeds their level of support.

    Like

  9. Even so,

    Its going to be hard to convince an angry electorate fully realising they have ben duped by the Nat’Lab coalition to throw away two empowering votes. Pyscologically anyway.

    Like

Comments are closed.