For century’s philosophers have debated many issues relating to God, our existence and government. No two philosopher are the exact same just as no two people are the exact same, for example for every philosopher that has a certain opinion and belief on a topic there is another one who completely disagrees with it and believes the exact opposite. After reading Lysander Spooner’s and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s writings and analyzing Spooner’s argument and the principals that derived it, I believe that if they were alive today they would not agree with Spooner’s claim that the Constitution has no authority.
Spooner’s entire career was based on an opposition to the governing’s rules and regulations; beginning with the fact that he did not even follow …show more content…
In Spooner’s argument opposing the constitution he believed that the constitution was a contract of the government which could not logically apply to anyone accept the forty men that signed it. He felt that this contract was not based on all the people but rather these select few, since we know many groups of people were not even permitted to partake in government decisions at the time. Since in Spooner’s view the document only applied to the signers and not to the people that came after them, the Constitution would be void and they would have no power or right to make it obligatory. Spooner also claimed that the Constitution itself fails one of the most basic burdens of proof for a valid contract in the courtroom and therefore; is not legally binding because those who signed the contract are no longer living and all people living in the nation never signed or gave their actual consent, the consent was just assumed. In his writings, he took this idea even further in that he felt if you considered a person voting as giving their consent to support the constitution, that it could not be so until voting is perfectly voluntary on his/her part. However, he felt that voting was not and could not properly be called voluntary as