The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either ex- [*4] pressly 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 then existing in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

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 between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, 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 the people then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right, power, or disposition, on their part, to compel, their "posterity" to maintain such a fort. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of their posterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to enter into the agreement.

When a man says he is building a house for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of binding them, nor is it to be inferred that he [*5] is so foolish as to imagine that he has any right or power to bind them, to live in it. So far as they are concerned, he only means to be understood as saying that his hopes and motives, in building it, are that they, or at least some of them, may find it for their happiness to live in it.

So when a man says he is planting a tree for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of compelling them, nor is it to be inferred that he is such a simpleton as to imagine that he has any right or power to compel them, to eat the fruit. So far as they are concerned, he only means to say that his hopes and motives, in planting the tree, are that its fruit may be agreeable to them.

So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as their "posterity" was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquility, and welfare; and that it might tend "to secure to them the blessings of liberty." The language does not assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their "posterity" to live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it, they should have said that their objective was, not "to secure to them the blessings of liberty," but to make slaves of them; for if their "posterity" are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers.

1.)Since a person cannot be punished for the crimes a relative who came before them may have commited, can we likewise state that the Constitution does have authority over future generations?

2.)Since only a minority of the population helped create the constitution, does that make it truly invalid as stated by Spooner?

3.)Should we have a constitutional convention every 100 years in order to ratify or change the constitution as needed by the issues and travails that our founding fathers never could have imagined?

Please see Socrates' explanation of his relationship to the law in Crito. Socrates argues that anybody who voluntary remains in a society thereby benefits directly from its laws, and implicitly accepts that body of law as applicable to him.

There is a problem with this reasoning - it confounds "society" with "government."  Society and government are clearly two distinct institutions - society is the whole people, while government is a particular agency within society.

To "voluntarily remain in society" means to continue to participate in voluntary associations with others, and frankly, it is very absurd to suggest that the government can impose its will on people just because they are, say, trading, and call the whole deal voluntary.

It's even more ridiculous to suggest that people implicitly accept government when some people explicitly reject government.  Suppose, for example, that after the Declaration of Independence was written, the British managed to crush the rebellion and subjugate the colonies.  Would you then call British rule voluntary?

Constitution does have authority over future generations?[/color]
It has authority over future generations as long as said future society (us, for example) continue to agree that it does.

Not at all.  Those that helped create the constitution were still chosen by the people of the territories to act on their behalf, and those citizens still had to vote to ratify the constitution, after seeing what it contained in the way of law.  That's what makes it valid.

That would be something I would be willing to entertain.  From some of the readings of the Founding Fathers, it's clear that a number of the Framers were of the belief that the constitution was enacted as a generic framework, and that it should be changed or re-written from time to time, to reflect the mores of a changing society.

Thomas Jefferson himself felt that the constitution should be re-written every twenty years.  Now, that may well be too frequent, but I could see a new constitutional convention every 50 to 100 years. 

I do think however, that the re-write take place only insofar as amendments beyond the first ten go.  The Bill of Rights has served us well since the inception of the country, even with all of the arguments over a few of them (like the first and second).  Others however, like prohibition, were shown to be mistakes almost from the get-go.  Still other amendments could easily be incorporated or combined into a more inclusive, smaller set of amendments, which could help shorten up, and redefine the constitution for a more advanced society.  For instance, do we really need, at this stage, separate amendments giving the right to vote to women and to blacks?  Couldn't we have one amendment that defines voting eligibility to simply all US citizens of the age of majority?

Socrates did not make this distinction, because Athenian society and Athenian government, as regards the implementation of the laws, were intertwined. And the basic reasoning is sound. If you live within a society for some extended period of time and accept the benefits of its laws, at some point you have implicitly accepted those laws. We can argue whether that takes 1 year or 10 years, but the concept remains sound. To enjoy the benefits of the law and then reject the law's application to yourself is inconsistent.