CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[BlackSand]

I really don't mean to ignore your points about term limits for Congress ... I just think it would all work a lot better if there was a certain qualification process that ensured we don't end up with Congressmen who think the island of Guam may capsize if we put too many soldiers on it.

LOL. Or a Congresswoman who believed Rush Limbaugh when he joked that he had just bought a new can of dog food for his mother.

But, I don't think we need to dictate qualifications at the federal level--that sort of negates the concept of self governance. So if the people vote to send complete idiots to Washington, that is their right.

Jefferson's concept of majority rule will in most case make sure the morons are over ridden every time. It is instructive though, when quoting Jefferson on that point, that he included the qualifier that a just majority rules for the benefit of the whole and not for any one segment or group. The restrictions I would constitutionally put on government and the Congress elected to see that the proper functions of government are carried out would eliminate most of the favoritism, cronyism, and corruption that now exists.

The only problem I have seen identified with term limits has more to do with the current environment in Congress.

With massive legislation in bills containing ludicrous amounts of add-ons ... Representatives in Congress often are forced to rely on "handlers" to help them weed through and interpret legislation. Not necessarily lobbyist but general staff.

If term limits severely limit the time anyone spends in Congress that allows them to become experienced with the way things work and where the details are hidden ... Then the Congress will only fall under the control of the "handlers".

To avoid this ... Or other issues associated with add-ons ... We should adopt the same policy many states currently have. In those states ... No issues that do not address the specific context in title of the bill are allowed to be attached to the bill.

You avoid problems like hiding a budget reduction for VA Hospitals in a Farms bill.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

And on that Jefferson quotation re the will of the majority should prevail, it should be noted that in the same speech he added qualifications that a just majority must have the best interests of the whole in mind and not any special interests. And he knew sometimes a just majority would get it wrong, but subsequently would correct its errors.

 

[Foxfyre]

I really don't mean to ignore your points about term limits for Congress ... I just think it would all work a lot better if there was a certain qualification process that ensured we don't end up with Congressmen who think the island of Guam may capsize if we put too many soldiers on it.

LOL. Or a Congresswoman who believed Rush Limbaugh when he joked that he had just bought a new can of dog food for his mother.

But, I don't think we need to dictate qualifications at the federal level--that sort of negates the concept of self governance. So if the people vote to send complete idiots to Washington, that is their right.

Jefferson's concept of majority rule will in most case make sure the morons are over ridden every time. It is instructive though, when quoting Jefferson on that point, that he included the qualifier that a just majority rules for the benefit of the whole and not for any one segment or group. The restrictions I would constitutionally put on government and the Congress elected to see that the proper functions of government are carried out would eliminate most of the favoritism, cronyism, and corruption that now exists.

The only problem I have seen identified with term limits has more to do with the current environment in Congress.

With massive legislation in bills containing ludicrous amounts of add-ons ... Representatives in Congress often are forced to rely on "handlers" to help them weed through and interpret legislation. Not necessarily lobbyist but general staff.

If term limits severely limit the time anyone spends in Congress that allows them to become experienced with the way things work and where the details are hidden ... Then the Congress will only fall under the control of the "handlers".

To avoid this ... Or other issues associated with add-ons ... We should adopt the same policy many states currently have. In those states ... No issues that do not address the specific context in title of the bill are allowed to be attached to the bill.

You avoid problems like hiding a budget reduction for VA Hospitals in a Farms bill.

.

But wouldn't #12 on the list prevent that from happening?

12. Only the bare basics of government administrative functions will be included in the annual operating budget. All other allocations of any kind will be presented as single issues--i.e.not included or bundled with any other legislation--in a stand alone bill requiring an up or down vote by 2/3rds of both House and Senate and signed by the President for passage.
(No. 12 above removes the need for a line item veto power given to the President which would have its own problems.)​

I have worried somewhat about losing valuable experience via term limits, but after reading Mark Levin's suggested "liberty amendments" and Peter Schweizer's book on a permanent political class in Washington, plus some other sources and giving all that a lot of attention, I'm convinced that we would be better off electing honest public servants who would do what they needed to do to educate themselves on the issues. But we wouldn't provide opportunity for another self-serving permanent political class to develop in the federal government.

 

[BlackSand]

But wouldn't #12 on the list prevent that from happening?

12. Only the bare basics of government administrative functions will be included in the annual operating budget. All other allocations of any kind will be presented as single issues--i.e.not included or bundled with any other legislation--in a stand alone bill requiring an up or down vote by 2/3rds of both House and Senate and signed by the President for passage.
(No. 12 above removes the need for a line item veto power given to the President which would have its own problems.)​

As long as the requirement extended to non-budget related legislation as well.

I think the balanced budget idea in #11 should be mandatory ... Although I wouldn't mind if it was extended to two year intervals so comprehensive changes could be made without the rush to rubber stamp garbage just to pass the budget.

Not to mention that a balanced budget does not reduce the debt ... It just keeps it from growing.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

But wouldn't #12 on the list prevent that from happening?

12. Only the bare basics of government administrative functions will be included in the annual operating budget. All other allocations of any kind will be presented as single issues--i.e.not included or bundled with any other legislation--in a stand alone bill requiring an up or down vote by 2/3rds of both House and Senate and signed by the President for passage.
(No. 12 above removes the need for a line item veto power given to the President which would have its own problems.)​

As long as the requirement extended to non-budget related legislation as well.

I think the balanced budget idea in #11 should be mandatory ... Although I wouldn't mind if it was extended to two year intervals so comprehensive changes could be made without the rush to rubber stamp garbage just to pass the budget.

Not to mention that a balanced budget does not reduce the debt ... It just keeps it from growing.

.

Well given that any law/regulation/policy passed by the federal government generally requires some funding to implement, #12 would cover most of it, but your concern is well founded and we certainly should address that.

As for the debt, a balanced budget along with limited powers given to Congress to spend or obligate our money would almost certainly provide a huge economic burst of energy that would produce superfluous tax revenues that, by law, could not be spent for other things but would be applied immediately to the debt.

I would want an iron clad law that no new spending could ever be authorized, except in extreme emergency, if there was any debt to be repaid on the books.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh and on the two-year intervals? I'll give that some thought. Off the top of my head I think that might be risky as it might be too long a period to allow Congress to adjust to changing economic conditions. But if we limit Congress's ability to excessively tax us and limit how much they are allowed to spend and what they are allowed to spend it on, the budget process should be much simplified.. And if we don't allow them to hide expenditures in complicated omnibus bills, and require a full accounting, that should pretty well keep them from rubber stamping bad appropriations legislation.

 

[dblack]

Pratchett, regardless of whether you agree with our interpretation, in the interest of understanding what we're saying, you can simply insert "free will" for "inalienable rights", it's (very nearly) the same thing.

Not even vaguely the same thing. I can rob a bank exercising my free will, does that make it my inalienable right?

Yes! It's not a right that we'd protect with government, but it IS inalienable. In same way any other act of free will is inalienable. Notice Jefferson didn't say government should protect ALL inalienable rights. He said "certain" inalienable rights. In using the word 'inalienable' he was characterizing the general type kinds of rights government is created to protect - to distinguish them from other conceptions of rights that amount to privileges granted by authority. He was saying that we create government to protect our freedom, not to give us perks and privileges.

 

[dblack]

Does what I say, think, do, believe, or what I do or how I choose to live my life require anything of you? Your service? Anything you own? Does it harm (the generic) you in any way? If not, then it is my unalienable right and should be untouchable by the federal government or any other citizen.

I don't think that's the case, and I think this is the misconstruction that's led to so much confusion on the issue. 'Inalienable' doesn't mean 'untouchable'. It simply means it's an inherent by-product of volition. And yes, robbing a bank counts. It's obviously not one of the 'certain inalienable rights' that Jefferson would suggest we secure with government, but it IS inalienable. And a clear understanding of this would go a long way toward clearing up the whole "God given" debate.

 

[Foxfyre]

Does what I say, think, do, believe, or what I do or how I choose to live my life require anything of you? Your service? Anything you own? Does it harm (the generic) you in any way? If not, then it is my unalienable right and should be untouchable by the federal government or any other citizen.

I don't think that's the case, and I think this is the misconstruction that's led to so much confusion on the issue. 'Inalienable' doesn't mean 'untouchable'. It simply means it's an inherent by-product of volition. And yes, robbing a bank counts. It's obviously not one of the 'certain inalienable rights' that Jefferson would suggest we secure with government, but it IS inalienable. And a clear understanding of this would go a long way toward clearing up the whole "God given" debate.

But....but....if the very definition of inalienable/unalienable as Jefferson used it is that which requires no contribution or participation by any other person, and probably commiting assault, how could robbing a bank be deemed an inalienable right? You are requiring other people to participate by having their property and perhaps their persons violated. You are requiring involuntary contribution of other people. Just as unjust taxation is a violation of the inalienable rights of the people, so is bank robbery.

There are some other issues that fall into a gray area re unalienable rights--say, public nudity. Do we have the right to vacuum in the nude in the privacy of our own home? Sure. That should absolutely be an unalienable right and no business of anybody else.

Should we be able to be nude in public? Most communities would say no purely because of hygiene reasons if nothing else--nobody wants to put their bare butt on the chair where another bare butt was just sitting. That sort of thing.

Should we be able to go to titty bars and strip clubs or adult bookstores or some Vegas shows or view magazines or movies with extra exposure? I think most of us would say yes - UNLESS - the local community determines as their social contract that they don't want such activity in their community and it should be their unalienable right to vote not to have that if they don't want it.

Should we be able to expose our nudity to strangers on the street? Most American culture says that's a no no, makes it illegal, deems it perverted, and even maintain sex offender categories for such things.

So as with many things, there are common sense absolutes, and some things that fall into gray areas involving cultural taboos for good reason.

 

[BlackSand]

Madison was initially opposed to including any list of rights in the Constitution because he thought it established a "parchment barrier" at the Federal level and diminished the States' rights and abilities to govern.

.

 

[PratchettFan]

No. Inalienable means it cannot be taken away or surrendered. That is the definition. Go to Websters and look it up. If I can take it away from you, then it is not inalienable. It's a meaningless word used by propagandists.

Pratchett, regardless of whether you agree with our interpretation, in the interest of understanding what we're saying, you can simply insert "free will" for "inalienable rights", it's (very nearly) the same thing.

Not even vaguely the same thing. I can rob a bank exercising my free will, does that make it my inalienable right?

No because you are requiring participation and contribution by others when you rob a bank. Unalienable rights require no participation or contribution from others.

No. It doesn't mean that at all. Inalienable means that it cannot be taken away from you and you cannot surrender it. That is what the word means. If you don't mean that, then you need to use another word.

You are placing an arbitrary condition upon this, and it too is unworkable. Even if you sit all by yourself in your room, an argument can be made that you are impacting others. You operate within a society and everything you do affects someone else in some way. If you turn on a light switch you are interacting with a power grid which is financed, in whatever small part, by me. It is a meaningless concept in the real world, and we live in the real world.

Yes, if I am hateful and belligerent and selfish, I do have an impact on the society I live in. And if I am cheerful and helpful and unselfish, I do have an impact on the society I live in. But I have no material affect on other people by being who and what I am and that requires no contribution or participation by anybody else. It is their choice to relate to me however they choose to do that just as it is my choice to be who and what I am. I am not requiring them to participate in who or what I am in any way.

Use of electricity usually does require contribution and participation by others; therefore to have or use electricity that I do not produce myself is social contract and not an unalienable right. However, what I do on my own property that does not require involuntary contribution or participation by others is my unalienable right and should be inviolate.

It is likely that philosophically we are pretty much on the same page. I do not think there should be any restrictions on what you do unless it affects someone else, and only to the extent that affect is negative. However, for practical purposes, that simply isn't going to happen and it most certainly won't be in any new constitution. We like to say we are a nation of laws, but the reality is that we are a nation of people. The laws are there in recognition of what people are like. So when you talk about an inalienable right to act as you please so long as you don't cause harm to others, that will sound good until it is pointed out that lets you do things people do not like - like shoot up heroin or take your clothes off in public. For many people, perhaps most people, freedom means their right to do as they please and your right to do as they please.

Therefore, unless you want to live on an island by yourself, the only rights which are actually inalienable are those which happen in your head. No one can make you think, believe or hope their way. But they can make you keep it to yourself.

 

[PratchettFan]

No. Inalienable means it cannot be taken away or surrendered. That is the definition. Go to Websters and look it up. If I can take it away from you, then it is not inalienable. It's a meaningless word used by propagandists.

Pratchett, regardless of whether you agree with our interpretation, in the interest of understanding what we're saying, you can simply insert "free will" for "inalienable rights", it's (very nearly) the same thing.

Not even vaguely the same thing. I can rob a bank exercising my free will, does that make it my inalienable right?

No because you are requiring participation and contribution by others when you rob a bank. Unalienable rights require no participation or contribution from others.

No. It doesn't mean that at all. Inalienable means that it cannot be taken away from you and you cannot surrender it. That is what the word means. If you don't mean that, then you need to use another word.

You are placing an arbitrary condition upon this, and it too is unworkable. Even if you sit all by yourself in your room, an argument can be made that you are impacting others. You operate within a society and everything you do affects someone else in some way. If you turn on a light switch you are interacting with a power grid which is financed, in whatever small part, by me. It is a meaningless concept in the real world, and we live in the real world.

Inalienable. Not subject to sale or transfer; inseparable. That which is inalienable cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another. I cannot transfer to you/sell you my ability to think, believe, create, inspire, speak, or be who and what I am. Unalienable rights are those that the government recognizes and does not interfere with or place any requirement or restrictions on.

The Inquisition was such a terrible assault on human rights because it presumed to deny people the ability to write or speak their thoughts and beliefs and/or be who and what they were with impunity. We have people in this country now who exercise their own form of Inquisition and presume to physically and/or materially punish others for no other offense than using a wrong word or expressing a politically incorrect belief or concept.

A constitution that recognizes and defends our unalienable rights would truly restore liberty if that is our goal. That is my goal because I think humankind is its very best self when liberty is the highest goal.

From Websters:

Full Definition of INALIENABLE
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

This point there is not that it should not be taken away but that it can't be taken away. There is no right, beyond what happens in your own head, which cannot be taken away and, under given circumstances, aren't taken away. You talk about freedom of action - how does that apply to someone in a max security prison? The right to vote or bear arms - how does that apply to felons? What happens in a real emergency and martial law is declared? We don't live in a philosophical world, we live in one where stuff happens and issues are all in shades of grey.

 

[PratchettFan]

Does what I say, think, do, believe, or what I do or how I choose to live my life require anything of you? Your service? Anything you own? Does it harm (the generic) you in any way? If not, then it is my unalienable right and should be untouchable by the federal government or any other citizen.

I don't think that's the case, and I think this is the misconstruction that's led to so much confusion on the issue. 'Inalienable' doesn't mean 'untouchable'. It simply means it's an inherent by-product of volition. And yes, robbing a bank counts. It's obviously not one of the 'certain inalienable rights' that Jefferson would suggest we secure with government, but it IS inalienable. And a clear understanding of this would go a long way toward clearing up the whole "God given" debate.

But....but....if the very definition of inalienable/unalienable as Jefferson used it is that which requires no contribution or participation by any other person, and probably commiting assault, how could robbing a bank be deemed an inalienable right? You are requiring other people to participate by having their property and perhaps their persons violated. You are requiring involuntary contribution of other people. Just as unjust taxation is a violation of the inalienable rights of the people, so is bank robbery.

There are some other issues that fall into a gray area re unalienable rights--say, public nudity. Do we have the right to vacuum in the nude in the privacy of our own home? Sure. That should absolutely be an unalienable right and no business of anybody else.

Should we be able to be nude in public? Most communities would say no purely because of hygiene reasons if nothing else--nobody wants to put their bare butt on the chair where another bare butt was just sitting. That sort of thing.

Should we be able to go to titty bars and strip clubs or adult bookstores or some Vegas shows or view magazines or movies with extra exposure? I think most of us would say yes - UNLESS - the local community determines as their social contract that they don't want such activity in their community and it should be their unalienable right to vote not to have that if they don't want it.

Should we be able to expose our nudity to strangers on the street? Most American culture says that's a no no, makes it illegal, deems it perverted, and even maintain sex offender categories for such things.

So as with many things, there are common sense absolutes, and some things that fall into gray areas involving cultural taboos for good reason.

A pretty good explanation why there is no such thing as a inalienable right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When right wingers talk about changing the constitution, it's always about restricting rights of people they don't like.

Oh look -- a lie.

 

[PratchettFan]

.[/QUOTE]

No. Inalienable means it cannot be taken away or surrendered. That is the definition. Go to Websters and look it up. If I can take it away from you, then it is not inalienable. It's a meaningless word used by propagandists.

Pratchett, regardless of whether you agree with our interpretation, in the interest of understanding what we're saying, you can simply insert "free will" for "inalienable rights", it's (very nearly) the same thing.

Not even vaguely the same thing. I can rob a bank exercising my free will, does that make it my inalienable right?

No because you are requiring participation and contribution by others when you rob a bank. Unalienable rights require no participation or contribution from others.

No. It doesn't mean that at all. Inalienable means that it cannot be taken away from you and you cannot surrender it. That is what the word means. If you don't mean that, then you need to use another word.

You are placing an arbitrary condition upon this, and it too is unworkable. Even if you sit all by yourself in your room, an argument can be made that you are impacting others. You operate within a society and everything you do affects someone else in some way. If you turn on a light switch you are interacting with a power grid which is financed, in whatever small part, by me. It is a meaningless concept in the real world, and we live in the real world.

Yes, if I am hateful and belligerent and selfish, I do have an impact on the society I live in. And if I am cheerful and helpful and unselfish, I do have an impact on the society I live in. But I have no material affect on other people by being who and what I am and that requires no contribution or participation by anybody else. It is their choice to relate to me however they choose to do that just as it is my choice to be who and what I am. I am not requiring them to participate in who or what I am in any way.

Use of electricity usually does require contribution and participation by others; therefore to have or use electricity that I do not produce myself is social contract and not an unalienable right. However, what I do on my own property that does not require involuntary contribution or participation by others is my unalienable right and should be inviolate.

If I walk down a street in the nude, I am not materially affecting anyone. At most I will offend people. If I walk down the street waving a Nazi flag, you have the same situation. Under your standards, either both are inalienable rights or neither are. The use of the word "materially" is open to debate. If you define it strictly, then you must actually cause harm. If you define it loosely, freedom of speech goes away.

I think the present system of rights with the understanding that nothing is absolute works much better.

 

[PratchettFan]

No. Inalienable means it cannot be taken away or surrendered. That is the definition. Go to Websters and look it up. If I can take it away from you, then it is not inalienable. It's a meaningless word used by propagandists.

Inalienable also means it cannot be given ... I didn't have to look it up but I did anyway.


in·al·ien·a·ble
inˈālēənəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
   "freedom of religion, the most inalienable of all human rights"
   synonyms: inviolable, absolute, sacrosanct; More

Thank you. That is what I have been saying. Which is why it is a meaningless word used by propagandists. There is no such thing. Outside of your thoughts, there is nothing which cannot be taken away from you. Your thoughts can be terminated.

 

[PratchettFan]

No. Inalienable means it cannot be taken away or surrendered. That is the definition. Go to Websters and look it up. If I can take it away from you, then it is not inalienable. It's a meaningless word used by propagandists.

Inalienable also means it cannot be given ... I didn't have to look it up but I did anyway.


in·al·ien·a·ble
inˈālēənəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
   "freedom of religion, the most inalienable of all human rights"
   synonyms: inviolable, absolute, sacrosanct; More

Jefferson also said the will of the majority is the surist guardian of the rights of man. Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Only if the man is in the majority.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thank you. That is what I have been saying. Which is why it is a meaningless word used by propagandists. There is no such thing. Outside of your thoughts, there is nothing which cannot be taken away from you. Your thoughts can be terminated.

The state, thru due process, can take all of your rights - so says the constitution.

 

[PratchettFan]

Now then, this got lost a few pages back. But in the interest of restoring liberty and the rights of the people to be who they are and live their lives as they choose, if that is to be the goal, then we have to remove power from those in government who would dictate every aspect of all of that and thereby profit themselves.

So who could agree to some or all of the following being included in a new and improved Constitution?

1. No person elected to Congress may serve for more than 12 consecutive years.

2. Those who have served 12 consecutive years will not be eligible for election or appointment to federal office for a period of two years.

3. Terms for senators will be limited to 6 years with 1/3 of the senate rotating off in each 2-year election.

4. Terms for members of the House will be two years.

5. Offices for senators and congressmen will be furnished with basic inexpensive but functional furniture and equipment purchased via lowest bidder. Any additional furnishings and decorations will be paid for by the official using the office space.

6. A reasonable allowance is allowed each member of Congress to provide living expenses, travel expenses, maintenance of his/her office, compensation for a staff, and a reasonable personal salary. Any additional expense above and beyond the allowance is at the expense of the member of Congress. A detailed annual report of expenditures of the people's money will be submitted at the end of each fiscal year and any unused portion of the allowance will be returned to the national treasury at the end of each fiscal year.

7. The government can arrange for a group healthcare plan for elected, appointed, and hired federal personnel, but each person will pay the full cost of participation in that plan.

8. All federal elected, appointed, and hired federal personnel will fund their own 401K or other retirement plan that will go with them when they return to the private sector. No taxpayer funds will be used for retirement plans for anybody.
(Some provision may be made for a stipend for the President who will generally be expected to perform ceremonial duties following a tenure as president. We can hash that out later.)

And further:
9. Congress may exempt itself from no law that is passed for anybody else.

10. Congress may allocate no funds or benefit, or make any regulation, establish any policy, or enact any law that benefits or disadvantage any individual, group, entity, or demographic that does not benefit or disadvantage all without respect for politics or socioeconomic status.

11. The Congress and President will begin each year with a zero based budget--the baseline budget process will be discontinued at all levels--and will be required to stay within budget boundaries except in very specific emergencies that will be defined elsewhere.

12. Only the bare basics of government administrative functions will be included in the annual operating budget. All other allocations of any kind will be presented as single issues--i.e.not included or bundled with any other legislation--in a stand alone bill requiring an up or down vote by 2/3rds of both House and Senate and signed by the President for passage.
(No. 12 above removes the need for a line item veto power given to the President which would have its own problems.)

There's probably more, but I think this would be a good start.

I really don't mean to ignore your points about term limits for Congress ... I just think it would all work a lot better if there was a certain qualification process that ensured we don't end up with Congressmen who think the island of Guam may capsize if we put too many soldiers on it.

LOL, or a Congresswoman from Colorado who believed Rush Limbaugh when he joked that he had just bought his mother a new can of dog food.

But in the interest of the people calling the shots, it should be left to the people who they send to Congress even if those people are morons. With the limits on Congress on that list, I trust that we will get a much higher caliber of people running for public office and the people will send enough good people to out vote the occasional idiot. At any rate, even if we have all idiots there, they would not have as much power to do idiotic things.

Frankly, I have never thought elections were that great a method. It's just how we have always done it. If you are going to rethink the process, I would suggest a draft. "Greetings from your friends and neighbors, you are now the new senator for Utah." Of course, the potential for hacking would be extreme but at least we would have people who didn't get in because they lied better than the other guy.

 

[PratchettFan]

Pratchett, regardless of whether you agree with our interpretation, in the interest of understanding what we're saying, you can simply insert "free will" for "inalienable rights", it's (very nearly) the same thing.

Not even vaguely the same thing. I can rob a bank exercising my free will, does that make it my inalienable right?

Yes! It's not a right that we'd protect with government, but it IS inalienable. In same way any other act of free will is inalienable. Notice Jefferson didn't say government should protect ALL inalienable rights. He said "certain" inalienable rights. In using the word 'inalienable' he was characterizing the general type kinds of rights government is created to protect - to distinguish them from other conceptions of rights that amount to privileges granted by authority. He was saying that we create government to protect our freedom, not to give us perks and privileges.

Then everything is inalienable. So again, the word is meaningless. You have the inalienable right to commit murder, you'll be executed for it.