CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[PratchettFan]

Perhaps we can all just agree to disagree on the concept of unalienable rights for the moment as I think discussion of other issues might have a bearing on the mythical final vote when the 'new and improved' Constitution is ready to be signed and sent out for ratification.

I don't know. I think resolving that issue is key, because it's central to the concept of limited government. Indeed, I suspect the reason why some are so reluctant to even recognize the concept is because they don't want to see government limited in that way.

Let's try it this way. The right to free speech means that I can go into the public forum and proclaim that I think only women between the ages of 22 and 31 should be allowed the vote or hold public office. I cannot be prosecuted for this because of the first amendment, even if the government officials would love to do it. I cannot, however, start tossing guns into the crowd and scream "Let's go kill them all!!!" That is incitement to riot and insurrection and the first amendment does not protect me for it.

The former is part of the right o free speech and is alienable - the government cannot prevent you from doing this, absent some other circumstance.
The latter is not part of the right to free speech and can be restristec/prohibited w/o compromising your inalieneable right to free speech.

All you are saying is that up to the point the government does restrict your right to free speech, it is inalienable.

No. The right to free speech does not include inciting a riot, and so restrictions on inciting a riot have bearing on the inalienability of the right to free speech.

Who says inciting to riot is not included in free speech? The government. Who makes the determination of when that line is crossed? The government.

 

[PratchettFan]

Probably most USMB members have some familiarity with at least some of the U.S. Constitution and most have strong opinions about what the Constitution does and does not protect/provide/accomplish.

It might be an interesting discussion to have our own little Constitutional convention here and discuss what we would want to retain and what we would change of the original Constitution if the people decided to write a new one.

For instance, the Preamble of the Original Constitution is this:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, 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.​

The problem with the wording, however descriptive and elegant, is that we might have trouble in agreeing on what a 'more perfect union' is, what components of justice the federal government should be involved in, or what constitutes 'domestic tranquility'. Certainly there are broad disputes as to what is included in the 'general welfare' and strong opposing views on what 'blessings of liberty' actually are.

My proposal for a preamble for a new constitution would be something more like this:

We the people, in order to ensure peaceful cooperation and commerce between the various states, provide for the common defense, promote justice and the general welfare without prejudice or favoritism, and secure the unalienable rights and blessings of liberty for every citizen, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.​

What would you want a new Constitution for the United State of America to accomplish that the old one does not seem to do?

Why amend the Constitution when the one we have now is ignored?

It isn't being ignored.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wrestling over definitions does get boring. And it's further frustrated when one party won't at least recognize the other's definition - even if they disagree that it was the intended meaning. I think the real disagreement, when it comes to the definition of 'inalienable' is what it means to 'alienate' a right.

PratchettFan - I hope you'll try to at least comprehend what we're saying, even if you don't think its what Jefferson intended. What we're saying is that 'inalienable' doesn't mean it can't be violated, or temporarily impeded. Obviously other people can temporarily inhibit your freedom. But if you can still exercise a freedom when no one is inhibiting it - that's 'inalienable'. If you can, if you care to understand what we're getting at here, think of it this way: Any "right" that you can exercise if no one else is around is an "inalienable" right. Rights that require the active participation of others aren't. So freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, free will in general, are inalienable capacities of human existence.

In my view, Jefferson was characterizing, in fact limiting, the kinds of rights government should secure - not all rights, but the inalienable rights that we have even if no one else is around. Government should strive allow us to go from that state of perfect freedom, when we're alone, and enter into social interactions retaining as much of that innate freedom as possible.

I *think* I understand the view that PratchettFan and others are arguing for. They seem to be seeing any freedom that can be violated as 'alienable'. And of course, just about any freedom can be violated - certainly by killing a person. From that perspective, there are no such things as inalienable rights. And they find it puzzling that people can insist that some rights are inalienable. But I think they're missing the point of the 'inalienable' descriptor. It's not saying there's anything magical about those rights that prevents them from being violated. It's just saying that they require be bare minimum from others to be preserved. All they require is that others leave you alone.

I get what you are saying. My objection is that the word is misleading and propagandistic. You have a right or you don't. Calling it inalienable adds nothing. If you are marooned on an island, then you can do whatever you please within your physical limitations, but you have no rights at all. The very concept of a right is dependent upon a society. Without social interaction the word has no meaning.

If we are going to discuss which rights we should and which we should not have, that is fine. If we are going to discuss how we are to insure we keep those rights, that is fine. Clearly we have different ideas on how that should be done. But applying this adjective to the word rights does not change the reality of it. Its only purpose is propaganda, just as Jefferson employed it, and I am not a fan of propaganda.

I'm not tied to the word inalienable. If you have a better word or phrase to use that would say it better, let's hear it. I just personally prefer that word because of its historical context, but I'm not inflexible on that.

Otherwise let's agree on the definition of the word as it relates to the suggested Constitutional rewrite--it can be defined within the body of that Constitution.

I've done that. The word is "rights".

The problem is that there are different kinds of rights. There are human rights that we recognize as decent human beings. There are Constitutional rights that should be inviolable by either the courts or actions of the states such as the right to vote for those who will represent us in the federal government. And there are certain functional legal rights enacted by the states.

Unalienable rights as the Founders saw unalienable righnts are something different from all of these.

If what you say is true, then why did the Founders omit these "unalienable rights" from the only document which actually mattered?

They didn't omit them as I have gone to some trouble to explain in some detail. They gave the federal, government no authority or power to interfere with them. It is that corruption of that concept that I would like a 'new and improved' Constitution to correct.

 

[Foxfyre]

Probably most USMB members have some familiarity with at least some of the U.S. Constitution and most have strong opinions about what the Constitution does and does not protect/provide/accomplish.

It might be an interesting discussion to have our own little Constitutional convention here and discuss what we would want to retain and what we would change of the original Constitution if the people decided to write a new one.

For instance, the Preamble of the Original Constitution is this:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, 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.​

The problem with the wording, however descriptive and elegant, is that we might have trouble in agreeing on what a 'more perfect union' is, what components of justice the federal government should be involved in, or what constitutes 'domestic tranquility'. Certainly there are broad disputes as to what is included in the 'general welfare' and strong opposing views on what 'blessings of liberty' actually are.

My proposal for a preamble for a new constitution would be something more like this:

We the people, in order to ensure peaceful cooperation and commerce between the various states, provide for the common defense, promote justice and the general welfare without prejudice or favoritism, and secure the unalienable rights and blessings of liberty for every citizen, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.​

What would you want a new Constitution for the United State of America to accomplish that the old one does not seem to do?

Why amend the Constitution when the one we have now is ignored?

Because it's ignored. And it's ignored because there isn't a clear consensus on what it means. The process of creating a new Constitution would force us to find that consensus and offer the opportunity to clarify its meaning.

Yes!! Thank you! That is exactly what this exercise is about. While we're at it, we can wrestle with those new issues that are part of our modern society that the Founders could not even envision at the time the Constitution was signed. Such as WMDs, and electronic communications, and declarations of war by people who wear no uniforms or other distinguishing insignia, etc. all of which complicates the government's ability to do its constitutional mandate to provide the common defense.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's go to something we can all relate to. Would you or would you not favor a mandatory seat belt law imposed at the federal level? Why or why not?
How would such a law be enforced at the federal level? More importantly if we go to a national form of government and do away with the state and city governments?

I'm torn on seat belt laws, as I am helmet laws, but certainly the government is within its purviews to enact them. So if we are going to have them, it should be national. The roads in one part of the nation don't suddenly become less hazardous because you cross an imaginary line. They would be enforced exactly as they are currently being enforced. Why would you think there would be a change?

Traffic laws are state perview as he federal government has no power to create them -- because all roads are state roads.
The federal government had to threaten to withhold the money for highway projects from the state in order to achieve a 55mph national speed limit; this is why.
Further, the federal government cannot force state governments to enforce state laws, and so unless the federal government creates a national highway patrol, federal seat belt helmet and speed limit laws may very well go unenforced.

Sounds like we need a federal highway patrol then. Excellent suggestion.

No. It doesn't. There's no reason to have it.

If law enforcement officials are unwilling to do their job, then there is a reason.

No. If a free people doesn't want to enforce its own laws that falls within the realm of unalienable rights. They will also accept the consequences of not enforcing their laws and, if those consequences become unacceptable, they will certainly do something about it.

If we have a truly federal system, the central government should have no say in what state laws the people of any state will choose or what laws are wanted by the local communities. The only say the federal government should have in that regard is to intervene if one state's activities are violating the rights of the people in neighboring states.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Although inalienable our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Constitutional case law provides the framework and context limiting government's authority to restrict our civil liberties, and when it is perceived that government has overreached in its authority, the Constitution recognizes protects the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances by seeking relief in Federal court.

And when the courts determine that government has acted in accordance with the Constitution, and not overreached in its authority, it is the responsibility of citizens to understand that government has acted in a manner to benefit society as a whole.

This is one of many reasons why the notion of a 'new constitution' is completely unwarranted, illustrating the genius of the Framers concerning the composition of the Constitution, that it is a document of the law, that it was the intent and understanding of the Founding Generation that the Constitution be subject to interpretation by the courts, that it enshrines and safeguards the fundamental principles of individual liberty, and that it affords every generation of American the ability to invoke those principles when challenging the authority of the state – all of this and more will be lost with a 'new constitution.'

 

[PratchettFan]

I get what you are saying. My objection is that the word is misleading and propagandistic. You have a right or you don't. Calling it inalienable adds nothing. If you are marooned on an island, then you can do whatever you please within your physical limitations, but you have no rights at all. The very concept of a right is dependent upon a society. Without social interaction the word has no meaning.

If we are going to discuss which rights we should and which we should not have, that is fine. If we are going to discuss how we are to insure we keep those rights, that is fine. Clearly we have different ideas on how that should be done. But applying this adjective to the word rights does not change the reality of it. Its only purpose is propaganda, just as Jefferson employed it, and I am not a fan of propaganda.

I'm not tied to the word inalienable. If you have a better word or phrase to use that would say it better, let's hear it. I just personally prefer that word because of its historical context, but I'm not inflexible on that.

Otherwise let's agree on the definition of the word as it relates to the suggested Constitutional rewrite--it can be defined within the body of that Constitution.

I've done that. The word is "rights".

The problem is that there are different kinds of rights. There are human rights that we recognize as decent human beings. There are Constitutional rights that should be inviolable by either the courts or actions of the states such as the right to vote for those who will represent us in the federal government. And there are certain functional legal rights enacted by the states.

Unalienable rights as the Founders saw unalienable righnts are something different from all of these.

If what you say is true, then why did the Founders omit these "unalienable rights" from the only document which actually mattered?

They didn't omit them as I have gone to some trouble to explain in some detail. They gave the federal, government no authority or power to interfere with them. It is that corruption of that concept that I would like a 'new and improved' Constitution to correct.

You will not find the word "unalienable" in the entire document. If that is not omitted I don't know what is. If they did not wish to give the feds authority or power, then they would have specified that, as they did in some of the amendments. They did not. You presume that which is not there.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'm torn on seat belt laws, as I am helmet laws, but certainly the government is within its purviews to enact them. So if we are going to have them, it should be national. The roads in one part of the nation don't suddenly become less hazardous because you cross an imaginary line. They would be enforced exactly as they are currently being enforced. Why would you think there would be a change?

Traffic laws are state perview as he federal government has no power to create them -- because all roads are state roads.
The federal government had to threaten to withhold the money for highway projects from the state in order to achieve a 55mph national speed limit; this is why.
Further, the federal government cannot force state governments to enforce state laws, and so unless the federal government creates a national highway patrol, federal seat belt helmet and speed limit laws may very well go unenforced.

Sounds like we need a federal highway patrol then. Excellent suggestion.

No. It doesn't. There's no reason to have it.

If law enforcement officials are unwilling to do their job, then there is a reason.

No. If a free people doesn't want to enforce its own laws that falls within the realm of unalienable rights. They will also accept the consequences of not enforcing their laws and, if those consequences become unacceptable, they will certainly do something about it.

If we have a truly federal system, the central government should have no say in what state laws the people of any state will choose or what laws are wanted by the local communities. The only say the federal government should have in that regard is to intervene if one state's activities are violating the rights of the people in neighboring states.

Which is why we need a national government and get rid of the states entirely. That way states cannot violate the rights of anyone, as they have so often done.

 

[TooTall]

My number one priority for a new constitution will be to place a blanket ban on all private funding of election campaigns.

If you want to run for office you need to collect a certain number of signatures on a petition (depending upon the office) and then you will be awarded a fixed amount of taxpayer funds for your campaign. You will be held accountable for the funds and if you spend over the amount provided you will automatically forfeit the office should you win or be held liable to repay the funds should you lose. No outside entity can campaign on your behalf. Doing so will be a crime punishable by imprisonment.

My next priority would be holding elected officials and lobbyists accountable to the people. All meetings must be done in public with video and audio recordings. If any violation of this rule is discovered all of the parties involved will serve jail time. That includes the son/daughter-in-law who was given a job.

In summary all forms of bribery and corruption are to be treated as crimes punishable by prison terms of at least 10 years without parole.

The federal funding better be in the tens of billions for all of the candidates since the majority of the money is spent on TV and Radio adds. I don't think the MSM would go for your plan for a minute.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why should the federal government be given authority to mandate that all automobiles manufactured or sold in America must be equipped with seat belts? As would be the case with requiring UL labels on electrical apparatus, are such laws justified in the interest of the general welfare?

South Dakota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine and Kentucky do not have seat belt laws, not because they oppose seat belts, but because they have ruled that each person has the right to choose what is and is not in his/her own self interest in such matters just as each person has the right to choose to do sky diving or hang gliding or rock climbing or surfing giant waves etc. All 50 states, however, do require safety restraints for children in vehicles. Colorado, Illinois and Iowa do not require safety helmets for adults riding motorcycles but do require them for children.

Why not federal mandates that all cars be equipped with speed governors? A few legislators have proposed that rear view cameras in all cars be made mandatory.

The question always rests on how much control the federal government should be given over the way we choose to live our lives and how arbitrary that control can be.

Virginia requires you wear a seatbelt. Why is that not arbitrary control while it is arbitrary control if the feds do it?

The people of Virginia will certainly make it known to their elected representatives in Richmond if they sufficiently dislike the state seatbelt laws. And state legislatures are typically responsive to the people when something is important enough to enough of the people. The federal government is much less so as representative of the other 49 states don't care so much what the people of Virginia think.

The reason that 47 of the 50 states have seatbelt laws is because a majority of people in those 47 states don't have a problem with them. The three states that don't have seatbelt laws don't have them because a majority of the people in those three states do have a problem with them being made mandatory.

Here in Albuquerque, the city imposed much hated red light cameras on us at numerous major intersections. The people objected and complained loud and long and the cameras were gone within a year. Had those cameras been imposed by the federal government, they would not only still be there but there would have been more added all the time, they would have become increasingly expensive to administrate, and only a handful of people in Washington would care what the people of Albuquerque thought about it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

My number one priority for a new constitution will be to place a blanket ban on all private funding of election campaigns.

If you want to run for office you need to collect a certain number of signatures on a petition (depending upon the office) and then you will be awarded a fixed amount of taxpayer funds for your campaign. You will be held accountable for the funds and if you spend over the amount provided you will automatically forfeit the office should you win or be held liable to repay the funds should you lose. No outside entity can campaign on your behalf. Doing so will be a crime punishable by imprisonment.

My next priority would be holding elected officials and lobbyists accountable to the people. All meetings must be done in public with video and audio recordings. If any violation of this rule is discovered all of the parties involved will serve jail time. That includes the son/daughter-in-law who was given a job.

In summary all forms of bribery and corruption are to be treated as crimes punishable by prison terms of at least 10 years without parole.

The federal funding better be in the tens of billions for all of the candidates since the majority of the money is spent on TV and Radio adds. I don't think the MSM would go for your plan for a minute.

The MSM doesn't get to dictate campaign financing.

 

[Foxfyre]

Traffic laws are state perview as he federal government has no power to create them -- because all roads are state roads.
The federal government had to threaten to withhold the money for highway projects from the state in order to achieve a 55mph national speed limit; this is why.
Further, the federal government cannot force state governments to enforce state laws, and so unless the federal government creates a national highway patrol, federal seat belt helmet and speed limit laws may very well go unenforced.

Sounds like we need a federal highway patrol then. Excellent suggestion.

No. It doesn't. There's no reason to have it.

If law enforcement officials are unwilling to do their job, then there is a reason.

No. If a free people doesn't want to enforce its own laws that falls within the realm of unalienable rights. They will also accept the consequences of not enforcing their laws and, if those consequences become unacceptable, they will certainly do something about it.

If we have a truly federal system, the central government should have no say in what state laws the people of any state will choose or what laws are wanted by the local communities. The only say the federal government should have in that regard is to intervene if one state's activities are violating the rights of the people in neighboring states.

Which is why we need a national government and get rid of the states entirely. That way states cannot violate the rights of anyone, as they have so often done.

So if one state violates somebody's rights, there are 49 other states to move to. If the violation of rights is sufficient, we can now appeal to federal authorities to intervene. Were do we go when the federal government violates our rights? To whom do we appeal to intervene?

 

[PratchettFan]

Why should the federal government be given authority to mandate that all automobiles manufactured or sold in America must be equipped with seat belts? As would be the case with requiring UL labels on electrical apparatus, are such laws justified in the interest of the general welfare?

South Dakota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine and Kentucky do not have seat belt laws, not because they oppose seat belts, but because they have ruled that each person has the right to choose what is and is not in his/her own self interest in such matters just as each person has the right to choose to do sky diving or hang gliding or rock climbing or surfing giant waves etc. All 50 states, however, do require safety restraints for children in vehicles. Colorado, Illinois and Iowa do not require safety helmets for adults riding motorcycles but do require them for children.

Why not federal mandates that all cars be equipped with speed governors? A few legislators have proposed that rear view cameras in all cars be made mandatory.

The question always rests on how much control the federal government should be given over the way we choose to live our lives and how arbitrary that control can be.

Virginia requires you wear a seatbelt. Why is that not arbitrary control while it is arbitrary control if the feds do it?

The people of Virginia will certainly make it known to their elected representatives in Richmond if they sufficiently dislike the state seatbelt laws. And state legislatures are typically responsive to the people when something is important enough to enough of the people. The federal government is much less so as representative of the other 49 states don't care so much what the people of Virginia think.

The reason that 47 of the 50 states have seatbelt laws is because a majority of people in those 47 states don't have a problem with them. The three states that don't have seatbelt laws don't have them because a majority of the people in those three states do have a problem with them being made mandatory.

Here in Albuquerque, the city imposed much hated red light cameras on us at numerous major intersections. The people objected and complained loud and long and the cameras were gone within a year. Had those cameras been imposed by the federal government, they would not only still be there but there would have been more added all the time, they would have become increasingly expensive to administrate, and only a handful of people in Washington would care what the people of Albuquerque thought about it.

So it really is only about the size? If the people of Albermarle County (a rural Virginia County, so you don't have to look it up) don't like the seat belt laws they are not having their rights imposed upon because they represent a minority within the state, yet the people of Maine would be imposed upon if they were a minority within the country? I do not get your reasoning.

 

[PratchettFan]

Sounds like we need a federal highway patrol then. Excellent suggestion.

No. It doesn't. There's no reason to have it.

If law enforcement officials are unwilling to do their job, then there is a reason.

No. If a free people doesn't want to enforce its own laws that falls within the realm of unalienable rights. They will also accept the consequences of not enforcing their laws and, if those consequences become unacceptable, they will certainly do something about it.

If we have a truly federal system, the central government should have no say in what state laws the people of any state will choose or what laws are wanted by the local communities. The only say the federal government should have in that regard is to intervene if one state's activities are violating the rights of the people in neighboring states.

Which is why we need a national government and get rid of the states entirely. That way states cannot violate the rights of anyone, as they have so often done.

So if one state violates somebody's rights, there are 49 other states to move to. If the violation of rights is sufficient, we can now appeal to federal authorities to intervene. Were do we go when the federal government violates our rights? To whom do we appeal to intervene?

If you feel the US violates your rights, you are free to move somewhere else. If the federal government has no authority over the state and the state violates your rights, to whom can you appeal to intervene? All you are doing is moving the ultimate authority to the very institutions which have the worst record of rights violations. This really makes no sense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let's go to something we can all relate to. Would you or would you not favor a mandatory seat belt law imposed at the federal level? Why or why not?
How would such a law be enforced at the federal level? More importantly if we go to a national form of government and do away with the state and city governments?

I'm torn on seat belt laws, as I am helmet laws, but certainly the government is within its purviews to enact them. So if we are going to have them, it should be national. The roads in one part of the nation don't suddenly become less hazardous because you cross an imaginary line. They would be enforced exactly as they are currently being enforced. Why would you think there would be a change?

Traffic laws are state perview as he federal government has no power to create them -- because all roads are state roads.
The federal government had to threaten to withhold the money for highway projects from the state in order to achieve a 55mph national speed limit; this is why.
Further, the federal government cannot force state governments to enforce state laws, and so unless the federal government creates a national highway patrol, federal seat belt helmet and speed limit laws may very well go unenforced.

Sounds like we need a federal highway patrol then. Excellent suggestion.

No. It doesn't. There's no reason to have it.

If law enforcement officials are unwilling to do their job, then there is a reason.

Where is that the case?
And, as it is -never- the responsibility of state law enforcement to enforce federal law, you cannot make the argument that by not enforcing federal law, state law enforcement is not doing its job.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't know. I think resolving that issue is key, because it's central to the concept of limited government. Indeed, I suspect the reason why some are so reluctant to even recognize the concept is because they don't want to see government limited in that way.

Let's try it this way. The right to free speech means that I can go into the public forum and proclaim that I think only women between the ages of 22 and 31 should be allowed the vote or hold public office. I cannot be prosecuted for this because of the first amendment, even if the government officials would love to do it. I cannot, however, start tossing guns into the crowd and scream "Let's go kill them all!!!" That is incitement to riot and insurrection and the first amendment does not protect me for it.

The former is part of the right o free speech and is alienable - the government cannot prevent you from doing this, absent some other circumstance.
The latter is not part of the right to free speech and can be restristec/prohibited w/o compromising your inalieneable right to free speech.

All you are saying is that up to the point the government does restrict your right to free speech, it is inalienable.

No. The right to free speech does not include inciting a riot, and so restrictions on inciting a riot have bearing on the inalienability of the right to free speech.

Who says inciting to riot is not included in free speech? The government. Who makes the determination of when that line is crossed? The government.

Nothing here negates the soundness of what I said.

 

[Foxfyre]

No. It doesn't. There's no reason to have it.

If law enforcement officials are unwilling to do their job, then there is a reason.

No. If a free people doesn't want to enforce its own laws that falls within the realm of unalienable rights. They will also accept the consequences of not enforcing their laws and, if those consequences become unacceptable, they will certainly do something about it.

If we have a truly federal system, the central government should have no say in what state laws the people of any state will choose or what laws are wanted by the local communities. The only say the federal government should have in that regard is to intervene if one state's activities are violating the rights of the people in neighboring states.

Which is why we need a national government and get rid of the states entirely. That way states cannot violate the rights of anyone, as they have so often done.

So if one state violates somebody's rights, there are 49 other states to move to. If the violation of rights is sufficient, we can now appeal to federal authorities to intervene. Were do we go when the federal government violates our rights? To whom do we appeal to intervene?

If you feel the US violates your rights, you are free to move somewhere else. If the federal government has no authority over the state and the state violates your rights, to whom can you appeal to intervene? All you are doing is moving the ultimate authority to the very institutions which have the worst record of rights violations. This really makes no sense.

The concept of the original USA was that the people would hold the power, the rights, the authority and would assign to the government what powers and authority the people wanted it to have. It sound as if you have not been paying attention to the explanation of what those federal powers would be; i.e. to enact such laws and regulation as NECESSARY in order for the states to function as one nation. The federal government was given authority to do that but was then to leave the states and the people in them strictly alone to form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have. THAT is what liberty looks like.

Please take note that LIMITED powers is not the same thing as NO powers.

I simply don't understand how anybody who believes in liberty thinks that a despot/dictator/monarch/pope/totalitarian central government will allow for more liberty than the people who establish a local government will have.

 

[Foxfyre]

My number one priority for a new constitution will be to place a blanket ban on all private funding of election campaigns.

If you want to run for office you need to collect a certain number of signatures on a petition (depending upon the office) and then you will be awarded a fixed amount of taxpayer funds for your campaign. You will be held accountable for the funds and if you spend over the amount provided you will automatically forfeit the office should you win or be held liable to repay the funds should you lose. No outside entity can campaign on your behalf. Doing so will be a crime punishable by imprisonment.

My next priority would be holding elected officials and lobbyists accountable to the people. All meetings must be done in public with video and audio recordings. If any violation of this rule is discovered all of the parties involved will serve jail time. That includes the son/daughter-in-law who was given a job.

In summary all forms of bribery and corruption are to be treated as crimes punishable by prison terms of at least 10 years without parole.

The federal funding better be in the tens of billions for all of the candidates since the majority of the money is spent on TV and Radio adds. I don't think the MSM would go for your plan for a minute.

The MSM doesn't get to dictate campaign financing.

Since 1867, there have been dozens of campaign finance laws passed and probably hundreds or even thousands of regulations put on the books governing how those laws would be implemented. The fact that more such laws are piled on top of or replace old ones should tell us that such laws do not correct the problem. The most sweeping and defining campaign reform, McCain/Feingold in 2002, had so many self-serving loopholes in it for McCain and Feingold et al that it was essentially worthless in curbing the abuses. More money than ever is changing hands in the electoral process as politicians and special interest groups always find new and innovative paths around the rules. And it becomes ever more difficult without taking away more and more rights of the people to express their support for the candidate of their choice and the right to use their property as they choose including giving it away.

So why not simply limit what they are able to buy with all that money, and limit how much the politicians and bureaucrats are able to profit from their public service? That is fairly simple to do as previously posted. Take the profit out of it and what money was donated would be to elect good people again. The professional politicians have no incentive to be there. We would likely elect true public servants again who would focus on the best interests of the people and the country.

 

[dblack]

The primary purpose of government is to allow people to live together in some semblance of peace and order. To the extent an individuals rights do not conflict with that purpose, those rights should be protected. Thus you have the right to speak your mind, you do not have the right to incite insurrection because while speech the latter conflicts with the primary purpose. You have the right to personal property, but if it is to the benefit of the society that property can be taken from you - such as to build a sewer system or a highway.

It is nice to talk about personal rights, but without society those rights do not exist. The cost of having liberty is the responsibility to insure the health of the society as a whole. If one is not willing to accept that responsibility, they do not deserve the rights.

Getting to solid consensus on the purposes of government and how they should be prioritized is the first, and most important, step in the process of creating a useful constitution. I see little point in talking about anything else until we've done that. Your post is an excellent opportunity to open that discussion.

"The primary purpose of government is to allow people to live together in some semblance of peace and order. To the extent an individuals rights do not conflict with that purpose, those rights should be protected. Thus you have the right to speak your mind, you do not have the right to incite insurrection because while speech the latter conflicts with the primary purpose. You have the right to personal property, but if it is to the benefit of the society that property can be taken from you - such as to build a sewer system or a highway".

Peace and order are desirable to the extent that they allow us to live our lives as we wish. But it doesn't make sense to me as the primary purpose. We could conceive a government that maintained perfect peace order by simply enslaving everyone. But I trust that isn't a society either of us would wish to live in.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not tied to the word inalienable. If you have a better word or phrase to use that would say it better, let's hear it. I just personally prefer that word because of its historical context, but I'm not inflexible on that.

Otherwise let's agree on the definition of the word as it relates to the suggested Constitutional rewrite--it can be defined within the body of that Constitution.

I've done that. The word is "rights".

The problem is that there are different kinds of rights. There are human rights that we recognize as decent human beings. There are Constitutional rights that should be inviolable by either the courts or actions of the states such as the right to vote for those who will represent us in the federal government. And there are certain functional legal rights enacted by the states.

Unalienable rights as the Founders saw unalienable righnts are something different from all of these.

If what you say is true, then why did the Founders omit these "unalienable rights" from the only document which actually mattered?

They didn't omit them as I have gone to some trouble to explain in some detail. They gave the federal, government no authority or power to interfere with them. It is that corruption of that concept that I would like a 'new and improved' Constitution to correct.

You will not find the word "unalienable" in the entire document. If that is not omitted I don't know what is. If they did not wish to give the feds authority or power, then they would have specified that, as they did in some of the amendments. They did not. You presume that which is not there.

Read up sometime what the phrase 'blessings of liberty' indicates in the Preamble and what Jefferson meant by 'unalienable rights' in the Declaration of Independence. Because unalienable rights of a free people who enjoy those blessings of liberty are essentially too numerous and impossible to enumerate, we do need a better definition of them. But the fact that the Constitution was written with the intent that the federal government would have no authority or power of any kind to infringe the unalienable rights of the people, is perfectly obvious with those who have taken themselves to educate themselves on the arguments, debates, writings, and documents that went into the process.