CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[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.

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.

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.

Then you were simply reiterating what I said. We are in agreement.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

No. That was not the concept. White male land owners would hold the power, rights and authority. Since then, that has been extended to all the people. Had it been up to the individual states, that would not have happened.

I don't understand why anyone who thinks that government has the potential for totalitarianism would place that kind of power in the hands of a state government which has demonstrated its willingness to deny the rights of its citizens with no authority over it to protect those rights. Not merely denied those rights but tacitly and actively participated in the murder of citizens in order to continue to deny those rights. You place your trust in governments which have repeatedly shown unworthy of that trust. I find that utterly inexplicable.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

No. That was not the concept. White male land owners would hold the power, rights and authority. Since then, that has been extended to all the people. Had it been up to the individual states, that would not have happened.

I don't understand why anyone who thinks that government has the potential for totalitarianism would place that kind of power in the hands of a state government which has demonstrated its willingness to deny the rights of its citizens with no authority over it to protect those rights. Not merely denied those rights but tacitly and actively participated in the murder of citizens in order to continue to deny those rights. You place your trust in governments which have repeatedly shown unworthy of that trust. I find that utterly inexplicable.

Well we'll have to disagree on that I guess. Your idea of who was intended to hold the power, rights, and authority just doesn't mesh with the founding documents. I believe the federal government has shown itself to be far more coercive when it comes to basic rights of the people and has been far less trustworthy than has government placed in the trust of the people. And the federal government is far slower to respond to the will of the people than is the typical state government. That is if the federal government responds at all.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

I think our understanding of what liberty is differs. I frankly do not care what Jefferson meant in the DOI, as that was pure propaganda to get people fired up to go to war. Liberty means you get your say. It doesn't mean you get your way. If you want to scrap the Constitution, then we should eliminate the states and form a single government for the country. That is the best way to insure liberty, even if it means some of us are slightly inconvenienced.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

No. That was not the concept. White male land owners would hold the power, rights and authority. Since then, that has been extended to all the people. Had it been up to the individual states, that would not have happened.

I don't understand why anyone who thinks that government has the potential for totalitarianism would place that kind of power in the hands of a state government which has demonstrated its willingness to deny the rights of its citizens with no authority over it to protect those rights. Not merely denied those rights but tacitly and actively participated in the murder of citizens in order to continue to deny those rights. You place your trust in governments which have repeatedly shown unworthy of that trust. I find that utterly inexplicable.

Well we'll have to disagree on that I guess. Your idea of who would hold the power, rights, and authority just doesn't mesh with the founding documents. I believe the federal government has shown itself to be far more coercive when it comes to basic rights of the people and has been far less trustworthy than has government placed in the trust of the people.

Yes, we will have to disagree. But the thing is we don't have to agree and both of us still get our say on the subject. And if your state government should ever say you couldn't get your say, then I would support the feds to step in and make it clear they were wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

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.

Then you were simply reiterating what I said.

No. You disagreed with what I said; your argument for that disagreement does not stand..

 

[Olde Europe]

Nice place you got here. Hope it's fine if I jump in, though a bit late to this party.

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.

I see where you are going with this, and cronyism certainly is something to curtail as much as possible. Yet your wording suggests that, if Congress awards one person or entity $10bn to build something, it has to award that same benefit to every other person or entity. That would be odd.

Obviously, you didn't mean to express that. However, if it doesn't mean that - and I don't see how - and Congress can still award one person or entity a single contract that benefits this person or entity at the exclusion of all others, the possibility to buy "favours" still exists, unhampered.

 

[TooTall]

Constitution 2.0 does away with the concepts of States and individual rights or liberties

Ahem. This thread is not about what is in the existing Constitution. This thread is about what we would want in a new one. Unless an existing clause is retained and ratified in the new Constitution, all existing constitutional law becomes null and void upon adoption of a new improved version as will all federal law that is overridden by the new version.

In effect we are completely reorganizing a new and improve federal government for the United States of America....IF....we retain the federal system of government.

I would say a more rational approach would be not to go backwards. If we are going to remove anything it should be the states. Rather than semi-autonomous governments, they should be provinces and all fall under federal control.

Why?

Because we no longer live in an 18th century agrarian economy consisting of 13 colonies with vastly different structures. People living in Maine have no different needs than those living in California, which was not the case in 1776. What happens in Oregon has a direct impact on what happens in Alabama. What states do is allow pockets of rights based upon local politics. In a modern nation, my rights should not change simply because I cross a state line. If we are going to change the basic legal document, then we should become a single nation.

What I read is what you want is a Parliamentary system of government modeled after England and Russia.

 

[dblack]

Nice place you got here. Hope it's fine if I jump in, though a bit late to this party.

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.

I see where you are going with this, and cronyism certainly is something to curtail as much as possible. Yet your wording suggests that, if Congress awards one person or entity $10bn to build something, it has to award that same benefit to every other person or entity. That would be odd.

Obviously, you didn't mean to express that. However, if it doesn't mean that - and I don't see how - and Congress can still award one person or entity a single contract that benefits this person or entity at the exclusion of all others, the possibility to buy "favours" still exists, unhampered.

Yeah... it's going to be tricky to get this one ironed out. I'm pretty sure I know what Foxfyre is after here. The point isn't to hamstring government so they can't ever use contractors. There's plenty of corruption and graft in the area of government contracting, but that's not what this provision is aimed at. Here we're looking at the resulting service a given law is creating, and whether it benefits the 'general welfare', or simply serves a targeted interest group.

 

[PratchettFan]

Constitution 2.0 does away with the concepts of States and individual rights or liberties

Ahem. This thread is not about what is in the existing Constitution. This thread is about what we would want in a new one. Unless an existing clause is retained and ratified in the new Constitution, all existing constitutional law becomes null and void upon adoption of a new improved version as will all federal law that is overridden by the new version.

In effect we are completely reorganizing a new and improve federal government for the United States of America....IF....we retain the federal system of government.

I would say a more rational approach would be not to go backwards. If we are going to remove anything it should be the states. Rather than semi-autonomous governments, they should be provinces and all fall under federal control.

Why?

Because we no longer live in an 18th century agrarian economy consisting of 13 colonies with vastly different structures. People living in Maine have no different needs than those living in California, which was not the case in 1776. What happens in Oregon has a direct impact on what happens in Alabama. What states do is allow pockets of rights based upon local politics. In a modern nation, my rights should not change simply because I cross a state line. If we are going to change the basic legal document, then we should become a single nation.

What I read is what you want is a Parliamentary system of government modeled after England and Russia.

No. I see no reason change the current national system with three branches.

 

[PratchettFan]

Nice place you got here. Hope it's fine if I jump in, though a bit late to this party.

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.

I see where you are going with this, and cronyism certainly is something to curtail as much as possible. Yet your wording suggests that, if Congress awards one person or entity $10bn to build something, it has to award that same benefit to every other person or entity. That would be odd.

Obviously, you didn't mean to express that. However, if it doesn't mean that - and I don't see how - and Congress can still award one person or entity a single contract that benefits this person or entity at the exclusion of all others, the possibility to buy "favours" still exists, unhampered.

Yeah... it's going to be tricky to get this one ironed out. I'm pretty sure I know what Foxfyre is after here. The point isn't to hamstring government so they can't ever use contractors. There's plenty of corruption and graft in the area of government contracting, but that's not what this provision is aimed at. Here we're looking at the resulting service a given law is creating, and whether it benefits the 'general welfare', or simply serves a targeted interest group.

I don't think that wording would impact the procurement process. However, it would certainly impact our ability to pay benefits for disabled veterans. Is that what we want?

 

[dblack]

Nice place you got here. Hope it's fine if I jump in, though a bit late to this party.

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.

I see where you are going with this, and cronyism certainly is something to curtail as much as possible. Yet your wording suggests that, if Congress awards one person or entity $10bn to build something, it has to award that same benefit to every other person or entity. That would be odd.

Obviously, you didn't mean to express that. However, if it doesn't mean that - and I don't see how - and Congress can still award one person or entity a single contract that benefits this person or entity at the exclusion of all others, the possibility to buy "favours" still exists, unhampered.

Yeah... it's going to be tricky to get this one ironed out. I'm pretty sure I know what Foxfyre is after here. The point isn't to hamstring government so they can't ever use contractors. There's plenty of corruption and graft in the area of government contracting, but that's not what this provision is aimed at. Here we're looking at the resulting service a given law is creating, and whether it benefits the 'general welfare', or simply serves a targeted interest group.

I don't think that wording would impact the procurement process. However, it would certainly impact our ability to pay benefits for disabled veterans. Is that what we want?

I don't think so. What I want is to curb the practice of using legislation and tax policy to reward or punish specific interest groups. Compensation and benefits offered to government employees is a different matter. We need wording that can capture that.

It won't be possible to create an ironclad rule here - it will always be possible for corrupt politicians to circumvent Constitutional limits - but we need to give the Court clear instructions on this matter. As it is, as Roberts made clear in the ACA ruling, using regulatory and tax policy to reward and punish people is accepted practice.

 

[PratchettFan]

Nice place you got here. Hope it's fine if I jump in, though a bit late to this party.

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.

I see where you are going with this, and cronyism certainly is something to curtail as much as possible. Yet your wording suggests that, if Congress awards one person or entity $10bn to build something, it has to award that same benefit to every other person or entity. That would be odd.

Obviously, you didn't mean to express that. However, if it doesn't mean that - and I don't see how - and Congress can still award one person or entity a single contract that benefits this person or entity at the exclusion of all others, the possibility to buy "favours" still exists, unhampered.

Yeah... it's going to be tricky to get this one ironed out. I'm pretty sure I know what Foxfyre is after here. The point isn't to hamstring government so they can't ever use contractors. There's plenty of corruption and graft in the area of government contracting, but that's not what this provision is aimed at. Here we're looking at the resulting service a given law is creating, and whether it benefits the 'general welfare', or simply serves a targeted interest group.

I don't think that wording would impact the procurement process. However, it would certainly impact our ability to pay benefits for disabled veterans. Is that what we want?

I don't think so. What I want is to curb the practice of using legislation and tax policy to reward or punish specific interest groups. Compensation and benefits offered to government employees is a different matter. We need wording that can capture that.

It won't be possible to create an ironclad rule here - it will always be possible for corrupt politicians to circumvent Constitutional limits - but we need to give the Court clear instructions on this matter. As it is, as Roberts made clear in the ACA ruling, using regulatory and tax policy to reward and punish people is accepted practice.

How about children with serious disabilities? Senior citizens with no other source of income? Do we wish to be a country which just lets the helpless starve?

Perhaps that is the first step in this process. Let's drop ideology for a time and focus on what kind of nation we want to be, and then we can look at what it is we need to do to become that nation.

 

[dblack]

Nice place you got here. Hope it's fine if I jump in, though a bit late to this party.

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.

I see where you are going with this, and cronyism certainly is something to curtail as much as possible. Yet your wording suggests that, if Congress awards one person or entity $10bn to build something, it has to award that same benefit to every other person or entity. That would be odd.

Obviously, you didn't mean to express that. However, if it doesn't mean that - and I don't see how - and Congress can still award one person or entity a single contract that benefits this person or entity at the exclusion of all others, the possibility to buy "favours" still exists, unhampered.

Yeah... it's going to be tricky to get this one ironed out. I'm pretty sure I know what Foxfyre is after here. The point isn't to hamstring government so they can't ever use contractors. There's plenty of corruption and graft in the area of government contracting, but that's not what this provision is aimed at. Here we're looking at the resulting service a given law is creating, and whether it benefits the 'general welfare', or simply serves a targeted interest group.

I don't think that wording would impact the procurement process. However, it would certainly impact our ability to pay benefits for disabled veterans. Is that what we want?

I don't think so. What I want is to curb the practice of using legislation and tax policy to reward or punish specific interest groups. Compensation and benefits offered to government employees is a different matter. We need wording that can capture that.

It won't be possible to create an ironclad rule here - it will always be possible for corrupt politicians to circumvent Constitutional limits - but we need to give the Court clear instructions on this matter. As it is, as Roberts made clear in the ACA ruling, using regulatory and tax policy to reward and punish people is accepted practice.

How about children with serious disabilities? Senior citizens with no other source of income? Do we wish to be a country which just lets the helpless starve?

Perhaps that is the first step in this process. Let's drop ideology for a time and focus on what kind of nation we want to be, and then we can look at what it is we need to do to become that nation.

I don't think so. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a safety net for all is a "general benefit". I can't speak for Foxfyre, but I'm not out to kill any semblance of state welfare. The far greater evil is the widespread corporatism that comes from extending the concept to a broad tool for handing out favors or manipulating our economic decisions.

 

[PratchettFan]

Nice place you got here. Hope it's fine if I jump in, though a bit late to this party.

I see where you are going with this, and cronyism certainly is something to curtail as much as possible. Yet your wording suggests that, if Congress awards one person or entity $10bn to build something, it has to award that same benefit to every other person or entity. That would be odd.

Obviously, you didn't mean to express that. However, if it doesn't mean that - and I don't see how - and Congress can still award one person or entity a single contract that benefits this person or entity at the exclusion of all others, the possibility to buy "favours" still exists, unhampered.

Yeah... it's going to be tricky to get this one ironed out. I'm pretty sure I know what Foxfyre is after here. The point isn't to hamstring government so they can't ever use contractors. There's plenty of corruption and graft in the area of government contracting, but that's not what this provision is aimed at. Here we're looking at the resulting service a given law is creating, and whether it benefits the 'general welfare', or simply serves a targeted interest group.

I don't think that wording would impact the procurement process. However, it would certainly impact our ability to pay benefits for disabled veterans. Is that what we want?

I don't think so. What I want is to curb the practice of using legislation and tax policy to reward or punish specific interest groups. Compensation and benefits offered to government employees is a different matter. We need wording that can capture that.

It won't be possible to create an ironclad rule here - it will always be possible for corrupt politicians to circumvent Constitutional limits - but we need to give the Court clear instructions on this matter. As it is, as Roberts made clear in the ACA ruling, using regulatory and tax policy to reward and punish people is accepted practice.

How about children with serious disabilities? Senior citizens with no other source of income? Do we wish to be a country which just lets the helpless starve?

Perhaps that is the first step in this process. Let's drop ideology for a time and focus on what kind of nation we want to be, and then we can look at what it is we need to do to become that nation.

I don't think so. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a safety net for all is a "general benefit". I can't speak for Foxfyre, but I'm not out to kill any semblance of state welfare. The far greater evil is the widespread corporatism that comes from extending the concept to a broad tool for handing out favors or manipulating our economic decisions.

Even there I think it is dangerous to tie the hands of the government. The last time we were faced with the serious potential of major banks failing and the government did nothing we found ourselves in a depression that only turned around with the advent of a world war. Should we have done again what was disastrous before?

 

[Olde Europe]

Yeah... it's going to be tricky to get this one ironed out. I'm pretty sure I know what Foxfyre is after here. The point isn't to hamstring government so they can't ever use contractors. There's plenty of corruption and graft in the area of government contracting, but that's not what this provision is aimed at. Here we're looking at the resulting service a given law is creating, and whether it benefits the 'general welfare', or simply serves a targeted interest group.

I agree the intent probably is some sort of General Welfare Clause that would make buying favours pointless. My point is that it fails to do that, because it would not preclude, say, buying a weapon system from Northrop rather than the about equal one (in terms of promoting the general welfare) offered by Boeing because the former bribed more, or better placed, members of Congress. Not to mention that "promoting the general welfare / providing a general benefit" is nearly as far removed from hard science as is reading tea leaves. And, as I (mis-) read it, the clause may well do things that weren't intended.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nice place you got here. Hope it's fine if I jump in, though a bit late to this party.

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.

I see where you are going with this, and cronyism certainly is something to curtail as much as possible. Yet your wording suggests that, if Congress awards one person or entity $10bn to build something, it has to award that same benefit to every other person or entity. That would be odd.

Obviously, you didn't mean to express that. However, if it doesn't mean that - and I don't see how - and Congress can still award one person or entity a single contract that benefits this person or entity at the exclusion of all others, the possibility to buy "favours" still exists, unhampered.

Yeah... it's going to be tricky to get this one ironed out. I'm pretty sure I know what Foxfyre is after here. The point isn't to hamstring government so they can't ever use contractors. There's plenty of corruption and graft in the area of government contracting, but that's not what this provision is aimed at. Here we're looking at the resulting service a given law is creating, and whether it benefits the 'general welfare', or simply serves a targeted interest group.

Exactly. An interstate highway system, for instance, benefits all, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black/white/polka dot or whatever, equally and without prejudice. Even those who never leave their homes benefit from the lower costs and efficient flow of products than would otherwise be possible. And anybody of ANY socioeconomic status can use it any time they wish. So this meets the criteria of what the Founders intended by the 'general welfare'.

A local road or commuter train in California or a bridge that will be utilized by the regional population in Alaska or a YMCA in Albuquerque does not meet that criteria.

When we return the definition of the 'general welfare' or 'general benefit' to the original definition, we go a long way to restricting the ability of those in government to rob Peter to benefit Paul who will then keep the 'robbers' permanently in Washington.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah... it's going to be tricky to get this one ironed out. I'm pretty sure I know what Foxfyre is after here. The point isn't to hamstring government so they can't ever use contractors. There's plenty of corruption and graft in the area of government contracting, but that's not what this provision is aimed at. Here we're looking at the resulting service a given law is creating, and whether it benefits the 'general welfare', or simply serves a targeted interest group.

I agree the intent probably is some sort of General Welfare Clause that would make buying favours pointless. My point is that it fails to do that, because it would not preclude, say, buying a weapon system from Northrop rather than the about equal one (in terms of promoting the general welfare) offered by Boeing because the former bribed more, or better placed, members of Congress. Not to mention that "promoting the general welfare / providing a general benefit" is nearly as far removed from hard science as is reading tea leaves. And, as I (mis-) read it, the clause may well do things that weren't intended.

This would have to be worked out but the simplest solution is to clearly define the specs needed and then put it out for bids with the lowest bidder being awarded the contract. And the bidding process will include the stipulation that there will be no payment if the product does not meet the specifications for quality and performance. And any necessary government facilities outside of Washington would be allocated on a per capita basis as evenly as possible across the country. And perhaps stipulate that any member of Congress convicted of dealing under the table or bribery or any other abuse of power will be required to vacate his/her seat immediately.

The world has always had dishonest, self-serving, and opportunistic people to deal with. The purpose of a new and improved Constitution would make that the exception rather than the usual--to make it much more difficult for self-serving people to use government for their own personal benefit. It would be to provide strong incentive for those in government whether elected or appointed or employed to do their jobs honestly and well.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yeah... it's going to be tricky to get this one ironed out. I'm pretty sure I know what Foxfyre is after here. The point isn't to hamstring government so they can't ever use contractors. There's plenty of corruption and graft in the area of government contracting, but that's not what this provision is aimed at. Here we're looking at the resulting service a given law is creating, and whether it benefits the 'general welfare', or simply serves a targeted interest group.

I agree the intent probably is some sort of General Welfare Clause that would make buying favours pointless. My point is that it fails to do that, because it would not preclude, say, buying a weapon system from Northrop rather than the about equal one (in terms of promoting the general welfare) offered by Boeing because the former bribed more, or better placed, members of Congress. Not to mention that "promoting the general welfare / providing a general benefit" is nearly as far removed from hard science as is reading tea leaves. And, as I (mis-) read it, the clause may well do things that weren't intended.

Never mind that your examples are covered under "provide for the common defense".

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah... it's going to be tricky to get this one ironed out. I'm pretty sure I know what Foxfyre is after here. The point isn't to hamstring government so they can't ever use contractors. There's plenty of corruption and graft in the area of government contracting, but that's not what this provision is aimed at. Here we're looking at the resulting service a given law is creating, and whether it benefits the 'general welfare', or simply serves a targeted interest group.

I don't think that wording would impact the procurement process. However, it would certainly impact our ability to pay benefits for disabled veterans. Is that what we want?

I don't think so. What I want is to curb the practice of using legislation and tax policy to reward or punish specific interest groups. Compensation and benefits offered to government employees is a different matter. We need wording that can capture that.

It won't be possible to create an ironclad rule here - it will always be possible for corrupt politicians to circumvent Constitutional limits - but we need to give the Court clear instructions on this matter. As it is, as Roberts made clear in the ACA ruling, using regulatory and tax policy to reward and punish people is accepted practice.

How about children with serious disabilities? Senior citizens with no other source of income? Do we wish to be a country which just lets the helpless starve?

Perhaps that is the first step in this process. Let's drop ideology for a time and focus on what kind of nation we want to be, and then we can look at what it is we need to do to become that nation.

I don't think so. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a safety net for all is a "general benefit". I can't speak for Foxfyre, but I'm not out to kill any semblance of state welfare. The far greater evil is the widespread corporatism that comes from extending the concept to a broad tool for handing out favors or manipulating our economic decisions.

Even there I think it is dangerous to tie the hands of the government. The last time we were faced with the serious potential of major banks failing and the government did nothing we found ourselves in a depression that only turned around with the advent of a world war. Should we have done again what was disastrous before?

The federal government should establish a national currency yes, and that of necessity means it has to have some regulatory power over the banks. But a brutally honest look at history strongly suggests that a lot of government meddling with the economy deepened and prolonged the "great depression' and allowing the free market to work would have been much more effective. We are seeing the same phenomenon at work now with too much government meddling likely the reason that the current recovery has been so stagnant and so many people remain out of work.