CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[PratchettFan]

The Founders knew that there is no liberty if some are given power to dictate the rights that others will have. Those in government understood that very well and had no problem with understanding that they were limited to what the government [Constitution?] stated they could do. That is why the original Constitution was intended to strictly restrict the power of the federal government and give all power to the people to form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have and to discipline and govern themselves. No despot, dictatorship, monarchy, papacy, or other totalitarian form of government would be allowed to develop.

And up until the turn of the 20th Century when the people failed to object to increasing power grabs by the federal government, every President and congress interpreted the constitutional restrictions on federal government the same:

“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves ; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” ― Thomas Jefferson, Letters of Thomas Jefferson

I love this thread. I really do.

If I understand your argument correctly, you would want to restore the current Constitution to its originally intended meaning, and now quote Jefferson to the effect that educating the people would be the way to go about it, since the people's educated attention and enlightened demands would be the ultimate safeguard for rights as enshrined in the Constitution. Correct? And no re-writing it, whether by amendment, or by beginning from scratch, would ultimately be helpful if that seemingly failed education wasn't remedied, because the re-written Constitution wasn't safeguarded and thus bound to fail, and in the same way and for the same reason the current one is (allegedly) failing.

I still don't understand your intent to write a NEW Constitution that would implement the original intent of the old one. You'd have to do a better job of it than the Founding Fathers, and that is assuming you (we) can discern their original intent. If so, good luck with that.

Not that I would ever dare to tell you what to do with your thread, Foxfyre, but, since I find we're meandering somewhat aimlessly here, I'd like to make a recommendation: Before assuming what is arguably the most complex writing task any society can undertake, why not take a (historically) preceding step first, and write what would be the Declaration of Independence (from the current Constitutional order)? [Well, fear from sounding pompous when writing about writing a Constitution isn't an option.]

That would involve...

1) setting out a guiding principle (or guiding principles), as in "born equal".

2) collecting information on, and systematically grouping and organising a list of grievances and complaints raised against the current Constitutional (dis-) order.

3) determining, in light of both principle(s) and grievances what the appropriate steps would be to secure an order of society and state more conducive towards the common welfare and in line with the principle(s) set out above.

Maybe, once that's done, we'd arrive on more secure ground, and even receive some direction?

You could add:

4. Defining the type of weapons that should be legal for keeping one's life and one's property safe.

What if I just like shooting weapons?

 

[Olde Europe]

I don't agree with that statement because here we are, 50 years after the Civil Acts Right was passed and we still have people (and politicians) who want businesses to be able to discriminate. We would still have slaves if Lincoln hadn't made it illegal. Allowing time to take care of the wrongs may sound okay for those not being targeted, but hell for those that are.

Whilst agreeable as written, the argument has a downside, as it involves a Federal Government having the power to rule over the states. As long as this central authority uses this power wisely, all's okay. This power may, however, also be used in less than wise ways, as seen, for instance, in Bush's decision to reign in States' efforts to secure their citizens against predatory lending (during the run-up to the lesser Great Depression), or in the Supreme Court's long history of siding with the "Separate but Equal" atrocity of the segregated South.

 

[PratchettFan]

I don't agree with that statement because here we are, 50 years after the Civil Acts Right was passed and we still have people (and politicians) who want businesses to be able to discriminate. We would still have slaves if Lincoln hadn't made it illegal. Allowing time to take care of the wrongs may sound okay for those not being targeted, but hell for those that are.

Whilst agreeable as written, the argument has a downside, as it involves a Federal Government having the power to rule over the states. As long as this central authority uses this power wisely, all's okay. This power may, however, also be used in less than wise ways, as seen, for instance, in Bush's decision to reign in States' efforts to secure their citizens against predatory lending (during the run-up to the lesser Great Depression), or in the Supreme Court's long history of siding with the "Separate but Equal" atrocity of the segregated South.

Perhaps the solution is simply to muddle along as best we can.

 

[Olde Europe]

Perhaps the solution is simply to muddle along as best we can.

Okay, let's call that the Pratchett Doctrine of Constitutional Muddling, and let's add, "you all be nice to each other, or else!"

 

[Mertex]

The Founders knew that there is no liberty if some are given power to dictate the rights that others will have. Those in government understood that very well and had no problem with understanding that they were limited to what the government [Constitution?] stated they could do. That is why the original Constitution was intended to strictly restrict the power of the federal government and give all power to the people to form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have and to discipline and govern themselves. No despot, dictatorship, monarchy, papacy, or other totalitarian form of government would be allowed to develop.

And up until the turn of the 20th Century when the people failed to object to increasing power grabs by the federal government, every President and congress interpreted the constitutional restrictions on federal government the same:

“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves ; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” ― Thomas Jefferson, Letters of Thomas Jefferson

I love this thread. I really do.

If I understand your argument correctly, you would want to restore the current Constitution to its originally intended meaning, and now quote Jefferson to the effect that educating the people would be the way to go about it, since the people's educated attention and enlightened demands would be the ultimate safeguard for rights as enshrined in the Constitution. Correct? And no re-writing it, whether by amendment, or by beginning from scratch, would ultimately be helpful if that seemingly failed education wasn't remedied, because the re-written Constitution wasn't safeguarded and thus bound to fail, and in the same way and for the same reason the current one is (allegedly) failing.

I still don't understand your intent to write a NEW Constitution that would implement the original intent of the old one. You'd have to do a better job of it than the Founding Fathers, and that is assuming you (we) can discern their original intent. If so, good luck with that.

Not that I would ever dare to tell you what to do with your thread, Foxfyre, but, since I find we're meandering somewhat aimlessly here, I'd like to make a recommendation: Before assuming what is arguably the most complex writing task any society can undertake, why not take a (historically) preceding step first, and write what would be the Declaration of Independence (from the current Constitutional order)? [Well, fear from sounding pompous when writing about writing a Constitution isn't an option.]

That would involve...

1) setting out a guiding principle (or guiding principles), as in "born equal".

2) collecting information on, and systematically grouping and organising a list of grievances and complaints raised against the current Constitutional (dis-) order.

3) determining, in light of both principle(s) and grievances what the appropriate steps would be to secure an order of society and state more conducive towards the common welfare and in line with the principle(s) set out above.

Maybe, once that's done, we'd arrive on more secure ground, and even receive some direction?

You could add:

4. Defining the type of weapons that should be legal for keeping one's life and one's property safe.

What if I just like shooting weapons?

AR 15's / M16's? At people?

 

[Mertex]

I don't agree with that statement because here we are, 50 years after the Civil Acts Right was passed and we still have people (and politicians) who want businesses to be able to discriminate. We would still have slaves if Lincoln hadn't made it illegal. Allowing time to take care of the wrongs may sound okay for those not being targeted, but hell for those that are.

Whilst agreeable as written, the argument has a downside, as it involves a Federal Government having the power to rule over the states. As long as this central authority uses this power wisely, all's okay. This power may, however, also be used in less than wise ways, as seen, for instance, in Bush's decision to reign in States' efforts to secure their citizens against predatory lending (during the run-up to the lesser Great Depression), or in the Supreme Court's long history of siding with the "Separate but Equal" atrocity of the segregated South.

What argument are you specifically making reference to? That people and politicians would have taken less time to do away with racism than the 50 years with a government mandate? Or that the government shouldn't have ruled over the states on slavery?

 

[dcraelin]

an expansion of the house of representatives, part-time, stay in district,
who can vote when asked to by a strong minority of DC reps. Disperses power.

a national initiative option,

 

[Foxfyre]

an expansion of the house of representatives, part-time, stay in district,
who can vote when asked to by a strong minority of DC reps. Disperses power.

a national initiative option,

I would have no problem with expanding representation in Washington IF we do away with ridiculous gerrymandering. Districts should be shaped to get the right number of population but not the 'right kind' of population.

What do you mean by a national initiative option?

 

[Olde Europe]

What argument are you specifically making reference to? That people and politicians would have taken less time to do away with racism than the 50 years with a government mandate? Or that the government shouldn't have ruled over the states on slavery?

I am making reference to no specific argument, except to illustrate my point, which is: The more power government has, the more good can it do, but also: the more damage can it inflict.

I fully understand your point about progress moving at a snail's pace, and yes, the reminder that there were people suffering under racist State's legislatures is a very valid one. Consider an opposite scenario, though: Assume there had been a far more powerful Federal Government, which would have had the power violently to suppress the States and counteract racist States' laws. So, for a few years racists have been muffled or even jailed, racist, discriminatory laws done away with, racist publications deprived of funds or even suppressed, etc. Fine, so far. That would would have created a popular backlash, and the next elections might have given KKK-grade racists super-majorities in Washington and most States' legislatures with the power to change the Constitution at will. Would you still think that powerful government had done a lot of good?

 

[PratchettFan]

The Founders knew that there is no liberty if some are given power to dictate the rights that others will have. Those in government understood that very well and had no problem with understanding that they were limited to what the government [Constitution?] stated they could do. That is why the original Constitution was intended to strictly restrict the power of the federal government and give all power to the people to form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have and to discipline and govern themselves. No despot, dictatorship, monarchy, papacy, or other totalitarian form of government would be allowed to develop.

And up until the turn of the 20th Century when the people failed to object to increasing power grabs by the federal government, every President and congress interpreted the constitutional restrictions on federal government the same:

“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves ; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” ― Thomas Jefferson, Letters of Thomas Jefferson

I love this thread. I really do.

If I understand your argument correctly, you would want to restore the current Constitution to its originally intended meaning, and now quote Jefferson to the effect that educating the people would be the way to go about it, since the people's educated attention and enlightened demands would be the ultimate safeguard for rights as enshrined in the Constitution. Correct? And no re-writing it, whether by amendment, or by beginning from scratch, would ultimately be helpful if that seemingly failed education wasn't remedied, because the re-written Constitution wasn't safeguarded and thus bound to fail, and in the same way and for the same reason the current one is (allegedly) failing.

I still don't understand your intent to write a NEW Constitution that would implement the original intent of the old one. You'd have to do a better job of it than the Founding Fathers, and that is assuming you (we) can discern their original intent. If so, good luck with that.

Not that I would ever dare to tell you what to do with your thread, Foxfyre, but, since I find we're meandering somewhat aimlessly here, I'd like to make a recommendation: Before assuming what is arguably the most complex writing task any society can undertake, why not take a (historically) preceding step first, and write what would be the Declaration of Independence (from the current Constitutional order)? [Well, fear from sounding pompous when writing about writing a Constitution isn't an option.]

That would involve...

1) setting out a guiding principle (or guiding principles), as in "born equal".

2) collecting information on, and systematically grouping and organising a list of grievances and complaints raised against the current Constitutional (dis-) order.

3) determining, in light of both principle(s) and grievances what the appropriate steps would be to secure an order of society and state more conducive towards the common welfare and in line with the principle(s) set out above.

Maybe, once that's done, we'd arrive on more secure ground, and even receive some direction?

You could add:

4. Defining the type of weapons that should be legal for keeping one's life and one's property safe.

What if I just like shooting weapons?

AR 15's / M16's? At people?

I haven't fired a weapon at people since the early 70's. But yes, AR 15's and 16's, AK's, etc. I enjoy putting holes in pieces of paper. Why should I have to justify that?

 

[PratchettFan]

Perhaps the solution is simply to muddle along as best we can.

Okay, let's call that the Pratchett Doctrine of Constitutional Muddling, and let's add, "you all be nice to each other, or else!"

My one claim to fame.

 

[PratchettFan]

an expansion of the house of representatives, part-time, stay in district,
who can vote when asked to by a strong minority of DC reps. Disperses power.

a national initiative option,

I would have no problem with expanding representation in Washington IF we do away with ridiculous gerrymandering. Districts should be shaped to get the right number of population but not the 'right kind' of population.

What do you mean by a national initiative option?

Gerrymandering is created by state governments. Without imposing federal authority over the states, how would you propose we do away with it?

 

[PratchettFan]

What argument are you specifically making reference to? That people and politicians would have taken less time to do away with racism than the 50 years with a government mandate? Or that the government shouldn't have ruled over the states on slavery?

I am making reference to no specific argument, except to illustrate my point, which is: The more power government has, the more good can it do, but also: the more damage can it inflict.

I fully understand your point about progress moving at a snail's pace, and yes, the reminder that there were people suffering under racist State's legislatures is a very valid one. Consider an opposite scenario, though: Assume there had been a far more powerful Federal Government, which would have had the power violently to suppress the States and counteract racist States' laws. So, for a few years racists have been muffled or even jailed, racist, discriminatory laws done away with, racist publications deprived of funds or even suppressed, etc. Fine, so far. That would would have created a popular backlash, and the next elections might have given KKK-grade racists super-majorities in Washington and most States' legislatures with the power to change the Constitution at will. Would you still think that powerful government had done a lot of good?

That is what happened and it didn't create a popular backlash. I don't think we should abandon to protection of liberty for fear some people might not like it.

 

[PratchettFan]

an expansion of the house of representatives, part-time, stay in district,
who can vote when asked to by a strong minority of DC reps. Disperses power.

a national initiative option,

I am not clear on what you are suggesting. Can you expand on this?

 

[Mertex]

What argument are you specifically making reference to? That people and politicians would have taken less time to do away with racism than the 50 years with a government mandate? Or that the government shouldn't have ruled over the states on slavery?

I am making reference to no specific argument, except to illustrate my point, which is: The more power government has, the more good can it do, but also: the more damage can it inflict.

I fully understand your point about progress moving at a snail's pace, and yes, the reminder that there were people suffering under racist State's legislatures is a very valid one. Consider an opposite scenario, though: Assume there had been a far more powerful Federal Government, which would have had the power violently to suppress the States and counteract racist States' laws. So, for a few years racists have been muffled or even jailed, racist, discriminatory laws done away with, racist publications deprived of funds or even suppressed, etc. Fine, so far. That would would have created a popular backlash, and the next elections might have given KKK-grade racists super-majorities in Washington and most States' legislatures with the power to change the Constitution at will. Would you still think that powerful government had done a lot of good?

The State government is also not free of damage it can inflict. That's why we have Representatives and Senators, to do our bidding. Of course the government can over-step it's bounds, but claiming that doing nothing and letting time take care of the problems because the people will eventually get it right is not a valid position.

 

[Mertex]

The Founders knew that there is no liberty if some are given power to dictate the rights that others will have. Those in government understood that very well and had no problem with understanding that they were limited to what the government [Constitution?] stated they could do. That is why the original Constitution was intended to strictly restrict the power of the federal government and give all power to the people to form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have and to discipline and govern themselves. No despot, dictatorship, monarchy, papacy, or other totalitarian form of government would be allowed to develop.

And up until the turn of the 20th Century when the people failed to object to increasing power grabs by the federal government, every President and congress interpreted the constitutional restrictions on federal government the same:

“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves ; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” ― Thomas Jefferson, Letters of Thomas Jefferson

I love this thread. I really do.

If I understand your argument correctly, you would want to restore the current Constitution to its originally intended meaning, and now quote Jefferson to the effect that educating the people would be the way to go about it, since the people's educated attention and enlightened demands would be the ultimate safeguard for rights as enshrined in the Constitution. Correct? And no re-writing it, whether by amendment, or by beginning from scratch, would ultimately be helpful if that seemingly failed education wasn't remedied, because the re-written Constitution wasn't safeguarded and thus bound to fail, and in the same way and for the same reason the current one is (allegedly) failing.

I still don't understand your intent to write a NEW Constitution that would implement the original intent of the old one. You'd have to do a better job of it than the Founding Fathers, and that is assuming you (we) can discern their original intent. If so, good luck with that.

Not that I would ever dare to tell you what to do with your thread, Foxfyre, but, since I find we're meandering somewhat aimlessly here, I'd like to make a recommendation: Before assuming what is arguably the most complex writing task any society can undertake, why not take a (historically) preceding step first, and write what would be the Declaration of Independence (from the current Constitutional order)? [Well, fear from sounding pompous when writing about writing a Constitution isn't an option.]

That would involve...

1) setting out a guiding principle (or guiding principles), as in "born equal".

2) collecting information on, and systematically grouping and organising a list of grievances and complaints raised against the current Constitutional (dis-) order.

3) determining, in light of both principle(s) and grievances what the appropriate steps would be to secure an order of society and state more conducive towards the common welfare and in line with the principle(s) set out above.

Maybe, once that's done, we'd arrive on more secure ground, and even receive some direction?

You could add:

4. Defining the type of weapons that should be legal for keeping one's life and one's property safe.

What if I just like shooting weapons?

AR 15's / M16's? At people?

I haven't fired a weapon at people since the early 70's. But yes, AR 15's and 16's, AK's, etc. I enjoy putting holes in pieces of paper. Why should I have to justify that?

Because putting holes in a piece of paper doesn't require such weapons or the specific training that goes along with shooting an AR-15/ M-16, etc. The military (which those weapons were designed for) get all the necessary training in how to use, clean, assemble, disassemble, etc., these weapons.....when civilians get them, they are left to their own devices. Anyone should be able to recognize that this is not smart.

 

[Olde Europe]

claiming that doing nothing and letting time take care of the problems because the people will eventually get it right is not a valid position.

I tend to agree with that, but great care should be taken to ensure that the remedy isn't worse, and doesn't cause worse problems, than that which it is intended to solve, is all I am saying.

 

[Derideo_Te]

claiming that doing nothing and letting time take care of the problems because the people will eventually get it right is not a valid position.

I tend to agree with that, but great care should be taken to ensure that the remedy isn't worse, and doesn't cause worse problems, than that which it is intended to solve, is all I am saying.

It is impossible to get anything perfect. You have to do the best you can and then deal with the imperfections as they occur. That is why there are 3 branches of government. It is a system of checks and balances rather than a one size fits all solution.

 

[Conservative65]

claiming that doing nothing and letting time take care of the problems because the people will eventually get it right is not a valid position.

I tend to agree with that, but great care should be taken to ensure that the remedy isn't worse, and doesn't cause worse problems, than that which it is intended to solve, is all I am saying.

It is impossible to get anything perfect. You have to do the best you can and then deal with the imperfections as they occur. That is why there are 3 branches of government. It is a system of checks and balances rather than a one size fits all solution.

It's a system of checks and balances until Obama doesn't get another branch to do what he wants.

 

[dcraelin]

an expansion of the house of representatives, part-time, stay in district,
who can vote when asked to by a strong minority of DC reps. Disperses power.

a national initiative option,

I would have no problem with expanding representation in Washington IF we do away with ridiculous gerrymandering. Districts should be shaped to get the right number of population but not the 'right kind' of population.

What do you mean by a national initiative option?

gerrymandering could be illiminated by making representation proportional to party vote by state...or even nationwide.

a nationl intitiative option would be like the Swiss have...upon gathering enought signatures people can get an issue they care about on the ballot.