CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Olde Europe]

They are red herrings because they deflect from the topic or issue at hand. If we restore the constitutional limits on the federal government then you will be dealing with the states or local communities on matters such as abortion or weed or just about any other social issue you wish to name, and what tax rates are necessary would be uniform across the country. And before you say that you WANT the federal government to dictate matters such as abortion or weed or whatever, remember a government that can dictate such matters in the way you want can also dictate matters in the way you don't want. Much better to leave such matters to more local government structures where the people's voice have much more effect.

This has nothing to do with the Tea Party or Republicans or anybody else you judge here. It has everything with whether the people or a few in government will have the power to direct all of our lives however they choose to do that. Rein in that power and minimize it and it won't really matter all that much what political party or ideological group is in power in Washington.

You asked what the (federal) government has given up or back. I answered:

1. Giving up a significant part of regulating women's reproduction (Roe)

2. In the process of giving up on regulating weed (that was that rider in the CRomnibus bill that said that the Feds can no longer prosecute weed users or dispensaries in states in which weed is legal)

3. They gave up on imposing a significantly higher burden they had formerly imposed in terms of income tax.

That you now declare that they either have to give up the power to regulate either of these matters, or they have not given up anything, is just the binary either-or position that usually characterises extremists. They have given power and self-determination and money back to the people. I am plainly puzzled that you refuse to acknowledge that.

 

[Foxfyre]

think the first order of business, which is somewhat confirmed by response to my poll, is too change the structure of the legislature.
priority area for new Constitution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Disperse power .....increase the number of representatives in line with what was implied by the founders.

also, many have said the Senate should be more responsive to states interests....so restict all money in senate camapaings to that comming from the state candidates are running in.

But why not limit what those in government can do with our money instead of limiting what we the people can do with our money?

we can do both...but first we the people havae to have some control, and now just the wealthy have control...and they feed corruption and crony dealmaking

I disagree. I believe the less wealthy have far more power than the wealthy because those in Congress must have their vote to stay in Congress. So it is the less wealthy that Congress works really hard to keep just happy enough to keep them voting for the 'right' people. What I propose is to limit what Congress is allowed to do to or for anybody and thereby return the control to the people.

really, I think youve got the cart in front of the horse

Only if you think people cannot exist without government. Only if you think government is the entity that should direct the lives of the people. Only if you think the people are less able and capable of directing their own lives than is government.

 

[PratchettFan]

Quote function got screwed up, so to fix it:

Foxfyre wrote

And......back on topic for those who would like to discuss the concept re the thread topic rather than make this a battle of semantics, definitions, personal criticism and otherwise derail the thread.....let me quote from one of my favorite modern libertarians (little "L"):

From Walter William's essay "Economic Miracle":

. . .Our economic system consists of billions of different elements that include members of our population, businesses, schools, parcels of land and homes. A list of possible relationships defies imagination and even more so if we include international relationships. Miraculously, there is a tendency for all of these relationships to operate smoothly without congressional meddling. Let's think about it.

The average well-stocked supermarket carries over 60,000 different items. Because those items are so routinely available to us, the fact that it is a near miracle goes unnoticed and unappreciated. Take just one of those items — canned tuna. Pretend that Congress appoints you tuna czar; that's not totally out of the picture in light of the fact that Congress has recently proposed a car czar for our auto industry. My question to you as tuna czar is: Can you identify and tell us how to organize all of the inputs necessary to get tuna out of the sea and into a supermarket? The most obvious inputs are fishermen, ships, nets, canning factories and trucks. But how do you organize the inputs necessary to build a ship, to provide the fuel, and what about the compass? The trucks need tires, seats and windshields.

It is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest that millions of inputs and people cooperate with one another to get canned tuna to your supermarket.

But what is the driving force that explains how millions of people manage to cooperate to get 60,000 different items to your supermarket? Most of them don't give a hoot about you and me, some of them might hate Americans, but they serve us well and they do so voluntarily. The bottom line motivation for the cooperation is people are in it for themselves; they want more profits, wages, interest and rent, or to use today's silly talk — people are greedy.

Adam Smith, the father of economics, captured the essence of this wonderful human cooperation when he said, "He (the businessman) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. ... He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain.". . . .
Economic Miracle by Walter E. Williams on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
​

This is the best argument I have ever seen for how the individual, free to pursue the American dream or whatever and wherever he is free to look after his own interests, will serve the whole in a far more beneficial and efficient manner than will a government trying a micromanage the process. And wherever government intervenes into the process, it will almost always have unintended negative consequences.

Allowing people to be 'greedy"; i.e. look to their own interests, be who and what they are short of infringing on the rights of others as a noble thing sounds so wrong to those who favor more government power and intervention. And it sounds so right to those who love liberty and fear excessive government power and interference.

And as I have argued, I believe both are just as 'greedy' when it comes to looking to their own interests. So I would prefer to put the power with the individual to further the common good than with the government that has a far less commendable track record on that.

My proposals for a better Constitution would better define and specify limits on what the federal government is allowed to do.

PratchettFan wrote:

The problem is that you assume people will work together to accomplish this and that is simply not true and has never been true. If it were true we would not have laws in the first place. And so any new constitution has to take into account that an unfettered free market will result in a few companies buying out the resources needed for new companies to come into competition. How does a new manufacturing firm stay in business if their competition owns the transportation they need to get raw materials? Do you think laws against such things just arose by chance? Read, for example, the history of the "company town" and the use of company script. Read about how companies essentially bought out law enforcement and used them as private armies to keep workers in line. This was reality for us and one of the reasons we have the government we do, because what you are suggesting did not work. People have not changed so there is no reason to think it will work if brought back. Don't bother with philosophy, read history.

Any purist system does not work, because all systems are run by human beings who will always act in their own self-interest. People in government are no different. Government intervention in the public market creates competing powers, each interested in its own spheres of influence, and thus prevents either one from taking control. The day either does is the day you can kiss your rights, inalienable or not, goodbye.

I assume that people can and do work together to accomplish this as Walter Williams explained with his illustration of the super market and can of tuna. If you disagree with the point he made there, please provide a rationale for why he is wrong. Don't try to change the subject with an argument that he or I have EVER said that no laws are necessary as neither of us have ever said or argued that.

I did explain the rationale and you said this; "So I would prefer to put the power with the individual to further the common good than with the government that has a far less commendable track record on that." I take you at your word. If you didn't mean that, please explain what you did mean.

I do not disagree with what Williams said, I disagree with the conclusion you take from it. Take the power from the government to regulate the market and what you end up with is an oligarchy. That isn't philosophy, it is a realistic acceptance of human nature. If you are not proposing to take the power of the government to regulate the market, then why change the Constitution?

The market should be regulated only to the extent that is necessary to prevent states or entities that cross state lines from unethically doing physical or economic violence to each other or to deal with unethical or dangerous trade practices of other nations with this one. How the market otherwise works should not be within the authority of the federal government to regulate and the government should otherwise leave the market strictly alone to operate effectively as only a free market can and no government can manage anywhere near as effectively.

That is the conclusion I take from it. I suggest you can find no statement of mine that even suggests much less says otherwise.

Then my original post stands. That will simply lead to an oligarchy and you can kiss your rights goodbye. It did not work in the past and it will not work in the future.

 

[PratchettFan]

think the first order of business, which is somewhat confirmed by response to my poll, is too change the structure of the legislature.
priority area for new Constitution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Disperse power .....increase the number of representatives in line with what was implied by the founders.

also, many have said the Senate should be more responsive to states interests....so restict all money in senate camapaings to that comming from the state candidates are running in.

But why not limit what those in government can do with our money instead of limiting what we the people can do with our money?

we can do both...but first we the people havae to have some control, and now just the wealthy have control...and they feed corruption and crony dealmaking

I disagree. I believe the less wealthy have far more power than the wealthy because those in Congress must have their vote to stay in Congress. So it is the less wealthy that Congress works really hard to keep just happy enough to keep them voting for the 'right' people. What I propose is to limit what Congress is allowed to do to or for anybody and thereby return the control to the people.

really, I think youve got the cart in front of the horse

Only if you think people cannot exist without government. Only if you think government is the entity that should direct the lives of the people. Only if you think the people are less able and capable of directing their own lives than is government.

People cannot exist in any groups larger than small clans without government. Government is people. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

 

[Foxfyre]

They are red herrings because they deflect from the topic or issue at hand. If we restore the constitutional limits on the federal government then you will be dealing with the states or local communities on matters such as abortion or weed or just about any other social issue you wish to name, and what tax rates are necessary would be uniform across the country. And before you say that you WANT the federal government to dictate matters such as abortion or weed or whatever, remember a government that can dictate such matters in the way you want can also dictate matters in the way you don't want. Much better to leave such matters to more local government structures where the people's voice have much more effect.

This has nothing to do with the Tea Party or Republicans or anybody else you judge here. It has everything with whether the people or a few in government will have the power to direct all of our lives however they choose to do that. Rein in that power and minimize it and it won't really matter all that much what political party or ideological group is in power in Washington.

You asked what the (federal) government has given up or back. I answered:

1. Giving up a significant part of regulating women's reproduction (Roe)

2. In the process of giving up on regulating weed (that was that rider in the CRomnibus bill that said that the Feds can no longer prosecute weed users or dispensaries in states in which weed is legal)

3. They gave up on imposing a significantly higher burden they had formerly imposed in terms of income tax.

That you now declare that they either have to give up the power to regulate either of these matters, or they have not given up anything, is just the binary either-or position that usually characterises extremists. They have given power and self-determination and money back to the people. I am plainly puzzled that you refuse to acknowledge that.

I absolutely want to take away the federal government's power to regulate that which the federal government has no constitutional jurisdiction or to tax above and beyond what the government needs to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

Roe didn't come from Congress by the way--it came from the Supreme Court. And that CRomnibus bill didn't say that the feds cannot any longer prosecute those laws regulating weed but that it will not do so for now. They can just as easily pass another bill reversing that one any time they want to. And how does not having power to control abortion or weed take away their personal benefits? And you think what they pass is not self serving to gain votes to keep themselves in power?

So setting aside those red herrings, the question is what have those (in power) in government given up in order to benefit the rest of us?

Did Congress give up their pay and benefits in the last government shutdown? No they did not. In fact they have passed legislation protecting their salaries and benefits no matter what happens to anybody else.
Did Congress make themselves subject to the provisions of Obamacare? No they did not.
Has Congress ever voted itself a pay cut? No it has not.
Has Congress ever voted to reduce its own expense accounts, perks, and benefits? Not for a very long time now.
Did Congress take a pay cut in the last forced spending cuts due to a sequester? No it did not.
Has Congress ever passed a campaign finance reform bill that was not riddled with loopholes big enough to drive a Mack truck through? No it has not.
Has Congress ever passed a budget smaller than the previous budget? Not since the end of WWII to the best of my knowledge.
Has Congress ever voluntarily limited itself in any significant way as to what it could use the people's money for in recent decades? No it has not.
Has Congress ever penalized itself for not doing its job? I don't believe it has.

 

[Foxfyre]

But why not limit what those in government can do with our money instead of limiting what we the people can do with our money?

we can do both...but first we the people havae to have some control, and now just the wealthy have control...and they feed corruption and crony dealmaking

I disagree. I believe the less wealthy have far more power than the wealthy because those in Congress must have their vote to stay in Congress. So it is the less wealthy that Congress works really hard to keep just happy enough to keep them voting for the 'right' people. What I propose is to limit what Congress is allowed to do to or for anybody and thereby return the control to the people.

really, I think youve got the cart in front of the horse

Only if you think people cannot exist without government. Only if you think government is the entity that should direct the lives of the people. Only if you think the people are less able and capable of directing their own lives than is government.

People cannot exist in any groups larger than small clans without government. Government is people. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

Try again since that is totally non sequitur to anything I have argued.

 

[PratchettFan]

we can do both...but first we the people havae to have some control, and now just the wealthy have control...and they feed corruption and crony dealmaking

I disagree. I believe the less wealthy have far more power than the wealthy because those in Congress must have their vote to stay in Congress. So it is the less wealthy that Congress works really hard to keep just happy enough to keep them voting for the 'right' people. What I propose is to limit what Congress is allowed to do to or for anybody and thereby return the control to the people.

really, I think youve got the cart in front of the horse

Only if you think people cannot exist without government. Only if you think government is the entity that should direct the lives of the people. Only if you think the people are less able and capable of directing their own lives than is government.

People cannot exist in any groups larger than small clans without government. Government is people. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

Try again since that is totally non sequitur to anything I have argued.

I'm sorry. You said: "Only if you think people cannot exist without government." I don't see how responding to what you said was a non sequitur, unless what you said was. More to the point, your entire thesis seems to be that government is somehow different than corporations, and that federal government is somehow different that state government. It is all people and people are going to act like people in whatever environment you place them. Any system which ignores that absolute fact is going to fail, or rather morph into something which works. The very reason the current situation is what it is is because what you want to see failed to work in the past and had to be fixed. It will not succeed in the future for the same reasons it failed in the past.

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagree. I believe the less wealthy have far more power than the wealthy because those in Congress must have their vote to stay in Congress. So it is the less wealthy that Congress works really hard to keep just happy enough to keep them voting for the 'right' people. What I propose is to limit what Congress is allowed to do to or for anybody and thereby return the control to the people.

really, I think youve got the cart in front of the horse

Only if you think people cannot exist without government. Only if you think government is the entity that should direct the lives of the people. Only if you think the people are less able and capable of directing their own lives than is government.

People cannot exist in any groups larger than small clans without government. Government is people. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

Try again since that is totally non sequitur to anything I have argued.

I'm sorry. You said: "Only if you think people cannot exist without government." I don't see how responding to what you said was a non sequitur, unless what you said was. More to the point, your entire thesis seems to be that government is somehow different than corporations, and that federal government is somehow different that state government. It is all people and people are going to act like people in whatever environment you place them. Any system which ignores that absolute fact is going to fail, or rather morph into something which works. The very reason the current situation is what it is is because what you want to see failed to work in the past and had to be fixed. It will not succeed in the future for the same reasons it failed in the past.

Again you have to put my words into their full context, i.e. what they are referring to and/or what they are responding to, if you are going to argue honestly about what I have posted.

There is a huge difference between state government and the federal government. The federal government affects everybody. The state government affects only the people of one state. I can see the difference between those two thing. I hope you can too.

 

[BlackSand]

The onus is on you to substantiate your allegation. That you can't means that you are just parroting meaningless rightwing "talking points" without any merit.

The same as with confiscation and infringing rights ... I didn't allege anything. The words mean what they mean. If you cannot prove otherwise ... Then you are welcome to accept you haven't proven anything.

.

 

[PratchettFan]

really, I think youve got the cart in front of the horse

Only if you think people cannot exist without government. Only if you think government is the entity that should direct the lives of the people. Only if you think the people are less able and capable of directing their own lives than is government.

People cannot exist in any groups larger than small clans without government. Government is people. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

Try again since that is totally non sequitur to anything I have argued.

I'm sorry. You said: "Only if you think people cannot exist without government." I don't see how responding to what you said was a non sequitur, unless what you said was. More to the point, your entire thesis seems to be that government is somehow different than corporations, and that federal government is somehow different that state government. It is all people and people are going to act like people in whatever environment you place them. Any system which ignores that absolute fact is going to fail, or rather morph into something which works. The very reason the current situation is what it is is because what you want to see failed to work in the past and had to be fixed. It will not succeed in the future for the same reasons it failed in the past.

Again you have to put my words into their full context, i.e. what they are referring to and/or what they are responding to, if you are going to argue honestly about what I have posted.

There is a huge difference between state government and the federal government. The federal government affects everybody. The state government affects only the people of one state. I can see the difference between those two thing. I hope you can too.

I was responding to what you wrote. I can do it for the entire post if you like. They cannot exist without government. They cannot direct their own lives without government. Because they are the government. Government is not a thing separate from the people. It is the people.

As an organization, the only real difference between state and federal government is the states are more likely to deny rights to individuals. Other than that, it is just a different set of the same people.

 

[9thIDdoc]

It seems to me that the first and most obvious problem is that there can be absoutely no hope that all the states in our current union could EVER come to agreement on a single Constitution to live under. Texas and California agree? New York and Georgia agree? Never happen. Abrogate the current constitution and you would end up with at least two and more likely 3 or 4 nations. We've been down this road before and it didn't end well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is not the responsibility of the federal government to see to it that the street lights are on at night or that there are street lights in my community at all nor have I had any comment on what role the federal government should have in food inspections or the medicine we take. So I am not engaging in hyperbole there but you are.

If you have an argument that those in the federal government are not self-serving, let's hear it. Otherwise don't be so quick to attack me because I see it that way. In recent decades I can point to a whole lot of stuff they've done for themselves and I can't point to anything they have done in which they gave up anything for our benefit. Can you?

Are you honestly of the opinion that there's a charitable corporation that switches on street lights? And no, we were talking "government" here, not "federal" government. You declare, without express exception, government to be "self-serving". I am demonstrating that "government" is serving you in a myriad of ways.

As to what "they", that would be the officials of the U.S. enlightened self-government, have given up: For starters, they have given up on forbidding abortions (whilst the TeaPartyers, with Republicans in tow, are busy reversing that), they are in the process of giving up on forbidding weed, and they have reduced tax rates from around 90% to about a third of that. How's that for starters?

__________________________________________________

Social market capitalism is far preferable to an unregulated market.

Since I am meanwhile in a bit of a bickering mode: Without regulation there is no such thing as a "market". Without regulation there is no such things as property, and no such thing as a contract, or a purchase, just that which you can hang on to tooth and nail. Life, as nasty, brutish, and short as one can possibly imagine, beckons.

There is always a market, unregulated or not.

You wish to regulate it so that it is not subject to the pilferage of gangs and pilferage of vandals.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The state governments have demonstrated they will restrict people's right. Weed, abortion, sexual orientation, etc., are some examples.

The small state government argument is for majorities to limit minorities' right, particularly in the areas of religious coercion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Only if you think people cannot exist without government. Only if you think government is the entity that should direct the lives of the people. Only if you think the people are less able and capable of directing their own lives than is government.

People cannot exist in any groups larger than small clans without government. Government is people. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

Try again since that is totally non sequitur to anything I have argued.

I'm sorry. You said: "Only if you think people cannot exist without government." I don't see how responding to what you said was a non sequitur, unless what you said was. More to the point, your entire thesis seems to be that government is somehow different than corporations, and that federal government is somehow different that state government. It is all people and people are going to act like people in whatever environment you place them. Any system which ignores that absolute fact is going to fail, or rather morph into something which works. The very reason the current situation is what it is is because what you want to see failed to work in the past and had to be fixed. It will not succeed in the future for the same reasons it failed in the past.

Again you have to put my words into their full context, i.e. what they are referring to and/or what they are responding to, if you are going to argue honestly about what I have posted.

There is a huge difference between state government and the federal government. The federal government affects everybody. The state government affects only the people of one state. I can see the difference between those two thing. I hope you can too.

I was responding to what you wrote. I can do it for the entire post if you like. They cannot exist without government. They cannot direct their own lives without government. Because they are the government. Government is not a thing separate from the people. It is the people.

As an organization, the only real difference between state and federal government is the states are more likely to deny rights to individuals. Other than that, it is just a different set of the same people.

Maybe if I type more slowly then even the slowest readers can understand that advocating government limited to specific functions is not the same thing as advocating no government? I don't know how many times I have to say that or how many different ways there are to say it before it sinks in?

 

[Foxfyre]

It seems to me that the first and most obvious problem is that there can be absoutely no hope that all the states in our current union could EVER come to agreement on a single Constitution to live under. Texas and California agree? New York and Georgia agree? Never happen. Abrogate the current constitution and you would end up with at least two and more likely 3 or 4 nations. We've been down this road before and it didn't end well.

Just because something is difficult does not mean that it can't be done or we shouldn't try..

 

[Olde Europe]

I absolutely want to take away the federal government's power to regulate that which the federal government has no constitutional jurisdiction or to tax above and beyond what the government needs to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

Roe didn't come from Congress by the way--it came from the Supreme Court. And that CRomnibus bill didn't say that the feds cannot any longer prosecute those laws regulating weed but that it will not do so for now. They can just as easily pass another bill reversing that one any time they want to. And how does not having power to control abortion or weed take away their personal benefits? And you think what they pass is not self serving to gain votes to keep themselves in power?

So setting aside those red herrings, the question is what have those (in power) in government given up in order to benefit the rest of us?

Your gripe with the (federal) government is that they are arrogating power they should not have (in your view), thus acquiring the questionable "benefit" of control over the lives of U.S. citizens. I gave you three examples of the federal government (of which the judiciary / Supreme Court is one branch) giving up or reducing the power to regulate and to tax, and you still do not acknowledge that these were three entirely valid examples. Of course, if you don't think that people getting back power to live according to their own views, or getting back money to spend on their own volition, isn't to the people's benefit, then it would all make sense. I don't believe you think that way, though. Of course, Congress is free to raise taxes again (as they probably should to reduce the tide of red ink), or impose tighter restrictions on the possession of weed, and the Supreme Court is free to reverse Roe v. Wade entirely, or in part. Let's talk about that once they do.

Of course, the question as to what kind of power a federal government should (not) have is central to the design of a U.S. Constitution. Can you give us your sense, as compared to the enumerated powers outlined in the first six Articles: which powers would you reduce or eliminate? Are there any powers you think the U.S. Government should have in addition to those it now has?

 

[PratchettFan]

People cannot exist in any groups larger than small clans without government. Government is people. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

Try again since that is totally non sequitur to anything I have argued.

I'm sorry. You said: "Only if you think people cannot exist without government." I don't see how responding to what you said was a non sequitur, unless what you said was. More to the point, your entire thesis seems to be that government is somehow different than corporations, and that federal government is somehow different that state government. It is all people and people are going to act like people in whatever environment you place them. Any system which ignores that absolute fact is going to fail, or rather morph into something which works. The very reason the current situation is what it is is because what you want to see failed to work in the past and had to be fixed. It will not succeed in the future for the same reasons it failed in the past.

Again you have to put my words into their full context, i.e. what they are referring to and/or what they are responding to, if you are going to argue honestly about what I have posted.

There is a huge difference between state government and the federal government. The federal government affects everybody. The state government affects only the people of one state. I can see the difference between those two thing. I hope you can too.

I was responding to what you wrote. I can do it for the entire post if you like. They cannot exist without government. They cannot direct their own lives without government. Because they are the government. Government is not a thing separate from the people. It is the people.

As an organization, the only real difference between state and federal government is the states are more likely to deny rights to individuals. Other than that, it is just a different set of the same people.

Maybe if I type more slowly then even the slowest readers can understand that advocating government limited to specific functions is not the same thing as advocating no government? I don't know how many times I have to say that or how many different ways there are to say it before it sinks in?

Do you think if I could just understand what it is you are trying to say that I will agree with you? I understand what you are saying and you are wrong. I do not agree with you. Your concept of limited government is unworkable. If implemented it will either end up in oligarchy or be repeatedly modified until we end up with pretty much what we have now.

If we are going to create a new constitution then it needs to make the government more effective, not clip its wings. We need to cut the deadwood, which would be the states. We need to insure someone living in Maine has the same rights as someone living in California, because this is one nation. We need to recognize that in our society there is no such thing as a local community isolated from the rest of the nation. One people, one law. We need an open market, but that is not a free market - it is a market with rules and the government needs to enforce those rules. And occasionally the government may need to step in and provide assistance, because the job of the government is to provide for the people - not defend some philosophical ideology. If that means you lose your inalienable right to association, as my father used tell me, them's the breaks.

 

[DriftingSand]

A new, improved version would be the original version but with a stipulation that branded America as a Christian nation. Afterall, it was founded by a vast majority of Christians (of varying denominations). What the early Founders were opposed to was a government dominated by a single, particular, or specific denomination.

 

[DriftingSand]

We the people of the Christian United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and encourage Christian values and ethics do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America under God's divine guidance and protection.

 

[PratchettFan]

A new, improved version would be the original version but with a stipulation that branded America as a Christian nation. Afterall, it was founded by a vast majority of Christians (of varying denominations). What the early Founders were opposed to was a government dominated by a single, particular, or specific denomination.

I think not.