CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Derideo_Te]

I 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.

Statistikhengst did a great breakdown with 1000 House Representatives each responsible for exactly 0.1% of the population. Even if it meant that House Districts crossed State boundaries they would still represent the exact same number of people in every single District.

And if we are going to restrict Senate race funding to only the citizens of their states (excluding phony "corporate people") why not apply the same restriction to House districts. That way the campaigns are funded by the people themselves and not outsiders coming in to flood the market and buy the race.

With 1000 House Representatives it would take 501 to reach a majority and there would be room for more Independents and other parties to gain seats. So that would result in different coalitions forming depending on the issues.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

So much for separation of Church and state. Now, tell us again why pilgrims came to the shores of America. Right: to flee religious oppression.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'm sure you won't mind if I set aside all those other red herrings thrown into the mix as irrelevant to that concept.

I do mind if you declare my examples "red herrings" and throw them out without explanation or argument:

"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?"

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.

"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 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."


Foxfyre's Libertarian Utopia wants to give States the right to ban abortions by eliminating the power of the Federal government to uphold the Constitutional privacy rights of women nationwide. Upholding Constitutional rights of citizens is "dictating" according to Libertarians.

Libertarians believe that they should be free to ignore the "dictates" of the Federal government when it interferes with their personal greed. The classic example of this is Cliven Bundy. Can you imagine what this nation would be like if everyone behaved that selfishly?

So was this what Foxfyre was referring to when she claimed that "big government" had "eroded" her "freedom" to deny women their Constitutional rights?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Libertarians believe that society can exist with any government or with very limited government? Of course they cannot provide a single example of a society that does function without any government whatsoever or very limited government. And it explains why Libertarians refuse to get into specifics because they cannot defend this ludicrous position.

 

[Conservative65]

I'm sure you won't mind if I set aside all those other red herrings thrown into the mix as irrelevant to that concept.

I do mind if you declare my examples "red herrings" and throw them out without explanation or argument:

"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?"

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.

"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 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."


Foxfyre's Libertarian Utopia wants to give States the right to ban abortions by eliminating the power of the Federal government to uphold the Constitutional privacy rights of women nationwide. Upholding Constitutional rights of citizens is "dictating" according to Libertarians.

Libertarians believe that they should be free to ignore the "dictates" of the Federal government when it interferes with their personal greed. The classic example of this is Cliven Bundy. Can you imagine what this nation would be like if everyone behaved that selfishly?

So was this what Foxfyre was referring to when she claimed that "big government" had "eroded" her "freedom" to deny women their Constitutional rights?

The federal government going beyond what the Constitution says it can do because certain elements within that government "thinks" the Constitution says something it doesn't is dictating.

Liberals believe that the government should be able to do what it wants because they can take some phrase in the Constitution and demand that's what it means. You have taken the general welfare clause and turned it into the concept that someone not earning a wage is entitled to a portion of the wage another person actually had to work for. When the one that worked for it disagrees, you call them greedy while, at the same time, give no consideration that the greediest are those that think someone else's money is somehow theirs.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Did Congress make themselves subject to the provisions of Obamacare? No they did not.

Actually they did!

More than 12 000 congressional staffers have enrolled in health plans through Obamacare - The Washington Post

Thousands of people have purchased health coverage through the District of Columbia’s new small-business insurance marketplace, but only a tiny fraction of them actually own or work for a small business.

The rest are members of or work for a single large organization — Congress.

Starting this year, new rules require federal lawmakers and their staffers to enroll in health-care plans through the small-business exchange on the city’s new insurance marketplace, known as DC Health Link. So far, 12,359 representatives and staff members, including those who work in district offices across the country and those working on Capitol Hill, have purchased plans, according to numbers obtained by The Washington Post from city health officials.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

.

You have utterly and completely failed to substantiate this bogus claim of yours;

"Taxes for the purpose of redistribution used to sustain the minimum are theft"

Libertarians belief that some forms of taxation are "theft" have never stood up in a court of law and never will either. And yes, in a court of law you would have to prove that it was "theft". So all you have is your bogus belief that exists only in your mind and those of your fellow Libertarians. Meanwhile the rest of sane society knows better.

 

[Olde Europe]

Libertarians believe that society can exist with any government. Of course they cannot provide a single example of a society that does function without any government whatsoever. And it explains why Libertarians refuse to get into specifics because they cannot defend this ludicrous position.

One might expect that pointing at Somalia should disabuse them of that notion. On the other hand, extremists quite regularly don't react to factual evidence the way one might expect. So, that's... unsurprising.

..........................................................................

You have utterly and completely failed to substantiate this bogus claim of yours;

"Taxes for the purpose of redistribution used to sustain the minimum are theft"

Libertarians belief that some forms of taxation are "theft" have never stood up in a court of law and never will either. And yes, in a court of law you would have to prove that it was "theft". So all you have is your bogus belief that exists only in your mind and those of your fellow Libertarians. Meanwhile the rest of sane society knows better.

That's a tricky one. Make your argument that "redistribution" is part of "provide for the [...] general Welfare":

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

 

[BlackSand]

You have utterly and completely failed to substantiate this bogus claim of yours.

You have utterly failed to prove any claim I made is bogus to start with. Your opinions or justifications don't change the definitions.

.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

.

You have utterly and completely failed to substantiate this bogus claim of yours;

"Taxes for the purpose of redistribution used to sustain the minimum are theft"

Libertarians belief that some forms of taxation are "theft" have never stood up in a court of law and never will either. And yes, in a court of law you would have to prove that it was "theft". So all you have is your bogus belief that exists only in your mind and those of your fellow Libertarians. Meanwhile the rest of sane society knows better.

I've heard that claim before, it makes no sense at all. As soon as even the first penny of money brought into local, state or federal coffers is spent on anything, that is automatically redistribution and has been going on since 1791 or so. ...

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Derideo_Te]

Libertarians believe that society can exist with any government. Of course they cannot provide a single example of a society that does function without any government whatsoever. And it explains why Libertarians refuse to get into specifics because they cannot defend this ludicrous position.

One might expect that pointing at Somalia should disabuse them of that notion. On the other hand, extremists quite regularly don't react to factual evidence the way one might expect. So, that's... unsurprising.

..........................................................................

You have utterly and completely failed to substantiate this bogus claim of yours;

"Taxes for the purpose of redistribution used to sustain the minimum are theft"

Libertarians belief that some forms of taxation are "theft" have never stood up in a court of law and never will either. And yes, in a court of law you would have to prove that it was "theft". So all you have is your bogus belief that exists only in your mind and those of your fellow Libertarians. Meanwhile the rest of sane society knows better.

That's a tricky one. Make your argument that "redistribution" is part of "provide for the [...] general Welfare":

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

Would you not agree that General Welfare includes law and order? If you do then how do you maintain law and order?

In societies without a social safety net there is widespread poverty and with that comes crimes from petty all the way through to drug running, kidnapping and murder. In civilized western nations with a social safety net the crime rates are much lower. If people have shelter, food and a minimum standard of living they are unlikely to become involved in crime.

You mentioned taxes too. What does it cost to police, prosecute and imprison a large segment of the population? Is it cheaper to prevent crime or to have to apprehend criminals after the fact? Do you want to live in a society where you never know if you are going to be robbed whenever you step out of your own door?

In essence what is mislabeled for partisan purposes as "redistribution" is actually maintaining the law and order of the General Welfare of We the People.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You have utterly and completely failed to substantiate this bogus claim of yours.

You have utterly failed to prove any claim I made is bogus to start with. Your opinions or justifications don't change the definitions.

.

Drowning in denial doesn't alter the FACT that you haven't provided even a smidgeon of substantiation for your completely bogus claim.

The onus remains on you to prove otherwise.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

I think that is unduely negative in outlook, I think all could agreee on broad principles....and it wouldnt need to be unanimous.

 

[dcraelin]

I 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.

Statistikhengst did a great breakdown with 1000 House Representatives each responsible for exactly 0.1% of the population. Even if it meant that House Districts crossed State boundaries they would still represent the exact same number of people in every single District.

And if we are going to restrict Senate race funding to only the citizens of their states (excluding phony "corporate people") why not apply the same restriction to House districts. That way the campaigns are funded by the people themselves and not outsiders coming in to flood the market and buy the race.

With 1000 House Representatives it would take 501 to reach a majority and there would be room for more Independents and other parties to gain seats. So that would result in different coalitions forming depending on the issues.

Well I like 1000 but my proposal would have even more....not all needing to go to dc.....

I think states can become dominated by a few economic interests,, montana was once dominatedby the mining industry for example, so introducing some outside money I dont think is necessarily a bad thing ....in certain situations....

also I would like to see reps elected by a proportional election system...most likely by state but perhaps nationwide or regional...

 

[Olde Europe]

Would you not agree that General Welfare includes law and order? If you do then how do you maintain law and order?

In societies without a social safety net there is widespread poverty and with that comes crimes from petty all the way through to drug running, kidnapping and murder. In civilized western nations with a social safety net the crime rates are much lower. If people have shelter, food and a minimum standard of living they are unlikely to become involved in crime.

You mentioned taxes too. What does it cost to police, prosecute and imprison a large segment of the population? Is it cheaper to prevent crime or to have to apprehend criminals after the fact? Do you want to live in a society where you never know if you are going to be robbed whenever you step out of your own door?

In essence what is mislabeled for partisan purposes as "redistribution" is actually maintaining the law and order of the General Welfare of We the People.

I'm pretty comfortable with all of the above, DT. Yet, Libertarians mean something quite specific when agonising about "redistribution", that is, taking something from someone who earned it and giving that money to someone who did not. They don't mean, say, a police officer's salary, they mean those the modern economy left behind, and who deserve, due to their lack of skills and virtues, to earn less than that which would ensure their survival. That means that they're to be subjected to the whims of private charity (which means a life in misery anyway), or starving to death, or, as you point out, to live a live of crime. I would think that it's fairly easy that to prevent the latter easily falls within the broad authority to tax so as to provide for the general welfare. And with that, the whole "redistribution is theft" meme quickly falls apart. Again, that shouldn't surprise anyone.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

I agree with you. 'Small government' is indeed government.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I am not asking anybody to agree with me. I am just asking that those who disagree with me disagree with what I actually said instead of rewriting what I said or suggesting I meant something other than what I said. I don't mind at all if people don't agree with my point of view. But it is highly annoying when their method of disagreement is to accuse me instead of making a case for their own point of view or showing how my point of view is wrong.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Libertarians believe that society can exist with any government or with very limited government? Of course they cannot provide a single example of a society that does function without any government whatsoever or very limited government. And it explains why Libertarians refuse to get into specifics because they cannot defend this ludicrous position.

People like you can't exist without government doing for you what you should be doing for yourselves. You refuse to get into specifics because your automatic thought anytime you want something is "government".

Libertarians believe that society can exist with any government. Of course they cannot provide a single example of a society that does function without any government whatsoever. And it explains why Libertarians refuse to get into specifics because they cannot defend this ludicrous position.

One might expect that pointing at Somalia should disabuse them of that notion. On the other hand, extremists quite regularly don't react to factual evidence the way one might expect. So, that's... unsurprising.

..........................................................................

You have utterly and completely failed to substantiate this bogus claim of yours;

"Taxes for the purpose of redistribution used to sustain the minimum are theft"

Libertarians belief that some forms of taxation are "theft" have never stood up in a court of law and never will either. And yes, in a court of law you would have to prove that it was "theft". So all you have is your bogus belief that exists only in your mind and those of your fellow Libertarians. Meanwhile the rest of sane society knows better.

That's a tricky one. Make your argument that "redistribution" is part of "provide for the [...] general Welfare":

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

Would you not agree that General Welfare includes law and order? If you do then how do you maintain law and order?

In societies without a social safety net there is widespread poverty and with that comes crimes from petty all the way through to drug running, kidnapping and murder. In civilized western nations with a social safety net the crime rates are much lower. If people have shelter, food and a minimum standard of living they are unlikely to become involved in crime.

You mentioned taxes too. What does it cost to police, prosecute and imprison a large segment of the population? Is it cheaper to prevent crime or to have to apprehend criminals after the fact? Do you want to live in a society where you never know if you are going to be robbed whenever you step out of your own door?

In essence what is mislabeled for partisan purposes as "redistribution" is actually maintaining the law and order of the General Welfare of We the People.

Very, very loose and piss poor interpretation to fit your bleeding heart agenda. The government doesn't need to provide that social safety net. You can do it privately where you see the need.

A better question other than the one about wanting to live in a soceity whre you never know if you are going to be robbed would be "Does the one doing the robbing want to live in fear of whether or not the one they are robbing is going to put them out of their misery.

When you take from one that earned and hand it to one that didn't, that's redistribution. Trying to twist it to anything else does nothing more than prove your bleeding heart, socialist mindset.

 

[Foxfyre]

ATTENTION: I would like to make a request of those participating on this thread. How about instead of bogging everything down by demanding links or proof or substantiation or whatever for somebody else's argument or getting personal with other members, you make your own argument for what you would want in a new or improved Constitution? That is the purpose of this thread. I for one would appreciate that very much and yes, I have gotten sucked into some of the snarkiness too and I regret that.

This is a bright group of people. Let's each make our best case for what would make the Constitution better and be prepared to argue a rationale for that case. This is not a 'battle of facts' so much as a battle of ideas or concepts.

 

[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.

I think that is unduely negative in outlook, I think all could agreee on broad principles....and it wouldnt need to be unanimous.

This is a good point. To assume 100% consensus on all but a very few things is simply unrealistic. That's why it took the Founders eleven years of intense debate, argument, and exchange of ideas and concepts to hammer out the original Constitution and in the end nobody got everything they wanted and everybody had to compromise on at least something.

But the one thing they did, as evidenced by the wealth of founding documents we have, is to each make a strong argument for and provide a strong rationale for the concepts and principles that would be embodied in that Constitution. And an in depth study of those founding documents finds very little sniping at each other. They focused on the concepts, not each other.