CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Foxfyre]

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.

Interesting concept, but as a practicing Christian I understand why the Founders did not make a direct reference to God but rather translated God to 'blessings of liberty' so as to keep religious doctrine out of the Constit6ution. And I would want to continue that intentional policy.

At the same time the Founders were most careful and deliberate to give the federal government no authority to interfere with the religion of the people. They didn't even attempt to interfere with those colonies that were little theocracies with strict rules for religious conduct of the people. They trusted a free people to govern themselves, even those they disagreed with and/or disapproved of because there is not liberty if people are not free to be wrong as well as right.

 

[Olde Europe]

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.

I would agree with the gist of this.

On the other hand, ideas and concepts deserve respect, at least in part, because they rest on a solid factual foundation. Moreover, some concepts don't even make sense without such foundation. Just look at "general welfare", for a start. If we don't know what that is, what the limits thereof are (or should be), we couldn't tell what the expression means, let alone know what the consequences would be of mentioning that term in any article. So yes, I would insist that supporting factual evidence may at times be required to support a conceptual argument.

 

[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.

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.

I like the idea of no sniping...tho the constitution was written in secrecy so we dont really know that

also...you say 11 years....you must be including the articles of confederation in what you call the deliberation....I think that was more open..and did come to a broader consensous....

the Constituion's main body was written in only a few months

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

In my opinion, those examples you used required no member of Congress, no high level appointee, and no high level bureaucrat to give up any personal benefit they give themselves via their positions. Changing laws from one thing to something else, when it does not affect them personally/materially in any way, is not what I mean. They are greatly enriching themselves at our expense and from what I have observed for some time now, that is their number one goal and it has been a very harmful thing for the country.

Look at an $18 trillion dollar debt that is growing by millions each and every day, by billions each and every week, and they have done nothing to even slow it down, much less deal with it. Why? Because that debt is keeping them in power longer to enrich themselves more. Nobody is seriously suggesting that the federal government do less but they keep finding ways for the federal government to do more and more and more, swelling the already unmanageable bureaucracy and absorbing more and more resources and therefore power for themselves to use.

I want a better Constitution that will correct that.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

The link below exposes the whole BS notion of "redistribution of wealth" because it proves that raising wages for the poor and the middle class is essential for the health of capitalism. The need to "redistribute wealth" to those earning minimum wages disappears when they earn a living wage. Raising wages is a cost effective means of reducing taxes because it creates a larger tax base. Yes, this is all 180 degrees opposed to the extreme rightwing failed economic dogma that has enabled the 1% to become wealthy beyond imagination at the expense of everyone else. That is not sustainable capitalism. It will eventually fail. The failure will occur even sooner if it wasn't for the current paltry "redistribution of wealth" that is in place now. If you pull the plug on that there will be economic collapse and social chaos in short order.

So the Libertarian whining is because they have bought into the failed economic dogma of the extreme right. They still believe that it will succeed when there isn't a single instance in history of it succeeding. There are many examples of it failing and the outcome was never good for those who were sitting on their amassed wealth while millions suffered.

Oh, and this link, the speaker is an avowed unrepentant capitalist who has made billions and even part owns his own bank. Enjoy!

Nick Hanauer Beware fellow plutocrats the pitchforks are coming Talk Video TED.com

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

You are being quoted directly and your positions dismantled point by point. You haven't been able to defend a single instance when I have done that. Instead you are ignoring that your positions can withstand scrutiny. That isn't helping your positions one iota.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

The link below exposes the whole BS notion of "redistribution of wealth" because it proves that raising wages for the poor and the middle class is essential for the health of capitalism. The need to "redistribute wealth" to those earning minimum wages disappears when they earn a living wage. Raising wages is a cost effective means of reducing taxes because it creates a larger tax base. Yes, this is all 180 degrees opposed to the extreme rightwing failed economic dogma that has enabled the 1% to become wealthy beyond imagination at the expense of everyone else. That is not sustainable capitalism. It will eventually fail. The failure will occur even sooner if it wasn't for the current paltry "redistribution of wealth" that is in place now. If you pull the plug on that there will be economic collapse and social chaos in short order.

So the Libertarian whining is because they have bought into the failed economic dogma of the extreme right. They still believe that it will succeed when there isn't a single instance in history of it succeeding. There are many examples of it failing and the outcome was never good for those who were sitting on their amassed wealth while millions suffered.

Oh, and this link, the speaker is an avowed unrepentant capitalist who has made billions and even part owns his own bank. Enjoy!

Nick Hanauer Beware fellow plutocrats the pitchforks are coming Talk Video TED.com

The reason redistribution is there is because of the retards that don't have skills to EARN a living wage and bleeding hearts like you won't voluntarily do what you think the rest of us should be forced to do. If people like you met the needs when YOU saw them, it would mean you wouldn't have to force the rest of us to do it your way then claim compassion as if the money came from you.

I can't help it if you didn't make it but that doens't mean someone else should make it for you.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Thank you for disqualifying yourself from this topic. Have a nice day.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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".

This makes no sense whatsoever.

What "should" people do for themselves?

 

[dcraelin]

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.

Thank you for disqualifying yourself from this topic. Have a nice day.

let me say to a certain extent the opening lines should be left alone, especially if they are gong to lead to this kind of snipping arguemnet... I think a more broad agreement can be had by concentration on the structural make-up of the legislature.

 

[Conservative65]

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".

This makes no sense whatsoever.

What "should" people do for themselves?

Buy their own food, clothing, provide their own shelter, healthcare, etc. Be personally responsible when they make bad choices or choices at all. The bleeding hearts thinks one person should go out and earn it for someone else or when someone else makes a choice they can't afford, it's OK to get the government to have another person pay for the results.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Despite the vague comments immediately above, Conservative65 has violated the rules of the CDZ elsewhere. He cannot carry the argument politely and fairly.

So let's move from the vague, Conservative65 and give us examples specifically of what government should do.

If you are an anarchist, now is the time to tell us.

 

[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.

I would agree with the gist of this.

On the other hand, ideas and concepts deserve respect, at least in part, because they rest on a solid factual foundation. Moreover, some concepts don't even make sense without such foundation. Just look at "general welfare", for a start. If we don't know what that is, what the limits thereof are (or should be), we couldn't tell what the expression means, let alone know what the consequences would be of mentioning that term in any article. So yes, I would insist that supporting factual evidence may from at times be required to support a conceptual argument.

I agree. I look at a $18 trillion dollar debt increasing at a terrifying rate, and know that we need an iron clad way to stop that from happening. The 'general welfare' clause, as the Founders defined it--we can see that from the Founding documents--was intended to be that which would benefit all, rich and poor alike, uniformly across the country. It was never intended as a redistribution of wealth nor did it allow the federal government to engage in any form of charity or benevolence, but rather it was intended to be what the federal government could do to allow all the people to prosper or better themselves or benefit themselves.

The 'general welfare clause' is now used to justify taxing and borrowing and obligating the people for just about anything the federal government wants to stuff into it. And it will collapse us under its own weight if we do not demand that this cease and desist. We cannot sustain a debt as we are accumulating indefinitely. We cannot continue spending as we are without disastrous consequences.

A new and improved Constitution, in my opinion, would very clearly restore the 'general welfare clause' to its original concept. And it would clearly specify that nobody in the federal government could use one dollar of the people's money to benefit any individual, group, entity, or demographic that did not benefit regardless of their politics or socioeconomic status.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

If you cannot substantiate that your ideas and/or concepts are feasible, viable and pragmatic you are not going to be in a position to participate. Simply proposing a concept that sounds good doesn't cut it. It must work in the real world. The Founding Fathers dealt with pragmatics. The Constitution is not just "ideas and concepts". It is a workable definition of how government is supposed to function. This thread is not about fantasy but reality. We are dealing with suggestions that address the very real problems we have today just like the Founding Fathers did back then. We might not be on the same plane as them but if we want an improved constitution no one is going to ratify just an idea. They will want to know if it is feasible.

 

[Olde Europe]

In my opinion, those examples you used required no member of Congress, no high level appointee, and no high level bureaucrat to give up any personal benefit they give themselves via their positions. Changing laws from one thing to something else, when it does not affect them personally/materially in any way, is not what I mean. They are greatly enriching themselves at our expense and from what I have observed for some time now, that is their number one goal and it has been a very harmful thing for the country.

Look at an $18 trillion dollar debt that is growing by millions each and every day, by billions each and every week, and they have done nothing to even slow it down, much less deal with it. Why? Because that debt is keeping them in power longer to enrich themselves more. Nobody is seriously suggesting that the federal government do less but they keep finding ways for the federal government to do more and more and more, swelling the already unmanageable bureaucracy and absorbing more and more resources and therefore power for themselves to use.

I want a better Constitution that will correct that.

See, that's what I mean. Under President Obama, growth of the federal government was the slowest since WWII, the deficit was falling precipitously, and arguably expenses were falling in real terms. Yet, you insist this is not the case. Really, you should expect to be called on the like.

Setting that aside, how would you imagine to write that into a Constitution in any way other than in the current one, that is: These are your powers and tasks, this is your power of taxation and the limits thereof, and all else is none of your business?

__________________________________

Since I have banned video from this computer, I cannot see it, DT. But I guess we're pretty much on the same page in this respect.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

I have no problem with this. I do think an understanding of the type of nation we want is important and one way or the other it gets down to wrangling over the details. Any document is going to be a matter of compromise.

1. The new constitution would need to dissolve the various states. This could be done by simply no longer even mentioning them.

2. A specific standard for establishing voting districts will need to be created in such a way as to make gerrymandering impossible. This also needs to take into account that without states, Senators will need to be selected in a different manner. Perhaps each senatorial district will be divided into 15 representative districts.

3. The ability of the government to tax should be specified.

4. Individual rights will need to be enumerated. I would think most, if not all, of the current rights should be included. I would also include the right to make decisions regarding one's own body without interference by the government.

5. I think the current government structure is fine with its three branches. It would be a good idea to specify the Supreme Court does have the ability to decide cases under the Constitution and nullify any laws it deems in violation of the Constitution.

6. Local governments will still be needed to handle things like zoning laws and building codes. Provision should be made for this but all such governments should be subordinate to the central government.

7. I would suggest elections be government funded with private funds being prohibited.

8. Any member of the government who accepts money or gifts, whether with the intent to sell influence or not, shall be guilty of a felony.

I expect there are lots more, but it's a start.

 

[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.

I like the idea of no sniping...tho the constitution was written in secrecy so we dont really know that

also...you say 11 years....you must be including the articles of confederation in what you call the deliberation....I think that was more open..and did come to a broader consensous....

the Constituion's main body was written in only a few months

The final document, however, reflected all those arguments, debate, and discussions. It was eleven years from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the signing of the Constitution. The discussions, debates, and arguments of what would go into the Constitution, assuming the Revolutionary War would be won, went on for that entire time. It of course intensified after the war ended and the last four years, those debates and conversations were intense and deliberate as to what form of nation and government we would have.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Thank you for disqualifying yourself from this topic. Have a nice day.

let me say to a certain extent the opening lines should be left alone, especially if they are gong to lead to this kind of snipping arguemnet... I think a more broad agreement can be had by concentration on the structural make-up of the legislature.

We were discussing the concept of General Welfare.

I have reported the offender and won't be responding to any of his further posts in this threads.

I would be interested to hear more about your ideas for the structure of the legislature.

 

[Foxfyre]

In my opinion, those examples you used required no member of Congress, no high level appointee, and no high level bureaucrat to give up any personal benefit they give themselves via their positions. Changing laws from one thing to something else, when it does not affect them personally/materially in any way, is not what I mean. They are greatly enriching themselves at our expense and from what I have observed for some time now, that is their number one goal and it has been a very harmful thing for the country.

Look at an $18 trillion dollar debt that is growing by millions each and every day, by billions each and every week, and they have done nothing to even slow it down, much less deal with it. Why? Because that debt is keeping them in power longer to enrich themselves more. Nobody is seriously suggesting that the federal government do less but they keep finding ways for the federal government to do more and more and more, swelling the already unmanageable bureaucracy and absorbing more and more resources and therefore power for themselves to use.

I want a better Constitution that will correct that.

See, that's what I mean. Under President Obama, growth of the federal government was the slowest since WWII, the deficit was falling precipitously, and arguably expenses were falling in real terms. Yet, you insist this is not the case. Really, you should expect to be called on the like.

Setting that aside, how would you imagine to write that into a Constitution in any way other than in the current one, that is: These are your powers and tasks, this is your power of taxation and the limits thereof, and all else is none of your business?

__________________________________

Since I have banned video from this computer, I cannot see it, DT. But I guess we're pretty much on the same page in this respect.

The debt has grown and is growing faster during President Obama's administration than it did in any previous administration. The deficits remain larger than would have been considered acceptable for the entire debt just a few decades ago. Again, please argue what I have said instead of implying that I insist something that I have not insisted.

In 1980, the national debt was less than $1 trillion. It is now more than $18 trillion and is not slowing down but is accelerating.

I would correct that by writing into the Constitution strict limits on what Congress could spend money on.

 

[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.

I have no problem with this. I do think an understanding of the type of nation we want is important and one way or the other it gets down to wrangling over the details. Any document is going to be a matter of compromise.

1. The new constitution would need to dissolve the various states. This could be done by simply no longer even mentioning them.

2. A specific standard for establishing voting districts will need to be created in such a way as to make gerrymandering impossible. This also needs to take into account that without states, Senators will need to be selected in a different manner. Perhaps each senatorial district will be divided into 15 representative districts.

3. The ability of the government to tax should be specified.

4. Individual rights will need to be enumerated. I would think most, if not all, of the current rights should be included. I would also include the right to make decisions regarding one's own body without interference by the government.

5. I think the current government structure is fine with its three branches. It would be a good idea to specify the Supreme Court does have the ability to decide cases under the Constitution and nullify any laws it deems in violation of the Constitution.

6. Local governments will still be needed to handle things like zoning laws and building codes. Provision should be made for this but all such governments should be subordinate to the central government.

7. I would suggest elections be government funded with private funds being prohibited.

8. Any member of the government who accepts money or gifts, whether with the intent to sell influence or not, shall be guilty of a felony.

I expect there are lots more, but it's a start.

Number 1 - No. I think the various states have proved their worth in diffusing central power that could be dangerous and deadly to liberty when such power is concentrated in the wrong hands. A central government with power to control everything is fine if you have a noble, wise, and benevolent dictator in charge. Not so fine with a self-serving dicttator in charge. When you concentrate all the power at the top, the power generally chooses to do whatever it darn well pleases and there is absolutely no remedy for that.

Number 2 - okay re gerrymandering. But since I won't agree to dissolving the states, a different way of selecting senators is on the table for me, but not having the same number of senators for each state is not.

Number 3 - absolutely the Constitution should specify what power the federal government will have to tax and strict limits on that power.

Number 4 - I think enumerating individual rights are impossible. We can touch on the basics as the current constitution does, but an improved constitution should define, recognize, and protect unalienable rights that it would be impractical, if not impossible, to enumerate.

Number 5 - The Supreme Court should be busted back to its original authority of settling disputes regarding interpretation of the law and should be given no authority to nullify any law passed by Congress nor to make any kind of law on its own.

Number 6 - The local government, i.e. the people, should govern themselves and the authority of the federal government over them should be extremely limited. That is what liberty is.

Number 7 - I would vote no on this one too. The people should not be restricted on how they are able to use their own money/property in their own interest so long as they do not infringe on the rights of anybody else. Limit what they can buy from their elected representatives, yes. Limit their own liberty, no.

Number 8 - A wonderful concept and such laws already exist, but under the existing system in is fathomless scope and complexity, there is simply no way to monitor or enforce these laws. The only remedy for such corruption is to strictly limit the powers of the federal government and those who administrate such powers so that any corruption or graft is much more visible and manageable.

So here we have some areas of agreement and some broad areas of disagreement. Much as was the case when the folks in the 18th century started the process.