CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[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 at times be required to support a conceptual argument.

An exchange of ideas and concepts and providing a reasoned rationale for them should be respected on its own merits. Some of us do provide links when it strengthens our arguments, but do not want this to be a battle of the links, but rather an exchange of what we believe, what we hope for, what we want for our country.

Some here seem gung ho to embarrass or put down or criticize or denigrate other members because they express an unpopular opinion--unpopular to the critic. I put this thread in the CDZ in hopes we would get a better class of discussion that would allow us to discuss ideas and concepts rather than constant demand for links, subtle or direct insults, or trying to discredit each other. You'll notice that those engaged in that rarely make their own argument in an effort to persuade but rather spend most of their time in one-upmanship.

I am really appreciating those who have gotten into the spirit of the exercise even if I strongly disagree with them or they with me.

 

[Olde Europe]

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.

Amazing. Yes, that was what Bush's libertarian laissez-faire economics wrought, the damage it has done to the U.S. economy, and the revenue shortfall that ensued. Remember, I argued your point with precision: "they have done nothing to even slow it down"

Look, carefully:

 

[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.

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.

1. States have proven they are far too susceptible to corruption, stepping on individual rights and are outmoded. They need to go.
2. We agree, except with the state thing.
3. It should specify the right to tax. However, the intent is to get rid of the quibbling about it, not to limit it.
4. If you don't enumerate rights you don't have rights.
5. The Supreme Court needs to be a clear equal of the three branches.
6. Local governments are even more susceptible to corruption than states. Look at Chicago in the 20's and 30's. They need to be subservient to the central government and their ability to govern purely administrative.
7. It looks like we will nullify each others' votes. This idea that money equals speech needs to go.
8. The way to limit this is to take away the ambiguity, not the effectiveness of the government. Someone pays for your golf trip, you go to jail. Very simple.

Now, all we need to do is compromise so the states remain but are seriously restricted in what authority they wield, increase the overall power and authority of the federal government and we're halfway there.

 

[Dan Daly]

The government has no respect for the law as it is...selectively enforcing or ignoring as suits them...so why would any sane person expect them to have any more respect for changes or additions to the law?

Till you can force the government to abide by the laws we have, this is all nothing but ideological masturbation.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am probably going to have to sign off for awhile though because this boards is not working well for me. It is like trying to run through molasses and takes seconds for the words I type to finally appear on the page.

 

[Foxfyre]

The government has no respect for the law as it is...selectively enforcing or ignoring as suits them...so why would any sane person expect them to have any more respect for changes or additions to the law?

Till you can force the government to abide by the laws we have, this is all nothing but ideological masturbation.

That is why I think we need to improve the Constitution to reinstate the rule of law re limited government in Washington. What I have been proposing in this thread would I believe do just that.

 

[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

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.

I guess I disagree even about the last 4 years...ive read a book on the raification which was pretty indepth,

debate was very rushed in the first states.

the convenetion was supposed to be about amendment only not wholesale change..so most people didnt even know the extent of what was contemplated

The process we would have now would be much better discussed and open

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Amazing. Yes, that was what Bush's libertarian laissez-faire economics wrought, the damage it has done to the U.S. economy, and the revenue shortfall that ensued. Remember, I argued your point with precision: "they have done nothing to even slow it down"

Look, carefully:

Your chart shows the percentage of the national debt as a percentage of the GDP. I am talking about actual dollar amounts. Find a chart that shows that please and I think you'll see that I am making a valid point. And if we could not make this into another partisan cat fight or bash Bush (or Clinton or Obama or whomever) thread, that would be greatly appreciated too.

 

[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.

I guess I disagree even about the last 4 years...ive read a book on the raification which was pretty indepth,

debate was very rushed in the first states.

the convenetion was supposed to be about amendment only not wholesale change..so most people didnt even know the extent of what was contemplated

The process we would have now would be much better discussed and open

What book would that be? I've read maybe hundreds? of books, commentary, research projects and have had some course work in the Founding documents themselves, and I do not claim to be an expert. Earlier in this thread I mentioned some writers/historians that I think are experts and should be required reading for anybody wanting to understand how it all happened and what was intended by the Constitution and what needs to happen if there is a remedy for how the Constitution has been corrupted. I have also read at least dozens of arguments that support what I think might be your point of view, but I have found them to be less credible and less able to support their arguments than other historians.

That is not to say that I am right about it all and you are wrong. But I believe my point of view on that is far more supportable.

 

[dcraelin]

The government has no respect for the law as it is...selectively enforcing or ignoring as suits them...so why would any sane person expect them to have any more respect for changes or additions to the law?

Till you can force the government to abide by the laws we have, this is all nothing but ideological masturbation.

I think structural change could help expolse those who try to manipulate the law.


its intercourse

 

[dcraelin]

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.

I guess I disagree even about the last 4 years...ive read a book on the raification which was pretty indepth,

debate was very rushed in the first states.

the convenetion was supposed to be about amendment only not wholesale change..so most people didnt even know the extent of what was contemplated

The process we would have now would be much better discussed and open

What book would that be? I've read maybe hundreds? of books, commentary, research projects and have had some course work in the Founding documents themselves, and I do not claim to be an expert. Earlier in this thread I mentioned some writers/historians that I think are experts and should be required reading for anybody wanting to understand how it all happened and what was intended by the Constitution and what needs to happen if there is a remedy for how the Constitution has been corrupted. I have also read at least dozens of arguments that support what I think might be your point of view, but I have found them to be less credible and less able to support their arguments than other historians.

That is not to say that I am right about it all and you are wrong. But I believe my point of view on that is far more supportable.

I believe the book I refered to is just called "ratification"...it covers teh first 1/2 to 3rd of states ratification debates....I think they meant to finsh up with a another but havent heard about it yet.

Stae constitutions were heavily debated I believe,,so governmental theory was discussed. but most looked on their individual staes as their countrys
Ratification The People Debate the Constitution 1787-1788 Pauline Maier 9780684868554 Amazon.com Books

 

[PratchettFan]

The government has no respect for the law as it is...selectively enforcing or ignoring as suits them...so why would any sane person expect them to have any more respect for changes or additions to the law?

Till you can force the government to abide by the laws we have, this is all nothing but ideological masturbation.

Because of the alternative. I keep saying this because it really is an important point. The government is people. "The government" is really a myth we use, it does not actually exist. What we have is a gathering of people, all working together or at cross purposes, but they are all people. No different than any other people. So the very reason you distrust the government is the reason I distrust any group of people. When you make it difficult or impossible for the government to counteract those others groups, you place your life in the hands of people who not only don't care about it but are in no way capable of being controlled by you. I see that as extremely dangerous.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I guess I disagree even about the last 4 years...ive read a book on the raification which was pretty indepth,

debate was very rushed in the first states.

the convenetion was supposed to be about amendment only not wholesale change..so most people didnt even know the extent of what was contemplated

The process we would have now would be much better discussed and open

What book would that be? I've read maybe hundreds? of books, commentary, research projects and have had some course work in the Founding documents themselves, and I do not claim to be an expert. Earlier in this thread I mentioned some writers/historians that I think are experts and should be required reading for anybody wanting to understand how it all happened and what was intended by the Constitution and what needs to happen if there is a remedy for how the Constitution has been corrupted. I have also read at least dozens of arguments that support what I think might be your point of view, but I have found them to be less credible and less able to support their arguments than other historians.

That is not to say that I am right about it all and you are wrong. But I believe my point of view on that is far more supportable.

I believe the book I refered to is just called "ratification"...it covers teh first 1/2 to 3rd of states ratification debates....I think they meant to finsh up with a another but havent heard about it yet.

Stae constitutions were heavily debated I believe,,so governmental theory was discussed. but most looked on their individual staes as their countrys

As was intended. But it was also intended that the U.S. constitution would form those various states into one great nation that afforded maximum liberty and opportunity to its citizens. So if one person's state 'country' was not to his/her liking, nothing should impede his/her leaving it and going elsewhere to follow his/her dreams. The downside of that was that some of the state 'countries' seemed oppressive and just wrong to outsiders even as they suited those within those states. The concept of liberty that the original Constitution was intended to protect was the right to be wrong or unpopular as much as the right to be right and righteous. Either way, the people were to have liberty to be who and what they wanted to be so long as they were not able to impose their will on the next town or state.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

I guess I disagree even about the last 4 years...ive read a book on the raification which was pretty indepth,

debate was very rushed in the first states.

the convenetion was supposed to be about amendment only not wholesale change..so most people didnt even know the extent of what was contemplated

The process we would have now would be much better discussed and open

What book would that be? I've read maybe hundreds? of books, commentary, research projects and have had some course work in the Founding documents themselves, and I do not claim to be an expert. Earlier in this thread I mentioned some writers/historians that I think are experts and should be required reading for anybody wanting to understand how it all happened and what was intended by the Constitution and what needs to happen if there is a remedy for how the Constitution has been corrupted. I have also read at least dozens of arguments that support what I think might be your point of view, but I have found them to be less credible and less able to support their arguments than other historians.

That is not to say that I am right about it all and you are wrong. But I believe my point of view on that is far more supportable.

I believe the book I refered to is just called "ratification"...it covers teh first 1/2 to 3rd of states ratification debates....I think they meant to finsh up with a another but havent heard about it yet.

Stae constitutions were heavily debated I believe,,so governmental theory was discussed. but most looked on their individual staes as their countrys

As was intended. But it was also intended that the U.S. constitution would form those various states into one great nation that afforded maximum liberty and opportunity to its citizens. So if one person's state 'country' was not to his/her liking, nothing should impede his/her leaving it and going elsewhere to follow his/her dreams. The downside of that was that some of the state 'countries' seemed oppressive and just wrong to outsiders even as they suited those within those states. The concept of liberty that the original Constitution was intended to protect was the right to be wrong or unpopular as much as the right to be right and righteous. Either way, the people were to have liberty to be who and what they wanted to be so long as they were not able to impose their will on the next town or state.

I can agreee with most of that.....I added a link to the book in post 631?, the post you replied to here, but you replied before I esited in my link.

 

[Dan Daly]

The government has no respect for the law as it is...selectively enforcing or ignoring as suits them...so why would any sane person expect them to have any more respect for changes or additions to the law?

Till you can force the government to abide by the laws we have, this is all nothing but ideological masturbation.

That is why I think we need to improve the Constitution to reinstate the rule of law re limited government in Washington. What I have been proposing in this thread would I believe do just that.

Again...since you can't seem to comprehend the root problem...why do you think new words on paper will be obeyed any more than the existing words on paper?

You can't reinstate the rule of law by simply passing more laws or modifying the old ones.

 

[Dan Daly]

The government has no respect for the law as it is...selectively enforcing or ignoring as suits them...so why would any sane person expect them to have any more respect for changes or additions to the law?

Till you can force the government to abide by the laws we have, this is all nothing but ideological masturbation.

I think structural change could help expolse those who try to manipulate the law.


its intercourse

It's jacking off with the same hand and expecting a different result.

 

[dcraelin]

The government has no respect for the law as it is...selectively enforcing or ignoring as suits them...so why would any sane person expect them to have any more respect for changes or additions to the law?

Till you can force the government to abide by the laws we have, this is all nothing but ideological masturbation.

I think structural change could help expolse those who try to manipulate the law.


its intercourse

It's jacking off with the same hand and expecting a different result.

ha.... but I dont think so...

so how do you hope for any change...do you see a need for change?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I guess I disagree even about the last 4 years...ive read a book on the raification which was pretty indepth,

debate was very rushed in the first states.

the convenetion was supposed to be about amendment only not wholesale change..so most people didnt even know the extent of what was contemplated

The process we would have now would be much better discussed and open

What book would that be? I've read maybe hundreds? of books, commentary, research projects and have had some course work in the Founding documents themselves, and I do not claim to be an expert. Earlier in this thread I mentioned some writers/historians that I think are experts and should be required reading for anybody wanting to understand how it all happened and what was intended by the Constitution and what needs to happen if there is a remedy for how the Constitution has been corrupted. I have also read at least dozens of arguments that support what I think might be your point of view, but I have found them to be less credible and less able to support their arguments than other historians.

That is not to say that I am right about it all and you are wrong. But I believe my point of view on that is far more supportable.

I believe the book I refered to is just called "ratification"...it covers teh first 1/2 to 3rd of states ratification debates....I think they meant to finsh up with a another but havent heard about it yet.

Stae constitutions were heavily debated I believe,,so governmental theory was discussed. but most looked on their individual staes as their countrys

As was intended. But it was also intended that the U.S. constitution would form those various states into one great nation that afforded maximum liberty and opportunity to its citizens. So if one person's state 'country' was not to his/her liking, nothing should impede his/her leaving it and going elsewhere to follow his/her dreams. The downside of that was that some of the state 'countries' seemed oppressive and just wrong to outsiders even as they suited those within those states. The concept of liberty that the original Constitution was intended to protect was the right to be wrong or unpopular as much as the right to be right and righteous. Either way, the people were to have liberty to be who and what they wanted to be so long as they were not able to impose their will on the next town or state.

I can agreee with most of that.....I added a link to the book in post 631?, the post you replied to here, but you replied before I esited in my link.

Ah yes, Pauline Maier's book. It has received pretty good reviews but it is mostly focused on the ratification process rather than the content of the Constitution itself. I have read only excerpts of the book and have not read the whole book, but she does illustrate the intense debates that went on within the states as to whether they would or would not ratify the Constitution and how divided in opinion those within the states often were just as were the Founders who would draft the final Constitution to be presented to the states.

With some exceptions, most of the strongest critics of the Constitution thought it would restrict too much of their liberty won at great price of blood and treasure in a terrible war to win independence. And there were some who thought the Constitution did not give enough power to the central government.

Much as it goes with those of us who are actually looking at the concept of all of this now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"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."

In light of the above, Foxfyre's 18T is not actual. But she can give the numbers and how she got there.

 

[Dan Daly]

The government has no respect for the law as it is...selectively enforcing or ignoring as suits them...so why would any sane person expect them to have any more respect for changes or additions to the law?

Till you can force the government to abide by the laws we have, this is all nothing but ideological masturbation.

Because of the alternative. I keep saying this because it really is an important point. The government is people. "The government" is really a myth we use, it does not actually exist. What we have is a gathering of people, all working together or at cross purposes, but they are all people. No different than any other people. So the very reason you distrust the government is the reason I distrust any group of people. When you make it difficult or impossible for the government to counteract those others groups, you place your life in the hands of people who not only don't care about it but are in no way capable of being controlled by you. I see that as extremely dangerous.

Nice wall of meaningless words, but I'll play along. Why would you expect people to adhere to new or modified laws when they don't adhere to the existing laws?

Until you can force those people you are working with to actually obey the existing laws, new laws and modifications to the laws exercises in futility. So how about we show that we can hold people accountable for the laws we have before wasting all of our time trying to make modifications or pass new ones. Crazy, I know.