CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Foxfyre]

There was no such thing as 'liberalism' .

of course thats totally idiotic. The philosophy of freedom from big liberal govt was started by Aristotle 2500 years ago and is alive and well today in the Republican/libertarian Party.

Put my statement into its full context please before declaring it idiotic.

ok I did and it still seems to be idiotic. Our Founders were very very conservative exactly like modern Republicans and libertarians. Big govt Liberals have been with us since Plato and before

You have to define conservatism as it was defined in the 18th Century however and it was NOT defined as what modern day Republicans and libertarians are and the whole of the Constitution then was the antithesis of conservatism as it was defined then. And liberalism was a much different animal in the 18th century than as it is generally understood in modern day America. Prove that to be idiotic if you can.

But I would very much like to avoid discussion of political parties, ideologies, and definitions of words associated with those for the purpose of this thread. All it will do is detract from the topic and derail the thread for pages.

So, Edward B, how would you improve the Constitution to better represent the people?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Here's my rationale: If America followed the biblical tenets of New Testament Christianity we would not only be a more prosperous nation but a GOOD nation. .

yes lets not forget the most important work of the 20th Century by Max Weber The Protestant Ethic and the Spirt of Capitalism. It was well understood that working hard to create a business,jobs, and products was Christian and basic to survival.

Some, Calvinists, even saw it as insuring higher place in heaven.

The Constitution allowed Weber complete freedom to believe what he believed and put what he believed into a book. But what does that have to do with what is or should be in the Constitution?

America was founded by religions groups. It was their religious values that were put into the Constitution anda created civilization on earth. Capitalism was among them first and foremost.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, how would you improve the Constitution to better represent the people?

by understanding it and interpreting it as the very very conservative libertarian document that is was intended to be, of course.

 

[Foxfyre]

, how would you improve the Constitution to better represent the people?

by understanding it and interpreting it as the very very conservative libertarian document that is was intended to be, of course.

Well since we obviously don't agree on the definition of the term 'conservative libertarian' could you elaborate on what we would need to do to understand and interpret it properly?

 

[Foxfyre]

Here's my rationale: If America followed the biblical tenets of New Testament Christianity we would not only be a more prosperous nation but a GOOD nation. .

yes lets not forget the most important work of the 20th Century by Max Weber The Protestant Ethic and the Spirt of Capitalism. It was well understood that working hard to create a business,jobs, and products was Christian and basic to survival.

Some, Calvinists, even saw it as insuring higher place in heaven.

The Constitution allowed Weber complete freedom to believe what he believed and put what he believed into a book. But what does that have to do with what is or should be in the Constitution?

America was founded by religions groups. It was their religious values that were put into the Constitution anda created civilization on earth. Capitalism was among them first and foremost.

But, for the sake of argument--without you elaborating on that, I will wait a bit to agree or disagree with that--do you see that as a good thing? A bad thing?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You have to define conservatism as it was defined in the 18th Century

dear, the meaning of words change over time so that would be idiotic. We could not have a conversation without learning the definition of each word as it was used at a particular time and place. Thankfully ideas don't change. Plato and Aristotle created the concept of freedom versus govt. America was founded to be about freedom and grew great as such. Modern Republican conservative libertarians represent Aristotle perfectly. Now do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

definition of the term 'conservative libertarian'

against government as the source of evil throughout human history!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You have to define conservatism as it was defined in the 18th Century

dear, the meaning of words change over time so that would be idiotic. We could not have a conversation without learning the definition of each word as it was used at a particular time and place. Thankfully ideas don't change. Plato and Aristotle created the concept of freedom versus govt. America was founded to be about freedom and grew great as such. Modern Republican conservative libertarians represent Aristotle perfectly. Now do you understand?

This is as ridiculous as the notion of a 'new constitution,' if not more so.

 

[Foxfyre]

definition of the term 'conservative libertarian'

against government as the source of evil throughout human history!!

 

[Foxfyre]

definition of the term 'conservative libertarian'

against government as the source of evil throughout human history!!

Definition of conservatism in the U.K. in the 18th century--also the definition of the Founding fathers:
"...The old established form of English and, after the Act of Union, British conservatism, was the Tory Party. It reflected the attitudes of a rural land owning class, and championed the institutions of the monarchy, the Anglican Church, the family, and property as the best defence of the social order. In the early stages of the industrial revolution, it seemed to be totally opposed to a process that seemed to undermine some of these bulwarks...."

Dictionary definition of conservatism now:
conservatism
NOUN

1. unwillingness or slowness to accept change or new ideas
   synonyms: obscurantism · traditionalism · dogmatism · reaction ·
   illiberalism · opposition
   
   antonyms: liberalism
2. a right-of-center political philosophy based on a tendency to support gradual rather than abrupt change and to preserve the status quo

The Founders to a man were the antithesis of these definitions. They were looking to recognize and secure the unalienable rights of the people and create a government that would allow the people maximum freedom free of dictates of church or monarchy or any other authoritarian government. They did not see government as evil or the source of evil. They saw the best government as the people governing themselves with their rights secured.

That is my intent for a better Constitution.

So what is yours?

 

[DriftingSand]

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

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

It's my Constitution so it's my rules.

That's right. But could you please provide a rationale for the addition to the Preamble that will be written for all Americans and not just those of us who are Christians and/or believers in God. In a previous post an hour or so ago I provided an argument against this, but you are right. It is our Constitution and all points of view deserve to be heard.

Here's my rationale: If America followed the biblical tenets of New Testament Christianity we would not only be a more prosperous nation but a GOOD nation. Folks who chose not to adapt to those tenets would be free to form their own nation abroad or seek a more secular nation like Cuba or Russia which would better suit their personal beliefs and needs.

The problem with your rationale though is that history doesn't really bear it out. The Constitutional provisions that recognized and protected the people's free exercise of their religious faith was unprecedented in scope in world history and did allow the people to promote a culture that made us the most free and most benevolent people on earth. But it also allowed the people to be punished in the Puritan stocks and it allowed for the Salem witch burnings. But as the Founders predicted would happen with a free people, those kinds of societies would soon reform themselves and dissolve the little theocracies that promoted such injustice. Just as the more lawless societies like Deadwood would eventually weary of the meanness and uncertainties that promoted and established new social contracts to create more peaceful societies.

We cannot have liberty alongside a mandate of what biblical tenets of New Testament Christianity must be.

Some of the Puritans practiced some pretty horrible things but society self-corrected and their poor judgment and lack of Christian ethics caught up to them. The true awakening came when the Bible was printed and released to the common man. Prior to that the Catholics forbade all of the common rabble from having a personal copy of the Bible. That was during the Dark Ages. When the common man got access to the Bible the proverbial "light" went on and the chains of darkness were removed. We can thank the ethics of the Bible and the Magna Carta for inspiring our Constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

It's my Constitution so it's my rules.

That's right. But could you please provide a rationale for the addition to the Preamble that will be written for all Americans and not just those of us who are Christians and/or believers in God. In a previous post an hour or so ago I provided an argument against this, but you are right. It is our Constitution and all points of view deserve to be heard.

Here's my rationale: If America followed the biblical tenets of New Testament Christianity we would not only be a more prosperous nation but a GOOD nation. Folks who chose not to adapt to those tenets would be free to form their own nation abroad or seek a more secular nation like Cuba or Russia which would better suit their personal beliefs and needs.

The problem with your rationale though is that history doesn't really bear it out. The Constitutional provisions that recognized and protected the people's free exercise of their religious faith was unprecedented in scope in world history and did allow the people to promote a culture that made us the most free and most benevolent people on earth. But it also allowed the people to be punished in the Puritan stocks and it allowed for the Salem witch burnings. But as the Founders predicted would happen with a free people, those kinds of societies would soon reform themselves and dissolve the little theocracies that promoted such injustice. Just as the more lawless societies like Deadwood would eventually weary of the meanness and uncertainties that promoted and established new social contracts to create more peaceful societies.

We cannot have liberty alongside a mandate of what biblical tenets of New Testament Christianity must be.

Some of the Puritans practiced some pretty horrible things but society self-corrected and their poor judgment and lack of Christian ethics caught up to them. The true awakening came when the Bible was printed and released to the common man. Prior to that the Catholics forbade all of the common rabble from having a personal copy of the Bible. That was during the Dark Ages. When the common man got access to the Bible the proverbial "light" went on and the chains of darkness were removed. We can thank the ethics of the Bible and the Magna Carta for inspiring our Constitution.

But the point is, liberty allows us to interpret and practice Christian ethics as we understand them. Who do you want to give power to write a definition of what Christian ethics are? The Westboro Baptists? The Christian Scientists? The LDS? The Calvinists? You? Me? It is an almost certainty that we would not agree entirely with each other on what Christian ethics are, much less would any Christian group agree entirely with those written by another Christian group. Which is why no government mandates re religion are appropriate if we believe Christian ethics work best in a system in which people are at complete liberty to practice them. And a U.S. Constitution must be for all its citizens and not just the Christian ones.

I agree it is the Christian ethic that made the USA the great nation that it became. But it was the Christian ethic as demonstrated by a free people who organized their societies according to the principles behind those ethics. Those societies have slowly but surely been breaking down as other kinds of ethics have replaced the Christian ethics of our heritage.

That is not a job to be given to government to fix, however, as the cure would surely sooner or later be worse than the disease. That is a job for we Christians to do by leading by example.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

definition of the term 'conservative libertarian'

against government as the source of evil throughout human history!!

Definition of conservatism in the U.K. in the 18th century--also the definition of the Founding fathers:
"...The old established form of English and, after the Act of Union, British conservatism, was the Tory Party. It reflected the attitudes of a rural land owning class, and championed the institutions of the monarchy, the Anglican Church, the family, and property as the best defence of the social order. In the early stages of the industrial revolution, it seemed to be totally opposed to a process that seemed to undermine some of these bulwarks...."

Dictionary definition of conservatism now:
conservatism
NOUN

1. unwillingness or slowness to accept change or new ideas
   synonyms: obscurantism · traditionalism · dogmatism · reaction ·
   illiberalism · opposition
   
   antonyms: liberalism
2. a right-of-center political philosophy based on a tendency to support gradual rather than abrupt change and to preserve the status quo

The Founders to a man were the antithesis of these definitions. They were looking to recognize and secure the unalienable rights of the people and create a government that would allow the people maximum freedom free of dictates of church or monarchy or any other authoritarian government. They did not see government as evil or the source of evil. They saw the best government as the people governing themselves with their rights secured.

That is my intent for a better Constitution.

So what is yours?

 

[Olde Europe]

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.

How does that...

... or that

... mean "they have done nothing to even slow it down".

If you want to play around with meaningless nominal-dollar comparisons you'll need someone else to play, since that doesn't make any sense.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They did not see government as evil or the source of evil.

dear, if they didn't see it as evil they would have created a huge govt rather than a brand new kind of govt, a very very limited one exactly like the kind modern conservatives and liberatarians would want??

Here are some quotes from Jefferson ( founded Republican Party in 1793 with Madison) to acquaint you with founding

Jefferson:
I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They saw the best government as the people governing themselves with their rights secured.

of course that means nothing; it could apply to any democracy like russia where the people feel they are governing themselves and their rights are secure. You completely miss the entire point of the American Founding which was to recognize govt as the source of evil in human history and so shrink it to the largest extent possible.

Jefferson and Madison:
"Most bad government has grown out of too much government".

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want for bread".

 

[DriftingSand]

It's my Constitution so it's my rules.

That's right. But could you please provide a rationale for the addition to the Preamble that will be written for all Americans and not just those of us who are Christians and/or believers in God. In a previous post an hour or so ago I provided an argument against this, but you are right. It is our Constitution and all points of view deserve to be heard.

Here's my rationale: If America followed the biblical tenets of New Testament Christianity we would not only be a more prosperous nation but a GOOD nation. Folks who chose not to adapt to those tenets would be free to form their own nation abroad or seek a more secular nation like Cuba or Russia which would better suit their personal beliefs and needs.

The problem with your rationale though is that history doesn't really bear it out. The Constitutional provisions that recognized and protected the people's free exercise of their religious faith was unprecedented in scope in world history and did allow the people to promote a culture that made us the most free and most benevolent people on earth. But it also allowed the people to be punished in the Puritan stocks and it allowed for the Salem witch burnings. But as the Founders predicted would happen with a free people, those kinds of societies would soon reform themselves and dissolve the little theocracies that promoted such injustice. Just as the more lawless societies like Deadwood would eventually weary of the meanness and uncertainties that promoted and established new social contracts to create more peaceful societies.

We cannot have liberty alongside a mandate of what biblical tenets of New Testament Christianity must be.

Some of the Puritans practiced some pretty horrible things but society self-corrected and their poor judgment and lack of Christian ethics caught up to them. The true awakening came when the Bible was printed and released to the common man. Prior to that the Catholics forbade all of the common rabble from having a personal copy of the Bible. That was during the Dark Ages. When the common man got access to the Bible the proverbial "light" went on and the chains of darkness were removed. We can thank the ethics of the Bible and the Magna Carta for inspiring our Constitution.

But the point is, liberty allows us to interpret and practice Christian ethics as we understand them. Who do you want to give power to write a definition of what Christian ethics are? The Westboro Baptists? The Christian Scientists? The LDS? The Calvinists? You? Me? It is an almost certainty that we would not agree entirely with each other on what Christian ethics are, much less would any Christian group agree entirely with those written by another Christian group. Which is why no government mandates re religion are appropriate if we believe Christian ethics work best in a system in which people are at complete liberty to practice them. And a U.S. Constitution must be for all its citizens and not just the Christian ones.

I agree it is the Christian ethic that made the USA the great nation that it became. But it was the Christian ethic as demonstrated by a free people who organized their societies according to the principles behind those ethics. Those societies have slowly but surely been breaking down as other kinds of ethics have replaced the Christian ethics of our heritage.

That is not a job to be given to government to fix, however, as the cure would surely sooner or later be worse than the disease. That is a job for we Christians to do by leading by example.

I'd give value to the very words of Jesus Christ and His Apostles + nobody.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

How does that...

... or that

... mean "they have done nothing to even slow it down".

If you want to play around with meaningless nominal-dollar comparisons you'll need someone else to play, since that doesn't make any sense.

I have been talking about the national debt, not deficits, not percentage of GDP. Now you certainly can talk about something other than the national debt, but you will be arguing something I have not argued.

Now in actual dollars federal spending is shown by the federal government to be:
2000 - 1.8T
2001 - 1.9T

2002 - 2.0T
2003 - 2.2T
2004 - 2.3T
2005 - 2.5T
2006 - 2.7T
2007 - 2.7T
2008 - 3.0T (included 1/2 of TARP or would not have increased over 2007 and the deficit would have been under 100 billion).
2009 - 3.5T (included 1/2 of TARP and part of stimulus package or would not have exceeded 2007)

2010 - 3.5T
2011 - 3.6T
2012 - 3.5T (the sequester kicked in requiring a mandatory 10% across the board cut)
2013 - 3.5T (no budget was passed for 2013 and they were running 2012 numbers)
2014 - 3.5T (no budget was passed for 2014 and it will likely close out a tick above 2013)

And the national debt clock runs as fast as ever.

Now if you want to make it a noble thing that the government is holding spending at unsustainable levels instead of dropping back to normal levels after TARP and the stimulus package, go for it. I don't see that as a noble thing--I see it as a very dangerous and irresponsible thing. And my Constitutional proposals, if implemented, would fix a whole bunch of that.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's right. But could you please provide a rationale for the addition to the Preamble that will be written for all Americans and not just those of us who are Christians and/or believers in God. In a previous post an hour or so ago I provided an argument against this, but you are right. It is our Constitution and all points of view deserve to be heard.

Here's my rationale: If America followed the biblical tenets of New Testament Christianity we would not only be a more prosperous nation but a GOOD nation. Folks who chose not to adapt to those tenets would be free to form their own nation abroad or seek a more secular nation like Cuba or Russia which would better suit their personal beliefs and needs.

The problem with your rationale though is that history doesn't really bear it out. The Constitutional provisions that recognized and protected the people's free exercise of their religious faith was unprecedented in scope in world history and did allow the people to promote a culture that made us the most free and most benevolent people on earth. But it also allowed the people to be punished in the Puritan stocks and it allowed for the Salem witch burnings. But as the Founders predicted would happen with a free people, those kinds of societies would soon reform themselves and dissolve the little theocracies that promoted such injustice. Just as the more lawless societies like Deadwood would eventually weary of the meanness and uncertainties that promoted and established new social contracts to create more peaceful societies.

We cannot have liberty alongside a mandate of what biblical tenets of New Testament Christianity must be.

Some of the Puritans practiced some pretty horrible things but society self-corrected and their poor judgment and lack of Christian ethics caught up to them. The true awakening came when the Bible was printed and released to the common man. Prior to that the Catholics forbade all of the common rabble from having a personal copy of the Bible. That was during the Dark Ages. When the common man got access to the Bible the proverbial "light" went on and the chains of darkness were removed. We can thank the ethics of the Bible and the Magna Carta for inspiring our Constitution.

But the point is, liberty allows us to interpret and practice Christian ethics as we understand them. Who do you want to give power to write a definition of what Christian ethics are? The Westboro Baptists? The Christian Scientists? The LDS? The Calvinists? You? Me? It is an almost certainty that we would not agree entirely with each other on what Christian ethics are, much less would any Christian group agree entirely with those written by another Christian group. Which is why no government mandates re religion are appropriate if we believe Christian ethics work best in a system in which people are at complete liberty to practice them. And a U.S. Constitution must be for all its citizens and not just the Christian ones.

I agree it is the Christian ethic that made the USA the great nation that it became. But it was the Christian ethic as demonstrated by a free people who organized their societies according to the principles behind those ethics. Those societies have slowly but surely been breaking down as other kinds of ethics have replaced the Christian ethics of our heritage.

That is not a job to be given to government to fix, however, as the cure would surely sooner or later be worse than the disease. That is a job for we Christians to do by leading by example.

I'd give value to the very words of Jesus Christ and His Apostles + nobody.

Yes, but you would give that value as you understand and believe it in your faith. And that may be different than somebody else understands and believes it, even somebody totally devout and submitted to Christ and dedicated to living his/her life for Christ.

That is why the Founders, most of whom were men of deep faith, were adamant that freedom to believe what one believed and the ability to worship as one was inspired to worship without interference from the government would be the first and foremost unalienable right to be acknowledged and protected by the Constitution. And I would advocate the same in a new and improved Constitution.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And I would advocate the same in a new and improved Constitution.

so what? nobody is challenging freedom of religion!! Do you feel brave for supprting it? The real issue is would you support more or less govt now that you know Jefferson and Madison founded the Republican party in 1793 and the modern Republican/libertarian Party has the exact same ideas.