CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Derideo_Te]

A new improved Constitution would simply make clearer what the Founders actualy intent was, namely, to make liberalism illegal. Do you understand?

Oh lordy, don't say that or we'll have 17 pages of very unpleasant posts re the definition of 'liberalism'.

There was no such thing as 'liberalism' as it is generally understood in modern day America in the 18th century, so the Founders were much more interested in a government that would give the people all the power to govern themselves rather than to be governed by a feudal lord, despot, monarch, pope, or other totalitarian form of government. And the federal government was intended to be mostly limited to a role that would secure their rights so that they would have the liberty to govern themselves.

And yes, my argument is mostly to return to that concept with some things explained better so that opportunists cannot easily corrupt the original intent.

"There was no such thing as 'liberalism' as it is generally understood in modern day America in the 18th century,"

Who made the following "liberal" statements?

“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.”

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

“The power of all corporations ought to be limited, […] the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.”

“He who is the author of a war, lets loose the whole contagion of hell, and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death.”

“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

“We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition… In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.”

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”

“As to Taxes, they are evidently inseparable from Government. It is impossible without them to pay the debts of the nation, to protect it from foreign danger, or to secure individuals from lawless violence and rapine.” ​

Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Paine and John Adams. Those statements are just as liberal today as they were in the 18th Century,

The Libertarian canard that the Founding Fathers weren't "liberal" has been debunked over and over again so let's not keep beating that dead horse.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

 

[dblack]

DRIFTINGSAND SAID:

“the original intent was to protect religion from Government but not necessarily the other way around.”

Incorrect.

The original intent, as is current Establishment Clause jurisprudence, was to prohibit the conjoining of church and state, where those of the majority religion might seek use the power and authority of secular government to disadvantage those of minority religions, as well as those free from faith, to the perceived advantage of adherents of the majority religion.

Indeed, many of the Founding Generation fled kingdoms and empires that conjoined church and state, where governments established official state religions used as a cruel and capricious weapon against political opponents.

It is from this experience that the Framers ordained that the people of the American Republic would never be subject to the bane of religious tyranny.

Exactly. The "wall of separation" concept grew out of the understanding that the only way to prevent ambitious religious interests from using government to pursue their ends was to keep government out of religion altogether. Someday we'll learn this same lesson regarding ambitious economic interests.

 

[Foxfyre]

DRIFTINGSAND SAID:

“the original intent was to protect religion from Government but not necessarily the other way around.”

Incorrect.

The original intent, as is current Establishment Clause jurisprudence, was to prohibit the conjoining of church and state, where those of the majority religion might seek use the power and authority of secular government to disadvantage those of minority religions, as well as those free from faith, to the perceived advantage of adherents of the majority religion.

Indeed, many of the Founding Generation fled kingdoms and empires that conjoined church and state, where governments established official state religions used as a cruel and capricious weapon against political opponents.

It is from this experience that the Framers ordained that the people of the American Republic would never be subject to the bane of religious tyranny.

Exactly. The "wall of separation" concept grew out of the understanding that the only way to prevent ambitious religious interests from using government to pursue their ends was to keep government out of religion altogether. Someday we'll learn this same lesson regarding ambitious economic interests.

Hear hear. The government was given no power or authority to dictate what the people can and cannot do re expressions of their religious faith--and the Founders interpreted that hands off policy to be everything--the home, the schools, the municipalities, the states. They wanted to eliminate any risk that we would gravitate back to the unholy alliance between Church and Monarchy that drove the first Pilgrims and so many who followed them to America in the first place or any chance that the state would dictate the religion that the people would or would not be required to observe.

And that sensible and wise philosophy and policy resulted in one of the Earth's most religious nations ever seen, but a religious people who lived under the banner of liberty instead of dictates, and that was a very good thing.

I think we are in danger of losing that concept by reinterpretations of what is establishment of religion and I would like to clarify and strengthen that in an improved Constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

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 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.

I see you have given up on defending the point you've made, that is, "they have done nothing to even slow it down". Thank you.

Here are the actual spending figures (nominal):

Year Total Spending

2008 2982.54
2009 3517.68
2010 3457.08
2011 3603.06
2012 3537.13
2013 3454.60
2014 3504.20

And how is that, "Now if you want to make it a noble thing that the government is holding spending at unsustainable levels", for "arguing something I have not argued", Foxfyre?

BTW, the debt clock is not running faster than ever as, with declining deficits, quite obviously this clock is running slower. That's just another of your talking points. Whatever, no serious economist would call the current spending levels or deficits around 3% of GDP "unsustainable", some even think its too little to nudge economic output towards optimal levels. And with that, your whole argument about the "dangerous thing" you profess to see is falling apart.

As I said, as much as I like to listen to your argument about the constitution, you better base that on actual, verifiable facts, or otherwise accept you may be called on spurious claims.

I have not given up defending anything. I won't participate in a derail of the thread however, when you persist in saying that I am arguing something I have not argued. Again IF you don't have a problem with the national debt and believe it is slowing down and it is not a problem, I obviously cannot convince you otherwise. IF you do have a problem with an ever growing national debt, you have failed to convince me of that with the arguments you have presented.

I see it as a problem. And I will continue to discuss my ideas to improve a Constitution that would allow the people to do something about it.

 

[Foxfyre]

But okay. I see where you are have already gone with this and here and there I can find room for agreement and in some of it I think is waaaaaay out in left field and unsupportable as constitutional issues or even as being problems.

I am pretty confident nothing I have written is way out in left field. It may, however, look that way from your vantage point. Which of the issues I addressed do you feel are "unsupportable as constitutional issues", and what exactly does this expression mean?

I really don't have the time or patience to go back and review the whole argument at this point, so let's start fresh from this point. I don't know what is 'unsupportable as Constitutional issues' means in this context.

My point of view re government spending is that the Congress no longer even considers original intent of limitations on the federal government and, for its own self-serving interests, is spending the country into bankruptcy and is doing a great deal of harm in the process. Take away Congress's ability to tax, borrow, and spend for ONLY what the Founders intended, and you immediately make possible:

1. A balanced budget and minimal or no national debt.
2. Elimination of the unhealthiest forms of entitlement mentality and the unintended bad consequences those have produced.
3. Elimination of the greatest part of graft, malfeasance, cronyism, and corruption that exists.
4. And, once the economy readjusts, almost certain increased opportunity for prosperity for all.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A new improved Constitution would simply make clearer what the Founders actual intent was, namely, to make liberalism illegal. Do you understand?

actually the "foundersr" you so revere were the big government types of the day....Patrick Henry said he smelt a rat about the constitutional convention....

you are thoroughly confused to a scary degree. The Founders debated between tiny tiny tiny govt and tiny tiny govt. Today the debate is about tiny govt and huge govt.

Do you understand these basics?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

my ideas to improve a Constitution that would allow the people to do something about it.

you don't really need to improve the Constitution just elect Republicans who sign the pledge or pass a Balanced Budget Amendment which Republicans have tried to do 30 times since Jefferson's first attempt..

 

[dblack]

my ideas to improve a Constitution that would allow the people to do something about it.

you don't really need to improve the Constitution just elect Republicans who sign the pledge or pass a Balanced Budget Amendment which Republicans have tried to do 30 times since Jefferson's first attempt..

We've tried that already. What makes you think they'd be able to accomplish it on try number 31?

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me 30 times, uh....??

 

[Foxfyre]

my ideas to improve a Constitution that would allow the people to do something about it.

you don't really need to improve the Constitution just elect Republicans who sign the pledge or pass a Balanced Budget Amendment which Republicans have tried to do 30 times since Jefferson's first attempt..

I don't think a balance budget amendment by itself will do it without strict limits on what Congress can spend money on. Many countries have balanced budgets but they do it by taxing the people oppressive amounts. And unless we have some kind of safeguards to prevent those in government from using government for their own self-serving purposes, there is much less probability that most of the money will be used for the benefit of the country instead of for the benefit of those in government.

 

[Foxfyre]

my ideas to improve a Constitution that would allow the people to do something about it.

you don't really need to improve the Constitution just elect Republicans who sign the pledge or pass a Balanced Budget Amendment which Republicans have tried to do 30 times since Jefferson's first attempt..

We've tried that already. What makes you think they'd be able to accomplish it on try number 31?

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me 30 times, uh....??

And more importantly, we have to be very careful and responsible here so that we don't correct one problem but create worse problems in the process. The Founders intentionally made it possible to amend the Constitution but made it very difficult to do so for good reason. There have been more than 11,000 proposals to amend the Constitution since it was signed. Twenty seven of those proposals resulted in amendments to the Constitution and ten of those were the Bill of Rights.

Most of us who believe ourselves to be responsible can see that giving Congress unlimited and unrestrained ability to spend our money has produced some very bad consequences and has eroded our liberties. But the old maxim of 'be careful what we wish for" should be strongly heeded in finding a remedy via constitutional amendment for that remedy. A balanced budget amendment without restraints on how much money Congress can collect, how much it can borrow, and how much it can spend could be a terrible thing.

 

[dcraelin]

A new improved Constitution would simply make clearer what the Founders actual intent was, namely, to make liberalism illegal. Do you understand?

actually the "foundersr" you so revere were the big government types of the day....Patrick Henry said he smelt a rat about the constitutional convention....

you are thoroughly confused to a scary degree. The Founders debated between tiny tiny tiny govt and tiny tiny govt. Today the debate is about tiny govt and huge govt.

Do you understand these basics?

your wrong

please leave the thread

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

actually the "foundersr" you so revere were the big government types of the day....Patrick Henry said he smelt a rat about the constitutional convention....

The Founders debated between tiny tiny tiny govt and tiny tiny govt. Today the debate is about tiny govt and huge govt.

Do you understand these basics?[/QUOTE]

your wrong

please leave the thread

it's "you're" wrong, not your wrong. Of course, if I was wrong you be be very very happy to point out why you think I'm wrong.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Probably most USMB members have some familiarity with at least some of the U.S. Constitution and most have strong opinions about what the Constitution does and does not protect/provide/accomplish.

It might be an interesting discussion to have our own little Constitutional convention here and discuss what we would want to retain and what we would change of the original Constitution if the people decided to write a new one.

For instance, the Preamble of the Original Constitution is this:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

The problem with the wording, however descriptive and elegant, is that we might have trouble in agreeing on what a 'more perfect union' is, what components of justice the federal government should be involved in, or what constitutes 'domestic tranquility'. Certainly there are broad disputes as to what is included in the 'general welfare' and strong opposing views on what 'blessings of liberty' actually are.

My proposal for a preamble for a new constitution would be something more like this:

We the people, in order to ensure peaceful cooperation and commerce between the various states, provide for the common defense, promote justice and the general welfare without prejudice or favoritism, and secure the unalienable rights and blessings of liberty for every citizen, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.​

What would you want a new Constitution for the United State of America to accomplish that the old one does not seem to do?

Not much. I'm pretty content with no major beefs about living in America.

I dislike that you left out anything about our posterity

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Many countries have balanced budgets but they do it by taxing the people oppressive amounts.

Yes but America has a bias against taxes and for freedom. Few liberals even will run promising to raise taxes. A BBA would be a huge step forward.

 

[dcraelin]

actually the "foundersr" you so revere were the big government types of the day....Patrick Henry said he smelt a rat about the constitutional convention....

The Founders debated between tiny tiny tiny govt and tiny tiny govt. Today the debate is about tiny govt and huge govt.

Do you understand these basics?

your wrong

please leave the thread

it's "you're" wrong, not your wrong. Of course, if I was wrong you be be very very happy to point out why you think I'm wrong.[/QUOTE]
please leave the thread

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

my ideas to improve a Constitution that would allow the people to do something about it.

you don't really need to improve the Constitution just elect Republicans who sign the pledge or pass a Balanced Budget Amendment which Republicans have tried to do 30 times since Jefferson's first attempt..

We've tried that already. What makes you think they'd be able to accomplish it on try number 31?

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me 30 times, uh....??

I didn't say they could accomplish it on the 31st try. But common sense will tell that it will pass as soon as enough Americans support it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

actually the "foundersr" you so revere were the big government types of the day....Patrick Henry said he smelt a rat about the constitutional convention....

The Founders debated between tiny tiny tiny govt and tiny tiny govt. Today the debate is about tiny govt and huge govt.

Do you understand these basics?

your wrong

please leave the thread

it's "you're" wrong, not your wrong. Of course, if I was wrong you'd be be very very happy to point out why you think I'm wrong.[/QUOTE]

 

[dcraelin]

Edward

theres some libertarian i see quoted once in a while who's name I foget

said something like...if the founders didnt want big government

they sure did create the conditions to give it too us....

or created badly enough that it came to us regardless

right out of the chute Hamilton went back on promises of small government in the federalist and backed a national bank

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

...if the founders didnt want big government

We know what they wanted from the Constitution and from the way they governed under the Constitution. They wanted tiny tiny govt. As soon as Hamilton opened his mouth he and his party were crushed by Jefferson and Madison who had a quickly formed the Republican Party in 1793.

Jefferson:
"The path we have to pursue [when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."