CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[dcraelin]

...ANNND true conservatives wouldnt even have asked for a larger government...

1)conservatives are not anarchists
2) the main reason for the larger govt was common defense and free trade both of which are conservative

1)articles wern't anarchy either
2)we had recently won a war without this constitution.
trade concerns were secondary..maybe

What some say main reason was was to suppress "insurection" such as the recent Shays rebellion

Beard said a motivation was to speculate in continental paper...mainly by ripping off revolutionary war soldiers

your knowlledge of history is in part what our whole arguement has been about....

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1)articles wern't anarchy either
..

dear, you said conservatives would not have asked for bigger govt. I said they would have to impose conservatism or free trade among the states.

Do you understand now??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

2)we had recently won a war without this constitution.
.

yes and it was a bitter experience, and a miracle, for those who fought it without a central govt to collect money for the war.

Do you get it now?

 

[dcraelin]

1)articles wern't anarchy either
..

dear, you said conservatives would not have asked for bigger govt. I said they would have to impose conservatism or free trade among the states.

Do you understand now??

please quit with the "dear" its ....cant say

impose...nice word choice

I dont agree, and most historians woudnt

 

[Foxfyre]

That one made me chuckle, I admit. Go back and read Madison's scathing indictment of the Confederation, and then revisit the argument here about the allegedly promised "tiny, tiny government". My impression was quite different. And then, yes, I see the acrimony about the selling of the ACA, but it has been pointed out long before that thing passed that there was a bit of rhetorical trickery involved, and Republicans couldn't find the end of their howls about "TAX HIKE!!!". Of course, since Americans have been conditioned to perk up upon the mention of having to pay for government service, and to be opposed by default, by Norquist and Co., no one will go to great lengths to explain that the Heritage- and RomneyCare-based individual mandate means what it says, and no one will yell from the rooftops that in some legal reasoning the penalty for failure to comply might appear as a much dreaded tax. That "fundamentally undermines democracy"? Come on!

false rhetoric does undermine democracy.....

but as I pointed out in post before this...it was also false theoric that got it into court.

but it works out to this,,,could they or could they not have passed it if it was an admitted tax...I think not.

that means it should not have passed.

But I agreee with you on the supposed tiny tiny government

But the same argument applies to the Constitution. Would the anit-federalists have conceded and signed on if they believed The Federalist Papers were "false rhetoric"?

not sure I follow you....the federalist papaers weren't official debate in Congress for one thing...the anti-federalists largely did think they were false rhetoric...I thin so too. It would have helped if the constitutional convention in philedelphia was not conducted in secret.....

I think they never would have achieved a constitution had the constitutional convention not been a closed session. The temptation to grandstand for the press and expound in political rhetoric would have been too much to overcome then just as it is now. By requiring that the debates and arguments be kept secret within that body, it much better encouraged every delegate to speak his mind from his heart and not for quotation by the press. It allowed every delegate to be able to focus on the task at hand rather than worry about measuring every word and phrase as to how it would be represented to those outside the convention.

one persons grandstanding is anothers appeal to our better nature, our high mindedness. I t might have been more difficult to come to an agreement...but then whos to say we needed to. I think the crticisms of the Articles of confederation are overblown.....that was a system that was ground out more publicly, payments was an agreeed to problem but no new consitution was neeeded to fix that

I think you missed the point. I think it would have been as difficult to come to an agreement on the constitution had the proceedings been made into a public stage as it is for our modern lawmakers to set aside their propensity to grandstand instead of doing the very hard, meticulous, and necessary work to achieve good legislation that is not self-serving and/or full of a lot of unintended negative consequences. Most especially when any word or phrase uttered can be yanked out of context by the press and made to look like something very different than what was intended, public deliberation is usually not deliberation at all but merely speechmaking.

 

[dcraelin]

false rhetoric does undermine democracy.....

but as I pointed out in post before this...it was also false theoric that got it into court.

but it works out to this,,,could they or could they not have passed it if it was an admitted tax...I think not.

that means it should not have passed.

But I agreee with you on the supposed tiny tiny government

But the same argument applies to the Constitution. Would the anit-federalists have conceded and signed on if they believed The Federalist Papers were "false rhetoric"?

not sure I follow you....the federalist papaers weren't official debate in Congress for one thing...the anti-federalists largely did think they were false rhetoric...I thin so too. It would have helped if the constitutional convention in philedelphia was not conducted in secret.....

I think they never would have achieved a constitution had the constitutional convention not been a closed session. The temptation to grandstand for the press and expound in political rhetoric would have been too much to overcome then just as it is now. By requiring that the debates and arguments be kept secret within that body, it much better encouraged every delegate to speak his mind from his heart and not for quotation by the press. It allowed every delegate to be able to focus on the task at hand rather than worry about measuring every word and phrase as to how it would be represented to those outside the convention.

one persons grandstanding is anothers appeal to our better nature, our high mindedness. I t might have been more difficult to come to an agreement...but then whos to say we needed to. I think the crticisms of the Articles of confederation are overblown.....that was a system that was ground out more publicly, payments was an agreeed to problem but no new consitution was neeeded to fix that

I think you missed the point. I think it would have been as difficult to come to an agreement on the constitution had the proceedings been made into a public stage as it is for our modern lawmakers to set aside their propensity to grandstand instead of doing the very hard, meticulous, and necessary work to achieve good legislation that is not self-serving and/or full of a lot of unintended negative consequences. Most especially when any word or phrase uttered can be yanked out of context by the press and made to look like something very different than what was intended, public deliberation is usually not deliberation at all but merely speechmaking.

well I, mostly, disagree about the benefits of secrecy in public policy formation.

I dont think the constitution was all that great either

which is why I am in this thread

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I dont think the constitution was all that great either

which is why I am in this thread

very incorrect since Constitution created greatest country on earth by far in all of human history.

 

[Foxfyre]

But the same argument applies to the Constitution. Would the anit-federalists have conceded and signed on if they believed The Federalist Papers were "false rhetoric"?

not sure I follow you....the federalist papaers weren't official debate in Congress for one thing...the anti-federalists largely did think they were false rhetoric...I thin so too. It would have helped if the constitutional convention in philedelphia was not conducted in secret.....

I think they never would have achieved a constitution had the constitutional convention not been a closed session. The temptation to grandstand for the press and expound in political rhetoric would have been too much to overcome then just as it is now. By requiring that the debates and arguments be kept secret within that body, it much better encouraged every delegate to speak his mind from his heart and not for quotation by the press. It allowed every delegate to be able to focus on the task at hand rather than worry about measuring every word and phrase as to how it would be represented to those outside the convention.

one persons grandstanding is anothers appeal to our better nature, our high mindedness. I t might have been more difficult to come to an agreement...but then whos to say we needed to. I think the crticisms of the Articles of confederation are overblown.....that was a system that was ground out more publicly, payments was an agreeed to problem but no new consitution was neeeded to fix that

I think you missed the point. I think it would have been as difficult to come to an agreement on the constitution had the proceedings been made into a public stage as it is for our modern lawmakers to set aside their propensity to grandstand instead of doing the very hard, meticulous, and necessary work to achieve good legislation that is not self-serving and/or full of a lot of unintended negative consequences. Most especially when any word or phrase uttered can be yanked out of context by the press and made to look like something very different than what was intended, public deliberation is usually not deliberation at all but merely speechmaking.

well I, mostly, disagree about the benefits of secrecy in public policy formation.

I dont think the constitution was all that great either

which is why I am in this thread

Well we are not conducting this discussion in secret. So pick a clause and make your best argument for why it would be better than what the current Constitution says.

 

[dcraelin]

I dont think the constitution was all that great either

which is why I am in this thread

very incorrect since Constitution created greatest country on earth by far in all of human history.

It is a great country....hasnt lasted as long as Rome or some others

and heading for a downfall if we dont change things

 

[Derideo_Te]

But the same argument applies to the Constitution. Would the anit-federalists have conceded and signed on if they believed The Federalist Papers were "false rhetoric"?

not sure I follow you....the federalist papaers weren't official debate in Congress for one thing...the anti-federalists largely did think they were false rhetoric...I thin so too. It would have helped if the constitutional convention in philedelphia was not conducted in secret.....

I think they never would have achieved a constitution had the constitutional convention not been a closed session. The temptation to grandstand for the press and expound in political rhetoric would have been too much to overcome then just as it is now. By requiring that the debates and arguments be kept secret within that body, it much better encouraged every delegate to speak his mind from his heart and not for quotation by the press. It allowed every delegate to be able to focus on the task at hand rather than worry about measuring every word and phrase as to how it would be represented to those outside the convention.

one persons grandstanding is anothers appeal to our better nature, our high mindedness. I t might have been more difficult to come to an agreement...but then whos to say we needed to. I think the crticisms of the Articles of confederation are overblown.....that was a system that was ground out more publicly, payments was an agreeed to problem but no new consitution was neeeded to fix that

I think you missed the point. I think it would have been as difficult to come to an agreement on the constitution had the proceedings been made into a public stage as it is for our modern lawmakers to set aside their propensity to grandstand instead of doing the very hard, meticulous, and necessary work to achieve good legislation that is not self-serving and/or full of a lot of unintended negative consequences. Most especially when any word or phrase uttered can be yanked out of context by the press and made to look like something very different than what was intended, public deliberation is usually not deliberation at all but merely speechmaking.

well I, mostly, disagree about the benefits of secrecy in public policy formation.

I dont think the constitution was all that great either

which is why I am in this thread

There is no way the American people in this day and age would stand for a constitution/amendment drafted behind closed doors without any scrutiny and oversight.

That doesn't mean that aspects cannot be debated and drafts prepared by committees. But the end product(s) must be made public and voted on publicly by the delegates for inclusions or exclusion.

Only a transparent process stands a chance of ever being ratified.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

heading for a downfall if we dont change things

dear, what is most important to change exactly????? Notice, you have to be asked because you do't really know.

 

[dcraelin]

heading for a downfall if we dont change things

dear, what is most important to change exactly????? Notice, you have to be asked because you do't really know.

priority area for new Constitution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Derideo_Te]

I dont think the constitution was all that great either

which is why I am in this thread

very incorrect since Constitution created greatest country on earth by far in all of human history.

It is a great country....hasnt lasted as long as Rome or some others

and heading for a downfall if we dont change things

Rome went through ups and downs too. Nothing runs smoothly. The current Constitution weathered the crisis of a civil war. It has a very sturdy foundation in my opinion. All it needs is to updated to deal with the present realities and the Founding Fathers were prescient and humble enough to acknowledge their inability to predict what the future might bring.

It is up to us to deal with our reality and come with viable solutions. And yes, mistakes have been made in the past and were repealed. You cannot legislate morality. So that is one of the guidelines we need to follow in this process.

In real terms it means that the principle of equality under the law trumps the morality police when it comes to gay marriage and abortion.

99% of our current problems have to do with a failure to act responsibly and tax in accordance with our spending. To deal with that I have a proposal for a tax that only applies when the nation has any debt. In that instance all income over 20 times the poverty level is to be taxed at a rate that will eliminate the national debt in 20 years.

If there is no national debt the tax rate doesn't apply at all. It is self regulating since those who want any additional spending will be required to pay the additional taxes therefore they won't be lobbying for corporate tax breaks knowing that it will just come out of their own pockets.

Your thoughts?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

heading for a downfall if we dont change things

dear, what is most important to change exactly????? Notice, you have to be asked because you do't really know.

priority area for new Constitution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

dear, what is most important to change exactly????? Notice, you have to be asked because you don't really know.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I dont think the constitution was all that great either

which is why I am in this thread

very incorrect since Constitution created greatest country on earth by far in all of human history.

It is a great country....hasnt lasted as long as Rome or some others

and heading for a downfall if we dont change things

Rome went through ups and downs too. Nothing runs smoothly. The current Constitution weathered the crisis of a civil war. It has a very sturdy foundation in my opinion. All it needs is to updated to deal with the present realities and the Founding Fathers were prescient and humble enough to acknowledge their inability to predict what the future might bring.

It is up to us to deal with our reality and come with viable solutions. And yes, mistakes have been made in the past and were repealed. You cannot legislate morality. So that is one of the guidelines we need to follow in this process.

In real terms it means that the principle of equality under the law trumps the morality police when it comes to gay marriage and abortion.

99% of our current problems have to do with a failure to act responsibly and tax in accordance with our spending. To deal with that I have a proposal for a tax that only applies when the nation has any debt. In that instance all income over 20 times the poverty level is to be taxed at a rate that will eliminate the national debt in 20 years.

If there is no national debt the tax rate doesn't apply at all. It is self regulating since those who want any additional spending will be required to pay the additional taxes therefore they won't be lobbying for corporate tax breaks knowing that it will just come out of their own pockets.

Your thoughts?

its idiotic to steal from the rich since they are the engine of economic growth.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is nothing wrong with a brainstorming session or initial exchange of ideas behind closed doors with the understanding that what is said in the meeting stays in the meeting. It is the only way I know of to encourage everybody to say what is on their mind and give them liberty to be as open and honest and candid as possible. It is the surest way to work out areas of disagreement, find true compromise, and ultimate achieve a consensus before the final product was drafted and presented to the people for ratification.

This is not at all the same thing as a process 'done in secret' in which nobody is ever advised of what the government is actually doing to us. Think Obamacare passed in such a way that even Nancy Pelosi admitted they had to pass it before we could find out what was it and the people were told lie after lie after lie to keep them complacent.

It is pretty difficult to be sneaky and underhanded with a process that results in no law until the states have reviewed the final document and voted to accept or not accept it. Think of any major piece of sweeping legislation with significant consequences that has passed in our lifetime. Would that legislation have passed had the states had an opportunity to review and sign off on it before it became law?

The Constitution, despite the very broad areas of disagreement and the long lengthy process of ratification did become law. All the states except Rhode Island held their own constitutional conventions to discuss and argue the content of the proposed constitution and all but North Carolina and Rhode Island initially ratified the document. North Carolina and Rhode Island ultimately would ratify the Constitution along with the Bill of RIghts when the Bill of Rights was submitted.

Everything doesn't have to happen on C-span or CNN or Fox News to be valid.

 

[dcraelin]

I dont think the constitution was all that great either

which is why I am in this thread

very incorrect since Constitution created greatest country on earth by far in all of human history.

It is a great country....hasnt lasted as long as Rome or some others

and heading for a downfall if we dont change things

Rome went through ups and downs too. Nothing runs smoothly. The current Constitution weathered the crisis of a civil war. It has a very sturdy foundation in my opinion. All it needs is to updated to deal with the present realities and the Founding Fathers were prescient and humble enough to acknowledge their inability to predict what the future might bring.

It is up to us to deal with our reality and come with viable solutions. And yes, mistakes have been made in the past and were repealed. You cannot legislate morality. So that is one of the guidelines we need to follow in this process.

In real terms it means that the principle of equality under the law trumps the morality police when it comes to gay marriage and abortion.

99% of our current problems have to do with a failure to act responsibly and tax in accordance with our spending. To deal with that I have a proposal for a tax that only applies when the nation has any debt. In that instance all income over 20 times the poverty level is to be taxed at a rate that will eliminate the national debt in 20 years.

If there is no national debt the tax rate doesn't apply at all. It is self regulating since those who want any additional spending will be required to pay the additional taxes therefore they won't be lobbying for corporate tax breaks knowing that it will just come out of their own pockets.

Your thoughts?

well I disagree on gay marriage....I see marriage as a hold-over from the state-church of england...but wouldnt see a problem with most aspects of civil unions ....but that issue is contentious and likely wouldnt help in passage of amendments

like the thoughts on taxing wealthier more when there is a national debt...as there has been throuout most of our history

 

[dblack]

I dont think the constitution was all that great either

which is why I am in this thread

very incorrect since Constitution created greatest country on earth by far in all of human history.

It is a great country....hasnt lasted as long as Rome or some others

and heading for a downfall if we dont change things

Rome went through ups and downs too. Nothing runs smoothly. The current Constitution weathered the crisis of a civil war. It has a very sturdy foundation in my opinion. All it needs is to updated to deal with the present realities and the Founding Fathers were prescient and humble enough to acknowledge their inability to predict what the future might bring.

It is up to us to deal with our reality and come with viable solutions. And yes, mistakes have been made in the past and were repealed. You cannot legislate morality. So that is one of the guidelines we need to follow in this process.

In real terms it means that the principle of equality under the law trumps the morality police when it comes to gay marriage and abortion.

99% of our current problems have to do with a failure to act responsibly and tax in accordance with our spending. To deal with that I have a proposal for a tax that only applies when the nation has any debt. In that instance all income over 20 times the poverty level is to be taxed at a rate that will eliminate the national debt in 20 years.

If there is no national debt the tax rate doesn't apply at all. It is self regulating since those who want any additional spending will be required to pay the additional taxes therefore they won't be lobbying for corporate tax breaks knowing that it will just come out of their own pockets.

Your thoughts?

its idiotic to steal from the rich since they are the engine of economic growth.

It's a lot smarter than stealing from the poor.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's a lot smarter than stealing from the poor.

too stupid since the poor don't pay taxes and in fact
get tax credits entitlements free education health care etc.

 

[Foxfyre]

I dont think the constitution was all that great either

which is why I am in this thread

very incorrect since Constitution created greatest country on earth by far in all of human history.

It is a great country....hasnt lasted as long as Rome or some others

and heading for a downfall if we dont change things

Rome went through ups and downs too. Nothing runs smoothly. The current Constitution weathered the crisis of a civil war. It has a very sturdy foundation in my opinion. All it needs is to updated to deal with the present realities and the Founding Fathers were prescient and humble enough to acknowledge their inability to predict what the future might bring.

It is up to us to deal with our reality and come with viable solutions. And yes, mistakes have been made in the past and were repealed. You cannot legislate morality. So that is one of the guidelines we need to follow in this process.

In real terms it means that the principle of equality under the law trumps the morality police when it comes to gay marriage and abortion.

99% of our current problems have to do with a failure to act responsibly and tax in accordance with our spending. To deal with that I have a proposal for a tax that only applies when the nation has any debt. In that instance all income over 20 times the poverty level is to be taxed at a rate that will eliminate the national debt in 20 years.

If there is no national debt the tax rate doesn't apply at all. It is self regulating since those who want any additional spending will be required to pay the additional taxes therefore they won't be lobbying for corporate tax breaks knowing that it will just come out of their own pockets.

Your thoughts?

its idiotic to steal from the rich since they are the engine of economic growth.

It's a lot smarter than stealing from the poor.

So who does the government steal from when the rich are no longer able to be the engine of economic growth and there are too few resources to steal?

You see all kinds of arguments can be made for just about anything. What I hope to do with this exercise is to reach a consensus on what we want government to do and what we do not want government to do in any given matter.

I want government to have no more power to take resources from anybody than it absolutely has to have to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsbilities.