CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[LoneLaugher]

Variations of the following is being offered for consideration by The Heritage Foundation, among others, as a sort of modern 'Declaration of Independence'.

Does anybody here have any quarrel with it in whole or in part?

Yeah, that's crap from start to finish, from the hypocrisy of keeping what we "earn" to the sanctimony of public declarations of faith, from the pledge to the sanctity of the plutocracy to the pledge to look the other way as the devil eats the hindmost under the guise of "limited government", which inevitably becomes pretty unlimited once female reproduction or the purchase of weapon systems are involved, but it's far too much crap to bother shovelling it out.

And here is the crux of the problem. How you interpret those statements is very different from how I and many other interpret those statements. For the record, I am not convinced I could agree to each and every one of them, and I am pretty sure anybody who sees them all as crap wouldn't have a clue which ones I might have a problem with.

Well, I don't think we're likely reach much agreement with people like Olde Europe or Wry Catcher, but I still think the most important outcome of defining a new constitution would be a clear description of the purpose and responsibilities of government. I'm curious how they would define the purpose of government, and how they would limit federal power, if at all.

Yes. I wish more would discuss the concepts instead of all the quasi name calling, partisanship, and 'your side is evil while our side is more noble' kinds of arguments. It isn't useful to call a statement crap and then characterize it as some kind of ideological garbage without explaining WHY it is crap while leaving the ideological characterizations out of it except as necessary.

And I can imagine that the divides were almost as wide between some factions at that original constitutional convention; neverthless, after MUCH dificulty, they did achieve a consensus that all could live with. The one difference, is ALL of those people were convinced individual liberty was the first and most important goal. I am not at all certain that would be true of those contributing to this thread.

I find it interesting that you use the term "factions" to describe groups with opposing viewpoints among the crafters of our Constitution in making the false claim that ALL of them were convinced that individual liberty was the first and most important goal. Since....that isn't what faction is. Madison described faction as follows:

"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

Madison wrote extensively about "factions" and how their existence isn't desirable:

"The instability, injustice and confusion introduced (by faction) into the public councils, have, in truth,been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished" Madison Fed 10

...and can be contained by a strong union.

“Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed union, none deserves to be more accurately developed, than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.” Madison Fed 10

In other words.....one of the advantages of a strong union is the ability to prevent factions.....like ALEC and the Koch brothers from fucking the rest of us over. Individual liberty....or liberty and justice for all? You tell me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Variations of the following is being offered for consideration by The Heritage Foundation, among others, as a sort of modern 'Declaration of Independence'.

Does anybody here have any quarrel with it in whole or in part?

Yeah, that's crap from start to finish, from the hypocrisy of keeping what we "earn" to the sanctimony of public declarations of faith, from the pledge to the sanctity of the plutocracy to the pledge to look the other way as the devil eats the hindmost under the guise of "limited government", which inevitably becomes pretty unlimited once female reproduction or the purchase of weapon systems are involved, but it's far too much crap to bother shovelling it out.

And here is the crux of the problem. How you interpret those statements is very different from how I and many other interpret those statements. For the record, I am not convinced I could agree to each and every one of them, and I am pretty sure anybody who sees them all as crap wouldn't have a clue which ones I might have a problem with.

Well, I don't think we're likely reach much agreement with people like Olde Europe or Wry Catcher, but I still think the most important outcome of defining a new constitution would be a clear description of the purpose and responsibilities of government. I'm curious how they would define the purpose of government, and how they would limit federal power, if at all.

A 'new constitution' is a 'solution' in search of a problem that doesn't exist.

There's also no need to be curious – Constitutional jurisprudence as it exists now explains how all government is limited: local, state, and Federal; your answer can be found in more than two centuries of case law.

 

[Olde Europe]

We believe in the spirit of our Founding Fathers

Thus begins, with an egregious lie, the prayer named "The Conservative Declaration", as we see the founders reduced to promoters of a government of night-watchmen guarding property, and "free enterprise" and religious sects dominating the scene.

1. It then moves to declare life and pursuit of happiness solely a function of liberty, when the latter is, at best, one of the preconditions to the former. The Founders knew that. They'd immediately recognise the emptiness and disingenuousness of verbiage like "fundamentally equal", as it means nothing but sounds good.

2. Next we see what we "earn" declared the fruit of hard labor, when in the current-day U.S. of A. very little can be farther from the truth. The first I see entering a jungle, all on his own coming back a year later a multi-millionaire, I will concede actually "earned" what he has. All others derive most of what they "earn" from the work of those working, or having worked, for him and the common good, and that pertains most to the moneyed aristocracy that sucks the country dry. Moreover, it stands in stark contradiction to the Founders' insight that the power of taxation vested in Congress necessarily be infinite.

3. Enterprise is to be guarded against, as it is set to undermine democratic rule. The Founders were fully aware of that, and they would never have assented to enterprises acquiring personhood status. The primary duty of the federal government in this realm ought to be promoting the common welfare, not to unleash the greedy on the population.

4. That's probably the most ridiculous part, as we see "Common Defense" reduced to anti-immigrant dog-whistle. The nativist screed being older than the Republic, it isn't that big a surprise that it would show up somewhere, but rhetorically reducing a $600 or so billion juggernaut to a $25 billion a year purpose, so as to deceive the gullible as to the purpose of these enormous expenses, that's priceless.

5. Oh yes, the federal government is, of course, known for violent reprisals against worshippers and the faithful, and the casualty count of the "War on Christmas" is staggering. In terms of hilarity this one's just second to 4).

6. This is the second section of worship to "free enterprise", this time with the added appeal to return to the Articles of Confederation, as the powers of the federal government ought to be performed through their subordinate entities. Don't these guys know that they've lost this argument 250 years ago, that the Confederation was a pathetic failure, and resurrecting the Confederation's cadaver makes them look rather odd? Of course, "free enterprise" would love nothing more than to pollute and exploit with abandon, unencumbered by the dreaded "regulatory state", and to play the several states off against each other for their bottom line.

And then the prayer ends with the declaration that the "progressive" hordes are anti-American, as they are set to "dismantle our nation's foundations", all of which brought to our attention by the main promoter of non-partisan debate.

________________________________________

And I can imagine that the divides were almost as wide between some factions at that original constitutional convention; neverthless, after MUCH dificulty, they did achieve a consensus that all could live with.

A consensus all could live with... Particularly well lived the poor and women, both confined to a status of chattel, and then there were the blacks, who lived particularly well with that "consensus". You know, in terms of obliviousness that one trumps it all.

 

[dblack]

Variations of the following is being offered for consideration by The Heritage Foundation, among others, as a sort of modern 'Declaration of Independence'.

Does anybody here have any quarrel with it in whole or in part?

Yeah, that's crap from start to finish, from the hypocrisy of keeping what we "earn" to the sanctimony of public declarations of faith, from the pledge to the sanctity of the plutocracy to the pledge to look the other way as the devil eats the hindmost under the guise of "limited government", which inevitably becomes pretty unlimited once female reproduction or the purchase of weapon systems are involved, but it's far too much crap to bother shovelling it out.

And here is the crux of the problem. How you interpret those statements is very different from how I and many other interpret those statements. For the record, I am not convinced I could agree to each and every one of them, and I am pretty sure anybody who sees them all as crap wouldn't have a clue which ones I might have a problem with.

Well, I don't think we're likely reach much agreement with people like Olde Europe or Wry Catcher, but I still think the most important outcome of defining a new constitution would be a clear description of the purpose and responsibilities of government. I'm curious how they would define the purpose of government, and how they would limit federal power, if at all.

Your curiosity can be satisfied by reading the Preamble to our Constitution. As I've said many times I view the preamble as a vision/mission statement. Of course I don't believe it has the force of law, but it defines the nature and purpose of our Federal Government.

Read it, it is much less "obscure" (I use the word ambiguous) then the Second Amendment.

Well, that's been a source of widespread disagreement, so I'm looking for more clarity. Got any?

 

[Derideo_Te]

It isn't useful to call a statement crap and then characterize it as some kind of ideological garbage without explaining WHY it is crap while leaving the ideological characterizations out of it except as necessary.

OE gave you clear specifics as to why it was garbage. That you refused to acknowledge his valid criticisms is why no one is bothering to take anything any further because you cannot be trusted to engage honestly in reaching a workable compromise.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Variations of the following is being offered for consideration by The Heritage Foundation, among others, as a sort of modern 'Declaration of Independence'.

Does anybody here have any quarrel with it in whole or in part?

Yeah, that's crap from start to finish, from the hypocrisy of keeping what we "earn" to the sanctimony of public declarations of faith, from the pledge to the sanctity of the plutocracy to the pledge to look the other way as the devil eats the hindmost under the guise of "limited government", which inevitably becomes pretty unlimited once female reproduction or the purchase of weapon systems are involved, but it's far too much crap to bother shovelling it out.

And here is the crux of the problem. How you interpret those statements is very different from how I and many other interpret those statements. For the record, I am not convinced I could agree to each and every one of them, and I am pretty sure anybody who sees them all as crap wouldn't have a clue which ones I might have a problem with.

Well, I don't think we're likely reach much agreement with people like Olde Europe or Wry Catcher, but I still think the most important outcome of defining a new constitution would be a clear description of the purpose and responsibilities of government. I'm curious how they would define the purpose of government, and how they would limit federal power, if at all.

Your curiosity can be satisfied by reading the Preamble to our Constitution. As I've said many times I view the preamble as a vision/mission statement. Of course I don't believe it has the force of law, but it defines the nature and purpose of our Federal Government.

Read it, it is much less "obscure" (I use the word ambiguous) then the Second Amendment.

Well, that's been a source of widespread disagreement, so I'm looking for more clarity. Got any?

Ever tried breaking it down:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] 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.

Let's go section by section;

We the People of the United States - identifies who the goals are set for.

in Order to form a more perfect Union - sets out the goal of a unified nation comprising of We the People with no one excluded.

establish Justice, - the goal of law and order.

insure domestic Tranquility, - eliminate inter-state disputes.

provide for the common defence, - share the expenses and resources necessary to defend against outside forces.

promote the general Welfare, - provide services like schools, libraries, etc, etc.

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, - uphold each other's individual rights now and in the future

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. - define specifically how the government will be run.

So Wry is correct that the Preamble is a set of goals for the nation albeit without the force of law.

 

[PratchettFan]

Variations of the following is being offered for consideration by The Heritage Foundation, among others, as a sort of modern 'Declaration of Independence'.

Does anybody here have any quarrel with it in whole or in part?

Yeah, that's crap from start to finish, from the hypocrisy of keeping what we "earn" to the sanctimony of public declarations of faith, from the pledge to the sanctity of the plutocracy to the pledge to look the other way as the devil eats the hindmost under the guise of "limited government", which inevitably becomes pretty unlimited once female reproduction or the purchase of weapon systems are involved, but it's far too much crap to bother shovelling it out.

And here is the crux of the problem. How you interpret those statements is very different from how I and many other interpret those statements. For the record, I am not convinced I could agree to each and every one of them, and I am pretty sure anybody who sees them all as crap wouldn't have a clue which ones I might have a problem with.

Well, I don't think we're likely reach much agreement with people like Olde Europe or Wry Catcher, but I still think the most important outcome of defining a new constitution would be a clear description of the purpose and responsibilities of government. I'm curious how they would define the purpose of government, and how they would limit federal power, if at all.

Your curiosity can be satisfied by reading the Preamble to our Constitution. As I've said many times I view the preamble as a vision/mission statement. Of course I don't believe it has the force of law, but it defines the nature and purpose of our Federal Government.

Read it, it is much less "obscure" (I use the word ambiguous) then the Second Amendment.

Well, that's been a source of widespread disagreement, so I'm looking for more clarity. Got any?

This is the text: 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.

My interpretation is: The "United States" refers to the nation as a whole, not the "Respective States". The concept of a "more perfect Union" supports that. So when talking about domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare and the blessings of liberty, it isn't talking about isolated communities - it is talking about the nation as a whole. That is the entire point of setting up a national government. It is fairly clearly stating that this vision is not determined by the various states, but by the nation as a whole.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Variations of the following is being offered for consideration by The Heritage Foundation, among others, as a sort of modern 'Declaration of Independence'.

Does anybody here have any quarrel with it in whole or in part?

Yeah, that's crap from start to finish, from the hypocrisy of keeping what we "earn" to the sanctimony of public declarations of faith, from the pledge to the sanctity of the plutocracy to the pledge to look the other way as the devil eats the hindmost under the guise of "limited government", which inevitably becomes pretty unlimited once female reproduction or the purchase of weapon systems are involved, but it's far too much crap to bother shovelling it out.

And here is the crux of the problem. How you interpret those statements is very different from how I and many other interpret those statements. For the record, I am not convinced I could agree to each and every one of them, and I am pretty sure anybody who sees them all as crap wouldn't have a clue which ones I might have a problem with.

Well, I don't think we're likely reach much agreement with people like Olde Europe or Wry Catcher, but I still think the most important outcome of defining a new constitution would be a clear description of the purpose and responsibilities of government. I'm curious how they would define the purpose of government, and how they would limit federal power, if at all.

Your curiosity can be satisfied by reading the Preamble to our Constitution. As I've said many times I view the preamble as a vision/mission statement. Of course I don't believe it has the force of law, but it defines the nature and purpose of our Federal Government.

Read it, it is much less "obscure" (I use the word ambiguous) then the Second Amendment.

Well, that's been a source of widespread disagreement, so I'm looking for more clarity. Got any?

More clear than the claim that it is ambiguous? Since you ask for clarity and acknowledge "widespread disagreement" it's pretty clear you too feel it is ambiguous.

 

[Foxfyre]

Variations of the following is being offered for consideration by The Heritage Foundation, among others, as a sort of modern 'Declaration of Independence'.

Does anybody here have any quarrel with it in whole or in part?

Yeah, that's crap from start to finish, from the hypocrisy of keeping what we "earn" to the sanctimony of public declarations of faith, from the pledge to the sanctity of the plutocracy to the pledge to look the other way as the devil eats the hindmost under the guise of "limited government", which inevitably becomes pretty unlimited once female reproduction or the purchase of weapon systems are involved, but it's far too much crap to bother shovelling it out.

And here is the crux of the problem. How you interpret those statements is very different from how I and many other interpret those statements. For the record, I am not convinced I could agree to each and every one of them, and I am pretty sure anybody who sees them all as crap wouldn't have a clue which ones I might have a problem with.

Well, I don't think we're likely reach much agreement with people like Olde Europe or Wry Catcher, but I still think the most important outcome of defining a new constitution would be a clear description of the purpose and responsibilities of government. I'm curious how they would define the purpose of government, and how they would limit federal power, if at all.

Yes. I wish more would discuss the concepts instead of all the quasi name calling, partisanship, and 'your side is evil while our side is more noble' kinds of arguments. It isn't useful to call a statement crap and then characterize it as some kind of ideological garbage without explaining WHY it is crap while leaving the ideological characterizations out of it except as necessary.

And I can imagine that the divides were almost as wide between some factions at that original constitutional convention; neverthless, after MUCH dificulty, they did achieve a consensus that all could live with. The one difference, is ALL of those people were convinced individual liberty was the first and most important goal. I am not at all certain that would be true of those contributing to this thread.

I find it interesting that you use the term "factions" to describe groups with opposing viewpoints among the crafters of our Constitution in making the false claim that ALL of them were convinced that individual liberty was the first and most important goal. Since....that isn't what faction is. Madison described faction as follows:

"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

Madison wrote extensively about "factions" and how their existence isn't desirable:

"The instability, injustice and confusion introduced (by faction) into the public councils, have, in truth,been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished" Madison Fed 10

...and can be contained by a strong union.

“Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed union, none deserves to be more accurately developed, than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.” Madison Fed 10

In other words.....one of the advantages of a strong union is the ability to prevent factions.....like ALEC and the Koch brothers from fucking the rest of us over. Individual liberty....or liberty and justice for all? You tell me.

Faction these days has no more flattering definition than it did then. All who disagreed were not doing so as representatives of factions but certainly some were. Many of the wealthier landed people among the colonies were reluctant to rock the boat and incur the wrath of the Crown. But those among that group who would go down in history as the Founders were willing to risk everything--their lives, their families, their fortunes--to achieve liberty. Certainly those who supported slavery were at odds with the large majority who would have abolished slavery with the initial Constitution. There were broad differences of opinion by different groups for different self-serving reasons as to the structure of the convention itself, how voting should be done, who should have a vote, what to include and what to leave out, whether deliberations should be done in secret or not, etc. etc.

So the process was long, tedious, and often frustrating to many and encompassed eleven years from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the signing of the final draft of the Constitution. But with willingness to hear each other out, work out their differences, and compromise where they could, they got it done.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yeah, that's crap from start to finish, from the hypocrisy of keeping what we "earn" to the sanctimony of public declarations of faith, from the pledge to the sanctity of the plutocracy to the pledge to look the other way as the devil eats the hindmost under the guise of "limited government", which inevitably becomes pretty unlimited once female reproduction or the purchase of weapon systems are involved, but it's far too much crap to bother shovelling it out.

And here is the crux of the problem. How you interpret those statements is very different from how I and many other interpret those statements. For the record, I am not convinced I could agree to each and every one of them, and I am pretty sure anybody who sees them all as crap wouldn't have a clue which ones I might have a problem with.

Well, I don't think we're likely reach much agreement with people like Olde Europe or Wry Catcher, but I still think the most important outcome of defining a new constitution would be a clear description of the purpose and responsibilities of government. I'm curious how they would define the purpose of government, and how they would limit federal power, if at all.

Yes. I wish more would discuss the concepts instead of all the quasi name calling, partisanship, and 'your side is evil while our side is more noble' kinds of arguments. It isn't useful to call a statement crap and then characterize it as some kind of ideological garbage without explaining WHY it is crap while leaving the ideological characterizations out of it except as necessary.

And I can imagine that the divides were almost as wide between some factions at that original constitutional convention; neverthless, after MUCH dificulty, they did achieve a consensus that all could live with. The one difference, is ALL of those people were convinced individual liberty was the first and most important goal. I am not at all certain that would be true of those contributing to this thread.

I find it interesting that you use the term "factions" to describe groups with opposing viewpoints among the crafters of our Constitution in making the false claim that ALL of them were convinced that individual liberty was the first and most important goal. Since....that isn't what faction is. Madison described faction as follows:

"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

Madison wrote extensively about "factions" and how their existence isn't desirable:

"The instability, injustice and confusion introduced (by faction) into the public councils, have, in truth,been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished" Madison Fed 10

...and can be contained by a strong union.

“Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed union, none deserves to be more accurately developed, than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.” Madison Fed 10

In other words.....one of the advantages of a strong union is the ability to prevent factions.....like ALEC and the Koch brothers from fucking the rest of us over. Individual liberty....or liberty and justice for all? You tell me.

Faction these days has no more flattering definition than it did then. All who disagreed were not doing so as representatives of factions but certainly some were. Many of the wealthier landed people among the colonies were reluctant to rock the boat and incur the wrath of the Crown. But those among that group who would go down in history as the Founders were willing to risk everything--their lives, their families, their fortunes--to achieve liberty. Certainly those who supported slavery were at odds with the large majority who would have abolished slavery with the initial Constitution. There were broad differences of opinion by different groups for different self-serving reasons as to the structure of the convention itself, how voting should be done, who should have a vote, what to include and what to leave out, whether deliberations should be done in secret or not, etc. etc.

So the process was long, tedious, and often frustrating to many and encompassed eleven years from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the signing of the final draft of the Constitution. But with willingness to hear each other out, work out their differences, and compromise where they could, they got it done.

They got it done, but for ....

"The United States Presidential election of 1800 was the 4th quadrennial presidential election. It was held from Friday, October 31 to Wednesday, December 3, 1800. In what is sometimes referred to as the "Revolution of 1800,"[1][2] Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams. The election was a realigning election that ushered in a generation of Democratic-Republican Party rule and the eventual demise of the Federalist Party in the First Party System. It was a long, bitter re-match of the 1796 election between the pro-French and pro-decentralization Democratic-Republicans under Jefferson and Aaron Burr, against incumbent Adams and Charles Pinckney's pro-British and pro-centralization Federalists. The chief political issues included opposition to the tax imposed by Congress to pay for the mobilization of the new army and the navy in the Quasi-War against France in 1798, and the Alien and Sedition Acts, by which Federalists were trying to stifle dissent, especially by Democratic-Republican newspaper editors.

Link: United States presidential election 1800 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Foxfyre]

Let me repeat my earlier suggestions to modify some articles and to leave the Preamble alone as the guiding vision and mission statement:

1. The term of the POTUS be changed to one term of six years;
2. The POTUS be given the line-item veto (Congress to retain the override provision as written in Art. I, sec 7, Clause 2 for any item blue lined by the POTUS);
3. The Justices of the Supreme Court be commissioned for 10 years, and appear before the Senate or the designated committed without further nomination by the POTUS; if once more confirmed by the Senate, serve for an additional ten years, and no more.
4. That the American people be allowed to vote on a referendum, placed on the ballot only every other year, on passage by the Congress by 2/3 vote, on the ballot of general elections, to vote on public policy issues.
5. That the rules of the Congress in each chamber be approved or rejected by the people in a referendum, and each rule to be voted upon by the people [for example, "do you approve of the right of any member of the Senate to attach a "Rider" to any Bill or Act?"] or ["shall or shall bills be single issue matters; no Riders or other none related issues allowed"?]
6. That Art. III be modified and require the Chief Justice and each Justice to sign a code of ethics. as all other judges and justices in the inferior courts are required to do.

I previously touched on my intiial thoughts re the referendum concept and still think that would likely not be practical, but my opinion isn't embedded in granite on that. I am open to be convinced otherwise.

I am pondering whether removing the pressures of re-election from the President would net greater benefits that those same pressures tempering presidential power. Would a president who didn't have to worry about public opinion and re-election feel more emboldened to overstep his/her authority in inappropriate ways?

Amending lifetime appointment for Supreme Court Justices is something I do think we need to seriously look at and I can see merit in your suggestion on that.

I oppose a Line Item veto because I believe that gives the president far too much power to legislate than what is healthy. There is a very good reason to assign different responsibilities and powers to the three branches of the federal government. When each is restricted to its own specifically enumerated powers, each provides checks and balances on the others.

To eliminate any need for even an argument for a line item veto, all we need to do is to specify in the Constitution that any expenditure above and beyond the normal administrative operations of the various branches and departments of government must be presented as a stand alone bill and it cannot be bundled with any other legislation. That leaves the power to appropriate spending with Congress where it belongs, but it requires them to be up front, obvious, and visible re what they are voting for and eliminates the need for a line item veto.

Again I'll post my list of immediate reforms that I think need to be included in the Constitution. From my post I think it was #193:

1. No person elected to Congress may serve for more than 12 consecutive years.

2. Those who have served 12 consecutive years will not be eligible for election or appointment to federal office for a period of two years.

3. Terms for senators will be limited to 6 years with 1/3 of the senate rotating off in each 2-year election.

4. Terms for members of the House will be two years.

5. Offices for senators and congressmen will be furnished with basic inexpensive but functional furniture and equipment purchased via lowest bidder. Any additional furnishings and decorations will be paid for by the official using the office space.

6. A reasonable allowance is allowed each member of Congress to provide living expenses, travel expenses, maintenance of his/her office, compensation for a staff, and a reasonable personal salary. Any additional expense above and beyond the allowance is at the expense of the member of Congress. Any unused portion of the allowance will be returned to the national treasury at the end of each fiscal year.

7. The government can arrange for a group healthcare plan for elected, appointed, and hired federal personnel, but each person will pay the full cost of participation in that plan.

8. All federal elected, appointed, and hired federal personnel will fund their own 401K or other retirement plan that will go with them when they return to the private sector. No taxpayer funds will be used for retirement plans for anybody.

(Some provision may be made for a stipend for the President who will generally be expected to perform ceremonial duties following a tenure as president. We can hash that out later.)

And further:

9. Congress may exempt itself from no law that is passed for anybody else.

10. Congress may allocate no funds or benefit, or make any regulation, establish any policy, or enact any law that benefits or disadvantage any individual, group, entity, or demographic that does not benefit or disadvantage all without respect for politics or socioeconomic status.

11. The Congress and President will begin each year with a zero based budget--the baseline budget process will be discontinued at all levels--and will be required to stay within budget boundaries except in very specific emergencies that will be defined elsewhere.

12. Only the bare basics of government administrative functions will be included in the annual operating budget. All other allocations of any kind will be presented as single (not included with any other legislation) issues in a stand alone bill requiring an up or down vote by both House and Senate and signed by the President for passage.

(No. 12 above removes the need for a line item veto power given to the President which would have its own problems.)

There's probably more, but I think this would be a good start.

 

[Foxfyre]

And here is the crux of the problem. How you interpret those statements is very different from how I and many other interpret those statements. For the record, I am not convinced I could agree to each and every one of them, and I am pretty sure anybody who sees them all as crap wouldn't have a clue which ones I might have a problem with.

Well, I don't think we're likely reach much agreement with people like Olde Europe or Wry Catcher, but I still think the most important outcome of defining a new constitution would be a clear description of the purpose and responsibilities of government. I'm curious how they would define the purpose of government, and how they would limit federal power, if at all.

Yes. I wish more would discuss the concepts instead of all the quasi name calling, partisanship, and 'your side is evil while our side is more noble' kinds of arguments. It isn't useful to call a statement crap and then characterize it as some kind of ideological garbage without explaining WHY it is crap while leaving the ideological characterizations out of it except as necessary.

And I can imagine that the divides were almost as wide between some factions at that original constitutional convention; neverthless, after MUCH dificulty, they did achieve a consensus that all could live with. The one difference, is ALL of those people were convinced individual liberty was the first and most important goal. I am not at all certain that would be true of those contributing to this thread.

I find it interesting that you use the term "factions" to describe groups with opposing viewpoints among the crafters of our Constitution in making the false claim that ALL of them were convinced that individual liberty was the first and most important goal. Since....that isn't what faction is. Madison described faction as follows:

"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

Madison wrote extensively about "factions" and how their existence isn't desirable:

"The instability, injustice and confusion introduced (by faction) into the public councils, have, in truth,been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished" Madison Fed 10

...and can be contained by a strong union.

“Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed union, none deserves to be more accurately developed, than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.” Madison Fed 10

In other words.....one of the advantages of a strong union is the ability to prevent factions.....like ALEC and the Koch brothers from fucking the rest of us over. Individual liberty....or liberty and justice for all? You tell me.

Faction these days has no more flattering definition than it did then. All who disagreed were not doing so as representatives of factions but certainly some were. Many of the wealthier landed people among the colonies were reluctant to rock the boat and incur the wrath of the Crown. But those among that group who would go down in history as the Founders were willing to risk everything--their lives, their families, their fortunes--to achieve liberty. Certainly those who supported slavery were at odds with the large majority who would have abolished slavery with the initial Constitution. There were broad differences of opinion by different groups for different self-serving reasons as to the structure of the convention itself, how voting should be done, who should have a vote, what to include and what to leave out, whether deliberations should be done in secret or not, etc. etc.

So the process was long, tedious, and often frustrating to many and encompassed eleven years from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the signing of the final draft of the Constitution. But with willingness to hear each other out, work out their differences, and compromise where they could, they got it done.

They got it done, but for ....

"The United States Presidential election of 1800 was the 4th quadrennial presidential election. It was held from Friday, October 31 to Wednesday, December 3, 1800. In what is sometimes referred to as the "Revolution of 1800,"[1][2] Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams. The election was a realigning election that ushered in a generation of Democratic-Republican Party rule and the eventual demise of the Federalist Party in the First Party System. It was a long, bitter re-match of the 1796 election between the pro-French and pro-decentralization Democratic-Republicans under Jefferson and Aaron Burr, against incumbent Adams and Charles Pinckney's pro-British and pro-centralization Federalists. The chief political issues included opposition to the tax imposed by Congress to pay for the mobilization of the new army and the navy in the Quasi-War against France in 1798, and the Alien and Sedition Acts, by which Federalists were trying to stifle dissent, especially by Democratic-Republican newspaper editors.

Link: United States presidential election 1800 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I don't see what this has to do with signing and ratification of a constitution????

 

[Foxfyre]

It isn't hateful to call a statement crap and then characterize it as some kind of ideological garbage without explaining WHY it is crap

Nice talking-to I got there. Just to clarify, I have in very short terms, because today I really don't have any inclination to dissect this kind of partisan propaganda in any detail, explained why I find that document crap, whereas you haven't found the time to discuss any aspect thereof.

I have been discussing almost every aspect since this thread opened. And for those willing to discuss concepts instead of interjecting personal and partisan insults into everything, I have not been unwilling to discuss anything. I posted the Conservative Declaration mid afternoon yesterday and certainly have not been unwilling to discuss it. But alas, I do have responsibilities other than posting in this thread, however unjustifiable that might be characterized by some.

I just reread the declaration and honestly don't have a problem with a lot of it. I would have worded some phrases differently to avoid what I believe is too much opportunity for interpretation other than what I believe is intended which is also part of the problem with the existing constitution.

I wonder if the reaction by our left leaners here would have been different had I changed the title of that list to The Progressive Declaration? (I will admit that I was sorely tempted to do exactly that just to see what difference that would have made.)

 

[Foxfyre]

.

Having Senators limited to serve two 6 year terms is the only thing I would change if I had a say in the matter.

.

How do you see it being a significant benefit to put such limits on Senators and nothing or nobody else?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Have elections every 2 years has effectively created the Campaign-Industrial-Complex (CIC).

We would all be better off if elections were only held every 4 years (as someone else has already proposed.) And yes 100% of all seats should be up for election at that time.

If we are going to impose term limits on the POTUS then they should apply to all elected positions in the House and Senate too. I have no problem with setting that at either 2 or 3 terms.

The Electoral College is an anachronism that needs to be scrapped. Every vote should have equal weight. The whole concept of "battle ground states" was invented by the CIC because of the EC.

All House Districts must have one tenth of one percent of the population irrespective of state boundaries. There will be a total of 1000 House members and they must be directly accountable to their electorate.

Funding for elections must come from the Federal government for Federal elections and every candidate who obtains the requisite number of names on a petition is entitled to that funding. No other funding of any kind can be spent on the campaign. No 3rd party can campaign on any issue or for any candidate. Instead they must nominate their own candidate and run them if they want to participate in the election.

Election Campaigns can only last a maximum of 6 weeks from start to finish. Primaries prior to Campaigns can last up to 8 weeks but they must be completed at least 2 weeks prior to the start of the Election Campaigns. Start to finish the entire election process should take just 16 weeks.

That can all be done via a single Amendment to the existing Constitution. Needless to say the CIC won't be happy campers and will obstruct it.

 

[Foxfyre]

It isn't hateful to call a statement crap and then characterize it as some kind of ideological garbage without explaining WHY it is crap

Nice talking-to I got there. Just to clarify, I have in very short terms, because today I really don't have any inclination to dissect this kind of partisan propaganda in any detail, explained why I find that document crap, whereas you haven't found the time to discuss any aspect thereof.

I have been discussing every aspect since this thread opened. And for those willing to discuss concepts instead of interjecting personal and partisan insults into everything, I have not been unwilling to discuss anything. I posted the Conservative Declaration mid afternoon yesterday and certainly have not been unwilling to discuss it. But alas, I do have responsibilities other than posting in this thread, however unjustifiable that might be characterized by some.

Yeah, that's crap from start to finish, from the hypocrisy of keeping what we "earn" to the sanctimony of public declarations of faith, from the pledge to the sanctity of the plutocracy to the pledge to look the other way as the devil eats the hindmost under the guise of "limited government", which inevitably becomes pretty unlimited once female reproduction or the purchase of weapon systems are involved, but it's far too much crap to bother shovelling it out.

And here is the crux of the problem. How you interpret those statements is very different from how I and many other interpret those statements. For the record, I am not convinced I could agree to each and every one of them, and I am pretty sure anybody who sees them all as crap wouldn't have a clue which ones I might have a problem with.

Well, I don't think we're likely reach much agreement with people like Olde Europe or Wry Catcher, but I still think the most important outcome of defining a new constitution would be a clear description of the purpose and responsibilities of government. I'm curious how they would define the purpose of government, and how they would limit federal power, if at all.

Your curiosity can be satisfied by reading the Preamble to our Constitution. As I've said many times I view the preamble as a vision/mission statement. Of course I don't believe it has the force of law, but it defines the nature and purpose of our Federal Government.

Read it, it is much less "obscure" (I use the word ambiguous) then the Second Amendment.

Well, that's been a source of widespread disagreement, so I'm looking for more clarity. Got any?

This is the text: 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.

My interpretation is: The "United States" refers to the nation as a whole, not the "Respective States". The concept of a "more perfect Union" supports that. So when talking about domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare and the blessings of liberty, it isn't talking about isolated communities - it is talking about the nation as a whole. That is the entire point of setting up a national government. It is fairly clearly stating that this vision is not determined by the various states, but by the nation as a whole.

And here is where you and I differ because I have studied ALL the founding documents and know exactly what they meant by 'blessings of liberty' and they did not mean an authoritarian central government who would assign the people the rights they would be allowed or order the society that all were expected to have.

They certainly expected each individual state and/or local community to make different choices in that regard and the federal government would have no say about that.

A more perfect union was intended to mean that they would do it better than their original government structures had accomplished. A common defense is necessary to secure and defend the unalienable rights of the people from any who would deny those rights. The role of the government re the general welfare was to do what it could logically do to promote the people's ability to live their lives, enjoy liberty to be who and what they are, and pursue whatever makes them happy short of violating the rights of others. The general welfare was never intended to be interpreted as any form of charity or individual benefit at the federal level and they were meticulous to assign no such authority to the federal government as they saw that as a grevious violation of individual liberty and property rights.

 

[dcraelin]

Have elections every 2 years has effectively created the Campaign-Industrial-Complex (CIC).

We would all be better off if elections were only held every 4 years (as someone else has already proposed.) And yes 100% of all seats should be up for election at that time.

If we are going to impose term limits on the POTUS then they should apply to all elected positions in the House and Senate too. I have no problem with setting that at either 2 or 3 terms.

The Electoral College is an anachronism that needs to be scrapped. Every vote should have equal weight. The whole concept of "battle ground states" was invented by the CIC because of the EC.

All House Districts must have one tenth of one percent of the population irrespective of state boundaries. There will be a total of 1000 House members and they must be directly accountable to their electorate.

Funding for elections must come from the Federal government for Federal elections and every candidate who obtains the requisite number of names on a petition is entitled to that funding. No other funding of any kind can be spent on the campaign. No 3rd party can campaign on any issue or for any candidate. Instead they must nominate their own candidate and run them if they want to participate in the election.

Election Campaigns can only last a maximum of 6 weeks from start to finish. Primaries prior to Campaigns can last up to 8 weeks but they must be completed at least 2 weeks prior to the start of the Election Campaigns. Start to finish the entire election process should take just 16 weeks.

That can all be done via a single Amendment to the existing Constitution. Needless to say the CIC won't be happy campers and will obstruct it.

at the time of the revolution, there was a saying which went something like this "where yearly elections end tyranny begins"
a proportional election of representatives every year, by state, region or nationwide, would be the direction I would want to go in. This could be a party list vote only and changes made in membership only if enough change were had in party vote.

I would not scrap the electoral college, without it nationwide recounts could be a problem, and it does give perhaps give some influence to what would otherwise be fly-over country.

 

[dcraelin]

It isn't hateful to call a statement crap and then characterize it as some kind of ideological garbage without explaining WHY it is crap

Nice talking-to I got there. Just to clarify, I have in very short terms, because today I really don't have any inclination to dissect this kind of partisan propaganda in any detail, explained why I find that document crap, whereas you haven't found the time to discuss any aspect thereof.

I have been discussing every aspect since this thread opened. And for those willing to discuss concepts instead of interjecting personal and partisan insults into everything, I have not been unwilling to discuss anything. I posted the Conservative Declaration mid afternoon yesterday and certainly have not been unwilling to discuss it. But alas, I do have responsibilities other than posting in this thread, however unjustifiable that might be characterized by some.

And here is the crux of the problem. How you interpret those statements is very different from how I and many other interpret those statements. For the record, I am not convinced I could agree to each and every one of them, and I am pretty sure anybody who sees them all as crap wouldn't have a clue which ones I might have a problem with.

Well, I don't think we're likely reach much agreement with people like Olde Europe or Wry Catcher, but I still think the most important outcome of defining a new constitution would be a clear description of the purpose and responsibilities of government. I'm curious how they would define the purpose of government, and how they would limit federal power, if at all.

Your curiosity can be satisfied by reading the Preamble to our Constitution. As I've said many times I view the preamble as a vision/mission statement. Of course I don't believe it has the force of law, but it defines the nature and purpose of our Federal Government.

Read it, it is much less "obscure" (I use the word ambiguous) then the Second Amendment.

Well, that's been a source of widespread disagreement, so I'm looking for more clarity. Got any?

This is the text: 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.

My interpretation is: The "United States" refers to the nation as a whole, not the "Respective States". The concept of a "more perfect Union" supports that. So when talking about domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare and the blessings of liberty, it isn't talking about isolated communities - it is talking about the nation as a whole. That is the entire point of setting up a national government. It is fairly clearly stating that this vision is not determined by the various states, but by the nation as a whole.

And here is where you and I differ because I have studied ALL the founding documents and know exactly what they meant by 'blessings of liberty' and they did not mean an authoritarian central government who would assign the people the rights they would be allowed or order the society that all were expected to have.

They certainly expected each individual state and/or local community to make different choices in that regard and the federal government would have no say about that.

A more perfect union was intended to mean that they would do it better than their original government structures had accomplished. A common defense is necessary to secure and defend the unalienable rights of the people from any who would deny those rights. The role of the government re the general welfare was to do what it could logically do to promote the people's ability to live their lives, enjoy liberty to be who and what they are, and pursue whatever makes them happy short of violating the rights of others. The general welfare was never intended to be interpreted as any form of charity or individual benefit at the federal level and they were meticulous to assign no such authority to the federal government as they saw that as a grevious violation of individual liberty and property rights.

you know a military base could be considered charity to one area over another. Any spending by government can. I just dont see how your ideas of restricting based on that phrase are practical or workable.

 

[Foxfyre]

Have elections every 2 years has effectively created the Campaign-Industrial-Complex (CIC).

We would all be better off if elections were only held every 4 years (as someone else has already proposed.) And yes 100% of all seats should be up for election at that time.

If we are going to impose term limits on the POTUS then they should apply to all elected positions in the House and Senate too. I have no problem with setting that at either 2 or 3 terms.

The Electoral College is an anachronism that needs to be scrapped. Every vote should have equal weight. The whole concept of "battle ground states" was invented by the CIC because of the EC.

All House Districts must have one tenth of one percent of the population irrespective of state boundaries. There will be a total of 1000 House members and they must be directly accountable to their electorate.

Funding for elections must come from the Federal government for Federal elections and every candidate who obtains the requisite number of names on a petition is entitled to that funding. No other funding of any kind can be spent on the campaign. No 3rd party can campaign on any issue or for any candidate. Instead they must nominate their own candidate and run them if they want to participate in the election.

Election Campaigns can only last a maximum of 6 weeks from start to finish. Primaries prior to Campaigns can last up to 8 weeks but they must be completed at least 2 weeks prior to the start of the Election Campaigns. Start to finish the entire election process should take just 16 weeks.

That can all be done via a single Amendment to the existing Constitution. Needless to say the CIC won't be happy campers and will obstruct it.

at the time of the revolution, there was a saying which went something like this "where yearly elections end tyranny begins"
a proportional election of representatives every year, by state, region or nationwide, would be the direction I would want to go in. This could be a party list vote only and changes made in membership only if enough change were had in party vote.

I would not scrap the electoral college, without it nationwide recounts could be a problem, and it does give perhaps give some influence to what would otherwise be fly-over country.

Interesting concept and certainly worthy of some consideration and discussion. But if we go with the more European system of party membership/strength determining the representation in government, what do we do with the independents?

 

[Foxfyre]

It isn't hateful to call a statement crap and then characterize it as some kind of ideological garbage without explaining WHY it is crap

Nice talking-to I got there. Just to clarify, I have in very short terms, because today I really don't have any inclination to dissect this kind of partisan propaganda in any detail, explained why I find that document crap, whereas you haven't found the time to discuss any aspect thereof.

I have been discussing every aspect since this thread opened. And for those willing to discuss concepts instead of interjecting personal and partisan insults into everything, I have not been unwilling to discuss anything. I posted the Conservative Declaration mid afternoon yesterday and certainly have not been unwilling to discuss it. But alas, I do have responsibilities other than posting in this thread, however unjustifiable that might be characterized by some.

Well, I don't think we're likely reach much agreement with people like Olde Europe or Wry Catcher, but I still think the most important outcome of defining a new constitution would be a clear description of the purpose and responsibilities of government. I'm curious how they would define the purpose of government, and how they would limit federal power, if at all.

Your curiosity can be satisfied by reading the Preamble to our Constitution. As I've said many times I view the preamble as a vision/mission statement. Of course I don't believe it has the force of law, but it defines the nature and purpose of our Federal Government.

Read it, it is much less "obscure" (I use the word ambiguous) then the Second Amendment.

Well, that's been a source of widespread disagreement, so I'm looking for more clarity. Got any?

This is the text: 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.

My interpretation is: The "United States" refers to the nation as a whole, not the "Respective States". The concept of a "more perfect Union" supports that. So when talking about domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare and the blessings of liberty, it isn't talking about isolated communities - it is talking about the nation as a whole. That is the entire point of setting up a national government. It is fairly clearly stating that this vision is not determined by the various states, but by the nation as a whole.

And here is where you and I differ because I have studied ALL the founding documents and know exactly what they meant by 'blessings of liberty' and they did not mean an authoritarian central government who would assign the people the rights they would be allowed or order the society that all were expected to have.

They certainly expected each individual state and/or local community to make different choices in that regard and the federal government would have no say about that.

A more perfect union was intended to mean that they would do it better than their original government structures had accomplished. A common defense is necessary to secure and defend the unalienable rights of the people from any who would deny those rights. The role of the government re the general welfare was to do what it could logically do to promote the people's ability to live their lives, enjoy liberty to be who and what they are, and pursue whatever makes them happy short of violating the rights of others. The general welfare was never intended to be interpreted as any form of charity or individual benefit at the federal level and they were meticulous to assign no such authority to the federal government as they saw that as a grevious violation of individual liberty and property rights.

you know a military base could be considered charity to one area over another. Any spending by government can. I just dont see how your ideas of restricting based on that phrase are practical or workable.

A military base can indeed provide an economic boost to a town, and certainly it strengthens our national defense by having them distributed across the country instead of all our defense resources being concentrated in one place.

But under my proposed system it will be much less likely that there will be any unnecessary military bases or other government installations/facilities and these can be distributed as equitably as possible among the various states on a per capita basis. The days of awarding a lucrative government facilitiy to an area because they kicked in the most money to the professional politicians will be no more.