CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Foxfyre]

Only the lazy victims of propaganda and the truly ignorant and possibly neo-anarchists actually believe that today's bureaucrats are as capable of creating a Constitution as the Founding Fathers were. The rest of us concentrate our efforts to work within the system and make sure that our elected officials abide by the existing Constitution.

You are correct. Today's bureaucrats and the permanent political class cannot be trusted to honor the existing constitution and they regularly bypass it in order to increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth. Therefore, they should not be trusted with any pretense at reform because any such 'reform' they come up with would most likely benefit them more than it would benefit anybody else. They have also demonstrated that they don't care what reform any of us out in flyover country want. Most have demonstrated that they don't care what short range or long range negative affect what they do has on the general welfare of all. It is fairly certain they expect to have theirs and be long gone before it all finally hits the fan at which time whomever is unlucky enough to be there then will get the blame.

Any reform will have to come from the grass roots patriots who want a government that promotes liberty and opportunity first and foremost. I do believe this is the last generation that will have enough of those type of people to make a difference.

 

[Derideo_Te]

PROPOSAL:

Except for immediate response to provide security and help prevent immediately loss of life, the federal government will be prohbited from using the taxpayers money or obligating the tax payer to provide any form of charity or benevolence or entitlement to any person, group, entity, or demographic. Any such government activity would be initiated and managed at the state or local level only.

This provision would not prevent the federal government from receiving, coordinating, and dispensing personnel, services, and provisions donated by the states or private sector for ongoing relief efforts following large scale domestic or international disasters.

Congress shall make no law that does not alleviate the living and income conditions of those on the lower rungs of society most. Congress shall from time to time request and receive, from institutions with the required scientific skills, information on both the implementation of the foregoing principle, and the actual state of income and wealth inequality, and inequalities related to living conditions, as well as suggestions as to possible remedies to any inequalities, persisting or worsening, found to be detrimental to the General welfare. Congress is required to respond to, and act upon, this information and recommended remedies. Congress shall lay significant, progressive taxes on incomes above thrice the poverty level in order to narrow any persistent and widening gaps, and to correct historical and still persisting historical wrongs, particularly those arising, both historically and currently, from racism. Any federal spending to the benefit of any demographic shall go to the worst-off sections of society, or the worst-off quarters of the country, first and foremost, and to better-off sections or quarters only in inverse proportion to their being better-off.

Congress shall be empowered to regulate any activities that negatively impact the current and future well being of the people and the environment that falls under the jurisdiction of the rule of law.

 

[dblack]

Only the lazy victims of propaganda and the truly ignorant and possibly neo-anarchists actually believe that today's bureaucrats are as capable of creating a Constitution as the Founding Fathers were. The rest of us concentrate our efforts to work within the system and make sure that our elected officials abide by the existing Constitution.

You are correct. Today's bureaucrats and the permanent political class cannot be trusted to honor the existing constitution and they regularly bypass it in order to increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth. Therefore, they should not be trusted with any pretense at reform because any such 'reform' they come up with would most likely benefit them more than it would benefit anybody else. They have also demonstrated that they don't care what reform any of us out in flyover country want. Most have demonstrated that they don't care what short range or long range negative affect what they do has on the general welfare of all. It is fairly certain they expect to have theirs and be long gone before it all finally hits the fan at which time whomever is unlucky enough to be there then will get the blame.

Any reform will have to come from the grass roots patriots who want a government that promotes liberty and opportunity first and foremost. I do believe this is the last generation that will have enough of those type of people to make a difference.

This reminds me of the day after Obama was elected. After eight years of the Bush/Neo-con crowd, I confess I had some hope that Obama might shake things up. But seeing him on stage with his 'hand-picked' cabinet nominees, and seeing the same old cast of establishment cronies, I began to wonder who picked who. If we do ever manage to get momentum for a new constitution, or a convention on amending the exiting one, the last thing I'd want to see is a bunch of familiar beltway faces polluting the process.

 

[Foxfyre]

Who in Congress do you deem wise enough to determine who is and who is not 'worse off'?

And how do you equate liberty with giving the federal government ability to takes whatever it wants from private resources in order to remedy wealth inequalities?

Just about everyone not suffering from the impairments of, say, Gomert, or Cruz, or Graham, in a word, just about everyone who wouldn't consider reality an obstacle to their ideological agenda.

As to the latter, I plainly don't.

________________________________________________

The President, as commander in chief, will have authority to deploy the U.S. military and/or other security personnel as necessary and prudent to protect the U.S. citizens and/or their property from immediate threat or attack from foreign aggressors or domestic terrorism. Congress should be notified immediately of such action, and must give consent for other than immediate defensive action.

Any deployment of American troops into combat or hostile situations other than immediate defensive action will require consent of Congress, and no troops may be ordered into combat without a declaration of war from Congress.

The former paragraph I would edit as follows, and agree (deleted passaged in red):

"The President, as commander in chief, will have authority to deploy the U.S. military and/or other security personnel as necessary and prudent to protect the U.S. citizens and/or their property from immediate threat or attack from foreign aggressors or domestic terrorism. Congress should be notified immediately of such action, and must give consent for other than immediate defensive action."

The latter paragraph would render any humanitarian or peace-keeping mission in any area, where there might be even a hint of hostility, unconstitutional, and thus I would reject it as it is currently worded. If you wanted to express that the President should not be allowed to sent troops into a war in which the U.S. is one of the combatants (as opposed to, say, a mediating force or providing humanitarian relief) without a declaration of war from Congress, I would go along with that.

It has been mediating forces and the presumption of providing humanitarian aid that embroiled us in Iraq for all those years and kept us in a combat zone in Afghanistan for even longer.

Who do you trust in Congress or the White House to accurate describe the mission and/or use the exact words that are applicable to justify military intervention? Before you answer, remember that we were assured by our fearless leader and others that the ACA would require no new taxes and the revenue provisions in the legislation were NOT taxes. . . .UNTIL. . . .they had to be taxes in order to pass muster with the Supreme Court and all of a sudden they were taxes. And we can use many, many more such examples to illustrate the point here.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, the last thing I'd want to see is a bunch of familiar beltway faces polluting the process.

translation: I'd want pure communists only.

 

[dblack]

, the last thing I'd want to see is a bunch of familiar beltway faces polluting the process.

translation: I'd want pure communists only.

, the last thing I'd want to see is a bunch of familiar beltway faces polluting the process.

translation: I'd want pure communists only.

The purer the better, Special Ed!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, the last thing I'd want to see is a bunch of familiar beltway faces polluting the process.

translation: I'd want pure communists only.

, the last thing I'd want to see is a bunch of familiar beltway faces polluting the process.

translation: I'd want pure communists only.

The purer the better, Special Ed!

can the liberal tell us what about communism he finds so appealing?

 

[dblack]

, the last thing I'd want to see is a bunch of familiar beltway faces polluting the process.

translation: I'd want pure communists only.

, the last thing I'd want to see is a bunch of familiar beltway faces polluting the process.

translation: I'd want pure communists only.

The purer the better, Special Ed!

can the liberal tell us what about communism he finds so appealing?

Yes.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, the last thing I'd want to see is a bunch of familiar beltway faces polluting the process.

translation: I'd want pure communists only.

The purer the better, Special Ed!

can the liberal tell us what about communism he finds so appealing?

Yes.

if he could he would not be so afaid to try. What does his fear teach us?
Ever seen a conservative afraid? What does that teach you?

Why not go to some other websites, tell them what happens to liberals here, and invite them to come and help you??

 

[Olde Europe]

It has been mediating forces and the presumption of providing humanitarian aid that embroiled us in Iraq for all those years and kept us in a combat zone in Afghanistan for even longer.

With all due respect, Foxfyre, do you ever get out of that right-wing media ghetto? There's a whole world out there to discover that is remarkably different from that other universe your sources present to you as "reality".

Who do you trust in Congress or the White House to accurate describe the mission and/or use the exact words that are applicable to justify military intervention?

I think you are mistaken about the force of a Constitution to "legislate" honesty into the "fearless leader". Of course, some would even lie about threats and devastating weapon systems to get the war they so desperately want. There's no way a Constitution could prevent a thoroughly corrupt Administration swaying, in extraordinary circumstances, Congress to do its bidding. The only remedy to that is a first class media and an alert citizenry, and even then that might not be enough. All any Constitution can do is to distribute powers, institute some processes, conceive of some checks between powers, and establish some minimum standards of governmental behaviour towards citizens. The rest is, in a way, just hope you can keep the Republic, mostly because it is being respected and defended by the aforementioned alert citizenry.

 

[dblack]

, the last thing I'd want to see is a bunch of familiar beltway faces polluting the process.

translation: I'd want pure communists only.

The purer the better, Special Ed!

can the liberal tell us what about communism he finds so appealing?

Yes.

if he could he would not be so afaid to try. What does his fear teach us?
Ever seen a conservative afraid? What does that teach you?

Why not go to some other websites, tell them what happens to liberals here, and invite them to come and help you??

You go Ed!

 

[Olde Europe]

Congress shall be empowered to regulate any activities that negatively impact the current and future well being of the people and the environment that falls under the jurisdiction of the rule of law.

I don't quite know what to make of this, DT. I see where you are heading with it, but your language seems to empower Congress to regulate that which they have already the power to regulate or have already regulated (falls under the jurisdiction...).

As usual, the law of unintended side-effects applies. If, as I guess, you wish to see a more equitable distribution of wealth in the U.S., this would necessarily reduce the share of the pie the 0.1% take home, that is, Congressional legislation would negatively impact their well-being. Your language would thus impede any legislation aiming for a fairer economic system. I guess, that demonstrates the genius behind expressions like "general welfare".

I find it incredibly hard to find language mandating policy objectives in a Constitution. A legislature that doesn't possess the wisdom to take a long-term approach to legislation, with improvements in general well-being as their objective, won't be swayed by, or become any wiser due to, Constitutional language, I fear.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay folks both those on the left and right, a gentle reminder that this is the CDZ. It is not personal but I will ignore posts that focus on blasting one side or another of the political spectrum and the assinine comments about this side or that wanting something hateful as well as other ad hominem and personal insults. I will report the most grevous violations.

I am appreciating the few who are actually focused on the topic and are consciously or naturally following the intended CDZ guidelines. And I suggest that those who take every post they don't agree with as a personal accusation and those who cannot post without using ad hominem or personal insults go elsewhere or start your own thread out of the CDZ where you can say whatever comes to your pointy little heads or fragile sensibilities.

Now back on topic.

I know some of you have insisted that it is an unrealistic hope and will never pass Congress or the White House, but let's explore the pros and cons anyway. This is a thread focused on what we would want in a new and improved Constitution of the USA--what we think would clear up misunderstandings, fuzzy interpretations, and/or makes things better. So let's pretend it could be possible.

PROPOSAL:

Except for immediate response to provide security and help prevent immediately loss of life, the federal government will be prohbited from using the taxpayers money or obligating the tax payer to provide any form of charity or benevolence or entitlement to any person, group, entity, or demographic. Any such government activity would be initiated and managed at the state or local level only.

This provision would not prevent the federal government from receiving, coordinating, and dispensing personnel, services, and provisions donated by the states or private sector for ongoing relief efforts following large scale domestic or international disasters.

Pros and cons of this proposal?

if the Feds do it all then any serious blunder, like federal welfare, will destroy the entire nation whereas if a state does it a blunder will be limited to one state.

Yes. This is the argument I have been making all along. There is zero evidence that those in the federal government are one whit more honest, more noble, more competent, or less self serving that those in state or local government. But. . . the people of the state or local government do have power to change that state or local government should they choose to do so. And if they choose not to do so, they pretty well limit the consequences of bad government to themselves. And whoever finds the situation sufficiently unacceptable can move to another state more to their liking without giving up the protections and advantages of being a U.S. citizen.

At the federal level, the individual citizen is in a much bigger pond and therefore has much less individual influence. And if the federal government creates unacceptable conditions for the people, there is nowhere to go without giving up one's country. Among the concepts of liberty incorporated into the original Constitution was the concept that the federal government would not put that kind of pressure on the citizens. Short of allowing one segment of society to tread on the rights of another, the federal government would not be given the power or authority to screw up the ability of the people to live their lives as they choose.

It is that concept that I would hope a new and improved Constitution would restore.

And I believe the Constitution was intended to prevent too much power being invested in a large conservative government as much as it was to prevent too much power being invested in a large liberal government. The Founders quite accurately predicted that the more power the central government was given, the more power it would take until the people had essentially none. And it really didn't matter what the ideological makeup of the government was. Those holding power rarely ever willingly give it up and almost always develop appetites for as much more as they can get.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It is that concept that I would hope a new and improved Constitution would restore.

that concept= freedom from big liberal govt. It is the basic principle of the Constitution.


Thomas Jeffefrson:
-21)I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

-22)I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

-23)My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.

-24)Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.

 

[The Irish Ram]

The Constitution is the foundation of our Government's right to govern.
We are being told it is outdated, and broken.
Here is an example of what parts they think are broken. The part where you have rights.
The government isn't allowed to spy on us without a court order. They want to fix that. So the FBI discarded the Constitution and wrote it's own rules. Then they put up towers to extract all of the information on all of our phones as we pass by the towers. This is no accidental consequence, as they have built large data collection storage buildings to keep the information they have compiled on you.

For believers, this is a necessary step to carry out the Biblical prophesy that no man may buy or sell without the mark. The Gov. couldn't accomplish that unless they know everything you buy or sell. Medicines, food, sin taxed items, bank account deposits etc.

For nonbelievers, they are spying on you. If you passed a stinger tower today they know who you just talked to and what the two of you said. They fixed your broken rights for you.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Congress shall be empowered to regulate any activities that negatively impact the current and future well being of the people and the environment that falls under the jurisdiction of the rule of law.

I don't quite know what to make of this, DT. I see where you are heading with it, but your language seems to empower Congress to regulate that which they have already the power to regulate or have already regulated (falls under the jurisdiction...).

As usual, the law of unintended side-effects applies. If, as I guess, you wish to see a more equitable distribution of wealth in the U.S., this would necessarily reduce the share of the pie the 0.1% take home, that is, Congressional legislation would negatively impact their well-being. Your language would thus impede any legislation aiming for a fairer economic system. I guess, that demonstrates the genius behind expressions like "general welfare".

I find it incredibly hard to find language mandating policy objectives in a Constitution. A legislature that doesn't possess the wisdom to take a long-term approach to legislation, with improvements in general well-being as their objective, won't be swayed by, or become any wiser due to, Constitutional language, I fear.

It is short term greed (AKA the tragedy of the Commons) that is a major part of the problem that we have today. Real leaders have a vision for the future, an ability to clearly articulate that vision and motivate the people to achieve it. JFK's man on the moon speech is an example of that.

No, I don't know how you put that into a Constitution either but I do know that unfettered short term greed is a major problem that needs to be addressed and curbed. I am just as happy to use alternative means to achieve the same end. Raising taxes on both the corporations and the executives/shareholders who have harmed We the People and the environment until the situation is redressed works just as well in my opinion.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Constitution is the foundation of our Government's right to govern.
We are being told it is outdated, and broken.
Here is an example of what parts they think are broken. The part where you have rights.
The government isn't allowed to spy on us without a court order. They want to fix that. So the FBI discarded the Constitution and wrote it's own rules. Then they put up towers to extract all of the information on all of our phones as we pass by the towers. This is no accidental consequence, as they have built large data collection storage buildings to keep the information they have compiled on you.

For believers, this is a necessary step to carry out the Biblical prophesy that no man may buy or sell without the mark. The Gov. couldn't accomplish that unless they know everything you buy or sell. Medicines, food, sin taxed items, bank account deposits etc.

For nonbelievers, they are spying on you. If you passed a stinger tower today they know who you just talked to and what the two of you said. They fixed your broken rights for you.

The Constitution is the foundation of our Government's right to govern.
We are being told it is outdated, and broken.

Who is telling you that?

The government isn't allowed to spy on us without a court order.

That is correct and it was the previous administration that violated that law and yet was never held accountable.

Unless We the People demand that our elected representatives are held accountable under the rule of law this will continue to happen. This is not a partisan issue. It must apply to both sides of the aisle equally. If you violate the law you must be indicted and given a fair trial.

So it is not the Constitution that is "broken" but rather the will of We the People to hold our representatives to the rule of law.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is that concept that I would hope a new and improved Constitution would restore.

that concept= freedom from big liberal govt. It is the basic principle of the Constitution.


Thomas Jeffefrson:
-21)I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

-22)I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

-23)My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.

-24)Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.

Yes, but a battle of quotes isn't going to be useful to convince those who are enamored by big, faceless, 'big brother' type government. They can match you quote for quote with cherry picked lines that seem to contradict your pro-small federal government argument.

But I agree 100 percent that the INTENT of the U.S. Constitution of 1787 was to strictly limit the power of the central government to interfere in any way with the liberty of the people to live their lives as they choose to live them or to form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

So my hope is to restore that basic concept that has been gradually erased over the last 100 years or so.

And I don't think it matters whether conservatives or liberals are in charge. Those who gain too much power almost always develop an appetite for more and more. And will do whatever they can do to obtain it. And they rarely, if ever, willingly relinquish any of it but crave more until the people have essentially none.

 

[Olde Europe]

No, I don't know how you put that into a Constitution either but I do know that unfettered short term greed is a major problem that needs to be addressed and curbed. I am just as happy to use alternative means to achieve the same end. Raising taxes on both the corporations and the executives/shareholders who have harmed We the People and the environment until the situation is redressed works just as well in my opinion.

I am pretty much with you on all of the above. Yet, I guess we'll be lucky if we can, collectively, fend off efforts at dismantling even more of the Constitutional and legal safeguards against short-termist greed and profiteering. One of the main tools in the "dismantlers'" quiver is, of course, the perennial, shrill hyperventilation about government's oppressive and ever increasing powers in the hope that an ever greater proportion of the population will go along with restraining and curtailing governments, and - instead of those powers falling back to the people - the corporatocracy reigning supreme over the lives of We the People, our water, soil, resources, and the air we breathe.

 

[dblack]

No, I don't know how you put that into a Constitution either but I do know that unfettered short term greed is a major problem that needs to be addressed and curbed. I am just as happy to use alternative means to achieve the same end. Raising taxes on both the corporations and the executives/shareholders who have harmed We the People and the environment until the situation is redressed works just as well in my opinion.

I am pretty much with you on all of the above. Yet, I guess we'll be lucky if we can, collectively, fend off efforts at dismantling even more of the Constitutional and legal safeguards against short-termist greed and profiteering. One of the main tools in the "dismantlers'" quiver is, of course, the perennial, shrill hyperventilation about government's oppressive and ever increasing powers in the hope that an ever greater proportion of the population will go along with restraining and curtailing governments, and - instead of those powers falling back to the people - the corporatocracy reigning supreme over the lives of We the People, our water, soil, resources, and the air we breathe.

I'm on board as well, at least regarding your concerns over the "corporatocracy" and the exaggerated role of economic power. I think we can also agree that most dangerous aspect of this concentration of power is the influence it has over government. When economic power merges with coercive state power, tyranny is hard to avoid. But I think the solutions you're reaching for miss the mark, and will make things worse.

When our country was founded we faced a similar problem with the overbearing influence of religious power. And an important element of the our original Constitution was the recognition that past efforts to mitigate the power of the Church by bringing it under government sanction had failed; that they'd often made the problem even worse by combining religious zeal with political ambition.

The analogy here isn't hard to see. Trying to minimize economic power with state regulation is no more effective than, and every bit as dangerous as, giving government the power to dictate our religion. And it will bring on oppressive "corporatocracy" in the same way state power over religion would invite oppressive theocracy.

We need real constitutional protections from economic power. But they're going to look more like the First Amendment, and less like ACA. We need a 'wall of separation' that recognizes that the only way to keep the corrupting influence of business out of government is to keep government out of business, to prevent corporations from enlisting the coercive power of law to generate profits.

This doesn't mean business or corporations are 'untouchable', any more than the first amendment makes religions untouchable. They still have to abide by the same laws as the rest of us. But it does mean that government must be prohibited from legislating to promote, or persecute, economic "interests". It means government can't use the power of law to manipulate our economic decisions, regardless of the role we play (consumer, employee, manufacturer, employer, etc...).

We also need to re-examine the corporate charter, and re-connect the accountability chain such that those who profit from corporate excess are held accountable.