If the Constitution were yours to change...

[Quantum Windbag]

another biggie - I'd amend the Constitution to enforce a 'wall of separation' between the economy and the state.

How could that work? Currency issued by private interests? No national defense because you eliminated the power of the state to tax. No infrastructure improvements, in spite of constitutional mandates to build roads and harbors?

Off the top of my head, no bills to stimulate the economy, no attempts to regulate according to the pet theory du jour, and no bailouts of any industry.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How could that work? Currency issued by private interests? No national defense because you eliminated the power of the state to tax. No infrastructure improvements, in spite of constitutional mandates to build roads and harbors?

I'd start with banning the use of discriminatory taxation to implement social engineering. Abolish the Fed. etc..

It wouldn't be easy, just as it wasn't easy to separate religion from government. But we managed to do that (much to our benefit). I think we can do the same in an effort to separate economic power from state power.

But the state is as it should be, a major player in the shaping and promoting of the economy. Trade agreements, judicial protections for copy rights and corporations, minting coinage and currency and controlling the supply, public spending on defense and infrastructure.

If you want to eliminate all social spending you'll have to face the same problems that were dragging the economy down before they were implemented. Remember, social spending is a response to a problem.

It is easy to assume it should be, and then argue for there. Why don't you try explaining why it should be in the first place. Why should the state be able to force companies to pay for something that does not exist? Why should the state be able to take a cut of every transaction that occurs?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

... the state is as it should be, a major player in the shaping and promoting of the economy.

Well, that's the view I'm opposing. The state should NOT be a major player in "shaping and promoting" the economy. Just as it should not be involved in "shaping and promoting" religion, and for most of the same reasons.

The state is there to protect our freedom to create the kind of economy we want, not to tell us what to do.

The state shapes and promotes the economy by granting licenses to corporations, protecting intellectual property with copy right regulations, mints the currency and supplies it to the citizens, builds infrastructure like roads and canals and harbors, negotiates trade agreements with foreign governments.

Without these vital actions by the state, the economy would be reduced to a barter system with no means of foreign trade or interstate commerce.

I'm all for capitalism. But I recognize the necessity for a strong and vigorous federal government to make it work.

Intellectual property is a separate issue from the economy, one I can easily argue the state is screwing up without even raising a sweat. Can you explain what economic beneift the general population gets from the state licensing businesses? For example, why shouldn't anyone who is willing to cut hair be allowed to do so? Would the sudden influx of barbers suddenly throw the economy into a tailspin? Most licensing requirements are nothing more than rent seeking, and is designed to limit competition, which is supposed to be the antithesis of the goal of the government. Unless, that is, you suddenly think monopolies are a good thing.

By the way, the government might mint the currency, but the only reason anyone thinks it is vital is that it allows the government to track, and tax, everything.

And, for the record, all trade, even with government mandated currency, is nothing more than a barter system. The only people worried about barter are paranoid conspiracy theorists.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What changes, if any, would you make to it?

Index the size of government to the size of the general population and require a balanced budget. No deficits and no surpluses.

What happens when a natural disaster hits?

What did we do before the government busted their way into the mix?

 

[westwall]

What happens when a natural disaster hits?

What did people do before big government?

Had small governments.

They called them "Tribes".

Yes, and they were able to do just fine weren't they?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is a document under construction. I am sure that there are very few who would sign it in order to ratify it but it is just the ramblings of one old patriot.

I mentioned this in my rep, but the one thing that jumped out at me is the right to a jury trial in all civil cases. Right now the largest cause of the backlog in federal courts is the fact that a jury trial is required for all cases over $20. This is an enormous burden, and means that federal cases usually take years before they get to trial. It also lets people with money bury people without money under a mountain of paperwork. I believe it could be argued that it is the also the driving force behind arbitration agreements that prevent people from filing suit in federal courts, and the main reason federal courts like to enforce those agreements. (That part is speculation from a non lawyer, so, if I am wrong, please do not feel a need to get snarky in correcting my opinion.)

There should be a small claims court at the federal level that works the same way it does at the state level. This would reduce the burden on the federal courts, increase their efficiency and productivity, and save lots of money.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What changes, if any, would you make to it?

Personhood and the rights of individuals would be specifically limited to "natural born citizens".

Yes, that would exclude corporations and noncitizen resident aliens.

Shoot me.

Are you trying to tell me that people who aren't born here are not real?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The people of the country could vote to lend assistance or leave it to the state or communities affected. People used to help their neighbors in times of trouble and it worked very well. There are many things that could take place but each situation is different and it is up to the people to decide if it is important enough to use the nations funds (their tax dollars) for the repair of a community.

That would create a temporary deficit. Not that I would object, but others on this thread clearly would.

Not necessarily.

Not that I am completely against deficit spending to deal with a real emergency or a war, but it would be entirely possible for the government to sell bonds that are specifically earmarked for disaster relief, or even take up a collection.

That would, however, require the people who think pork is bad to allow an exception.

 

[S.J.]

What changes, if any, would you make to it?

Index the size of government to the size of the general population and require a balanced budget. No deficits and no surpluses.

What happens when a natural disaster hits?

Ever hear of community spirit? Big government has robbed us of that with their taxation and debt. We never had a problem helping one another (especially during natural disasters) until government assumed the role of big brother.

 

[PaulS1950]

Quantum windbag,
I like the idea of a "small claims" court - no lawyers involved and the two litigants in front of a judge or magistrate but where and how do you draw the line? Do you use a dollar amount? It will someday be out of date. Do you use a % of the average annual income? how would you "ensure" justice?

(since it is just my document I can change it easily) besides I like the input.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Quantum windbag,
I like the idea of a "small claims" court - no lawyers involved and the two litigants in front of a judge or magistrate but where and how do you draw the line? Do you use a dollar amount? It will someday be out of date. Do you use a % of the average annual income? how would you "ensure" justice?

(since it is just my document I can change it easily) besides I like the input.

It could be left up to Congress to determine every new session. The problem we have right now is the $20 threshold is written into the Constitution.

 

[Ernie S.]

I would strike out the words,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

 

[CrazedScotsman]

I would just throw the whole thing out and declare me, CrazedScotsman ruler of the world. Every time you address me, you would have to say, "King CrazedScotsman, most merciful and fair". If you don't, you are put to death immediately. The first law I would make is that everyone must wear their underware on the outside of their clothes.

 

[Ernie S.]

I would just throw the whole thing out and declare me, CrazedScotsman ruler of the world. Every time you address me, you would have to say, "King CrazedScotsman, most merciful and fair". If you don't, you are put to death immediately. The first law I would make is that everyone must wear their underware on the outside of their clothes.

I see where the name comes from...

 

[dblack]

I would just throw the whole thing out and declare me, CrazedScotsman ruler of the world. Every time you address me, you would have to say, "King CrazedScotsman, most merciful and fair". If you don't, you are put to death immediately. The first law I would make is that everyone must wear their underware on the outside of their clothes.

For the win!

I vote yes on Proposition CrazedScotsman.

 

[S.J.]

I would just throw the whole thing out and declare me, CrazedScotsman ruler of the world. Every time you address me, you would have to say, "King CrazedScotsman, most merciful and fair". If you don't, you are put to death immediately. The first law I would make is that everyone must wear their underware on the outside of their clothes.

No kilts?

 

[PaulS1950]

Quantum windbag,
I like the idea of a "small claims" court - no lawyers involved and the two litigants in front of a judge or magistrate but where and how do you draw the line? Do you use a dollar amount? It will someday be out of date. Do you use a % of the average annual income? how would you "ensure" justice?

(since it is just my document I can change it easily) besides I like the input.

It could be left up to Congress to determine every new session. The problem we have right now is the $20 threshold is written into the Constitution.

Except that there is no congress. I will try to figure a percentage of the wage as the break point. like 33% of the average annual wage? That would be slightly higher than $10000 today.

 

[CrazedScotsman]

I would just throw the whole thing out and declare me, CrazedScotsman ruler of the world. Every time you address me, you would have to say, "King CrazedScotsman, most merciful and fair". If you don't, you are put to death immediately. The first law I would make is that everyone must wear their underware on the outside of their clothes.

No kilts?

Kilts are stupid unless you are talking about the "Utilikilt" which is Awsome!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Quantum windbag,
I like the idea of a "small claims" court - no lawyers involved and the two litigants in front of a judge or magistrate but where and how do you draw the line? Do you use a dollar amount? It will someday be out of date. Do you use a % of the average annual income? how would you "ensure" justice?

(since it is just my document I can change it easily) besides I like the input.

It could be left up to Congress to determine every new session. The problem we have right now is the $20 threshold is written into the Constitution.

Except that there is no congress. I will try to figure a percentage of the wage as the break point. like 33% of the average annual wage? That would be slightly higher than $10000 today.

I have to admit I didn't read your whole post, so I missed that part. That alternative sounds workable to me.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If the Constitution were mine to change

it wouldn't be worth the effort to defend it or change it.