CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[JakeStarkey]

Says who, MalBear? Once again, "The incorporation of most of the Bill of Rights by the feds is that the states failed to protect the liberties of all their citizens."

The 14th Amendment was passed to embed the Civil Rights Act of 1868 in American law, and SCOTUS has affirmed that many times.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ahem. This thread is not about what is in the existing Constitution. This thread is about what we would want in a new one. Unless an existing clause is retained and ratified in the new Constitution, all existing constitutional law becomes null and void upon adoption of a new improved version as will all federal law that is overridden by the new version.

In effect we are completely reorganizing a new and improve federal government for the United States of America....IF....we retain the federal system of government.

 

[Flopper]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you know, changing the constitution is very hard because of the votes and the time needed for approval. During this time congress and presidency could change several times. Even when the two parties were willing to work together on important legislation, it was difficult. Today, it would be impossible which makes this thread a bit of a waste of time and energy.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you know, changing the constitution is very hard because of the votes and the time needed for approval. During this time congress and presidency could change several times. Even when the two parties were willing to work together on important legislation, it was difficult. Today, it would be impossible which makes this thread a bit of a waste of time and energy.

And yet here you are apparently wasting your time and energy. Perhaps it would be okay to allow those who might enjoy doing the exercise a chance to do that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do we need a federal system? Can fifty sovereign states survive in a nation?

 

[rdean]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you know, changing the constitution is very hard because of the votes and the time needed for approval. During this time congress and presidency could change several times. Even when the two parties were willing to work together on important legislation, it was difficult. Today, it would be impossible which makes this thread a bit of a waste of time and energy.

And yet here you are apparently wasting your time and energy. Perhaps it would be okay to allow those who might enjoy doing the exercise a chance to do that?

It's a difficult exercise for the right wing. They always come up with things they "think" sound good, but are either impractical or total disasters. The deficit creating Bush Tax cuts. The Iraq fiasco (we will be treated as liberators), deregulation. Trickle down. They never seem to look beyond the surface. There is no depth. They have no sense of consequence.

Look at the new Iraqi constitution. What a folly. You know there was much GOP influence and input.

Look at Republican platforms in states like Texas. Pretty much says what they would do if given the chance.

 

[Foxfyre]

My number one priority for a new constitution will be to place a blanket ban on all private funding of election campaigns.

If you want to run for office you need to collect a certain number of signatures on a petition (depending upon the office) and then you will be awarded a fixed amount of taxpayer funds for your campaign. You will be held accountable for the funds and if you spend over the amount provided you will automatically forfeit the office should you win or be held liable to repay the funds should you lose. No outside entity can campaign on your behalf. Doing so will be a crime punishable by imprisonment.

My next priority would be holding elected officials and lobbyists accountable to the people. All meetings must be done in public with video and audio recordings. If any violation of this rule is discovered all of the parties involved will serve jail time. That includes the son/daughter-in-law who was given a job.

In summary all forms of bribery and corruption are to be treated as crimes punishable by prison terms of at least 10 years without parole.

I cannot support a government that dictates to the people that they cannot support whomever they choose for a legitimate public office. But what we need to do is adopt my Preamble that would limit what people could expect from the government no matter how much money they funneled into the campaign coffers.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no need for a 'new constitution,' nor is the Constitution in need of 'improvement.'

The Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition dating back to the Magna Carta and Assizes of Henry II, it is from this judicial tradition that the Constitution derives its legitimacy, in conjunction with the will of the people of the Founding Generation who ratified it. Indeed, much of the Constitution's case law is based upon this legal tradition.

The Constitution, therefore, is not a mere 'blueprint of government,' it is a document of the law that enshrines the principles of freedom and individual liberty safeguarding the civil rights of every citizen from government overreach and excess. That there are those unhappy with current Constitutional jurisprudence for subjective, partisan reasons is not justification to 'replace' the Constitution, as to seek to do so is unwarranted, reckless, and irresponsible.

 

[Judicial review]

Balanced budget amendment and call it quits.

 

[PratchettFan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I prefer the original language. I think it covers it nicely. BTW, there is no such thing as an unalienable right.

So what problems did I outline as misunderstandings of or issues with the original language do you disagree with? I hasten to add that my suggested Preamble is in no way offered as something engraved in granite. I hope a lot of folks will challenge it or support it or require me to support it or come up with something better.

I contend there ARE unalienable rights and these are defined as whatever we think, speak, believe, or do that requires no contribution or participation by any other. We might have to have a definitions section in a new Constitution to clarify things like that.

I don't think your wording improves anything and leaves a lot in question. For example, what do you have in mind when we provide for the general welfare without prejudice or favoritism?

What right would you consider unalienable?

Anything that does not require contribution or participation by another person is our unalienable right.

I did not use the word 'provide' the general welfare. But what I meant by promoting the general welfare without prejudice or favoritism would be reinforced by an iron clad provision in the Constitution that would prohibit the federal government from using any of the people's resources to benefit any individual, group, entity, or demographic that did not benefit all without respect to politics or socioeconomic circumstances.

I have no idea with you mean by "does not require contribution or participation by another person". Can you give me a specific example? Are we talking about suicide?

So you think it should be unconstitutional for the government to help anyone?

 

[PratchettFan]

Ahem. This thread is not about what is in the existing Constitution. This thread is about what we would want in a new one. Unless an existing clause is retained and ratified in the new Constitution, all existing constitutional law becomes null and void upon adoption of a new improved version as will all federal law that is overridden by the new version.

In effect we are completely reorganizing a new and improve federal government for the United States of America....IF....we retain the federal system of government.

I would say a more rational approach would be not to go backwards. If we are going to remove anything it should be the states. Rather than semi-autonomous governments, they should be provinces and all fall under federal control.

 

[PratchettFan]

Balanced budget amendment and call it quits.

With that in the Constitution, we could not have fought WWII.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We have shown above that we need a national government that can protect minority rights against invasion by majorities in the various states.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Constitution 2.0 does away with the concepts of States and individual rights or liberties

 

[JakeStarkey]

States rights, Frank, were used to deny civil liberties and rights because minority rights regarding the franchise were ignored for racial minorities and women. Majoritarianism correlates to the denial of rights for minorities or despised groups.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I prefer the original language. I think it covers it nicely. BTW, there is no such thing as an unalienable right.

So what problems did I outline as misunderstandings of or issues with the original language do you disagree with? I hasten to add that my suggested Preamble is in no way offered as something engraved in granite. I hope a lot of folks will challenge it or support it or require me to support it or come up with something better.

I contend there ARE unalienable rights and these are defined as whatever we think, speak, believe, or do that requires no contribution or participation by any other. We might have to have a definitions section in a new Constitution to clarify things like that.

I don't think your wording improves anything and leaves a lot in question. For example, what do you have in mind when we provide for the general welfare without prejudice or favoritism?

What right would you consider unalienable?

Anything that does not require contribution or participation by another person is our unalienable right.

I did not use the word 'provide' the general welfare. But what I meant by promoting the general welfare without prejudice or favoritism would be reinforced by an iron clad provision in the Constitution that would prohibit the federal government from using any of the people's resources to benefit any individual, group, entity, or demographic that did not benefit all without respect to politics or socioeconomic circumstances.

I have no idea with you mean by "does not require contribution or participation by another person". Can you give me a specific example? Are we talking about suicide?

So you think it should be unconstitutional for the government to help anyone?

Contribution by another person would be anything requiring the material possessions, time, talent, effort, etc. by another person. Participation would be anything one person does that materially or physically affects another; i.e. breathing second hand smoke or dealing with polluted water or dealing with an eyesore that reduce one's property values could be involuntary participation in an activity somebody else is doing.

For example, my stated belief in creationism or whatever or my 'controversial' letter to the editor or my stated opinion in support of traditional marriage or whatever requires absolutely nothing of your money, possessions, time, talent, labor, and has no material or physical affect on you in any way. I would be demonstrating what should be seen as my unalienable rights to be who and what I am because it does require nothing from anybody else.

In my opinion the law should protect my right to be who and what I am, when that requires no contribution or participation from anybody else,

And I do not believe power should be given to the federal government to help any individual, group, entity, or demographic that does not help all because it is dangerous for the federal government to be able to heap 'blessings' upon some while denying the same 'blessings' to others. When you give power to the federal government to pick winners and losers, ability to confiscate property from one for the benefit of the other, we have no rights other than what the federal government says we have.

"Helping people' should be left to the states and local governments to do if it will be done by government at all.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

States rights, Frank, were used to deny civil liberties and rights because minority rights regarding the franchise were ignored for racial minorities and women. Majoritarianism correlates to the denial of rights for minorities or despised groups.

Which is why we keep fighting against central government Liberal Fascism

 

[Foxfyre]

Ahem. This thread is not about what is in the existing Constitution. This thread is about what we would want in a new one. Unless an existing clause is retained and ratified in the new Constitution, all existing constitutional law becomes null and void upon adoption of a new improved version as will all federal law that is overridden by the new version.

In effect we are completely reorganizing a new and improve federal government for the United States of America....IF....we retain the federal system of government.

I would say a more rational approach would be not to go backwards. If we are going to remove anything it should be the states. Rather than semi-autonomous governments, they should be provinces and all fall under federal control.

Why?

 

[Anathema]

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

1. A listing of the Responsibilities of a Citizen along with the Rights of one.
2. Removal of Birthright citizenship
3. Clarrification of the unimpeded right of all lawful citizens to own, carry and use whatever arms they are capable of safely storing.
4. Specifying that the Rights of a Victim are more important than the Rights of a Criminal.
5. Removal of "cruel and unusual punishment" language.
6. Requirement of loyalty to nation before anything else (religion, family, ancestry, etc......)
7. Clarrification that protections in the Constitution are attached to US Citizens in the USA. Foreigners and US Citizens abroad have no recourse to expect such protections.

 

[Foxfyre]

Balanced budget amendment and call it quits.

With that in the Constitution, we could not have fought WWII.

Balanced budget amendment and call it quits.

I do absolutely think the new Constitution has to mandate that Congress cannot borrow money above and beyond what is absolutely necessary to deal with a national emergency and there must be a mandate in place that borrowed money must be paid off within a reasonable time period once the emergency has ended. WWII would have been such an emergency and once it was over, the government was responsible to repay those debts. But we also have to limit what Congress is allowed to spend money on period, else it will just raise taxes at will in order to spend whatever it wants even if there is a balanced budget provision in place.