Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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
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.
Constitution 2.0 does away with the concepts of States and individual rights or liberties
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?
OK, I do disagree on the following.
Nor would I want it to have any jurisdiction over the states or local communities who might wish to organize a society to their liking that some other group might disapprove of. That is why we have the Bill of Rights so that majoritarianism cannot override the basic rights of minorities.
For instance, no state should mandate prayers or Bible or Quran or Torah classes in public schools as you appear to give the states to then it would leave the people alone to form whatever sorts of societies they wanted and live as they choose to live.
I disagree completely Jake.
The founding fathers MEANT for states to be able to have state religions if they wished. Hell, over half of the original colonies were founded by churches.
They SPECIFICALLY meant for the bill of rights to pertain to the federal government itself.
That's not me commenting on whether a state sponsored religion would be good or not, it's just me pointing out that when the COTUS was written, many of the states DID have such.
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
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.
When right wingers talk about changing the constitution, it's always about restricting rights of people they don't like. Minorities, gays, atheists and so on. Some how, the right wing thinks they are "better". They have this fantasy they built everything good in the United States. They freed the slaves and won WWI and WWII. They even know science better than scientists.
When right wingers talk about changing the constitution, it's always about restricting rights of people they don't like. Minorities, gays, atheists and so on. Some how, the right wing thinks they are "better". They have this fantasy they built everything good in the United States. They freed the slaves and won WWI and WWII. They even know science better than scientists.
When left wingers talk about exercizing freedoms in the Constitution, they tend to find things the Constitution does not address or want to limits things it does to those for which they think people should be able to do.
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.
What constitutes an emergency? What is a reasonable period? There lies the problem. You can't put in a prohibition because it is unworkable. But without a prohibition, then it is worthless. Under the Constitution, the Congress is the only branch which can declare war, which it has not done since WWII. How many wars have we waged since then?
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.
What constitutes an emergency? What is a reasonable period? There lies the problem. You can't put in a prohibition because it is unworkable. But without a prohibition, then it is worthless. Under the Constitution, the Congress is the only branch which can declare war, which it has not done since WWII. How many wars have we waged since then?
I would want a Constitutional provision that specifies that if we are going to engage in war, then we formally declare war. That takes care of that problem right off the bat. I would want the President to have authority to order our military to immediately defend us from attack, but I want only Congress to have authority to authorize deployment of our military to foreign lands for any purpose other than immediate self defense measures.
I want other nations to stop looking to us as their rapid response defense system. On the other hand there does need to be some diplomatic cooperation as having friends and coalitions is better for everybody than complete isolation.
As for what constitutes a reasonable time period to repay debt that we collectively owe, that should be something to be worked out.
As for what constitutes an emergency, I already specified that WWII would be such an emergency. When we are deliberately attacked, that is an emergency. When another nation declares war on us, that is an emergency. These are emergencies that affect the whole nation and not just regional issues that can be handled regionally.
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.
What constitutes an emergency? What is a reasonable period? There lies the problem. You can't put in a prohibition because it is unworkable. But without a prohibition, then it is worthless. Under the Constitution, the Congress is the only branch which can declare war, which it has not done since WWII. How many wars have we waged since then?
I would want a Constitutional provision that specifies that if we are going to engage in war, then we formally declare war. That takes care of that problem right off the bat. I would want the President to have authority to order our military to immediately defend us from attack, but I want only Congress to have authority to authorize deployment of our military to foreign lands for any purpose other than immediate self defense measures.
I want other nations to stop looking to us as their rapid response defense system. On the other hand there does need to be some diplomatic cooperation as having friends and coalitions is better for everybody than complete isolation.
As for what constitutes a reasonable time period to repay debt that we collectively owe, that should be something to be worked out.
As for what constitutes an emergency, I already specified that WWII would be such an emergency. When we are deliberately attacked, that is an emergency. When another nation declares war on us, that is an emergency. These are emergencies that affect the whole nation and not just regional issues that can be handled regionally.
We already have that provision and how many wars have we had since WWII? What constitutes an emergency is what the government says constitutes an emergency. If the government can't do that, then the government cannot respond to an emergency. It is all very well to try to create something that isn't going to end up with a situation you don't want, but that is quite literally impossible to do. Ultimately, the government is run by people and they are not going to stop acting like people. The same people who you don't approve of in the current system will be running the new system.
I really don't get the appeal of states. Why are you stopping there? Why not put the ultimate power with counties, or towns, or just set up blocks 10 miles square? At what point is the government small enough? Isn't the state government just a smaller version of the federal government within its borders. Why should Los Angeles County have to pay attention to what Sacramento has to say? Why should Harbor City have to pay attention to what LA County has to say? Why should the 12000 block of Pacific Coast Hwy pay attention to what Harbor City has to say?
No. We are one nation. We need one government, not 51.
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.
What constitutes an emergency? What is a reasonable period? There lies the problem. You can't put in a prohibition because it is unworkable. But without a prohibition, then it is worthless. Under the Constitution, the Congress is the only branch which can declare war, which it has not done since WWII. How many wars have we waged since then?
I would want a Constitutional provision that specifies that if we are going to engage in war, then we formally declare war. That takes care of that problem right off the bat. I would want the President to have authority to order our military to immediately defend us from attack, but I want only Congress to have authority to authorize deployment of our military to foreign lands for any purpose other than immediate self defense measures.
I want other nations to stop looking to us as their rapid response defense system. On the other hand there does need to be some diplomatic cooperation as having friends and coalitions is better for everybody than complete isolation.
As for what constitutes a reasonable time period to repay debt that we collectively owe, that should be something to be worked out.
As for what constitutes an emergency, I already specified that WWII would be such an emergency. When we are deliberately attacked, that is an emergency. When another nation declares war on us, that is an emergency. These are emergencies that affect the whole nation and not just regional issues that can be handled regionally.
We already have that provision and how many wars have we had since WWII? What constitutes an emergency is what the government says constitutes an emergency. If the government can't do that, then the government cannot respond to an emergency. It is all very well to try to create something that isn't going to end up with a situation you don't want, but that is quite literally impossible to do. Ultimately, the government is run by people and they are not going to stop acting like people. The same people who you don't approve of in the current system will be running the new system.
I really don't get the appeal of states. Why are you stopping there? Why not put the ultimate power with counties, or towns, or just set up blocks 10 miles square? At what point is the government small enough? Isn't the state government just a smaller version of the federal government within its borders. Why should Los Angeles County have to pay attention to what Sacramento has to say? Why should Harbor City have to pay attention to what LA County has to say? Why should the 12000 block of Pacific Coast Hwy pay attention to what Harbor City has to say?
No. We are one nation. We need one government, not 51.
We need a government to enact such laws as are necessary to allow the various states to function as one nation and to secure the rights of the people which does require giving government limited power. But the USA was not founded on a concept of empowering government but rather limiting government and empowering people by maximizing liberty and securing their rights so that they could govern themselves and live their lives as they wished. Such a federal system worked very effectively and produced the greatest nation the world had ever seen for more than 150 years. It was only when those in the federal government started drawing more and more power to themselves that it began to deteriorate.
We should keep the federal system as the Founders intended it because we have already tried that experiment for an extended period and found it to be good.
The purpose of a new constitution should be focused on restoring that concept and those principles and values that guided the original constitution.
What liberties and rights do you say the States failed to protect?
I'm just curious.
Why do some have so much confidence in government that they would advocate doing away with regional governments and entrusting a central government with all government power?
Can you put that into an easy-to-understand answer?
What liberties and rights do you say the States failed to protect?
Were you alive during the 60's and before?
What liberties and rights do you say the States failed to protect?
Were you alive during the 60's and before?
I was alive then. And I am alive now. Despite the issues and problems with the 40's and 50's, all of which would have been corrected sooner or later so long as the people were free to correct them, I can say without question that we had far more liberty to be who and what we are than we do now. We have far less government intrusiveness, far more potential for upward mobility, and life was pretty darn good for most.
You seem to presume that we would not have had all the problems we have had as a nation with a federal government in charge. I only point you to every other country in the world that has had a central government of whatever form and ask you to show me the ones who have not had to deal with issues of economic downturns, social strife, violation of human rights, and other problems over their histories.
