CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Spare_change]

Sure you would. And end up in a jail cell and probably beaten to a pulp by the local police, who would never be prosecuted for it. But I asked you if you would think your rights were being secured. Would you?

You asked me the question ... I answered it ... And included the fact I certainly didn't expect it would have turned out well.

I also commented I would not use it as an excuse to let the Federal Government start dictating what people have to do in regards to issues they have no business messing in.

If you need examples of those issues ... I can supply them. If you want to suggest that the Federal Government should have the right to dictate local policy that infringes or distorts personal choice in regards malicious enforcement ... You are welcome to explain why you feel that is necessary.

Edit:
I have tried not to bring in additional issues and risk completely derailing the thread. It would be equally remiss to push the conversation towards how the Justice Department chooses the assert power in matters it has no business deciding and justifying their assertions on actions that occurred over half a century ago.

.

You answered but you didn't answer the question. I understand why you would not wish to but the answer is obvious. Of course you would think your rights were not being secured.

So we have the evidence of state and local government engaged both tacitly and actively in the denial of rights to its citizens. Not ancient history, this happened within the memory of people alive today and not that old. It is clear that local government cannot be trusted to secure the rights of its citizens because they did not. This isn't theory, it is recorded fact.

So exactly what is the rationale that the federal government is worse than local government?

Black Sand can certain capably speak for herself, but powers given to the federal government are far more dangerous to those the people assign to the states and local communities, because they affect everybody everywhere. There is no way to escape them short of giving up one's citizenship and leaving the country. And if the central government oversteps its authority and becomes oppressive, there is no way to oppose it short of civil war.

If you find Texas laws oppressive or not to your liking you can choose to move to California or some other state that fits what you want for quality of life better. The state is far more likely to be responsive to what the people demand of it and far more able to manage public resources and available funds responsibly in a way that suits the people of that state much better than a one-size-fits-all enormous central government can do.

One size does NOT fit all ..... ask my ex-wife.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I am sorry, this thread is offensive. The US Constitution is the oldest working Constitution in the world. No changes needed. The only thing that needs to be changed is the attitude of some American people...thinking that the Constitution guarantees them success without work or the other faction of Americans who think the law of the land only applies to a certain race or social status.

If we dont change this constitution we are heading for a downfall.

Various Presidents, Congresses, and the Courts have been changing the existing one for the last 100 years or so with and without amendments. I wish there was a way to restore the basic fundamentals intended in the original and stop that slow erosion.

You want to reinstate slavery?

Slavery was never intended in the original. Would you like to ask another silly question?

Slavery, AKA 3/5ths of a person, was written into the original Constitution as passed and ratified by all 13 states.

Your "original intent" claim fails since it includes slavery.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Translation: what you want is the Incumbent Protection Plan.

Non sequitur!

As if! It's like, Totally Sequitur, fo shizzle.

If you cannot be serious please refrain from wasting everyone else's time.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Translation: what you want is the Incumbent Protection Plan.

Non sequitur!

As if! It's like, Totally Sequitur, fo shizzle.

If you cannot be serious please refrain from wasting everyone else's time.

I was perfectly serious. Government campaign financing favors incumbents. They rig the game to hamstring the competition. If you can't see that, you are incredibly naive.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am sorry, this thread is offensive. The US Constitution is the oldest working Constitution in the world. No changes needed. The only thing that needs to be changed is the attitude of some American people...thinking that the Constitution guarantees them success without work or the other faction of Americans who think the law of the land only applies to a certain race or social status.

If we dont change this constitution we are heading for a downfall.

Various Presidents, Congresses, and the Courts have been changing the existing one for the last 100 years or so with and without amendments. I wish there was a way to restore the basic fundamentals intended in the original and stop that slow erosion.

You want to reinstate slavery?

Slavery was never intended in the original. Would you like to ask another silly question?

Oh, stop that! It was recognized and protected by the Constitution and the federal government, including the Founders.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Founders compromised on Slavery because if they did not, there would not be a stronger national government to protect commerce, which included slavery.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem is a permanent political class that exists for its own self serving interests to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

They only exist because unlimited money has been allowed to corrupt the political system.

I don't understand why you are ignoring the root cause of the problem in this nation. Why bother with a new constitution if you are willing to allow it be as easily corrupted as the current one?

That is why I am discussing a new constitution, to make it more difficult for people to corrupt it as the current constitution has been corrupted. Why do you care how much money is involved if it can't buy any favors or benefits for anybody? Instead of giving government the power to limit what the people can do with their money--this of course would give incumbants a HUGE advantage more than they already have--why not limit the government as to what it can do for itself? Take away the ability of those in government to amass obscene fortunes via their positions, and you take away the incentive for the permanent political class to be career politicians.

We would likely start electing honorable public servants again who go to Washington to serve their country instead of themselves, and who after awhile return home to work and live under the laws they pass for all of us.

 

[Spare_change]

I am sorry, this thread is offensive. The US Constitution is the oldest working Constitution in the world. No changes needed. The only thing that needs to be changed is the attitude of some American people...thinking that the Constitution guarantees them success without work or the other faction of Americans who think the law of the land only applies to a certain race or social status.

If we dont change this constitution we are heading for a downfall.

Various Presidents, Congresses, and the Courts have been changing the existing one for the last 100 years or so with and without amendments. I wish there was a way to restore the basic fundamentals intended in the original and stop that slow erosion.

You want to reinstate slavery?

Slavery was never intended in the original. Would you like to ask another silly question?

Slavery, AKA 3/5ths of a person, was written into the original Constitution as passed and ratified by all 13 states.

Your "original intent" claim fails since it includes slavery.

... which, of course, is a ridiculous, naive, and intentionally distorted look at the 3/5 compromise.

The question at hand was how the black community would be counted relative to representation and taxation. It was NOT - and was never intended to be - a stamp of approval for slavery. It was a compromise between the northern states, and southern states - the northern states wanted blacks recognized as citizens, but were concerned that the resulting shift in population dynamics, would swing the balance of power to the southern states. Many felt that the resulting swing would mean that slavery would never be abolished. The south, on the other hand, wanted the power, but were unwilling to pay the high taxes - given their agricultural economy.

The resulting 3/5 compromise was an economic and power compromise - not a stamp of approval for slavery.

In fact, it can be said that the Constitution was the first time that the humanity of slaves was formally recognized. Until then, they had been simply 'property'.

But, hey --- it's always fun to be morally indignant across a 240 year gap - and ignore the political realities of the time.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Government campaign financing favors incumbents.

Prove it!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact is that 3/5th compromise demonstrated that no one gave a crap about slaves as human beings.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A new convention would be torn apart by progressives, regressives, and libertarians.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The problem is a permanent political class that exists for its own self serving interests to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

They only exist because unlimited money has been allowed to corrupt the political system.

I don't understand why you are ignoring the root cause of the problem in this nation. Why bother with a new constitution if you are willing to allow it be as easily corrupted as the current one?

That is why I am discussing a new constitution, to make it more difficult for people to corrupt it as the current constitution has been corrupted. Why do you care how much money is involved if it can't buy any favors or benefits for anybody? Instead of giving government the power to limit what the people can do with their money--this of course would give incumbants a HUGE advantage more than they already have--why not limit the government as to what it can do for itself? Take away the ability of those in government to amass obscene fortunes via their positions, and you take away the incentive for the permanent political class to be a permanent political class.

We would likely again start electing honorable public servants again who go to Washington to serve their country instead of themselves, and who after awhile return home to work and live under the laws they pass for all of us.

We want the same objective but you are trying to "regulate" the symptom as opposed to dealing with the source of the problem.

 

[Spare_change]

The fact is that 3/5th compromise demonstrated that no one gave a crap about slaves as human beings.

No, that's not fact .... and, no matter how many times you say it, it still won't be fact.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am sorry, this thread is offensive. The US Constitution is the oldest working Constitution in the world. No changes needed. The only thing that needs to be changed is the attitude of some American people...thinking that the Constitution guarantees them success without work or the other faction of Americans who think the law of the land only applies to a certain race or social status.

If we dont change this constitution we are heading for a downfall.

Various Presidents, Congresses, and the Courts have been changing the existing one for the last 100 years or so with and without amendments. I wish there was a way to restore the basic fundamentals intended in the original and stop that slow erosion.

You want to reinstate slavery?

Slavery was never intended in the original. Would you like to ask another silly question?

Tsk, tsk -

You KNOW that, when responding to posts here, you are better served to ignore history, relevancy, and truth.

Just a tip to help you get along ....

Yeah, I know, but I just can't help myself.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Kewl; so MSNBC, the New York Times, and the ever credible Rolling Stone, can simply appoint our rules.

I see where this would appeal to you.

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.

Does this include meetings with unions?

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem is a permanent political class that exists for its own self serving interests to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

They only exist because unlimited money has been allowed to corrupt the political system.

I don't understand why you are ignoring the root cause of the problem in this nation. Why bother with a new constitution if you are willing to allow it be as easily corrupted as the current one?

That is why I am discussing a new constitution, to make it more difficult for people to corrupt it as the current constitution has been corrupted. Why do you care how much money is involved if it can't buy any favors or benefits for anybody? Instead of giving government the power to limit what the people can do with their money--this of course would give incumbants a HUGE advantage more than they already have--why not limit the government as to what it can do for itself? Take away the ability of those in government to amass obscene fortunes via their positions, and you take away the incentive for the permanent political class to be a permanent political class.

We would likely again start electing honorable public servants again who go to Washington to serve their country instead of themselves, and who after awhile return home to work and live under the laws they pass for all of us.

We want the same objective but you are trying to "regulate" the symptom as opposed to dealing with the source of the problem.

I disagree. You are the one wanting to control it via more government regulation. I want to control it by removing a whole bunch of power from the federal government to regulate.

 

[Foxfyre]

Government campaign financing favors incumbents.

Prove it!

If she has to prove that, you have to prove that limiting campaign contributions would result in better government. It never has in the past.

It is only logical that all things being equal with finances, the incumbent already has the name and face recognition and it is a lot more difficult for a newcomer to gain the attention of the public.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

Kewl; so MSNBC, the New York Times, and the ever credible Rolling Stone, can simply appoint our rules.

I see where this would appeal to you.

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.

Does this include meetings with unions?

Non sequitur!

 

[Uncensored2008]

If she has to prove that, you have to prove that limiting campaign contributions would result in better government. It never has in the past.

It is only logical that all things being equal with finances, the incumbent already has the name and face recognition and it is a lot more difficult for a newcomer to gain the attention of the public.

Name and face recognition, AND media coverage.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The problem is a permanent political class that exists for its own self serving interests to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

They only exist because unlimited money has been allowed to corrupt the political system.

I don't understand why you are ignoring the root cause of the problem in this nation. Why bother with a new constitution if you are willing to allow it be as easily corrupted as the current one?

That is why I am discussing a new constitution, to make it more difficult for people to corrupt it as the current constitution has been corrupted. Why do you care how much money is involved if it can't buy any favors or benefits for anybody? Instead of giving government the power to limit what the people can do with their money--this of course would give incumbants a HUGE advantage more than they already have--why not limit the government as to what it can do for itself? Take away the ability of those in government to amass obscene fortunes via their positions, and you take away the incentive for the permanent political class to be a permanent political class.

We would likely again start electing honorable public servants again who go to Washington to serve their country instead of themselves, and who after awhile return home to work and live under the laws they pass for all of us.

We want the same objective but you are trying to "regulate" the symptom as opposed to dealing with the source of the problem.

I disagree. You are the one wanting to control it via more government regulation. I want to control it by removing a whole bunch of power from the federal government to regulate.

Not in the least. Making the bribing of elected officials and the corruption of elections into criminal offences is not government regulation. It is enforcing the rule of law as apposed to selling out our representative to the highest bidder which is what you are enabling.