Debate Now I'm Leaving! Who Is With Me?

[Foxfyre]

You do see that centralized laws are necessary though, and the bigger and more complex the country is, the bigger and more complex those laws have to be. Otherwise, only the rich will control everything. We haven't even discussed the problems with corporations and how they aren't really concerned with the "GOOD NEIGHBOR" vibe that you seem to think your country will exude.

The New America I envision will employ a free market capitalism that allows all who choose to do so to prosper legally, ethically, and within their moral convictions. Under a regulated capitalism that keeps everybody as honest and ethical as possible, there is advantage to all for everybody to prosper. There will be a role for the federal government to regulate what the states and local communicates cannot realistically regulate, but that will be a teensy role compared to what the government is now.

Wow!

Did I read that correctly?

You are advocating for a well regulated capitalist economy?

Please expound on more of these advantages for the BCSA. I want to hear how you see this happening in real life. How will you constrain corruption and pollution?

Corruption and pollution will be local and state issues except in cases in which they cross state lines in a way that the states themselves cannot realistically regulate. For instance, the Rio Grande water is shared by Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas thus regulation of the Rio Grande, its general health, and how much water each state is entitled to realistically has to be managed by the central government. But aquifers and lakes wholly contained within a given state would not be within federal jurisdiction to regulate or control.

Also it must be left up to the states to determine whether a felon is to be allowed possession of firearms.

So if NM decides that convicted felons can have guns in their jail cells and one of them is to be extradicted to CO that doesn't allow convicted felons serving time to have guns who takes the gun away from the felon?

Wouldn't it be a violation of NM property rights to take it away before sending them to CO?

How will CO feel about having to take control over a fully armed felon from the NM authorities?

How many people do you imagine will uphold the right of a convicted felon to have a gun in his possession at all times?

What will happen when a convicted felon sues CO and claims that he has a right to bear arms?

Damn you're making things complicated. It would be so much easier to just say " Guns Good....Regulation Bad " . That wouldn't deal with all the problems that the country would inevitably have, but it would be easier for the silly people who might think this idea makes any sense at all.

I am pretty sure though that any who choose to join us in New America will want some assurance that the government will not infringe on their right to keep and bear arms. We probably won't put in the militia clause to justify it unless a good argument can be made as to why it needs to be there.

I could see the Second Amendment in the new Bill of Rights being phrased something like:

Congress shall make no law infringing on the people's right to own, keep, and bear arms for purposes of self defense of person, property, or community, or for any peaceful purpose.​

This would not prevent any local community or state to impose regulations re open or concealed carry laws, restrictions of firearms in bars, courthouses, etc. as they do now.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Wow!

Did I read that correctly?

You are advocating for a well regulated capitalist economy?

Please expound on more of these advantages for the BCSA. I want to hear how you see this happening in real life. How will you constrain corruption and pollution?

Corruption and pollution will be local and state issues except in cases in which they cross state lines in a way that the states themselves cannot realistically regulate. For instance, the Rio Grande water is shared by Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas thus regulation of the Rio Grande, its general health, and how much water each state is entitled to realistically has to be managed by the central government. But aquifers and lakes wholly contained within a given state would not be within federal jurisdiction to regulate or control.

Also it must be left up to the states to determine whether a felon is to be allowed possession of firearms.

So if NM decides that convicted felons can have guns in their jail cells and one of them is to be extradicted to CO that doesn't allow convicted felons serving time to have guns who takes the gun away from the felon?

Wouldn't it be a violation of NM property rights to take it away before sending them to CO?

How will CO feel about having to take control over a fully armed felon from the NM authorities?

How many people do you imagine will uphold the right of a convicted felon to have a gun in his possession at all times?

What will happen when a convicted felon sues CO and claims that he has a right to bear arms?

I would presume that Colorado would not agree to take custody of a fully armed felon. I give people credit for not being total idiots. I believe, as the Founders did, that a free people will much more often get it right than wrong. I don't believe that those in the central government are any more pure or noble or smart than is the average man taking care of his business and his family and being a good citizen in his community or those who choose to be public servants in that community. People have been doing the right thing without government telling them to for a very long time.

Noble sentiments in order to avoid answering this question?

How many people do you imagine will uphold the right of a convicted felon to have a gun in his possession at all times?

I don't know and really don't care within the context of this thread. I would guess nobody though. You've raised the issue, but I don't see that it is necessary to make that a component of a new Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I don't see it as a grievance that we have against the existing federal government.

So make your case for why that needs to be in the new Constitution if you can. What I think about it is irrelevent.

You raised the topic;

"Also it must be left up to the states to determine whether a felon is to be allowed possession of firearms."​

You also stated earlier that you wanted all rights defined in your BCSA Constitution which would include the right to bear arms.

All I am trying to do here is to determine where you are drawing the line when it comes to certain rights. 2A rights are a very thorny issue and if the BCSA is going to have 2A rights then you have just agreed that they will have limitations given that a majority does not feel that they should extend to convicted felons.

Given the above what other rights will the BCSA withhold from convicted felons?

 

[Foxfyre]

And the 'Congress shall make no law' needs to be fully restored as to what that actually means.

I want something in the new Constitution that gives Congress and ONLY Congress the authority to write and pass laws, subject to the President's approval with the ability to override a presidential veto as we have now.

I do not want any agency or other branch of government, including the President's office, any court including the Supreme Court, to have any authority to impose any rule, regulation, law, or requirement on the people that has any force of law--if Congress does not pass it and sign off on it, then it is not federal law. And neither the President nor the courts or any bureaucrat should be given any authority to change or alter any law that Congress passes.

We need to restore the concept of no taxation without representation, and insist that our elected representatives sign off on whatever federally imposed rules and regulations will affect our lives.

 

[Foxfyre]

Corruption and pollution will be local and state issues except in cases in which they cross state lines in a way that the states themselves cannot realistically regulate. For instance, the Rio Grande water is shared by Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas thus regulation of the Rio Grande, its general health, and how much water each state is entitled to realistically has to be managed by the central government. But aquifers and lakes wholly contained within a given state would not be within federal jurisdiction to regulate or control.

Also it must be left up to the states to determine whether a felon is to be allowed possession of firearms.

So if NM decides that convicted felons can have guns in their jail cells and one of them is to be extradicted to CO that doesn't allow convicted felons serving time to have guns who takes the gun away from the felon?

Wouldn't it be a violation of NM property rights to take it away before sending them to CO?

How will CO feel about having to take control over a fully armed felon from the NM authorities?

How many people do you imagine will uphold the right of a convicted felon to have a gun in his possession at all times?

What will happen when a convicted felon sues CO and claims that he has a right to bear arms?

I would presume that Colorado would not agree to take custody of a fully armed felon. I give people credit for not being total idiots. I believe, as the Founders did, that a free people will much more often get it right than wrong. I don't believe that those in the central government are any more pure or noble or smart than is the average man taking care of his business and his family and being a good citizen in his community or those who choose to be public servants in that community. People have been doing the right thing without government telling them to for a very long time.

Noble sentiments in order to avoid answering this question?

How many people do you imagine will uphold the right of a convicted felon to have a gun in his possession at all times?

I don't know and really don't care within the context of this thread. I would guess nobody though. You've raised the issue, but I don't see that it is necessary to make that a component of a new Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I don't see it as a grievance that we have against the existing federal government.

So make your case for why that needs to be in the new Constitution if you can. What I think about it is irrelevent.

You raised the topic;

"Also it must be left up to the states to determine whether a felon is to be allowed possession of firearms."​

You also stated earlier that you wanted all rights defined in your BCSA Constitution which would include the right to bear arms.

All I am trying to do here is to determine where you are drawing the line when it comes to certain rights. 2A rights are a very thorny issue and if the BCSA is going to have 2A rights then you have just agreed that they will have limitations given that a majority does not feel that they should extend to convicted felons.

Given the above what other rights will the BCSA withhold from convicted felons?

I want the states to have the authority to decide how to deal with felons. It is as simple as that.

This thread is focused on what authority shall be given to a FEDERAL or CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. How states should organize themselves and what authority they should have is a topic for a separate thread.

If you have a different point of view about that and want the central government to have more authority, make your argument for that.

 

[BULLDOG]

The New America I envision will employ a free market capitalism that allows all who choose to do so to prosper legally, ethically, and within their moral convictions. Under a regulated capitalism that keeps everybody as honest and ethical as possible, there is advantage to all for everybody to prosper. There will be a role for the federal government to regulate what the states and local communicates cannot realistically regulate, but that will be a teensy role compared to what the government is now.

Wow!

Did I read that correctly?

You are advocating for a well regulated capitalist economy?

Please expound on more of these advantages for the BCSA. I want to hear how you see this happening in real life. How will you constrain corruption and pollution?

Corruption and pollution will be local and state issues except in cases in which they cross state lines in a way that the states themselves cannot realistically regulate. For instance, the Rio Grande water is shared by Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas thus regulation of the Rio Grande, its general health, and how much water each state is entitled to realistically has to be managed by the central government. But aquifers and lakes wholly contained within a given state would not be within federal jurisdiction to regulate or control.

Also it must be left up to the states to determine whether a felon is to be allowed possession of firearms.

So if NM decides that convicted felons can have guns in their jail cells and one of them is to be extradicted to CO that doesn't allow convicted felons serving time to have guns who takes the gun away from the felon?

Wouldn't it be a violation of NM property rights to take it away before sending them to CO?

How will CO feel about having to take control over a fully armed felon from the NM authorities?

How many people do you imagine will uphold the right of a convicted felon to have a gun in his possession at all times?

What will happen when a convicted felon sues CO and claims that he has a right to bear arms?

Damn you're making things complicated. It would be so much easier to just say " Guns Good....Regulation Bad " . That wouldn't deal with all the problems that the country would inevitably have, but it would be easier for the silly people who might think this idea makes any sense at all.

I am pretty sure though that any who choose to join us in New America will want some assurance that the government will not infringe on their right to keep and bear arms. We probably won't put in the militia clause to justify it unless a good argument can be made as to why it needs to be there.

I could see the Second Amendment in the new Bill of Rights being phrased something like:

Congress shall make no law infringing on the people's right to own, keep, and bear arms for purposes of self defense of person, property, or community, or for any peaceful purpose.​

This would not prevent any local community or state to impose regulations re open or concealed carry laws, restrictions of firearms in bars, courthouses, etc. as they do now.

Without the new laws passed since our constitution, our country would not function. Do you foresee a ridged constitution that is unchangeable, or a fluid document that can adapt to the changing technology and needs of the people?

 

[Foxfyre]

Wow!

Did I read that correctly?

You are advocating for a well regulated capitalist economy?

Please expound on more of these advantages for the BCSA. I want to hear how you see this happening in real life. How will you constrain corruption and pollution?

Corruption and pollution will be local and state issues except in cases in which they cross state lines in a way that the states themselves cannot realistically regulate. For instance, the Rio Grande water is shared by Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas thus regulation of the Rio Grande, its general health, and how much water each state is entitled to realistically has to be managed by the central government. But aquifers and lakes wholly contained within a given state would not be within federal jurisdiction to regulate or control.

Also it must be left up to the states to determine whether a felon is to be allowed possession of firearms.

So if NM decides that convicted felons can have guns in their jail cells and one of them is to be extradicted to CO that doesn't allow convicted felons serving time to have guns who takes the gun away from the felon?

Wouldn't it be a violation of NM property rights to take it away before sending them to CO?

How will CO feel about having to take control over a fully armed felon from the NM authorities?

How many people do you imagine will uphold the right of a convicted felon to have a gun in his possession at all times?

What will happen when a convicted felon sues CO and claims that he has a right to bear arms?

Damn you're making things complicated. It would be so much easier to just say " Guns Good....Regulation Bad " . That wouldn't deal with all the problems that the country would inevitably have, but it would be easier for the silly people who might think this idea makes any sense at all.

I am pretty sure though that any who choose to join us in New America will want some assurance that the government will not infringe on their right to keep and bear arms. We probably won't put in the militia clause to justify it unless a good argument can be made as to why it needs to be there.

I could see the Second Amendment in the new Bill of Rights being phrased something like:

Congress shall make no law infringing on the people's right to own, keep, and bear arms for purposes of self defense of person, property, or community, or for any peaceful purpose.​

This would not prevent any local community or state to impose regulations re open or concealed carry laws, restrictions of firearms in bars, courthouses, etc. as they do now.

Without the new laws passed since our constitution, our country would not function. Do you foresee a ridged constitution that is unchangeable, or a fluid document that can adapt to the changing technology and needs of the people?

I would want a process for amendment of the new Constitution. But I want the initial document to so strongly limit the authority of the central government, that there is little or no opportunity to misinterpret the intent or corrupt it for self-serving purposes.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And the 'Congress shall make no law' needs to be fully restored as to what that actually means.

I want something in the new Constitution that gives Congress and ONLY Congress the authority to write and pass laws, subject to the President's approval with the ability to override a presidential veto as we have now.

I do not want any agency or other branch of government, including the President's office, any court including the Supreme Court, to have any authority to impose any rule, regulation, law, or requirement on the people that has any force of law--if Congress does not pass it and sign off on it, then it is not federal law.

We need to restore the concept of no taxation without representation, and insist that our elected representatives sign off on whatever federally imposed rules and regulations will affect our lives.

Consolidating all of the power in just one branch of government and restricting the other two to nothing more than approve/veto roles will results in unintended consequences.

For starters there will considerable bloating of the Houses of Congress since they will have to assume the roles currently assigned to the courts and the executive branches. That will be expensive.

Turning the executive into little more than a figurehead is not unprecedented but it comes with downsides. No longer will you need men of vision to lead the BCSA. Instead you will just after retired politicians sitting around doing ceremonial duties.

All real power will be vested in the Speaker and the Senate Majority leader. Therein lies your next quandry if they are not in agreement. Whose policies take precedence?

The Supreme Court will likewise become nothing more than appointed political hacks whose job it is to rubberstamp the Congress.

Going to be interesting to see who will buy into this. I can foresee a lot of legitimate disadvantages to removing the balance of powers in the BCSA constitution.

 

[BULLDOG]

Corruption and pollution will be local and state issues except in cases in which they cross state lines in a way that the states themselves cannot realistically regulate. For instance, the Rio Grande water is shared by Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas thus regulation of the Rio Grande, its general health, and how much water each state is entitled to realistically has to be managed by the central government. But aquifers and lakes wholly contained within a given state would not be within federal jurisdiction to regulate or control.

Also it must be left up to the states to determine whether a felon is to be allowed possession of firearms.

So if NM decides that convicted felons can have guns in their jail cells and one of them is to be extradicted to CO that doesn't allow convicted felons serving time to have guns who takes the gun away from the felon?

Wouldn't it be a violation of NM property rights to take it away before sending them to CO?

How will CO feel about having to take control over a fully armed felon from the NM authorities?

How many people do you imagine will uphold the right of a convicted felon to have a gun in his possession at all times?

What will happen when a convicted felon sues CO and claims that he has a right to bear arms?

Damn you're making things complicated. It would be so much easier to just say " Guns Good....Regulation Bad " . That wouldn't deal with all the problems that the country would inevitably have, but it would be easier for the silly people who might think this idea makes any sense at all.

I am pretty sure though that any who choose to join us in New America will want some assurance that the government will not infringe on their right to keep and bear arms. We probably won't put in the militia clause to justify it unless a good argument can be made as to why it needs to be there.

I could see the Second Amendment in the new Bill of Rights being phrased something like:

Congress shall make no law infringing on the people's right to own, keep, and bear arms for purposes of self defense of person, property, or community, or for any peaceful purpose.​

This would not prevent any local community or state to impose regulations re open or concealed carry laws, restrictions of firearms in bars, courthouses, etc. as they do now.

Without the new laws passed since our constitution, our country would not function. Do you foresee a ridged constitution that is unchangeable, or a fluid document that can adapt to the changing technology and needs of the people?

I would want a process for amendment of the new Constitution. But I want the initial document to so strongly limit the authority of the central government, that there is little or no opportunity to misinterpret the intent or corrupt it for self-serving purposes.

You think the US constitution has been corrupted for self serving purpose? Exactly which constitutional clause, or subsequent law adhering to those clauses allowed that? Please point out where and how that happened. As far as I can tell, each and every law passed has been with authority granted by the original constitution and Supreme Court agreement that they were constitutional. What I'm asking is what do you want to change in the US constitution. Which part do you see as defective?

 

[Derideo_Te]

So if NM decides that convicted felons can have guns in their jail cells and one of them is to be extradicted to CO that doesn't allow convicted felons serving time to have guns who takes the gun away from the felon?

Wouldn't it be a violation of NM property rights to take it away before sending them to CO?

How will CO feel about having to take control over a fully armed felon from the NM authorities?

How many people do you imagine will uphold the right of a convicted felon to have a gun in his possession at all times?

What will happen when a convicted felon sues CO and claims that he has a right to bear arms?

I would presume that Colorado would not agree to take custody of a fully armed felon. I give people credit for not being total idiots. I believe, as the Founders did, that a free people will much more often get it right than wrong. I don't believe that those in the central government are any more pure or noble or smart than is the average man taking care of his business and his family and being a good citizen in his community or those who choose to be public servants in that community. People have been doing the right thing without government telling them to for a very long time.

Noble sentiments in order to avoid answering this question?

How many people do you imagine will uphold the right of a convicted felon to have a gun in his possession at all times?

I don't know and really don't care within the context of this thread. I would guess nobody though. You've raised the issue, but I don't see that it is necessary to make that a component of a new Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I don't see it as a grievance that we have against the existing federal government.

So make your case for why that needs to be in the new Constitution if you can. What I think about it is irrelevent.

You raised the topic;

"Also it must be left up to the states to determine whether a felon is to be allowed possession of firearms."​

You also stated earlier that you wanted all rights defined in your BCSA Constitution which would include the right to bear arms.

All I am trying to do here is to determine where you are drawing the line when it comes to certain rights. 2A rights are a very thorny issue and if the BCSA is going to have 2A rights then you have just agreed that they will have limitations given that a majority does not feel that they should extend to convicted felons.

Given the above what other rights will the BCSA withhold from convicted felons?

I want the states to have the authority to decide how to deal with felons. It is as simple as that.

This thread is focused on what authority shall be given to a FEDERAL or CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. How states should organize themselves and what authority they should have is a topic for a separate thread.

If you have a different point of view about that and want the central government to have more authority, make your argument for that.

How do you intend to deal with felons that commit interstate crimes? Which state will take precedence when it comes to prosecuting? Which state will have to bear the cost of the penal system?

 

[Foxfyre]

And the 'Congress shall make no law' needs to be fully restored as to what that actually means.

I want something in the new Constitution that gives Congress and ONLY Congress the authority to write and pass laws, subject to the President's approval with the ability to override a presidential veto as we have now.

I do not want any agency or other branch of government, including the President's office, any court including the Supreme Court, to have any authority to impose any rule, regulation, law, or requirement on the people that has any force of law--if Congress does not pass it and sign off on it, then it is not federal law.

We need to restore the concept of no taxation without representation, and insist that our elected representatives sign off on whatever federally imposed rules and regulations will affect our lives.

Consolidating all of the power in just one branch of government and restricting the other two to nothing more than approve/veto roles will results in unintended consequences.

For starters there will considerable bloating of the Houses of Congress since they will have to assume the roles currently assigned to the courts and the executive branches. That will be expensive.

Turning the executive into little more than a figurehead is not unprecedented but it comes with downsides. No longer will you need men of vision to lead the BCSA. Instead you will just after retired politicians sitting around doing ceremonial duties.

All real power will be vested in the Speaker and the Senate Majority leader. Therein lies your next quandry if they are not in agreement. Whose policies take precedence?

The Supreme Court will likewise become nothing more than appointed political hacks whose job it is to rubberstamp the Congress.

Going to be interesting to see who will buy into this. I can foresee a lot of legitimate disadvantages to removing the balance of powers in the BCSA constitution.

I disagree. The courts were never intended to make law. They were intended to determine whether the existing law had been violated and/or to settle disputes in how the law should be applied. They were always intended to be the referee and never the coach. That is the role I want incorporated for the courts in the new Constitution.

The President was never given authority to make law but was given the power to veto a law he did not like. But his duties were assumed to provide leadership and vision, to be the 'face' of the people to other nations, to hammer out agreements and treaties with other nations, subject to the approval of Congress (the representatives of the people) and to be the CEO and administrator of the nation with responsibility for carrying out the will of Congress via the various departments and agency of government. That is the role I see for the President.

All functions of government, law, rules, and regulations should originate and be authorized by the elected representatives who are there to represent the will of the people.

(I will get into the best way I think will limit Congressional powers later.)

 

[Foxfyre]

So if NM decides that convicted felons can have guns in their jail cells and one of them is to be extradicted to CO that doesn't allow convicted felons serving time to have guns who takes the gun away from the felon?

Wouldn't it be a violation of NM property rights to take it away before sending them to CO?

How will CO feel about having to take control over a fully armed felon from the NM authorities?

How many people do you imagine will uphold the right of a convicted felon to have a gun in his possession at all times?

What will happen when a convicted felon sues CO and claims that he has a right to bear arms?

Damn you're making things complicated. It would be so much easier to just say " Guns Good....Regulation Bad " . That wouldn't deal with all the problems that the country would inevitably have, but it would be easier for the silly people who might think this idea makes any sense at all.

I am pretty sure though that any who choose to join us in New America will want some assurance that the government will not infringe on their right to keep and bear arms. We probably won't put in the militia clause to justify it unless a good argument can be made as to why it needs to be there.

I could see the Second Amendment in the new Bill of Rights being phrased something like:

Congress shall make no law infringing on the people's right to own, keep, and bear arms for purposes of self defense of person, property, or community, or for any peaceful purpose.​

This would not prevent any local community or state to impose regulations re open or concealed carry laws, restrictions of firearms in bars, courthouses, etc. as they do now.

Without the new laws passed since our constitution, our country would not function. Do you foresee a ridged constitution that is unchangeable, or a fluid document that can adapt to the changing technology and needs of the people?

I would want a process for amendment of the new Constitution. But I want the initial document to so strongly limit the authority of the central government, that there is little or no opportunity to misinterpret the intent or corrupt it for self-serving purposes.

You think the US constitution has been corrupted for self serving purpose? Exactly which constitutional clause, or subsequent law adhering to those clauses allowed that? Please point out where and how that happened. As far as I can tell, each and every law passed has been with authority granted by the original constitution and Supreme Court agreement that they were constitutional. What I'm asking is what do you want to change in the US constitution. Which part do you see as defective?

Your question is too broad and covers too much territory for a single answer.

The Supreme Court once agreed that slavery and segregation were constitutional, remember? The Court is not where we want to look for our values and principles.

As for how the Constitution has been corrupted, in summary I see a federal government that has long stopped representing the best interest of the people but exists primarily of a professional permanent political class that seeks to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth of its members at our expense, and that throws the people just enough bones to keep them voting for that permanent political class.

For a more detailed explanation of all that I will refer you to my "Extortion" thread in the Politics forum.
BOOK REVIEW EXTORTION How Politicians Extract Your Money Buy Votes and Line The US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But it is for that reason that a discussion of secession is now proposed as follows:

1. THE HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION TO BE ADDRESSED:
   
   You have an opportunity to participate in a process of disassociating with the current U.S. government and forming a new nation. Would you be interested in representing your state? No yes or no answers please. Explain why or why not and the advantages and/or problems/issues you would see in such a process.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And the 'Congress shall make no law' needs to be fully restored as to what that actually means.

I want something in the new Constitution that gives Congress and ONLY Congress the authority to write and pass laws, subject to the President's approval with the ability to override a presidential veto as we have now.

I do not want any agency or other branch of government, including the President's office, any court including the Supreme Court, to have any authority to impose any rule, regulation, law, or requirement on the people that has any force of law--if Congress does not pass it and sign off on it, then it is not federal law.

We need to restore the concept of no taxation without representation, and insist that our elected representatives sign off on whatever federally imposed rules and regulations will affect our lives.

Consolidating all of the power in just one branch of government and restricting the other two to nothing more than approve/veto roles will results in unintended consequences.

For starters there will considerable bloating of the Houses of Congress since they will have to assume the roles currently assigned to the courts and the executive branches. That will be expensive.

Turning the executive into little more than a figurehead is not unprecedented but it comes with downsides. No longer will you need men of vision to lead the BCSA. Instead you will just after retired politicians sitting around doing ceremonial duties.

All real power will be vested in the Speaker and the Senate Majority leader. Therein lies your next quandry if they are not in agreement. Whose policies take precedence?

The Supreme Court will likewise become nothing more than appointed political hacks whose job it is to rubberstamp the Congress.

Going to be interesting to see who will buy into this. I can foresee a lot of legitimate disadvantages to removing the balance of powers in the BCSA constitution.

I disagree. The courts were never intended to make law. They were intended to determine whether the existing law had been violated and/or to settle disputes in how the law should be applied. They were always intended to be the referee and never the coach. That is the role I want incorporated for the courts in the new Constitution.

The President was never given authority to make law but was given the power to veto a law he did not like. But his duties were assumed to provide leadership and vision, to be the 'face' of the people to other nations, to hammer out agreements and treaties with other nations, subject to the approval of Congress (the representatives of the people) and to be the CEO and administrator of the nation with responsibility for carrying out the will of Congress via the various departments and agency of government. That is the role I see for the President.

All functions of government, law, rules, and regulations should originate and be authorized by the elected representatives who are there to represent the will of the people.

(I will get into the best way I think will limit Congressional powers later.)

How is what you have just posted any different to what we already have today in the US Constitution?

 

[Foxfyre]

I would presume that Colorado would not agree to take custody of a fully armed felon. I give people credit for not being total idiots. I believe, as the Founders did, that a free people will much more often get it right than wrong. I don't believe that those in the central government are any more pure or noble or smart than is the average man taking care of his business and his family and being a good citizen in his community or those who choose to be public servants in that community. People have been doing the right thing without government telling them to for a very long time.

Noble sentiments in order to avoid answering this question?

How many people do you imagine will uphold the right of a convicted felon to have a gun in his possession at all times?

I don't know and really don't care within the context of this thread. I would guess nobody though. You've raised the issue, but I don't see that it is necessary to make that a component of a new Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I don't see it as a grievance that we have against the existing federal government.

So make your case for why that needs to be in the new Constitution if you can. What I think about it is irrelevent.

You raised the topic;

"Also it must be left up to the states to determine whether a felon is to be allowed possession of firearms."​

You also stated earlier that you wanted all rights defined in your BCSA Constitution which would include the right to bear arms.

All I am trying to do here is to determine where you are drawing the line when it comes to certain rights. 2A rights are a very thorny issue and if the BCSA is going to have 2A rights then you have just agreed that they will have limitations given that a majority does not feel that they should extend to convicted felons.

Given the above what other rights will the BCSA withhold from convicted felons?

I want the states to have the authority to decide how to deal with felons. It is as simple as that.

This thread is focused on what authority shall be given to a FEDERAL or CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. How states should organize themselves and what authority they should have is a topic for a separate thread.

If you have a different point of view about that and want the central government to have more authority, make your argument for that.

How do you intend to deal with felons that commit interstate crimes? Which state will take precedence when it comes to prosecuting? Which state will have to bear the cost of the penal system?

In my opinion, that will be left to the Congress to decide. I don't see it as necessary to write it into the Declaration of Independence or Constitution itself. So if you want it to be there, why do you think it should be in the Constitution and how would you word it?

 

[Foxfyre]

And the 'Congress shall make no law' needs to be fully restored as to what that actually means.

I want something in the new Constitution that gives Congress and ONLY Congress the authority to write and pass laws, subject to the President's approval with the ability to override a presidential veto as we have now.

I do not want any agency or other branch of government, including the President's office, any court including the Supreme Court, to have any authority to impose any rule, regulation, law, or requirement on the people that has any force of law--if Congress does not pass it and sign off on it, then it is not federal law.

We need to restore the concept of no taxation without representation, and insist that our elected representatives sign off on whatever federally imposed rules and regulations will affect our lives.

Consolidating all of the power in just one branch of government and restricting the other two to nothing more than approve/veto roles will results in unintended consequences.

For starters there will considerable bloating of the Houses of Congress since they will have to assume the roles currently assigned to the courts and the executive branches. That will be expensive.

Turning the executive into little more than a figurehead is not unprecedented but it comes with downsides. No longer will you need men of vision to lead the BCSA. Instead you will just after retired politicians sitting around doing ceremonial duties.

All real power will be vested in the Speaker and the Senate Majority leader. Therein lies your next quandry if they are not in agreement. Whose policies take precedence?

The Supreme Court will likewise become nothing more than appointed political hacks whose job it is to rubberstamp the Congress.

Going to be interesting to see who will buy into this. I can foresee a lot of legitimate disadvantages to removing the balance of powers in the BCSA constitution.

I disagree. The courts were never intended to make law. They were intended to determine whether the existing law had been violated and/or to settle disputes in how the law should be applied. They were always intended to be the referee and never the coach. That is the role I want incorporated for the courts in the new Constitution.

The President was never given authority to make law but was given the power to veto a law he did not like. But his duties were assumed to provide leadership and vision, to be the 'face' of the people to other nations, to hammer out agreements and treaties with other nations, subject to the approval of Congress (the representatives of the people) and to be the CEO and administrator of the nation with responsibility for carrying out the will of Congress via the various departments and agency of government. That is the role I see for the President.

All functions of government, law, rules, and regulations should originate and be authorized by the elected representatives who are there to represent the will of the people.

(I will get into the best way I think will limit Congressional powers later.)

How is what you have just posted any different to what we already have today in the US Constitution?

For the most part it isn't any different. But the government we have rarely follows the letter or intent of the existing U.S. Constitution and reinterprets it to allow them to do any damn thing they want to do. I would like for a new Constitution to make it much more difficult for them to do that.

That's why this thread was offered as an opportunity to hypothetically secede and do it more effectively in a new country.

 

[The Professor]

Well, there is this tiny obstacle to your plans:

United States Constitution

Article IV, Section 3

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislature of the States concerned as well as of the Congress...."

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, there is this tiny obstacle to your plans:

United States Constitution

Article IV, Section 3

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislature of the States concerned as well as of the Congress...."

Ah, but did you read the OP? We are hypothetically seceding from the U.S. government and will no longer be bound by the Constitution of 1787. We are deciding what we want the Constitution of 2015 to be for New America.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Noble sentiments in order to avoid answering this question?

How many people do you imagine will uphold the right of a convicted felon to have a gun in his possession at all times?

I don't know and really don't care within the context of this thread. I would guess nobody though. You've raised the issue, but I don't see that it is necessary to make that a component of a new Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I don't see it as a grievance that we have against the existing federal government.

So make your case for why that needs to be in the new Constitution if you can. What I think about it is irrelevent.

You raised the topic;

"Also it must be left up to the states to determine whether a felon is to be allowed possession of firearms."​

You also stated earlier that you wanted all rights defined in your BCSA Constitution which would include the right to bear arms.

All I am trying to do here is to determine where you are drawing the line when it comes to certain rights. 2A rights are a very thorny issue and if the BCSA is going to have 2A rights then you have just agreed that they will have limitations given that a majority does not feel that they should extend to convicted felons.

Given the above what other rights will the BCSA withhold from convicted felons?

I want the states to have the authority to decide how to deal with felons. It is as simple as that.

This thread is focused on what authority shall be given to a FEDERAL or CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. How states should organize themselves and what authority they should have is a topic for a separate thread.

If you have a different point of view about that and want the central government to have more authority, make your argument for that.

How do you intend to deal with felons that commit interstate crimes? Which state will take precedence when it comes to prosecuting? Which state will have to bear the cost of the penal system?

In my opinion, that will be left to the Congress to decide. I don't see it as necessary to write it into the Declaration of Independence or Constitution itself. So if you want it to be there, why do you think it should be in the Constitution and how would you word it?

Citizens in good standing with the law are entitled to own firearms for self protection, collections and sporting purposes only.

For the purposes of this exercise good standing with the law includes full compliance with all laws pertaining to firearms that could include registration and license renewals on a periodic basis.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And the 'Congress shall make no law' needs to be fully restored as to what that actually means.

I want something in the new Constitution that gives Congress and ONLY Congress the authority to write and pass laws, subject to the President's approval with the ability to override a presidential veto as we have now.

I do not want any agency or other branch of government, including the President's office, any court including the Supreme Court, to have any authority to impose any rule, regulation, law, or requirement on the people that has any force of law--if Congress does not pass it and sign off on it, then it is not federal law.

We need to restore the concept of no taxation without representation, and insist that our elected representatives sign off on whatever federally imposed rules and regulations will affect our lives.

Consolidating all of the power in just one branch of government and restricting the other two to nothing more than approve/veto roles will results in unintended consequences.

For starters there will considerable bloating of the Houses of Congress since they will have to assume the roles currently assigned to the courts and the executive branches. That will be expensive.

Turning the executive into little more than a figurehead is not unprecedented but it comes with downsides. No longer will you need men of vision to lead the BCSA. Instead you will just after retired politicians sitting around doing ceremonial duties.

All real power will be vested in the Speaker and the Senate Majority leader. Therein lies your next quandry if they are not in agreement. Whose policies take precedence?

The Supreme Court will likewise become nothing more than appointed political hacks whose job it is to rubberstamp the Congress.

Going to be interesting to see who will buy into this. I can foresee a lot of legitimate disadvantages to removing the balance of powers in the BCSA constitution.

I disagree. The courts were never intended to make law. They were intended to determine whether the existing law had been violated and/or to settle disputes in how the law should be applied. They were always intended to be the referee and never the coach. That is the role I want incorporated for the courts in the new Constitution.

The President was never given authority to make law but was given the power to veto a law he did not like. But his duties were assumed to provide leadership and vision, to be the 'face' of the people to other nations, to hammer out agreements and treaties with other nations, subject to the approval of Congress (the representatives of the people) and to be the CEO and administrator of the nation with responsibility for carrying out the will of Congress via the various departments and agency of government. That is the role I see for the President.

All functions of government, law, rules, and regulations should originate and be authorized by the elected representatives who are there to represent the will of the people.

(I will get into the best way I think will limit Congressional powers later.)

How is what you have just posted any different to what we already have today in the US Constitution?

For the most part it isn't any different. But the government we have rarely follows the letter or intent of the existing U.S. Constitution and reinterprets it to allow them to do any damn thing they want to do. I would like for a new Constitution to make it much more difficult for them to do that.

That's why this thread was offered as an opportunity to hypothetically secede and do it more effectively in a new country.

You are making allegations without substantiation. Where has the government failed to follow the letter or the intent of the Constitution? When has it "reinterpreted" the Constitution? Surely if these things happened there would have been lawsuits filed and redress would have occurred.

Yes, we have seen bogus partisan posturing lawsuits that have no merit but nothing substantive.

What do you have that backs up your position in this regard?

 

[Foxfyre]

And the 'Congress shall make no law' needs to be fully restored as to what that actually means.

I want something in the new Constitution that gives Congress and ONLY Congress the authority to write and pass laws, subject to the President's approval with the ability to override a presidential veto as we have now.

I do not want any agency or other branch of government, including the President's office, any court including the Supreme Court, to have any authority to impose any rule, regulation, law, or requirement on the people that has any force of law--if Congress does not pass it and sign off on it, then it is not federal law.

We need to restore the concept of no taxation without representation, and insist that our elected representatives sign off on whatever federally imposed rules and regulations will affect our lives.

Consolidating all of the power in just one branch of government and restricting the other two to nothing more than approve/veto roles will results in unintended consequences.

For starters there will considerable bloating of the Houses of Congress since they will have to assume the roles currently assigned to the courts and the executive branches. That will be expensive.

Turning the executive into little more than a figurehead is not unprecedented but it comes with downsides. No longer will you need men of vision to lead the BCSA. Instead you will just after retired politicians sitting around doing ceremonial duties.

All real power will be vested in the Speaker and the Senate Majority leader. Therein lies your next quandry if they are not in agreement. Whose policies take precedence?

The Supreme Court will likewise become nothing more than appointed political hacks whose job it is to rubberstamp the Congress.

Going to be interesting to see who will buy into this. I can foresee a lot of legitimate disadvantages to removing the balance of powers in the BCSA constitution.

I disagree. The courts were never intended to make law. They were intended to determine whether the existing law had been violated and/or to settle disputes in how the law should be applied. They were always intended to be the referee and never the coach. That is the role I want incorporated for the courts in the new Constitution.

The President was never given authority to make law but was given the power to veto a law he did not like. But his duties were assumed to provide leadership and vision, to be the 'face' of the people to other nations, to hammer out agreements and treaties with other nations, subject to the approval of Congress (the representatives of the people) and to be the CEO and administrator of the nation with responsibility for carrying out the will of Congress via the various departments and agency of government. That is the role I see for the President.

All functions of government, law, rules, and regulations should originate and be authorized by the elected representatives who are there to represent the will of the people.

(I will get into the best way I think will limit Congressional powers later.)

How is what you have just posted any different to what we already have today in the US Constitution?

For the most part it isn't any different. But the government we have rarely follows the letter or intent of the existing U.S. Constitution and reinterprets it to allow them to do any damn thing they want to do. I would like for a new Constitution to make it much more difficult for them to do that.

That's why this thread was offered as an opportunity to hypothetically secede and do it more effectively in a new country.

You are making allegations without substantiation. Where has the government failed to follow the letter or the intent of the Constitution? When has it "reinterpreted" the Constitution? Surely if these things happened there would have been lawsuits filed and redress would have occurred.

Yes, we have seen bogus partisan posturing lawsuits that have no merit but nothing substantive.

What do you have that backs up your position in this regard?

I'll refer you to my "Extortion" thread I linked earlier.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know and really don't care within the context of this thread. I would guess nobody though. You've raised the issue, but I don't see that it is necessary to make that a component of a new Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I don't see it as a grievance that we have against the existing federal government.

So make your case for why that needs to be in the new Constitution if you can. What I think about it is irrelevent.

You raised the topic;

"Also it must be left up to the states to determine whether a felon is to be allowed possession of firearms."​

You also stated earlier that you wanted all rights defined in your BCSA Constitution which would include the right to bear arms.

All I am trying to do here is to determine where you are drawing the line when it comes to certain rights. 2A rights are a very thorny issue and if the BCSA is going to have 2A rights then you have just agreed that they will have limitations given that a majority does not feel that they should extend to convicted felons.

Given the above what other rights will the BCSA withhold from convicted felons?

I want the states to have the authority to decide how to deal with felons. It is as simple as that.

This thread is focused on what authority shall be given to a FEDERAL or CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. How states should organize themselves and what authority they should have is a topic for a separate thread.

If you have a different point of view about that and want the central government to have more authority, make your argument for that.

How do you intend to deal with felons that commit interstate crimes? Which state will take precedence when it comes to prosecuting? Which state will have to bear the cost of the penal system?

In my opinion, that will be left to the Congress to decide. I don't see it as necessary to write it into the Declaration of Independence or Constitution itself. So if you want it to be there, why do you think it should be in the Constitution and how would you word it?

Citizens in good standing with the law are entitled to own firearms for self protection, collections and sporting purposes only.

For the purposes of this exercise good standing with the law includes full compliance with all laws pertaining to firearms that could include registration and license renewals on a periodic basis.

I think the Second Amendment intended much more than firearms for self protection, collections, and sporting purposes. For sure the equivalent amendment in a new constitution I would agree to will intend much more than that.