The Constitution - as written - can it be better?

[blackhawk]

Can it be better maybe but who do you really trust in this day and age not to make it worse in a attempt to make it better?

I trust the people.

Would that be the same people who gave us Bush and now Obama for eight years?

 

[dblack]

The anti federlists also predicted that a centralized government would eventually overstep the bounds of the constitution - and they have been proven right - even with all the checks and balances in place.
Congress should never have been given the power to fix their own salaries - who would run a business like that?

Nonsense.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied, it has overstepped no bounds.

In my view, Congress and the office of the President have, in fact, vastly overstepped the scope and reach of their enumerated powers - not from any "originalist" perspective, but merely from a sober reading of the words as written. The fact that "case law" and the status quo of judicial interpretation have strayed so far away from the those words is the problem.

If we needed to increase the power of the federal government, we should done so with legitimate amendments to the Constitution. But instead, we took the "easy" route and in the process gutted the Constitution's ability to reasonably constrain government power.

 

[dblack]

All acts of Congress are Constitutional until a court rules otherwise, no laws have been passed that ‘only serve to restrict our rights.’ If you believe this to be the case then file suit in Federal court challenging those law you believe violate our civil liberties.

Not to nitpick, but...

While the Court traditionally rules on matters of constitutionality, they don't define it. That's a subtle, but real, distinction.

 

[richstacy]

Our founding documents are almost unique in history in that they were written by a group of selfless political philosophers who were inventing an entirely new form of government. Understandably, their biggest failing was not foreseeing the subsequent rise of political partisanship, led by Thomas Jefferson.

Americans should face it, those selfless political philophers had economics as one of their goals. Economics was one of the primary reasons for the writing of the constitution. Jefferson was part of the group that wanted to make the constitution less selfish and give the new nation even more liberty. Political parties began forming before the Constitution was even ratified, liberals insisting a Bill of Rights be added or they would not sign off. The Declaration of Independence was probably more liberal than the constitution, but the Declaration had a propaganda purpose.

OK Regent as long as it is understood that your use of the term liberal is not the same as the term is understood today. The liberals of today want to stifle the freedom envisioned by the founders and practiced by Americans even today, by over taxing us, over regulating us, substituting the omniscient power of a huge government and bureaucracy for individual responisbility, and redistributing wealth form those who have worked hard to earn something for themselves and their children to those who feel entitled to the fruits of the labor of others.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Constitution can and has been rewritten to protect more individual freedoms.

Not take them away.

 

[Snookie]

Vox populi vox deus.

That's the basic premise behind the concept of demoracy.

Note that we do not live in a democracy?

the trouble with democracy is that it is run by people who WANT power.

The very fact that they want power ought to make them ineligble to have it.

The constitution has changed from it's priginal tenants. We are much closer to becoming a form of democracy as when it was first written.

Most people could not even vote and senators were not elected by the people,

It's part of evololution. Time changes things and things change over time.

No it hasn't. It is scary how few people understand the whole point of the constitution is to protect people from the tyranny of the majority. Please go read the Federalist papers.

I do think switching the House of Representatives to proportional system would actually help our freedoms. With two majority parties it is two easy for the powerful to control the reins of power and stifle any debate. A proportional government with Ron Paul as the head of the libertarian group would have opposed and checked some of the abuses of power we have seen from both Bush and Obama.

I've read the federalist papers. They are passe in today's society.

Besides the federalist papers have no legal powers. The writings look good on paper but, meh.

 

[richstacy]

The anti federlists also predicted that a centralized government would eventually overstep the bounds of the constitution - and they have been proven right - even with all the checks and balances in place.
Congress should never have been given the power to fix their own salaries - who would run a business like that?

Nonsense.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied, it has overstepped no bounds.

In my view, Congress and the office of the President have, in fact, vastly overstepped the scope and reach of their enumerated powers - not from any "originalist" perspective, but merely from a sober reading of the words as written. The fact that "case law" and the status quo of judicial interpretation have strayed so far away from the those words is the problem.

If we needed to increase the power of the federal government, we should done so with legitimate amendments to the Constitution. But instead, we took the "easy" route and in the process gutted the Constitution's ability to reasonably constrain government power.

And yet D Black, We have the ability to replace the president every 4 years, completely replace the Congress every six year and the house and 1/3 of the Senate every two years. I f they are not doing it to suit us -- we have no one to blame but ourselves.

 

[richstacy]

The anti federlists also predicted that a centralized government would eventually overstep the bounds of the constitution - and they have been proven right - even with all the checks and balances in place.
Congress should never have been given the power to fix their own salaries - who would run a business like that?

Who would run a business like that? Who pray tell do you think sets the outrageously high salaries for the CEOs who run their companies into the ground to the detriment of all of us? The answer to your question is that every business is run like that.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Our founding documents are almost unique in history in that they were written by a group of selfless political philosophers who were inventing an entirely new form of government. Understandably, their biggest failing was not foreseeing the subsequent rise of political partisanship, led by Thomas Jefferson.

Actually, they DID see the subsequent rise of political partisanship and predicted the end of the United States at the signing of the Constitution. We have proven that the predictions were true and have reached the end of the nation now.

We don't often agree, but on this there is no doubt. The quote from John Adams in my signature is one of my favorite demonstrations of this realization.

 

[richstacy]

The problems with Consitutional Fundmentalism are rather obvious. Those who believe in this political theory, unlike the founding fathers, must believe that the 1789 consitution was perfect AND perfectly obvious, too.

That belief system presumes that the words in that document are not subject to interpretation. They are obviously wrong, That is why the founding fathers created the SCOTUS. To interpret what the words on the paper actually mean and how our government is meant to carry out the principles in that document.

The other problem ought to be obvious, too. The 1789 constiution sanctioned slavery with the 3/5th clause and it failed to grant the franchise to women, too.

So the next time sombebody tells you that they believe in the literal interpretation of the original US constitution, ask them if they also believe that we need to literally follow the 3/5th clause.


"Representative and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several
States which may be included within this Union, according to their
respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole
Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of
Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons."

But the things you complain about, slavery, the 3/5 clause, the lack of the vote for women, are long gone relics of the past. The Constitution is a flexible document capable of changing with the times. the truly important things, Freedom of speech and religion the right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizure, the right to bear arms, the checks and balances that prevent one branch of government form overwhelming the others must remain solid. If we are not bright enough to preserve those basic rights then we don't deserve to endure as a nation.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Our founding documents are almost unique in history in that they were written by a group of selfless political philosophers who were inventing an entirely new form of government. Understandably, their biggest failing was not foreseeing the subsequent rise of political partisanship, led by Thomas Jefferson.

They were anything BUT selfless. Nor were they inventing an entirely new form of government.

And, if you really want to meet a true "partisan", meet Mr James Madison.

What is understandable is that we tend to idolize and mythologize those people. We would do them a real honor if we looked on them as exactly what they were. Whether or not we like it or want to admit it, they were true progressives, the most liberal of their time while being a product of their time. That's why they were able to talk about "justice for all" while owning slaves and looking on women as chattel.

As for the OP, the only thing I can think of that's "wrong" with our constitution is that its outdated. That's not a bad thing, its simply fact that they could not have foreseen how their words would be interpreted today.

richstacy

... the truly important things, Freedom of speech and religion the right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizure, the right to bear arms, the checks and balances that prevent one branch of government form overwhelming the others must remain solid. If we are not bright enough to preserve those basic rights then we don't deserve to endure as a nation.

Too late. We're throwing them away with both hands.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Interesting thread. Some changes that would make the US stronger immediately...

1. Federal and state taxation on income from all sources shall not exceed 5% on income up to income equal to the national average income of the bottom 95% of earners, nor shall federal and state taxation on income from all sources exceed 15% income up to and equal to an amount double the national average income of the bottom 95% of earners in the US. Income above the latter amount shall be taxed at rates determined by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and a majority vote of the Senate and signed by the president or approved by 2/3 majority votes in the House and the Senate.

2. Only natural born citizens shall enjoy protection under the first ten amendments and in no case shall the rights of natural born citizens be secondary to private sector entities organized for any reason including but not limited to religion, commerce, finance or culture.

2.a. For all purposes in state and federal law, life shall begin with the first breath outside the womb and not before.

2.b. Every citizen shall present themselves for two years of national duty beginning not before the ages of seventeen nor late than the end of their twentieth year for forms of national service to be determined by the federal government, including but not limited to military service. In peacetime, said service may at the discretion of the federal government be waived.

3. No entity organized for the purpose of commerce including but not limited to finance, trade or other commerce shall have equal rights with natural born citizens except as approved by individual statewide referendums binding only inside said jurisdictions; nor, even when such exceptions be granted shall any commercial entity engage in political activity including giving money or gifts in kind to political persons or parties, period. Breach of this law followed by conviction shall be punishable only by death of organizational executive leadership followed by seizure of all of each of their assets including family assets as well as donations, gifts and recoverable transfers in kind to others in the ten years preceding date of charges.

 

[Snookie]

Interesting thread. Some changes that would make the US stronger immediately...

1. Federal and state taxation on income from all sources shall not exceed 5% on income up to income equal to the national average income of the bottom 95% of earners, nor shall federal and state taxation on income from all sources exceed 15% income up to and equal to an amount double the national average income of the bottom 95% of earners in the US. Income above the latter amount shall be taxed at rates determined by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and a majority vote of the Senate and signed by the president or approved by 2/3 majority votes in the House and the Senate.

2. Only natural born citizens shall enjoy protection under the first ten amendments and in no case shall the rights of natural born citizens be secondary to private sector entities organized for any reason including but not limited to religion, commerce, finance or culture.

2.a. For all purposes in state and federal law, life shall begin with the first breath outside the womb and not before.

2.b. Every citizen shall present themselves for two years of national duty beginning not before the ages of seventeen nor late than the end of their twentieth year for forms of national service to be determined by the federal government, including but not limited to military service. In peacetime, said service may at the discretion of the federal government be waived.

3. No entity organized for the purpose of commerce including but not limited to finance, trade or other commerce shall have equal rights with natural born citizens except as approved by individual statewide referendums binding only inside said jurisdictions; nor, even when such exceptions be granted shall any commercial entity engage in political activity including giving money or gifts in kind to political persons or parties, period. Breach of this law followed by conviction shall be punishable only by death of organizational executive leadership followed by seizure of all of each of their assets including family assets as well as donations, gifts and recoverable transfers in kind to others in the ten years preceding date of charges.

Sound like a typical right wing agenda. Never pass. "The times they are a changing."

 

[Staidhup]

I like the original document and can only hope and pray that someday, in the not so distant future, the courts will revert to interpretation as it concerns law versus writing law.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Sounds like a typical right wing agenda. Never pass. "The times they are a changing." - Snookie

It doesn't get much more liberal than, well, a progressive tax system coupled with protecting reproductive rights and for good measure banning corporations from destroying the quality of life for the blue collar working class in America.

In the middle '80s researchers gave high school classes and college classes copies of the bill of rights on regular paper and asked students if those laws would be good for America. About 75% didn't recognize them and well above 50% thought they were communist ideas.

People not recognizing traditional liberal ideas is not particularly surprising given the degradation of public education in the last thirty years.