CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Foxfyre]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[rdean]

When right wingers talk about changing the constitution, it's always about restricting rights of people they don't like. Minorities, gays, atheists and so on. Some how, the right wing thinks they are "better". They have this fantasy they built everything good in the United States. They freed the slaves and won WWI and WWII. They even know science better than scientists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We the people, in order to ensure a peaceful status of an indivisible union, provide for the common defense, establish and promote justice and the general welfare without prejudice or favoritism, and secure the unalienable rights and blessings of liberty for every citizen, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

I agree with most of your suggestion, Foxfyre, but do place emphasis on "an indivisible union".

 

[Foxfyre]

The first order of business for any new Constitution would be whether want it to be federal (the central government for a federation of states, with the bulk of power left to those states or the people of those states) - or - national; i.e. essentially do away with state governments and invest the bulk of the power in a central government.

And that discussion could include whether states would or would not have the right of secession. Also whether the federal government's job would be to keep the peace in Duluth or whether that responsibility would fall to local laws and law enforcement.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Federalism can work with the bulk of power being either national or state. If the later, how much power should be given to the states?

 

[PratchettFan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Foxfyre]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PratchettFan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What right would you consider unalienable?

 

[JakeStarkey]

unalienable rights will provoke the atheists, though I happen to agree with the wording myself

 

[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.

 

[Derideo_Te]

unalienable rights will provoke the atheists, though I happen to agree with the wording myself

As long as the new constitution defines rights as being what We the People will uphold for each other I have no problem with that terminology.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What right would you consider unalienable?

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

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

 

[Foxfyre]

unalienable rights will provoke the atheists, though I happen to agree with the wording myself

As long as the new constitution defines rights as being what We the People will uphold for each other I have no problem with that terminology.

I do not want the federal government to have ability to specify rights for some citizens that other citizens will not have. Nor would I want it to have any jurisdiction over the states or local communities who might wish to organize a society to their liking that some other group might disapprove of.

My 'ideal' constitution, subject to amendment as issues come up, would strictly limit the federal government to very specific responsibilities and authority and then it would leave the people alone to form whatever sorts of societies they wanted and live as they choose to live.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, I do disagree on the following.

Nor would I want it to have any jurisdiction over the states or local communities who might wish to organize a society to their liking that some other group might disapprove of. That is why we have the Bill of Rights so that majoritarianism cannot override the basic rights of minorities.

For instance, no state should mandate prayers or Bible or Quran or Torah classes in public schools as you appear to give the states to then it would leave the people alone to form whatever sorts of societies they wanted and live as they choose to live.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Taxation, approved by the general public's legislators, is never theft.

 

[Foxfyre]

We either limit the federal government's authority or we do not. There is zero evidence that those elected to federal office are any better at governing or do so more honestly and honorably than do state and local governments. We either trust a free people to make and learn from their mistakes and eventually arrive at a society pleasing to all who share that society or we do not.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

OK, I do disagree on the following.

Nor would I want it to have any jurisdiction over the states or local communities who might wish to organize a society to their liking that some other group might disapprove of. That is why we have the Bill of Rights so that majoritarianism cannot override the basic rights of minorities.

For instance, no state should mandate prayers or Bible or Quran or Torah classes in public schools as you appear to give the states to then it would leave the people alone to form whatever sorts of societies they wanted and live as they choose to live.

I disagree completely Jake.

The founding fathers MEANT for states to be able to have state religions if they wished. Hell, over half of the original colonies were founded by churches.

They SPECIFICALLY meant for the bill of rights to pertain to the federal government itself.

That's not me commenting on whether a state sponsored religion would be good or not, it's just me pointing out that when the COTUS was written, many of the states DID have such.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We either limit the federal government's authority or we do not. There is zero evidence that those elected to federal office are any better at governing or do so more honestly and honorably than do state and local governments. We either trust a free people to make and learn from their mistakes and eventually arrive at a society pleasing to all who share that society or we do not.

Slavery?

Women can't vote?

Hispanics and Asians driven from their lands?

American local control does not have a good record.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Founders were concerned with no national established churches, not the states, which removed them over the following decades.

Most Americans today would go through the roof with a state church imposed on them.

The incorporation of most of the Bill of Rights by the feds is that the states failed to protect the liberties of all their citizens.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The Founders were concerned with no national established churches, not the states, which removed them over the following decades.

Most Americans today would go through the roof with a state church imposed on them.

The incorporation of most of the Bill of Rights by the feds is that the states failed to protect the liberties of all their citizens.

But the liberties weren't meant to be protected from state intrusion by the COTUS.

Want another example? The second amendment. Hell it was illegal to carry a gun in the city of Philadelphia at the time the COTUS was written.