CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[PratchettFan]

A new, improved version would be the original version but with a stipulation that branded America as a Christian nation. Afterall, it was founded by a vast majority of Christians (of varying denominations). What the early Founders were opposed to was a government dominated by a single, particular, or specific denomination.

I think not.

You don't know until you try!

I don't see the point of Christianity and have no desire to try. But thank you for another example of why local governments really need to be subservient.

So you don't want to be "subservient" but you believe that everyone else should be. Thanks for your honest input.

No, I don't see the point of Christianity. But I certainly see the point of government. And you're welcome.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No, I don't see the point of Christianity. .

you don't see the point in replacing the Coliseum morality of Rome with modern Christian morality. What's wrong with you?

 

[Foxfyre]

And I would advocate the same in a new and improved Constitution.

so what? nobody is challenging freedom of religion!! Do you feel brave for supprting it? The real issue is would you support more or less govt now that you know Jefferson and Madison founded the Republican party in 1793 and the modern Republican/libertarian Party has the exact same ideas.

Since I disagree that the modern Republican/libertarian party has the exact same ideas of Jefferson and Madison, that is irrelevant to what I have been arguing. I definitely do support much less federal government and much more power return to the people and states.

 

[Olde Europe]

I have been talking about the national debt, not deficits, not percentage of GDP. Now you certainly can talk about something other than the national debt, but you will be arguing something I have not argued.

Now in actual dollars federal spending is shown by the federal government to be:
2000 - 1.8T
2001 - 1.9T

2002 - 2.0T
2003 - 2.2T
2004 - 2.3T
2005 - 2.5T
2006 - 2.7T
2007 - 2.7T
2008 - 3.0T (included 1/2 of TARP or would not have increased over 2007 and the deficit would have been under 100 billion).
2009 - 3.5T (included 1/2 of TARP and part of stimulus package or would not have exceeded 2007)

2010 - 3.5T
2011 - 3.6T
2012 - 3.5T (the sequester kicked in requiring a mandatory 10% across the board cut)
2013 - 3.5T (no budget was passed for 2013 and they were running 2012 numbers)
2014 - 3.5T (no budget was passed for 2014 and it will likely close out a tick above 2013)

And the national debt clock runs as fast as ever.

Now if you want to make it a noble thing that the government is holding spending at unsustainable levels instead of dropping back to normal levels after the stimulus package, go for it. I don't see that as a noble thing--I see it as a very dangerous and irresponsible thing. And my Constitutional proposals, if implemented, would fix a whole bunch of that.

I see you have given up on defending the point you've made, that is, "they have done nothing to even slow it down". Thank you.

Here are the actual spending figures (nominal):

Year Total Spending

2008 2982.54
2009 3517.68
2010 3457.08
2011 3603.06
2012 3537.13
2013 3454.60
2014 3504.20

And how is that, "Now if you want to make it a noble thing that the government is holding spending at unsustainable levels", for "arguing something I have not argued", Foxfyre?

BTW, the debt clock is not running faster than ever as, with declining deficits, quite obviously this clock is running slower. That's just another of your talking points. Whatever, no serious economist would call the current spending levels or deficits around 3% of GDP "unsustainable", some even think its too little to nudge economic output towards optimal levels. And with that, your whole argument about the "dangerous thing" you profess to see is falling apart.

As I said, as much as I like to listen to your argument about the constitution, you better base that on actual, verifiable facts, or otherwise accept you may be called on spurious claims.

 

[dcraelin]

The government has no respect for the law as it is...selectively enforcing or ignoring as suits them...so why would any sane person expect them to have any more respect for changes or additions to the law?

Till you can force the government to abide by the laws we have, this is all nothing but ideological masturbation.

I think structural change could help expolse those who try to manipulate the law.


its intercourse

It's jacking off with the same hand and expecting a different result.

ha.... but I dont think so...

so how do you hope for any change...do you see a need for change?

Of course I see a need for change...but changing words that are routinely ignored and expecting them to automagically be followed is a fool's errand. Change would be people holding their governments accountable to the existing laws. Accomplish that change and I'll be happy to start coming up with new and improved laws to keep the change-a-rollin.

part of the problem is those you think are breaking the laws of the consitution in most cases thingk they are following it....that points to 1) mere interpretation differences and 2) a flaw in the structure of the supreme and federal courts...I think

but regardless, merely talkinga bout these things makes for improved knowlege

 

[dcraelin]

A new improved Constitution would simply make clearer what the Founders actual intent was, namely, to make liberalism illegal. Do you understand?

actually the "foundersr" you so revere were the big government types of the day....Patrick Henry said he smelt a rat about the constitutional convention....

 

[Foxfyre]

I have been talking about the national debt, not deficits, not percentage of GDP. Now you certainly can talk about something other than the national debt, but you will be arguing something I have not argued.

Now in actual dollars federal spending is shown by the federal government to be:
2000 - 1.8T
2001 - 1.9T

2002 - 2.0T
2003 - 2.2T
2004 - 2.3T
2005 - 2.5T
2006 - 2.7T
2007 - 2.7T
2008 - 3.0T (included 1/2 of TARP or would not have increased over 2007 and the deficit would have been under 100 billion).
2009 - 3.5T (included 1/2 of TARP and part of stimulus package or would not have exceeded 2007)

2010 - 3.5T
2011 - 3.6T
2012 - 3.5T (the sequester kicked in requiring a mandatory 10% across the board cut)
2013 - 3.5T (no budget was passed for 2013 and they were running 2012 numbers)
2014 - 3.5T (no budget was passed for 2014 and it will likely close out a tick above 2013)

And the national debt clock runs as fast as ever.

Now if you want to make it a noble thing that the government is holding spending at unsustainable levels instead of dropping back to normal levels after the stimulus package, go for it. I don't see that as a noble thing--I see it as a very dangerous and irresponsible thing. And my Constitutional proposals, if implemented, would fix a whole bunch of that.

I see you have given up on defending the point you've made, that is, "they have done nothing to even slow it down". Thank you.

Here are the actual spending figures (nominal):

Year Total Spending

2008 2982.54
2009 3517.68
2010 3457.08
2011 3603.06
2012 3537.13
2013 3454.60
2014 3504.20

And how is that, "Now if you want to make it a noble thing that the government is holding spending at unsustainable levels", for "arguing something I have not argued", Foxfyre?

BTW, the debt clock is not running faster than ever as, with declining deficits, quite obviously this clock is running slower. That's just another of your talking points. Whatever, no serious economist would call the current spending levels or deficits around 3% of GDP "unsustainable", some even think its too little to nudge economic output towards optimal levels. And with that, your whole argument about the "dangerous thing" you profess to see is falling apart.

As I said, as much as I like to listen to your argument about the constitution, you better base that on actual, verifiable facts, or otherwise accept you may be called on spurious claims.

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see the current situation as dangerous and irresponsible. If you do not, that is your prerogative and of course you won't see any need to deal with it in an improved Constitution.

 

[Olde Europe]

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see the current situation as dangerous and irresponsible. If you do not, that is your prerogative and of course you won't see any need to deal with it in an improved Constitution.

How is that, again, for "arguing something I have not argued", ascribing a stance to me I do not hold, Foxfyre? Of course, I do see the need for an improved Constitution including adjusted spending priorities, as the one conceived for a largely agrarian, slave-owning society with voting rights confined to rich, white men and the stagecoach as most advanced means of transportation fails to provide for the fundamental rules needed in the 21[sup]st[sup] century. The problem isn't that the federal government spends too much, it spends for the wrong things, and on top of that fails to collect the revenues necessary to cover these costs.

As the current Constitutional order allows for

- the continued systematic discrimination against, and the criminalisation and denigration of, minorities

- the treatment of specific, existential female needs as a political punching ball

- levels of inequality to be such as would be a shame for every advanced nation

- the subsidising of giant corporations by topping up, on the taxpayers' dime, slave wages

- U.S. representatives to use up to 80% of their time to solicit bribes, as opposed to minding the citizens' business, as they should

- destruction of the environment with impunity

- the Forth Estate to fall into the hands of giant, self-serving corporations

- mongrelization of food

- the militarisation of the police, and pervasive spying against U.S. citizens

- the right to peaceful assembly for workers to be next to unprotected

- a ghoulish rate of gun deaths thanks to a long defunct Second Amendment that should have been scrapped long ago, since militias have not been in use to maintain order for many, many decades

- a ghoulish prison-industrial complex, appalling incarceration rates to feed that complex, and horrendous crimes perpetrated against prisoners

- a government bought and paid for, and working on behalf of, the 1%, or rather the 0.1%

... I am very much in favour of a new Constitution that provides for the protection of human dignity, and the common welfare, as opposed to international corporations' bottom lines, and a fairness doctrine that mandates that every regulation and law shall be deemed unconstitutional if it doesn't advance and benefit most the fate of those with the least of wealth and power. Oh, and, BTW, I don't find writing or improving the Constitution, or even thinking about same, worth the effort if the revised or new one doesn't acknowledge, and makes great strides to atone for, the horrendous historical ills done to, in particular, African and Native Americans, which continue, in more subtle forms, to this day.

 

[Foxfyre]

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see the current situation as dangerous and irresponsible. If you do not, that is your prerogative and of course you won't see any need to deal with it in an improved Constitution.

How is that, again, for "arguing something I have not argued", ascribing a stance to me I do not hold, Foxfyre? Of course, I do see the need for an improved Constitution including adjusted spending priorities, as the one conceived for a largely agrarian, slave-owning society with voting rights confined to rich, white men and the stagecoach as most advanced means of transportation fails to provide for the fundamental rules needed in the 21[sup]st[sup] century. The problem isn't that the federal government spends too much, it spends for the wrong things, and on top of that fails to collect the revenues necessary to cover these costs.

As the current Constitutional order allows for

- the continued systematic discrimination against, and the criminalisation and denigration of, minorities

- the treatment of specific, existential female needs as a political punching ball

- levels of inequality to be such as would be a shame for every advanced nation

- the subsidising of giant corporations by topping up, on the taxpayers' dime, slave wages

- U.S. representatives to use up to 80% of their time to solicit bribes, as opposed to minding the citizens' business, as they should

- destruction of the environment with impunity

- the Forth Estate to fall into the hands of giant, self-serving corporations

- mongrelization of food

- the militarisation of the police, and pervasive spying against U.S. citizens

- the right to peaceful assembly for workers to be next to unprotected

- a ghoulish rate of gun deaths thanks to a long defunct Second Amendment that should have been scrapped long ago, since militias have not been in use to maintain order for many, many decades

- a ghoulish prison-industrial complex, appalling incarceration rates to feed that complex, and horrendous crimes perpetrated against prisoners

- a government bought and paid for, and working on behalf of, the 1%, or rather the 0.1%

... I am very much in favour of a new Constitution that provides for the protection of human dignity, and the common welfare, as opposed to international corporations' bottom lines, and a fairness doctrine that mandates that every regulation and law shall be deemed unconstitutional if it doesn't advance and benefit most the fate of those with the least of wealth and power. Oh, and, BTW, I don't find writing or improving the Constitution, or even thinking about same, worth the effort if the revised or new one doesn't acknowledge, and makes great strides to atone for, the horrendous historical ills done to, in particular, African and Native Americans, which continue, in more subtle forms, to this day.

I see. For the record I did NOT argue that you said anything you didn't say. I said IF. . .(you did). . . THEN . . . .

But okay. I see where you are have already gone with this and here and there I can find room for agreement and in some of it I think is waaaaaay out in left field and unsupportable as constitutional issues or even as being problems.

We're going to have to break it down into manageable topics for discussion though as it covers way too much territory to be discussed effectively as it is.

 

[Statistikhengst]

We the people of the Christian United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and encourage Christian values and ethics do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America under God's divine guidance and protection.

So much for separation of Church and state. Now, tell us again why pilgrims came to the shores of America. Right: to flee religious oppression.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

It's my Constitution so it's my rules.

Well, sure, if you want to look at it that way. So, instead of debate, you have already decided that it's all settled. Uh, ok...

 

[Statistikhengst]

A new improved Constitution would simply make clearer what the Founders actual intent was, namely, to make liberalism illegal. Do you understand?

I am going to assume that that was a joke and not really intended for serious debate. Edward, you are aware that you are now in the CDZ, right?

 

[Statistikhengst]

We the people of the Christian United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and encourage Christian values and ethics do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America under God's divine guidance and protection.

So much for separation of Church and state. Now, tell us again why pilgrims came to the shores of America. Right: to flee religious oppression.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

It's my Constitution so it's my rules.

That's right. But could you please provide a rationale for the addition to the Preamble that will be written for all Americans and not just those of us who are Christians and/or believers in God. In a previous post an hour or so ago I provided an argument against this, but you are right. It is our Constitution and all points of view deserve to be heard.

Here's my rationale: If America followed the biblical tenets of New Testament Christianity we would not only be a more prosperous nation but a GOOD nation. Folks who chose not to adapt to those tenets would be free to form their own nation abroad or seek a more secular nation like Cuba or Russia which would better suit their personal beliefs and needs.

So, your philosophy is exclusionist instead of inclusionist.

And I do think the Christian Bible contains TWO testaments and your Yeshua very clearly stated "I have not come to take away one whit of the law, but rather, to add to it"....

Hmmm, interesting. Within your exclusion there is also exclusion.

Fascinating.

 

[Statistikhengst]

We the people of the Christian United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and encourage Christian values and ethics do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America under God's divine guidance and protection.

So much for separation of Church and state. Now, tell us again why pilgrims came to the shores of America. Right: to flee religious oppression.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Oh ... and one more thing ... the original intent was to protect religion from Government but not necessarily the other way around. The original Congress was wholly Christian and even sponsored the printing of the first Bible printed in America. That's a fact, jack.

This exhibition demonstrates that many of the colonies that in 1776 became the United States of America were settled by men and women of deep religious convictions who in the seventeenth century crossed the Atlantic Ocean to practice their faith freely. That the religious intensity of the original settlers would diminish to some extent over time was perhaps to be expected, but new waves of eighteenth century immigrants brought their own religious fervor across the Atlantic and the nation's first major religious revival in the middle of the eighteenth century injected new vigor into American religion. The result was that a religious people rose in rebellion against Great Britain in 1776, and that most American statesmen, when they began to form new governments at the state and national levels, shared the convictions of most of their constituents that religion was, to quote Alexis de Tocqueville's observation, indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. The efforts of the Founders of the American nation to define the role of religious faith in public life and the degree to which it could be supported by public officials that was not inconsistent with the revolutionary imperatives of the equality and freedom of all citizens is the central question which this exhibition explores.

Religion and the Founding of the American Republic Exhibitions Library of Congress

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

Religion and the Congress of the Confederation - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic Exhibitions Library of Congress

Hmmm, so you think that the USA should only be a Christian nation, that others are not good enough or don't have a place here?

Oh, and just as thought: how do you know for sure that every single one of the first Congress was an avowed Christian? I am eager to hear your answer on this one.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So much for separation of Church and state. Now, tell us again why pilgrims came to the shores of America. Right: to flee religious oppression.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

It's my Constitution so it's my rules.

That's right. But could you please provide a rationale for the addition to the Preamble that will be written for all Americans and not just those of us who are Christians and/or believers in God. In a previous post an hour or so ago I provided an argument against this, but you are right. It is our Constitution and all points of view deserve to be heard.

Here's my rationale: If America followed the biblical tenets of New Testament Christianity we would not only be a more prosperous nation but a GOOD nation. Folks who chose not to adapt to those tenets would be free to form their own nation abroad or seek a more secular nation like Cuba or Russia which would better suit their personal beliefs and needs.

The problem with your rationale though is that history doesn't really bear it out. The Constitutional provisions that recognized and protected the people's free exercise of their religious faith was unprecedented in scope in world history and did allow the people to promote a culture that made us the most free and most benevolent people on earth. But it also allowed the people to be punished in the Puritan stocks and it allowed for the Salem witch burnings. But as the Founders predicted would happen with a free people, those kinds of societies would soon reform themselves and dissolve the little theocracies that promoted such injustice. Just as the more lawless societies like Deadwood would eventually weary of the meanness and uncertainties that promoted and established new social contracts to create more peaceful societies.

We cannot have liberty alongside a mandate of what biblical tenets of New Testament Christianity must be.

Some of the Puritans practiced some pretty horrible things but society self-corrected and their poor judgment and lack of Christian ethics caught up to them. The true awakening came when the Bible was printed and released to the common man. Prior to that the Catholics forbade all of the common rabble from having a personal copy of the Bible. That was during the Dark Ages. When the common man got access to the Bible the proverbial "light" went on and the chains of darkness were removed. We can thank the ethics of the Bible and the Magna Carta for inspiring our Constitution.

Are those not the very same puritans who came here to avoid religious persecution? So, if you think they did "some pretty horrible things", then was their coming here a bad thing?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Your chart shows the percentage of the national debt as a percentage of the GDP. I am talking about actual dollar amounts. Find a chart that shows that please and I think you'll see that I am making a valid point. And if we could not make this into another partisan cat fight or bash Bush (or Clinton or Obama or whomever) thread, that would be greatly appreciated too.

How does that...

... or that

... mean "they have done nothing to even slow it down".

If you want to play around with meaningless nominal-dollar comparisons you'll need someone else to play, since that doesn't make any sense.

Indeed, the only measurement that makes sense is debt to GDP ratio (a percentage). Measuring it in raw dollars is worthless, because actually, in 1945, the debt to GDP ratio was the highest of all time: 116%. It's the percentage that counts, because in true capitalistic fashion, money keeps growing because there are more people on this planet, producing, selling and buying more goods.

 

[Statistikhengst]

No, I don't see the point of Christianity. .

you don't see the point in replacing the Coliseum morality of Rome with modern Christian morality. What's wrong with you?

In the CDZ, we debate ideas in a civil fashion. We DON'T attack each other. Just a friendly piece of advice.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We the people of the Christian United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and encourage Christian values and ethics do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America under God's divine guidance and protection.

And here we see why there's no need for a 'new constitution,' as current First Amendment jurisprudence is still very much in need to protect citizens from this sort of arrogance common to many Christians, their contempt for diversity and dissent, and propensity to seek to compel conformity.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

DRIFTINGSAND SAID:

“the original intent was to protect religion from Government but not necessarily the other way around.”

Incorrect.

The original intent, as is current Establishment Clause jurisprudence, was to prohibit the conjoining of church and state, where those of the majority religion might seek use the power and authority of secular government to disadvantage those of minority religions, as well as those free from faith, to the perceived advantage of adherents of the majority religion.

Indeed, many of the Founding Generation fled kingdoms and empires that conjoined church and state, where governments established official state religions used as a cruel and capricious weapon against political opponents.

It is from this experience that the Framers ordained that the people of the American Republic would never be subject to the bane of religious tyranny.

 

[Olde Europe]

But okay. I see where you are have already gone with this and here and there I can find room for agreement and in some of it I think is waaaaaay out in left field and unsupportable as constitutional issues or even as being problems.

I am pretty confident nothing I have written is way out in left field. It may, however, look that way from your vantage point. Which of the issues I addressed do you feel are "unsupportable as constitutional issues", and what exactly does this expression mean?

 

[PratchettFan]

No, I don't see the point of Christianity. .

you don't see the point in replacing the Coliseum morality of Rome with modern Christian morality. What's wrong with you?

It's a personality flaw. I can't help it.