CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[JakeStarkey]

I would like to see Article III to specifically state that "original jurisdiction" means that SCOTUS has the final say in decisions pertaining to Constitutional law and the state laws that violate Constitutional guidance are subject to SCOTUS review.

 

[BlackSand]

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

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

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

I never suggested that their rights were (nor my rights would have been in your scenario) secured ... Sorry if you thought that was not answer enough.

You can argue about events that happened over half a century ago until you turn blue in the face ... And it will NEVER change the fact the federal government has no right to maliciously enforce unfounded policies beyond their designated powers with no regards to rights and liberties of their citizens today ... And then justify it in past events.

You can deny that all you want but I would to see try and support it..

Translation: I hope they don't notice I can't prove any maliciousness of the feds to "enforce unfounded policies beyond their designated powers". You can't give any examples unless you ignore law and SCOTUS decisions. So I will make it up as I go

I already gave examples and suggested that the Justice Department dictating School Board policy is an example ... Sorry if you missed that in your review and rush to argue.

The polices I am was referring to have nothing to do any previous SCOTUS decisions or a decision in review ... Although it could be argued that the Justice Department is intentionally misinterpreting previous decisions in order to abuse their powers in regards to current conditions.

If you think that is an acceptable course of action then you need to specify why. If you care the expound on the specific details ... Then you must accept it is not in conjunction with context with the topic and the thread is in the CDZ.

If you feel the need to support the Federal Government as the solution to all problems in all circumstances ... Then please refrain from personal insults and make your case. Don't just decide to argue with me because I posted something ... And spend more time developing a decent contribution to the discussion.

.

 

[PratchettFan]

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

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

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

I never suggested that their rights were (nor my rights would have been in your scenario) secured ... Sorry if you thought that was not answer enough.

You can argue about events that happened over half a century ago until you turn blue in the face ... And it will NEVER change the fact the federal government has no right to maliciously enforce unfounded policies beyond their designated powers with no regards to rights and liberties of their citizens today ... And then justify it in past events.

You can deny that all you want but I would like to see try and support it.

.

I have pointed out very specific denial of rights done by the states. What exactly are these rights and liberties you claim are currently being denied by the federal government?

 

[PratchettFan]

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

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

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

I never suggested that their rights were (nor my rights would have been in your scenario) secured ... Sorry if you thought that was not answer enough.

You can argue about events that happened over half a century ago until you turn blue in the face ... And it will NEVER change the fact the federal government has no right to maliciously enforce unfounded policies beyond their designated powers with no regards to rights and liberties of their citizens today ... And then justify it in past events.

You can deny that all you want but I would to see try and support it..

Translation: I hope they don't notice I can't prove any maliciousness of the feds to "enforce unfounded policies beyond their designated powers". You can't give any examples unless you ignore law and SCOTUS decisions. So I will make it up as I go

I already gave examples and suggested that the Justice Department dictating School Board policy is an example ... Sorry if you missed that in your review and rush to argue.

The polices I am was referring to have nothing to do any previous SCOTUS decisions or a decision in review ... Although it could be argued that the Justice Department is intentionally misinterpreting previous decisions in order to abuse their powers in regards to current conditions.

If you think that is an acceptable course of action then you need to specify why. If you care the expound on the specific details ... Then you must accept it is not in conjunction with context with the topic and the thread is in the CDZ.

If you feel the need to support the Federal Government as the solution to all problems in all circumstances ... Then please refrain from personal insults and make your case. Don't just decide to argue with me because I posted something ... And spend more time developing a decent contribution to the discussion.

.

What School Board policy?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

States have their rights but are subject to the Federal Constitution and it's case law, the rulings of Federal courts, and laws passed by Congress.

The states have no authority to seek to deny or violate the civil rights of American citizens who reside in the states.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How do we prevent majoritarianism in the various states from interfering with the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" of all citizens.

We have to protect ourselves from state encroachment as well as federal encroachment of our lives.

What if the citizens of a state want an establish religion?

What if the citizens on demand abortion?

I don't think suggesting those who don't like it have the option to move.

The right to move freely about the country and live in any jurisdiction desired is fundamental - citizens cannot be compelled to 'move.'

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

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

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

I never suggested that their rights were (nor my rights would have been in your scenario) secured ... Sorry if you thought that was not answer enough.

You can argue about events that happened over half a century ago until you turn blue in the face ... And it will NEVER change the fact the federal government has no right to maliciously enforce unfounded policies beyond their designated powers with no regards to rights and liberties of their citizens today ... And then justify it in past events.

You can deny that all you want but I would to see try and support it..

Translation: I hope they don't notice I can't prove any maliciousness of the feds to "enforce unfounded policies beyond their designated powers". You can't give any examples unless you ignore law and SCOTUS decisions. So I will make it up as I go

I already gave examples and suggested that the Justice Department dictating School Board policy is an example ... Sorry if you missed that in your review and rush to argue.

The polices I am was referring to have nothing to do any previous SCOTUS decisions or a decision in review ... Although it could be argued that the Justice Department is intentionally misinterpreting previous decisions in order to abuse their powers in regards to current conditions.

If you think that is an acceptable course of action then you need to specify why. If you care the expound on the specific details ... Then you must accept it is not in conjunction with context with the topic and the thread is in the CDZ.

If you feel the need to support the Federal Government as the solution to all problems in all circumstances ... Then please refrain from personal insults and make your case. Don't just decide to argue with me because I posted something ... And spend more time developing a decent contribution to the discussion..

Correcting you is not "personal insults" so refrain from making an incorrect assumption. You are making generalized statements that have no value without specific evidence. A statement about "malicious" government intervention means nothing; it is not evidence. An assumption of yours that I believe the federal government is the end all be all is . . . assumption, nothing more.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

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

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

I never suggested that their rights were (nor my rights would have been in your scenario) secured ... Sorry if you thought that was not answer enough.

You can argue about events that happened over half a century ago until you turn blue in the face ... And it will NEVER change the fact the federal government has no right to maliciously enforce unfounded policies beyond their designated powers with no regards to rights and liberties of their citizens today ... And then justify it in past events.

You can deny that all you want but I would like to see try and support it.

.

I have pointed out very specific denial of rights done by the states. What exactly are these rights and liberties you claim are currently being denied by the federal government?

I have asked and have been given no specifics, other than something about School Board Policy, without specifics.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Despite the issues and problems with the 40's and 50's, all of which would have been corrected sooner or later so long as the people were free to correct them, I can say without question that we had far more liberty to be who and what we are then than we do now. We had far less government intrusiveness, far more potential for upward mobility, and life was pretty darn good for most.

Not true for blacks, women and gays.

Correct.

 

[Spare_change]

What liberties and rights do you say the States failed to protect?

Were you alive during the 60's and before?

I was alive then. And I am alive now. Despite the issues and problems with the 40's and 50's, all of which would have been corrected sooner or later so long as the people were free to correct them, I can say without question that we had far more liberty to be who and what we are than we do now. We have far less government intrusiveness, far more potential for upward mobility, and life was pretty darn good for most.

You seem to presume that we would not have had all the problems we have had as a nation with a federal government in charge. I only point you to every other country in the world that has had a central government of whatever form and ask you to show me the ones who have not had to deal with issues of economic downturns, social strife, violation of human rights, and other problems over their histories.

How free is a man hanging from a tree?

Ok .... we just turned onto Absurd Street.

Violation of CDZ rules; stay on topic, stay away from attacks on posters.

LOL --- I didn't attack the poster, I attacked the stupidity of the post. There IS a difference ... one that may have escaped you.

 

[Spare_change]

If you were told by the government you couldn't drink from a public fountain, use a public park or sit in a restaurant because of the way you looked, would you think your rights were being secured?

I would drink from the water fountain ... And sit where I wanted to sit. I have no expectations it would have turned out well ... But I wouldn't use it as an excuse to dictate where people have to go to school, eat or drink ... Or put any of that in the hands of the federal government.

.

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

Oh! Well, hell, if he lied .....

By what perverse sense of superiority do you think you have the right to question what he would or wouldn't do?

It is that very attitude that argues against a strong federal government - you don't ALWAYS know better.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'd like to see two rights made explicit:

- The right to privacy
- Property rights

Two other changes:

- A cost benefit analysis requirement before passing a law.
- A requirement that making violations of regulations or laws "criminal offenses" must be justified with a valid harm being done. Dealing with crimes entails force, which in the extreme is deadly. Minor infractions of social engineering schemes don't warrant such force.

I am convinced that if they stop just living their lives long enough to consider their perception of better and best, good and evil, right and wrong, most people are pretty conservative (aka libertarian little "L" or classical liberal) in their point of view. But my greatest fear is that a new constitutional convention would include so many hard core progressives as they are defined these days that we would immediately lose all the protections we now enjoy via the existing constitution. They would give all authority to govern to a central government instead of to the people as the Founders intended.

Property rights are certainly among those unalienable rights the Founders intended to be secured by the federal government even as they struggled to find a means to ensure that all the land and resources did not wind up in the hands of a very few. As it turned out, the Homestead laws coupled with liberty were more efficient to distribute resources than they had even hoped.

And IMO, except for situations that involve shared water, land, air, and any other resources that cross state lines, the federal government should have no involvement whatsoever in how people use their property and should be involved in no social engineering whatsoever.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

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

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

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

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

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

You want to reinstate slavery?

 

[Foxfyre]

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

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

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

You want to reinstate slavery?

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

 

[Derideo_Te]

change #1

voting is a privilege , not a right. and as such can be taken at any time if a person shows an inability to make good decisions.

That is without any doubt whatsoever the most inane statement ever in a debate about the Constitution. The right to vote is fundamental to the entire system and it has been expanded constantly since the inception of this nation. Removal of the right to vote based upon a criminal conviction can be justified but on the spurious claim that someone demonstrates "an inability to make good decisions"? Who is going to be the judge of that? You just disqualified yourself.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

If you want to run for office you need to collect a certain number of signatures on a petition (depending upon the office) and then you will be awarded a fixed amount of taxpayer funds for your campaign. You will be held accountable for the funds and if you spend over the amount provided you will automatically forfeit the office should you win or be held liable to repay the funds should you lose. No outside entity can campaign on your behalf. Doing so will be a crime punishable by imprisonment.

My next priority would be holding elected officials and lobbyists accountable to the people. All meetings must be done in public with video and audio recordings. If any violation of this rule is discovered all of the parties involved will serve jail time. That includes the son/daughter-in-law who was given a job.

In summary all forms of bribery and corruption are to be treated as crimes punishable by prison terms of at least 10 years without parole.

Translation: what you want is the Incumbent Protection Plan.

Non sequitur!

 

[boedicca]

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

If you want to run for office you need to collect a certain number of signatures on a petition (depending upon the office) and then you will be awarded a fixed amount of taxpayer funds for your campaign. You will be held accountable for the funds and if you spend over the amount provided you will automatically forfeit the office should you win or be held liable to repay the funds should you lose. No outside entity can campaign on your behalf. Doing so will be a crime punishable by imprisonment.

My next priority would be holding elected officials and lobbyists accountable to the people. All meetings must be done in public with video and audio recordings. If any violation of this rule is discovered all of the parties involved will serve jail time. That includes the son/daughter-in-law who was given a job.

In summary all forms of bribery and corruption are to be treated as crimes punishable by prison terms of at least 10 years without parole.

Translation: what you want is the Incumbent Protection Plan.

Non sequitur!

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

 

[Spare_change]

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

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

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

You want to reinstate slavery?

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

Tsk, tsk -

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

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