We need a new Constitution, yes or no?

[dcraelin]

The constitution is fine as it is because we have the ability to change it with amendments. Though I hate when people say "The Founding Fathers wanted this or that." The Founding Fathers disagreed on many issues, they were not all in unison on the issues.

I like what George Washington said about the Founding Fathers:


"I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us."

We are going to disagree on issues but saying that the founding fathers would have been this or that is stupid and fruitless on both sides. We don't know and won't know.

thats what I am suggesting, amendments

 

[LiberalMedia]

The constitution is fine as it is because we have the ability to change it with amendments. Though I hate when people say "The Founding Fathers wanted this or that." The Founding Fathers disagreed on many issues, they were not all in unison on the issues.

I like what George Washington said about the Founding Fathers:


"I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us."

We are going to disagree on issues but saying that the founding fathers would have been this or that is stupid and fruitless on both sides. We don't know and won't know.

thats what I am suggesting, amendments

I think that almost every user in this thread misunderstood you, in that case. We misread your typo "new Constitution" as actually meaning "new Constitution," not "amendments to the current Constitution, which I am in no way suggesting should be abolished in its entirety."

To avoid such extreme misunderstandings in the future, please try to proofread your posts before submitting them.

 

[dcraelin]

Does sound like a good process if your going to stay with representatives from districts. I myself would favor a system of proportional representation based on a statewide vote.

Elaborate on what you mean. Iowa has 6 electoral votes which means it has 4 districts and two senators.
Would you change the number of reps?
Would you change whom they represent?
I'm confused by what you are proposing.

like some countries do now I would do with US representatives on a state level. let voters vote for party slates. if Democrats get 40% of the vote in a state they would get roughly 40% of the representatives slots available for that state. Ill maybe post a more detailed outline later.

There is no ceiling on how much one is willing to spend for the Presidency. I mean, these guys spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a job that pays hundreds of thousands of dollars. It makes no sense on the surface.

So if caps mean nothing, you simply eliminate the need for the commodity all together. I think the courts would recognize the government sovereignty and allow the feds to fund any citizen able to get a certain level of support from across the nation.

For example, did you know that UPS/Fed Ex/mom-and-pop courier service cannot use your mail box? Only the USPS can because it is the one recognized method of government notification.

Yeah I see what you saying on funding but I dont think it would fly with a large swath of the population. I don't see what your saying with the UPS example.

There is no need to take the popular vote out of the equation and time has proven that the electoral vote has worked. Why not have both? That's my point.

Yes I think it would work with the backup constitutional provison you showed, but remember Bush v Gore didnt accept going that route...I think the courts interfered there where they shouldn't have. Also think a recount might be messy if someone wanted to contest a nationwide vote.

 

[dcraelin]

I don't think it was nearly as much in dispute as you claim. It's true that we did in fact beat the British, with the articles of Confederation.
But that doesn't change the reasoning behind the replacement.

Congress complained that they could not enforce tax collection. The were not able to pay for the army. As a result, the army had more allegiance to New York, which providing the majority of the funding, than Congress.

Additionally they had no ability to compel those of other states, to join the army.

These were the two primary motivating factors in replacing the Articles of Confederation, with our modern Constitution.

Again, I would suggest the reason it 'doesn't work good enough', is merely because we're not following it.

Any system, no matter how will planned, if you don't follow it, won't work good enough.

It's kind of like saying your personal trainer doesn't work good enough, when you eat a triple chocolate cake every Thursday, and refuse to do his work out regiment throughout the week.... I just don't think my trainer works very well.

The constitution works extremely well, when you actually follow it.

And no new constitution will work any better if you don't follow it.

The solution is to simply go back to following it.

well what I meant to say was we beat the British without even the Articles.....we beat them with a Continental Congress,...the Articles came later.

Im not sure those were the primary purposes you outlined. It may have been sold that way but I think Shays rebellion was a prime motivation.

Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution, said it would lead to a concentrated government irresponsive to the people.....I think he was right.

I agree no new Constitution or a modified one will work if yo dont follow it....but one more responsive to the people might command more respect.

 

[dcraelin]

Interesting to note the OP Poll results so far;
Do we need a new Constitution?
Yes 11
No 55
That means that only 1 in 6 USMB posters support the idea of a new constitution. Amongst the population at large it is probably even less.
Please note that 2ndA sent out a clarion call in post #101 to about 50 RW'er to gain their support and even then the OP can only garner a measly 11 votes.
So by the looks of it this a lost cause.

1) some here that oppose a "new" constitution support amendments....which would in a way create a new Constitution...and amending is what I meant to propose

2) I've seen studies that show the internet in general skews rightward in responses to polls etc. and doesnt well reflect the voting population. "conservatives" I think are generally more likely to reflexively support no change.

3) if USMB is anything like twitter then I think about half the so-called conservatives are astro-turf created frauds, autobots really, or duplicate identities.

 

[dcraelin]

You know what I don't see in all your spiffy, new, "I'm so much smarter than the Framers" proposals? Any reason WHY we should do this, or WHY it would be an improvement.

Read the book "The Frozen Constitution"...I forget the author now......for in depth views on why we need to change

Better representation is a major reason I think it would be an improvement. WE haven't kept up with the ratio of representation we had at the beginning.

 

[dcraelin]

Well, if people choose to be stupid, then they get the government they deserve. If your goal was to try to design a government that would make the world a perfect place for people without them putting any effort into it, it's not going to happen.

I agree, that wasnt my goal

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Interesting to note the OP Poll results so far;

Do we need a new Constitution?

Yes 11
No 55

That means that only 1 in 6 USMB posters support the idea of a new constitution. Amongst the population at large it is probably even less.

Please note that 2ndA sent out a clarion call in post #101 to about 50 RW'er to gain their support and even then the OP can only garner a measly 11 votes.

So by the looks of it this a lost cause.

It was never a 'cause' to begin with, lost or otherwise.

 

[turtledude]

what we need are judges who actually follow the constitution rather than are slaves to the crappy precedent created by FDR's lapdog scumbags

 

[Harry Dresden]

??

I voted no. And all of my posts have been on the side of NOT replacing the Constitution. Almost all of the RW's also agree that there is no need to change the Constitution.

not according to Liberal Media.....just about every righty in the land wants to abolish it...

You take Liberal Media seriously? I think Liberal Media is a right wing plant.

i take her as about as seriously as i take Franco....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Agree. Despite their rhetoric about "respecting the rule of law," conservatards can't wait to abolish the highest law in the land, the U.S. Constitution, for the purpose of re-writing it to exclude African-Americans. Their racism and hatred of President Obama has driven them to seek to destroy the very thing they claim to love.

Tell Allan West that.

I tried to, but he merely called for security to remove me from his rally. His sexist manpig security guards groped and fondled me on my wrists and forearms as they hauled me out of the area, leaving me traumatized by the level of almost-rape and violation of my personal bubble I'd endured.

2. You can't believe that shit you just spouted. Republicans don't hate blacks for being black. It isn't logical and Republicans believe in logic.

That's the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard. Wrongpublicans don't believe in logic, they're racist! Irredeemably so. All of them. Every single one. Prove me wrong.

i know a republican married to a very black woman.....i worked with a republican who was married to a Mexican ......i worked with a very religious republican woman who listened to Rush every day who's brother-in-law was gay and who she adored and she hung with one of the black woman clerks at break time and did baking with her after work....guess there goes your stupid theory...

 

[LiberalMedia]

Tell Allan West that.

I tried to, but he merely called for security to remove me from his rally. His sexist manpig security guards groped and fondled me on my wrists and forearms as they hauled me out of the area, leaving me traumatized by the level of almost-rape and violation of my personal bubble I'd endured.

2. You can't believe that shit you just spouted. Republicans don't hate blacks for being black. It isn't logical and Republicans believe in logic.

That's the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard. Wrongpublicans don't believe in logic, they're racist! Irredeemably so. All of them. Every single one. Prove me wrong.

i know a republican married to a very black woman.....

"I can't be racist, I have African-American friends!"

A typical fallacy used by racists to try to camouflage their rabid hatred of all things non-white.

i worked with a republican who was married to a Mexican ......

Who undoubtedly took advantage of his or hyr status as an underprivileged minority who could be deported by the bigots at ICE to force a marriage upon him or hyr.

i worked with a very religious republican woman who listened to Rush every day who's brother-in-law was gay and who she adored

So a guy she's not even related to is gay, and she's glad he's not related to hyr. Big deal.

and she hung with one of the black woman clerks at break time and did baking with her after work....

Just because you help a slave doesn't mean you're not engaging in slavery. Sharing the strong, independent African-American womyn's work load by "baking with hyr" does nothing to stop the institutionalized racism that runs rampant in America, and only serves to further the patriarchal expectation that womyn stay in the kitchen.

guess there goes your stupid theory...

Nope. Try again, manpig, this time without using all the ridiculous fallacies closet racists always have to resort to.

 

[EconChick]

Libruls would love a new Constitution being that hate freedom. NO, WE DO NOT NEED A NEW CONSTITUTION.

The people who wrote it, would like to re-write, using what's been learned in the last 230 years. See how that works Gynslinger?

Dude, you really live in la la land.

 

[EconChick]

Here's an idea. Instead of giving money to political causes, why don't a bunch of us conservatives just donate to a 501c that could collect money to pay for the air fare to fly all these socialists OUT of our country since they hate it so much.

 

[EconChick]

Better question is who's ready to give up on democracy and try a benevolent dictatorship so things that need to get done get done?

I'll tell you what, D4....I'm just about there when you see the kind of idiots that consider themselves informed voters these days.

 

[EconChick]

Yes there should be. It should include the RESPONSIBITIES of the citizenry as well as their Rights. It should severely limit the powers of Government beyond the specifically enumerated powers. It should explicitly state those Rights pertain to American Citizens in the US only. Foreigners in the US or Americans abroad have no expectation of those protections.

I'm also about ready to argue for a poll test. I've been against it my whole life, just as our founding fathers were against it. But allowing the insane to take over the insane asylum is pretty much where we're at in this country.

And a typical lib has no idea why that drives us sane people crazy.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Better question is who's ready to give up on democracy and try a benevolent dictatorship so things that need to get done get done?

I'll tell you what, D4....I'm just about there when you see the kind of idiots that consider themselves informed voters these days.

Ditto.

In fact, I'm ready for secession. I'm happy to let liberals have a totally unrestricted field to do as they please if they could just leave normal folks alone.

How we actually get from point A to point B is where the debate really lies.

Multiculturalism certainly creates problems for societies. There's never been a stable multicultural society in history and when societies get as populated as ours and they're multicultural the internal stresses lead to fragmentation. That's one problem. The other, equally weighty problem is the divide between liberals and normal people. This is ideology. The divergence between visions of how a country should run, how a society should function are growing ever wider with each passing year.

Time for a divorce.

 

[EconChick]

what we need are judges who actually follow the constitution rather than are slaves to the crappy precedent created by FDR's lapdog scumbags

Now you know that went straight over the head of most people, including most lawyers who are brainwashed in very left leaning grad schools. They never realize they have a bias being shoved down their throats.

 

[EconChick]

not according to Liberal Media.....just about every righty in the land wants to abolish it...

You take Liberal Media seriously? I think Liberal Media is a right wing plant.

i take her as about as seriously as i take Franco....

She sounds exactly like that flake, Maddow. The avatar is fitting.

 

[EconChick]

Nope...

So basically your full of it.

Not at all. That's not the discussion at hand and since Americans are too stupid to do anything rational, like rewrite a 230-year-old document that doesn't fit the nation well anymore, there's no point.

Sure it does. You just haven't spent enough time studying it. Jesus, the libs on this board think the way I did when I was a teen. By 21 I had snapped out of it. Some of you people are way over 21 though. Damn, the brainwashing is so massive....