We need a new Constitution, yes or no?

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

Well, certainly everyone on this board with a room-temperature IQ seems ready to do so.

Most of those here that way would prefer Mob Rule. Correction, White Male Mob Rule...

 

[Mac1958]

.

First, a new Constitution would require mature and civil cooperation, which ain't gonna happen.

Second, partisan zealots will always find a way to subvert it.

Waste of time.

.

 

[percysunshine]

The people who drew up the Constitution were not stupid. They constructed it with full knowledge of how governing systems work. It is as much a statement of human nature as it is a legal document.

People are still people, DNA and all.

.

 

[candycorn]

Those who say "we need to follow the one we got" should realize a Constitution that isn't enforced perhaps means it needs better enforcement provisions.

To borrow from brighter lights...the Constitution formed "A government system built by giants so it could be run by pygmies."

We do not need a new constitution. We need to add voice to the Constitution where it is silent because, as it is clear to anyone with two eyeballs, the two-party system we have has delivered political hacks instead of statesmen. We've always had this but in the old days, there were enough persons in office to correct any wrong the small minority of poor representatives wished to wrought. Today, the two party system manufacturers political hacks and routinely stacks the deck at a state level to install such under performers in the House.

The question is; why does this take place?

Both parties do it. All ideologies do it. There is plenty of blame to go around. Does anyone think that Al Franken was the best man for the job in Minnesota? No. He happened to get the Democratic nomination in a vaccum left by the death of Paul Wellstone. Surely there were persons--likely dozens--that were more qualified than Franken for this seat. Certainly there were persons--likely dozens--that were more qualified than Schwartzenegger for the Governor's mansion in California.

Why didn't they run? If they did run, why didn't they win?

Simply put; the answer is you and I. The capitalists who run media outlets discovered long ago that they can sensationalize news and we will sop it up and ask for seconds. When you can make almost as much in middle management at a large company as you do as a US Senator...why put yourself and your family through the turmoil?

This is why I admire politicians of all stripes. Hence this post from way back:

Simple.

He raised a family, served his Country on several occassions, didn't simply take a job as CEO or board member (which is what most people do after leaving office) and count his millions. He got back into it. Suffered a number of heart attacks but yet continues to contribute--if you want to call it that--to the national debate.

I know that if I were him, I wouldn't go anywhere near politics; he can make more doing much much less and not have to put up with guys like you and me watching his every move. Its a very easy question to answer. I disagree with likely 80 percent of his policies but at heart, he's a good person. I don't dobut that for a second.

Nothing will prevent this nation from falling from the exceptional perch with an apathetic voting public. Nothing. Those calling for a wholesale change in the Constitution are simply prescribing the wrong medicine for a patient.

We do need to change it. To get rid of gerrymandering, we simply draw congressional districts based on US Postal ZIP codes in that state at random. To get rid of the money needed to campaign, simply decree that all federal elections where candidates are able to get X number of signatures showing support are funded by US Taxpayer dollars. If one candidate wants to spend their money to run an ad on channel 5, channel 5 will have to run an ad from their opponent for the same length of time in the same time slot as soon as possible. This is a "burden" that is only asked every other year. Decree that every 10 years, the Congress and President reduce the budget to zero and start with a blank sheet of paper. Each individual program that costs over...lets say, $10,000,000...will have to be voted on separately in a bill by themselves so the President can either veto it or authorize it. If the House and Senate are behind it...they can over-ride.

Needless to say that the President needs to win the Popular vote to claim the office. I would add in that he/she must also win the electoral votes

 

[Ibentoken]

There are still decent people in the world, you just don't know of any. They aren't on Fox...

So I assume your constitution would not include free speech.

Why the hell not? Do you think what you morons say scares me? The best solution to nonsense is to let people shout it from the rooftops.

What we say does scare you, obviously. Every time you mention Fox news. Free speech and different options are a threat to you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So I assume your constitution would not include free speech.

Why the hell not? Do you think what you morons say scares me? The best solution to nonsense is to let people shout it from the rooftops.

What we say does scare you, obviously. Every time you mention Fox news. Free speech and different options are a threat to you.

No words or ideas are a threat to me. They are both toys. What you "believe" is usually the problem, and frankly that's not a big deal either since lies and liars fail when tested against reality.

 

[dcraelin]

If there is no desire to enforce it, new or old, it will not be enforced.
Why do you think the schools teach the things they teach?

Perhaps with a new Constitution there will be the desire to enforce it.
Dont know what your getting at with the schools teach comment.

The current trend is to do what feels right. Not what IS right, but what feels right. You hear it all the time.
What kind of society do we want to be....
This is nothing more than code for, I want to do this and I don't care if it hurts more than it helps. I want it.
People are being taught in our schools that the Constitution is obsolete, even though it is the most relevant document in the world today. They are being taught that it is better to do what we feel than to think things through and make choices that may not seem compassionate, but will server the greater good.
If you do not desire to enforce the law of the land, then any document that purports to be the law, is worthless. Because there is no desire to enforce it.
New or old.

They are absolutely NOT being taught that the Constitution is obsolete....They are probably being taught too much reverence for it, which is reflected in a number of posts here on this topic. How many kids today know that RI was basically pressured into accepting the Constitution under threat of a blockade? How many know prominent founders such as Patrick Henry opposed it? How many know that the federalists, the party of most of the authors of the Constitution became so despised they ceased to exist? We The People legitimized the Constitution....pressured the elites of the day to add a Bill of Rights. Have amended it many times, and should do so again.

you are right in a way but far to pessimistic about the desire to enforce.

 

[dcraelin]

Those who say "we need to follow the one we got" should realize a Constitution that isn't enforced perhaps means it needs better enforcement provisions.

No, child, that's not the way it works. Laws must be obeyed and respected because those governed by them understand and agree on their importance and necessity. Laws imposed by force against the will of those governed is never the answer.
And for those who like to take an "all-or-nothing" approach and split hairs about random individuals not wanting to respect the law, my statement applies to those governed in a general, societal sense, not in a 100%-of-all-the-individuals sense, so don't even start.

1) Im not a child
2)almost all laws, by any society in the world have been imposed by force, that said
3)laws that closely conform to the will of the society as a whole are more likely to be obeyed
4)which is why we need a governing system that more clearly represents the will of WE the PEOPLE...and should not be afraid of modifying the Constitution

 

[Kosh]

This is like asking do we need new immigration laws.

No we need to enforce the ones we have, but Obama has been the first president to be shot down by the Supreme Court nine time (9-0) for violating the Constitution.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No. The enforcement mechanisms are there, Jury Trial and Firearms, both of which have been used to defend the Constitution of the United States against domestic enemies several times. What you need to realize though is that these enforcement mechanisms are only used when the situation is otherwise hopeless, but when used, they have overwhelming positive effects and restore the Rule of Law where they were used locally.

One of the most often neglected statements in the Declaration of Independence is the one that immediately precedes the statement concerning the right to overthrow Tyrannies:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

It takes a lot of abuse for the People to take up arms against a Tyranny, this will be true no matter how you rewrite the Constitution. The Constitution is indeed self-enforcing, because it is founded on Natural Rights, and when these rights fall under too heavy an assault, the People will indeed Restore the Rule of Law.

This is why Progressives (and Neocons who always vote/compromise on gun control) seek to disarm us, because so long as we're armed, there is a HARD CEILING on the abuse they can perpetuate upon us. The moment the shooting starts, with 300,000,000 firearms in this country, it's checkmate for the Marxists, the Constitution and the Republic will be restored.

This is why they backed down at the Bundy Ranch, they knew they couldn't start the hostilities, they aren't prepared for it --- they know they cannot win, especially for seizing private property in the name of desert tortoise taxes. This really proved how ridiculous and overbearing US Government has become --- so the Government is going to annihilate a peaceful rancher and his entire family over tortoises that the Government itself is euthanizing? The narrative was so bad, they desperately did a HIT piece of Bundy and spun his entire commentary out of context --- and those who are already aware of the nature of this Tyranny weren't fooled by it. But whether they succeeded or not in defaming him (because I know the Progs will argue they they did), it is irrelevant. They were too late to defame him even if they did succeed in doing so afterwards --- the battle was already won. If anything it was an immature revenge strike against him, a hard slap across the cheek, that accomplished nothing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Those who say "we need to follow the one we got" should realize a Constitution that isn't enforced perhaps means it needs better enforcement provisions.

No, child, that's not the way it works. Laws must be obeyed and respected because those governed by them understand and agree on their importance and necessity. Laws imposed by force against the will of those governed is never the answer.
And for those who like to take an "all-or-nothing" approach and split hairs about random individuals not wanting to respect the law, my statement applies to those governed in a general, societal sense, not in a 100%-of-all-the-individuals sense, so don't even start.

1) Im not a child
2)almost all laws, by any society in the world have been imposed by force, that said
3)laws that closely conform to the will of the society as a whole are more likely to be obeyed
4)which is why we need a governing system that more clearly represents the will of WE the PEOPLE...and should not be afraid of modifying the Constitution

First of all, you're probably younger than I am. Second, if you're going to advance childish notions, you're going to have to deal with it.

Laws are enforced by the potential threat of force on those who do not wish to honor them, that is true. They are NOT "imposed by force", at least not in a free society with free elections. The people of the United States still believe in the concept of "government by the consent of the governed". In fact, much of our political disagreement is based around that very concept. Most people in this society obey the law not primarily through fear of forceful retribution, but because it is the right thing to do and we recognize the need for law and order.

In a free society, laws more closely conform to the will of society because it is society itself which ultimately sets the laws. This, however, does not mean that one simply changes the fundamental legal bedrock willy-nilly according to the whims and fads of the moment, any more than one changes the rules of Hoyle in the middle of a poker game. Our Constitution has a very clear system for amendment for the very purpose of making sure that changes to that legal underpinning are based on the long-term good of the country, rather than momentary emotional rushes.

There are amendments I would add to the current Constitution, but I really cannot imagine this current society writing a whole new Constitution that would be anywhere near as good and profound as the one we have, let alone better. Nor would I particularly want to live in a society ruled by the sort of superficial, drama-queen bullshit that passes now for deep, meaningful thought. Our country is too much like an eternal preschool as it is.

 

[dcraelin]

Those who say "we need to follow the one we got" should realize a Constitution that isn't enforced perhaps means it needs better enforcement provisions.

To borrow from brighter lights...the Constitution formed "A government system built by giants so it could be run by pygmies."

That is misplaced hero worship,The Constitution was written by flawed humans....and opposed by men such as Patrick Henry.

We do not need a new constitution. We need to add voice to the Constitution where it is silent because, as it is clear to anyone with two eyeballs, the two-party system we have has delivered political hacks instead of statesmen. We've always had this but in the old days, there were enough persons in office to correct any wrong the small minority of poor representatives wished to wrought. Today, the two party system manufacturers political hacks and routinely stacks the deck at a state level to install such under performers in the House.
The question is; why does this take place?
Both parties do it. All ideologies do it. There is plenty of blame to go around. Does anyone think that Al Franken was the best man for the job in Minnesota? No. He happened to get the Democratic nomination in a vaccum left by the death of Paul Wellstone. Surely there were persons--likely dozens--that were more qualified than Franken for this seat. Certainly there were persons--likely dozens--that were more qualified than Schwartzenegger for the Governor's mansion in California.
Why didn't they run? If they did run, why didn't they win?
Simply put; the answer is you and I. The capitalists who run media outlets discovered long ago that they can sensationalize news and we will sop it up and ask for seconds. When you can make almost as much in middle management at a large company as you do as a US Senator...why put yourself and your family through the turmoil?
This is why I admire politicians of all stripes. Hence this post from way back:

Simple.
He raised a family, served his Country on several occassions, didn't simply take a job as CEO or board member (which is what most people do after leaving office) and count his millions. He got back into it. Suffered a number of heart attacks but yet continues to contribute--if you want to call it that--to the national debate.
I know that if I were him, I wouldn't go anywhere near politics; he can make more doing much much less and not have to put up with guys like you and me watching his every move. Its a very easy question to answer. I disagree with likely 80 percent of his policies but at heart, he's a good person. I don't dobut that for a second.

Nothing will prevent this nation from falling from the exceptional perch with an apathetic voting public. Nothing. Those calling for a wholesale change in the Constitution are simply prescribing the wrong medicine for a patient.

Im not asking for Wholesale change really, tho I should have been more clear. You outline a number of problems.........that I agree with...........and an apathetic voting public is a problem......but so is the Constitution which sets up a system with little accountability...read "the Frozen Republic"..We could do better with a modified Constitution

We do need to change it. To get rid of gerrymandering, we simply draw congressional districts based on US Postal ZIP codes in that state at random. To get rid of the money needed to campaign, simply decree that all federal elections where candidates are able to get X number of signatures showing support are funded by US Taxpayer dollars. If one candidate wants to spend their money to run an ad on channel 5, channel 5 will have to run an ad from their opponent for the same length of time in the same time slot as soon as possible. This is a "burden" that is only asked every other year. Decree that every 10 years, the Congress and President reduce the budget to zero and start with a blank sheet of paper. Each individual program that costs over...lets say, $10,000,000...will have to be voted on separately in a bill by themselves so the President can either veto it or authorize it. If the House and Senate are behind it...they can over-ride.
Needless to say that the President needs to win the Popular vote to claim the office. I would add in that he/she must also win the electoral votes

We do need to get rid of Gerrymandering....a process that I think violates the current Constitution....interesting idea on zip codes..........

not sure I like taxpayer funding of elections...I've been thinking more along the lines of taxing political advertising progressively to help level playing field, but perhaps a combination both.

Im not all that concerned about the electoral college, but would perhaps modify it...Your proposal would have a problem if candidate won popular vote but not electoral...then what do yo do?

 

[dcraelin]

No, child, that's not the way it works. Laws must be obeyed and respected because those governed by them understand and agree on their importance and necessity. Laws imposed by force against the will of those governed is never the answer.
And for those who like to take an "all-or-nothing" approach and split hairs about random individuals not wanting to respect the law, my statement applies to those governed in a general, societal sense, not in a 100%-of-all-the-individuals sense, so don't even start.

1) Im not a child
2)almost all laws, by any society in the world have been imposed by force, that said
3)laws that closely conform to the will of the society as a whole are more likely to be obeyed
4)which is why we need a governing system that more clearly represents the will of WE the PEOPLE...and should not be afraid of modifying the Constitution

First of all, you're probably younger than I am. Second, if you're going to advance childish notions, you're going to have to deal with it.

Laws are enforced by the potential threat of force on those who do not wish to honor them, that is true. They are NOT "imposed by force", at least not in a free society with free elections. The people of the United States still believe in the concept of "government by the consent of the governed". In fact, much of our political disagreement is based around that very concept. Most people in this society obey the law not primarily through fear of forceful retribution, but because it is the right thing to do and we recognize the need for law and order.

In a free society, laws more closely conform to the will of society because it is society itself which ultimately sets the laws. This, however, does not mean that one simply changes the fundamental legal bedrock willy-nilly according to the whims and fads of the moment, any more than one changes the rules of Hoyle in the middle of a poker game. Our Constitution has a very clear system for amendment for the very purpose of making sure that changes to that legal underpinning are based on the long-term good of the country, rather than momentary emotional rushes.

There are amendments I would add to the current Constitution, but I really cannot imagine this current society writing a whole new Constitution that would be anywhere near as good and profound as the one we have, let alone better. Nor would I particularly want to live in a society ruled by the sort of superficial, drama-queen bullshit that passes now for deep, meaningful thought. Our country is too much like an eternal preschool as it is.

dont believe it is a childish notion

I agree with your second paragraph

you say " This, however, does not mean that one simply changes the fundamental legal bedrock willy-nilly according to the whims and fads of the moment, any more than one changes the rules of Hoyle in the middle of a poker game." ...I wasnt suggesting not following current amendment process...but it should be pointed out that under this process...the Articles of confederation would not have been changed.....the founders were being a bit two-faced/ contradictory proposing changes (that werent authorized by our original Constitution, The Articles) and then writing in an amendment process that was in some ways stricter than the one they used for their own wholesale., "willy-nilly"?, change.

you are too pessimistic about current state of society.

 

[blackhawk]

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.

Whatever gets you through the day.

 

[Harry Dresden]

We need to remove education from government and unions. That's the problem, not the constitution.

better explain what you mean....or Dean will come along and use you as an example of a "righty" who hates education and wants to end it....and then he will say...."see what i mean?".....

 

[Machaut]

We The People legitimized the Constitution....pressured the elites of the day to add a Bill of Rights. Have amended it many times, and should do so again.

Is it your position that we should merely amend the Constitution, or throw it out and get a new one, as your OP states?

 

[dcraelin]

We The People legitimized the Constitution....pressured the elites of the day to add a Bill of Rights. Have amended it many times, and should do so again.

Is it your position that we should merely amend the Constitution, or throw it out and get a new one, as your OP states?

well, amend it,......... but in some areas I would heavily amend it......

But I think most of my amendments would conform to ideas proposed/advocated by the founding generation.

For example one of original proposed amendments was to have representation of around 1 per 50,000. We havent increased the amount of representatives in decades, tho we were doing so periodically for some time. I would increase the amount of representatives.

 

[Machaut]

We The People legitimized the Constitution....pressured the elites of the day to add a Bill of Rights. Have amended it many times, and should do so again.

Is it your position that we should merely amend the Constitution, or throw it out and get a new one, as your OP states?

well, amend it,......... but in some areas I would heavily amend it......

But I think most of my amendments would conform to ideas proposed/advocated by the founding generation.

For example one of original proposed amendments was to have representation of around 1 per 50,000. We havent increased the amount of representatives in decades, tho we were doing so periodically for some time. I would increase the amount of representatives.

At 1 representative per 50,000 citizens, we would need over 6,200 members of the House of Representatives alone.

Currently, the base rate of pay for a US Representative is $174,000. For 6,200 Representatives, that would be $1,078,800,000, plus reimbursements for expenses such as travel, plus their pensions. This, of course, does not take into account their staffers. Each US Representative has between 14 and 18 full-time staffers, and 4 part-time staffers, with varying rates of pay. The typical yearly cost for the pay alone--not counting payroll taxes, office expenses, etc.--is upwards of $700,000 per US Representative, or $4,340,000,000.

So, using the most ridiculously low-ball numbers possible, your plan would amount to over $5.4 billion on the yearly budget in personnel costs for one chamber of Congress alone. I'm assuming that you would also amend the Constitution to deal with this problem, wouldn't you? If so, how? If not, why not?

Assuming you don't plan to have a 1:50,000 ratio, what would be your preferred numbers?

 

[candycorn]

Those who say "we need to follow the one we got" should realize a Constitution that isn't enforced perhaps means it needs better enforcement provisions.

To borrow from brighter lights...the Constitution formed "A government system built by giants so it could be run by pygmies."

That is misplaced hero worship,The Constitution was written by flawed humans....and opposed by men such as Patrick Henry.

It was an anecdote.

We do not need a new constitution. We need to add voice to the Constitution where it is silent because, as it is clear to anyone with two eyeballs, the two-party system we have has delivered political hacks instead of statesmen. We've always had this but in the old days, there were enough persons in office to correct any wrong the small minority of poor representatives wished to wrought. Today, the two party system manufacturers political hacks and routinely stacks the deck at a state level to install such under performers in the House.
The question is; why does this take place?
Both parties do it. All ideologies do it. There is plenty of blame to go around. Does anyone think that Al Franken was the best man for the job in Minnesota? No. He happened to get the Democratic nomination in a vaccum left by the death of Paul Wellstone. Surely there were persons--likely dozens--that were more qualified than Franken for this seat. Certainly there were persons--likely dozens--that were more qualified than Schwartzenegger for the Governor's mansion in California.
Why didn't they run? If they did run, why didn't they win?
Simply put; the answer is you and I. The capitalists who run media outlets discovered long ago that they can sensationalize news and we will sop it up and ask for seconds. When you can make almost as much in middle management at a large company as you do as a US Senator...why put yourself and your family through the turmoil?
This is why I admire politicians of all stripes. Hence this post from way back:

Nothing will prevent this nation from falling from the exceptional perch with an apathetic voting public. Nothing. Those calling for a wholesale change in the Constitution are simply prescribing the wrong medicine for a patient.

Im not asking for Wholesale change really, tho I should have been more clear. You outline a number of problems.........that I agree with...........and an apathetic voting public is a problem......but so is the Constitution which sets up a system with little accountability...read "the Frozen Republic"..We could do better with a modified Constitution

I'll check it out. Again, another anecdote but some one once explained to me that the Constitution didn't try to bridge every gap. The framers wanted those who would be responsible later on to fill in the missing pieces.

The problem is, today, some claim there is no gap and wish to dismantle the bridges so to speak.

So it is time to give voice to it where it is silent.

We do need to change it. To get rid of gerrymandering,

To get rid of the money needed to campaign, simply decree that all federal elections where candidates are able to get X number of signatures showing support are funded by US Taxpayer dollars.

Decree that every 10 years, the Congress and President reduce the budget to zero and start with a blank sheet of paper. Each individual program that costs over...lets say, $10,000,000...will have to be voted on separately in a bill by themselves so the President can either veto it or authorize it. If the House and Senate are behind it...they can over-ride.

Needless to say that the President needs to win the Popular vote to claim the office. I would add in that he/she must also win the electoral votes

We do need to get rid of Gerrymandering....a process that I think violates the current Constitution....interesting idea on zip codes..........

Well, the whole idea is to have as many categories as you need but for the sake of argument, lets call them A-D.

Category A ZIP codes have 10,000 people plus.
Category B ZIP codes have 5K-9,999 people
Category C ZIP codes have 1K-4,999 people
Category D ZIP codes have less than 1,000 people

These are just examples....you can have infinite number of categories based on populations and how you wish to divide them up. You could also do it property tax revenue, income, etc...

Anyway, if you have, for the sake of argument, 5,0000 zip codes and 10 members of Congress, each draws 500 zip codes from the different categories so that each elected official gets 500 zip codes but instead of one guy being a rural favorite and the other guy having large population centers; she/he now has a mix.

not sure I like taxpayer funding of elections...I've been thinking more along the lines of taxing political advertising progressively to help level playing field, but perhaps a combination both.

I think it would be pointless. If someone is going to give you enough soft money to take up every second of air time from June through November; they will certainly be happy to pick up any tax liability you may incur.

The only solution is to make money irrelevant to the campaign itself. Soft money will still run issue ads but, in theory, there should be no more political fundraisers for federally elected officials. Monsanto can give whatever it wants on the soft money side as they were able to do in 2012 and 2008 etc...

Im not all that concerned about the electoral college, but would perhaps modify it...Your proposal would have a problem if candidate won popular vote but not electoral...then what do yo do?

Not at all. The 12th amendment kicks in as it would if there is no electoral vote winner.

In this day and age of instant returns; we know fairly quickly that the republicans lost. Why not require the person who wins to simply win both...the majority of the electoral college votes and the plurality of the popular vote. I'm not saying you need to get 50% of the PV but you should be the most popular if you're going to sit atop the government.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I wouldn't trust any of the circus clowns in washinton to write a two sentence help wanted ad.