We need a new Constitution, yes or no?

[Derideo_Te]

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People are being taught in our schools that the Constitution is obsolete, even though it is the most relevant document in the world today.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.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

People are being taught in our schools that the Constitution is obsolete, even though it is the most relevant document in the world today.

The "Living Constitution" and how public schools teach that "Loose Construction" is an ideologically equal alternative to "Strict Construction." Worse yet, now they teach that's "Loose Construction" is the preferred ideology, effectively nullifying the entire purpose of the Constitution, which is to be an immutable, unmovable and indestructible shackle on Government. The moment that shackled is "loosened" the Constitution becomes irrelevant, and the Constitution is then used to shackle the People instead.

Where ever did we get this idea that the First Amendment should be construed to shackle churches, instead of Congress, since the First Amendment only names Congress as the restricted body...?

 

[Derideo_Te]

People are being taught in our schools that the Constitution is obsolete, even though it is the most relevant document in the world today.

The "Living Constitution" and how public schools teach that "Loose Construction" is an ideologically equal alternative to "Strict Construction." Worse yet, now they teach that's "Loose Construction" is the preferred ideology, effectively nullifying the entire purpose of the Constitution, which is to be an immutable, unmovable and indestructible shackle on Government. The moment that shackled is "loosened" the Constitution becomes irrelevant, and the Constitution is then used to shackle the People instead.

Where ever did we get this idea that the First Amendment should be construed to shackle churches, instead of Congress, since the First Amendment only names Congress as the restricted body...?

No link provided!

Your personal opinion carries no weight except with those who are equally biased against education and government.

The Constitution is taught in schools as the Supreme Law of the Land, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[dcraelin]

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?

A guy from California has made a proposal to increase that state's representatives which I think allows some to stay 'at home' with a part-time salary. I would propose something similar. The 50,000 was for white males alone....I suppose an equivalent today would be 100,000. Some of the staffers can be cut......when you consider the increased representation, constituent services would be spread out and dealt with more directly by the representatives. Also the base rate of pay can be cut....Im not sure it is justified now...let alone if there were more representatives.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

I like Jefferson's statement. But it does show that people tend to wait to long.....then things can come to bloodshed.

I think your a little paranoid about the intent of progressives.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

What you said is just crazy talk.

Since what we have isn't enforced.... we need a new constitution with enforcement provisions.

This is like criminals violate the law with guns, so we need laws saying criminals can't have guns.

You really don't see the insanity of this line of thinking?

If the criminal isn't going to follow existing laws..... why would you think they would follow new laws?

If the government is not going to follow the existing constitution, why would they follow the new 'enforcement provisions' of the constitution they are ignoring?

If the public allows the government to ignore the constitution now... then it really wouldn't matter what constitution you put in place.

My view is this.... if we are going to allow our government to ignore the constitution, then it doesn't matter what constitution we have, and thus we should just keep what we have.

If we are going to force them to follow the constitution, then the current one is which served us well for the 150 years we followed it, is good enough. Let's keep the good thing we have.

 

[peach174]

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.

What are the First words of our Constitution?
WE THE PEOPLE

It is we the people who fire our elected representatives by not voting for them again when they do not follow the Constitution.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No link provided!

None is needed, everyone in my generation recently graduated from the public education system, we all know this to be true by experience. In fact, the burden of disproof is on you. "Loose Construction" is the domineering school of thought being taught in public schools.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I think your a little paranoid about the intent of progressives.

The mass genocides of the 20th and 21st centuries against people who were initially disarmed teaches by experience that Those who seek to Disarm you wish to Kill you.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No link provided!

None is needed, everyone in my generation recently graduated from the public education system, we all know this to be true by experience. In fact, the burden of disproof is on you. "Loose Construction" is the domineering school of thought being taught in public schools.

You have assumed the onus of defending this absurd allegation;

Quote: Originally Posted by Darkwind
People are being taught in our schools that the Constitution is obsolete,

Therefore the onus remains on you to provide a credible link substantiating your allegation.

So far all we have is your biased opinion!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

What are the First words of our Constitution?
WE THE PEOPLE

It is we the people who fire our elected representatives by not voting for them again when they do not follow the Constitution.

Tell that to the WWII veterans at the Battle of Athens, Tennessee, 1946.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No link provided!

None is needed, everyone in my generation recently graduated from the public education system, we all know this to be true by experience. In fact, the burden of disproof is on you. "Loose Construction" is the domineering school of thought being taught in public schools.

You have assumed the onus of defending this absurd allegation;

Quote: Originally Posted by Darkwind
People are being taught in our schools that the Constitution is obsolete,

Therefore the onus remains on you to provide a credible link substantiating your allegation.

So far all we have is your biased opinion!

SparkNotes: The Judiciary: Judicial Philosophy, Politics, and Policy

http://www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/topics/the-bank-of-the-united-states-/

AP US History: The Study Guide: Strict Construction versus Loose Construction

AP Government Vocabulary flashcards | Quizlet

For Loose Construction Woll Precis : GOVERNMENT AP Governm : Troy High School : Class Note

Get lost troll.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

I think I can agree with that

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.

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.

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...

well keep in mind you could have a pretty steep tax rate, say 50% plus on large expenditures. This would dent the mismatch....plus raise money for a program as you outlined. Not sure on how to handle soft money...I certainly wouldnt personally be opposed new wording in Constitution that would regulate that, generally.. But I'm trying to come up with fairly non-contentious things to do, and I can see a lot of opposition to that by some (mostly special interests) who would claim it amounts to violation of speech.

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.

I see what you mean by the 12th amendment ,.....that would probably work.

 

[dcraelin]

I think your a little paranoid about the intent of progressives.

The mass genocides of the 20th and 21st centuries against people who were initially disarmed teaches by experience that Those who seek to Disarm you wish to Kill you.

I wouldnt change the right to bear arms.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I think your a little paranoid about the intent of progressives.

The mass genocides of the 20th and 21st centuries against people who were initially disarmed teaches by experience that Those who seek to Disarm you wish to Kill you.

I wouldnt change the right to bear arms.

Read the PM I am going to send you. It acknowledges that most Progressives are indeed good natured, they are useful idiots accelerating their own demise.

 

[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.

What you said is just crazy talk.
Since what we have isn't enforced.... we need a new constitution with enforcement provisions.
This is like criminals violate the law with guns, so we need laws saying criminals can't have guns.
You really don't see the insanity of this line of thinking?
If the criminal isn't going to follow existing laws..... why would you think they would follow new laws?
If the government is not going to follow the existing constitution, why would they follow the new 'enforcement provisions' of the constitution they are ignoring?
If the public allows the government to ignore the constitution now... then it really wouldn't matter what constitution you put in place.
My view is this.... if we are going to allow our government to ignore the constitution, then it doesn't matter what constitution we have, and thus we should just keep what we have.
If we are going to force them to follow the constitution, then the current one is which served us well for the 150 years we followed it, is good enough. Let's keep the good thing we have.

Please, its not crazy talk......Our original Constitution was the Articles of Confederation....the founders themselves weren't willing just to let things be...why should we?

I brought up the enforcement argument not because I necessarily agree with it, but because I anticipated a lot of folks saying "lets just enforce the one we've got".

You do have a point on if they dont follow it now why will they then....but thats not really an argument not to try for better. In general I think society would follow the rules better if they felt they were fairer.

 

[dblack]

We need a new Constitution, yes or no?

Of course not.

The notion is ignorant idiocy.

That current Constitutional jurisprudence conflicts with your errant conservative dogma of hate and ignorance is no reason for a 'new constitution.'

That current Constitutional jurisprudence conflicts with a large minority of American citizens' concepts of individual liberty and limited government is a much better reason.

 

[Derideo_Te]

None is needed, everyone in my generation recently graduated from the public education system, we all know this to be true by experience. In fact, the burden of disproof is on you. "Loose Construction" is the domineering school of thought being taught in public schools.

You have assumed the onus of defending this absurd allegation;

Quote: Originally Posted by Darkwind
People are being taught in our schools that the Constitution is obsolete,

Therefore the onus remains on you to provide a credible link substantiating your allegation.

So far all we have is your biased opinion!

SparkNotes: The Judiciary: Judicial Philosophy, Politics, and Policy

The Bank of the United States - AP U.S. History Topic Outlines - Study Notes

AP US History: The Study Guide: Strict Construction versus Loose Construction

AP Government Vocabulary flashcards | Quizlet

For Loose Construction Woll Precis : GOVERNMENT AP Governm : Troy High School : Class Note

Get lost troll.

None of those links support the baseless allegation. They teach both interpretations. You don't get to decide that only side can be taught just because that fits your personal bias.

 

[dcraelin]

The mass genocides of the 20th and 21st centuries against people who were initially disarmed teaches by experience that Those who seek to Disarm you wish to Kill you.

I wouldnt change the right to bear arms.

Read the PM I am going to send you. It acknowledges that most Progressives are indeed good natured, they are useful idiots accelerating their own demise.

useful idiots to who......the conservatives?, the 1%? Again I say your a bit paranoid, but Im trying to come up with fairly neutral changes so would not change right to bear arms. my browser blocked the PM.

 

[dblack]

I see no one serious about a rewrite that is not trying to circumvent equal protection.

I share this concern, but (based on some of your other posts) I'm wary as to your conception of 'equal protection'.