Shall we give up on the Constitution ?????

[dannyyisntt]

Sounds like a great opportunity for political figures to ruin our country even more. Twist things to meet their personal agenda's. Personally I don't carry enough faith in those that represent us to have them change such documents.

I'll agree thar our country was built upon a different set of principles than what some view as applicable to our world today, but regardless it seems to me that we've done pretty fucking good as a country in the short time we've been one. Even with our "antiquated" beliefs.

[BraveUlysses]

If we dont like then lets amend it............ Its not easy to amend its not supposed to be, its one of the way Knee jerk reactions to things dont get stuffed into the highest law in the land. Thats what is meant by "LIVING DOCUMENT" not that it should be reinterpreted every generation, that it can be amended and changed to meet the needs of future generations. This is what Jeffeson is referencing when talking about reexamining the laws of this country.

I will address the rest of that tomorrow when I have some time.

Some food for thought, try reading the abstract for this paper:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1923556

[Dozyproductions]

"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

Although you would like to think your messiah would never repeal the constitution, he has said otherwise in several letters. Not revise, repeal. The reasons stated above are a perfect example of why the constitution should be repealed, because "bribery and personal interests lead [the politicians] astray".

I know that's what he meant but its not what I did. The guy was ahead of his time but he also owned slaves. People are still people so what their opinions are, are nothing more than that.

Instead should we have term limits for congressmen and ban the idea that corporations are people and that any sort of money going to campaigns should be restricted to just the politcian's who are campaigning? I don't have a clue but this constitution can work if we got rid of career politicians. Let the people with ideals keep them and use them before they run out ;)

[Farbin Kaiber]

Personally, I think even further than that, we should have Statesmen. Members of society essentially "drafted" into a two year term, compensated 1.5 times their present income, and a guarantee of return to their previous employment (If it can be done for injury, family leave, birth or etc., than we know it can be done) to represent their state/its citizens in a reasonable manner.

It gives enough time to get up to speed, and to make some reasonable moves in the political arena, but not enough time to become ingrained, or to become a valuable commodity to the interests of outside political groups/agendas/businesses.

This is something I've been thinking for quite a few years now. At one time, our political representatives were just citizens doing what was best for their state and country, now they are career minded and doing what is best for their and their friends/benefactors bottom lines.

[slammin.e28]

Personally, I think even further than that, we should have Statesmen. Members of society essentially "drafted" into a two year term, compensated 1.5 times their present income, and a guarantee of return to their previous employment (If it can be done for injury, family leave, birth or etc., than we know it can be done) to represent their state/its citizens in a reasonable manner.

It gives enough time to get up to speed, and to make some reasonable moves in the political arena, but not enough time to become ingrained, or to become a valuable commodity to the interests of outside political groups/agendas/businesses.

This is something I've been thinking for quite a few years now. At one time, our political representatives were just citizens doing what was best for their state and country, now they are career minded and doing what is best for their and their friends/benefactors bottom lines.

This. Working in government shouldn't be something people necessarily WANT to do, but more of a obligation, for a finite term. Having reps in Congree who have been there 40 years doesn't help anything as this isn't 1965 anymore.

[Dozyproductions]

I agree with r3v's Sasquatch on this one.

[herbivor]

I know that's what he meant but its not what I did. The guy was ahead of his time but he also owned slaves. People are still people so what their opinions are, are nothing more than that.

IIRC, He wrote these opinions in his later years when he was no longer a politician and after he had time to see the effects of the constitution. He probably saw the bribery and corruption inherit from following the constitution. That is why, I agree with TJ, that the constitution should be completely repealed, and not amended, so that it eliminates the possibility of what currently plagues all politicians, corruption. Read his statement again. It makes since. Of course we all know, there are too many die- hard, constitution loving conservatives, that will never consider repealing the old and rewriting a new, so as usual, his idea will remain at the philosophical level.

[z31maniac]

IIRC, He wrote these opinions in his later years when he was no longer a politician and after he had time to see the effects of the constitution. He probably saw the bribery and corruption inherit from following the constitution. That is why, I agree with TJ, that the constitution should be completely repealed, and not amended, so that it eliminates the possibility of what currently plagues all politicians, corruption. Read his statement again. It makes since. Of course we all know, there are too many die- hard, constitution loving conservatives, that will never consider repealing the old and rewriting a new, so as usual, his idea will remain at the philosophical level.

Why do think corporate influence/bribery/corruption would have no effect on a new constitution?

[Farbin Kaiber]

Please, don't confuse my suggestion of Statesmen for Statists.

And to z31, BECAUSE UTOPIA, or Because we smart now d0e.

[herbivor]

Why do think corporate influence/bribery/corruption would have no effect on a new constitution?

Well, it will, just like it did with our current one. But at least the laws and constitution will be relevant to the current generation. But knowing ones laws and actions will effectively be repealed automatically, sort of reduces the influence of corruption. Think about it for instance, if campaign donations had to be completely anonymous to everyone including the person receiving them. There would be no more bribery to politicians from big corporations and no need for politicians to spend 70% of there time trying to raise money. They could actually do what they are supposed to do without influence from big money. But our current laws prevent that.

[rwh11385]

Writer's extreme frustration and impatience probably isn't at the constitution itself but the "strict constitutionalists" which aim to twist the words into limiting what they think the government is allowed to do and also that we shouldn't have things we have. You could argue that the Air Force violates the constitution because it doesn't mention such... mostly because there were no planes when it was written.

The writer presumably wants social change to come about and see some people making it difficult to implement these things, much as it has been with other issues in the past. But at the same time, we wouldn't want crazed people changing the constitution for their own personal interests or beliefs. [18th amendment anyone??] Amendments should be carefully considered and would be easier if society agreed on issues - which takes time. The real issue for the writer may be the social conservatives rather than the document itself.

This ought to be fun, as much as I think this idiot should be tar and feathered paraded up and down 5th ave for a week. Its his 1st amendment rights to speak on such terms, and what will protect his rights to similar rants, if we were to burn the Constitution??? Surly the govt would.............................................

The same 1st amendment right that protects your crazy rant here also protects theirs.

Well, according to your messiah, Thomas Jefferson, we should be abolishing the constitution every 19 years (each generation) and creating a completely new one that is more relevant to the current generation. I tend to agree with Jefferson on this. Do you?

While it might not change that frequently, it really does evolve over time with respect to rights as time passes on. It is still unfair that some don't have equal rights and have to wait for it, but part of the process. The best thing that can be done is work for social acceptance or understanding.... or wait for 'natural attrition' to help the problem. It wasn't likely that the slave owners were going to abolish it or give equal civil rights / voting rights. They had to get "phased" out and social norms and thought had to change, so hopefully the same will occur with gay rights soon.

If we dont like then lets amend it............ Its not easy to amend its not supposed to be, its one of the way Knee jerk reactions to things dont get stuffed into the highest law in the land. Thats what is meant by "LIVING DOCUMENT" not that it should be reinterpreted every generation, that it can be amended and changed to meet the needs of future generations. This is what Jeffeson is referencing when talking about reexamining the laws of this country.

I will address the rest of that tomorrow when I have some time.

Indeed. But I would say the real frustration again is those who are limiting the ability to bring about equal rights that ought to be protected, instead of the mechanism itself being at fault.

Sounds like a great opportunity for political figures to ruin our country even more. Twist things to meet their personal agenda's

Indeed.

Why do think corporate influence/bribery/corruption would have no effect on a new constitution?

Excellent point.

I don't know if Farbin's idea in its current development is exactly what I'd support, but something along the lines of having people serve and improve rather than pursue office for ego and influence might be good. [Keep thinking about it though] The problem is something like college professors where the really good and smart ones cost a lot because they are valuable in industry. Right now obviously Congress seems pretty worthless, so paying good people a lot might accomplish something actually. Instead of focusing on how to make their contributors happy, they could work for real solutions and base choices on what will do the most good and be best for the country, not themselves or their donors.

The big problem is people who want to gain political power to push their ideals on others and impose their religious laws on everyone. (At least considering current social conflicts and political debates)

[naplesE30]

I think the constitution is a damned near perfect document being interpeted by unperfect power hungry people.

Like Farbin said 2000 page bill, do you really think re-writting the constitution is even posible with the idiots in office today.... What makes the constitution so great is its vaugeness to a degree. It is supposed to be vague and all encompassing and restricting at the same time. Thats the point of the scotus to interpet without outside influence or judical activism. The problem in my mind is that the 10th amnedment has been completely ignored. The constitution imho was written to restrict the power of gov. To make gov as little as essentially possible. It is we who have grown and trampled the founding principals, which the constitution allows through representation. The constitution allows the american public to make this country as great as it can be or run it into the ground. If you ask me we are doing a fine job of the latter, but we are doing it to ourselves. We reap what we sew.

TJ was a brilliant man as were all the framers. However, he was human and had his flaws like any man does. The more I study them the more I am awed by their courage and true selflesness and wisdom. I wish our current politicians had a ounce of the selflessness, wisdom, and intellegence the framers had. I find it amazing reading some op-eds by brutus how many things he worried about have come to fruition. However, you cant legislate out mans inherint flaws.

[Farbin Kaiber]

I'll keep working on it for ya Mr. Heet.

[herbivor]

I think the constitution is a damned near perfect document being interpeted by unperfect power hungry people.

Like Farbin said 2000 page bill, do you really think re-writting the constitution is even posible with the idiots in office today.... What makes the constitution so great is its vaugeness to a degree. It is supposed to be vague and all encompassing and restricting at the same time. Thats the point of the scotus to interpet without outside influence or judical activism. The problem in my mind is that the 10th amnedment has been completely ignored. The constitution imho was written to restrict the power of gov. To make gov as little as essentially possible. It is we who have grown and trampled the founding principals, which the constitution allows through representation. The constitution allows the american public to make this country as great as it can be or run it into the ground. If you ask me we are doing a fine job of the latter, but we are doing it to ourselves. We reap what we sew.

The constitution is the framework for our current government, laws, and freedoms. If you think the constitution is damned near perfect, then by a association, you are saying our government is damned near perfect, because it is the result of our constitution. If however, you agree the government is not perfect, than you should also agree that its constitution should be improved and changed to make it more perfect.
My argument is that are government is not as good as it should be and therefore neither is our constitution, and like TJ said, it is better to completely repeal it and start anew with fresh ideas that are reflective of our current conditions and beliefs, rather than simply amend it. Sounds radical, but Thomas Jefferson was radical.

[Fusion]

As Jackson was leaving the office of the Presidency, he once again warned the American people in his Farewell Address:

"The Constitution of the United States unquestionably intended to secure to the people a circulating medium of gold and silver coin (See Article 1, Section 10). But the establishment of a national bank by Congress, with the privilege of issuing paper money receivable in the payment of public dues ... drove from general circulation the constitutional medium of exchange and substituted one of paper in its place."

On February 25, 1863, an infiltrated and bought Congress passed the National Banking Act. Lincoln, after the passage of this treasonous act, once again warned the American people. He said:

"The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureacracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and cause me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of mass corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic is destroyed."

Eerie how something told 150 years ago can be so exact.