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

[mrsleeve]

Look at the Wilson Admin and how he got his office (also make note of whom he had in his cabinet,) and get back to me

Sorry hebie have been busy today.

Ben Franklin shortly before his death wanted a 2ed Bill of rights, to which everyone should have a home, health care and other things totally in disrguard to the Laural's that made him the man he was. You have latched on to one of Jeffersons passing whims of thought near his death...........................

[rwh11385]

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.

I do not follow that logic. How can a framework control for every possible way in which a person can corrupt a system while still permitting them to have free will? Government's performance is a result of the people which make it up, and in a republic such as ours, that is determined by the voters. If we elected better people, then we could experience a better functioning government. The constitution defines the limitation of the power of government and is intended to protect the rights of the people from the government. The power can be distributed by definition and limits given, but cannot provide dictation of the wills of the people in power. That will is a result of many things: personal beliefs, voter feedback, and lobbying. Creating a new constitution would provide the same problematic people a way to change their power and influence. How is that a solution?

Quote time:

We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." - Samuel Adams Essay in the Public Advertiser, 1749

[myinfernalbmw]

^^^ hard to argue with logic

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.

Strictly out of curiosity, what would you like to see in a newly established constitution that would adequately reflect our current social conditions and beliefs?

[naplesE30]

WOW someone can not only read but also proccess the logic as well. As I said you cant legislate out mans faults.... although the cons did the best it can with checks and balances. I dont agree with the direction of govt, but that does not mean the cons is flawed. The cons allows the republic to shape the country, not the govt. This is what makes it so perfect. It allows the pendulum to swing from the right to the left and back again.

Herb it sounds like you want 300million+ versions of the constitution. One to fit each persons idea of what govt should be. Surely that would lead to disfunction yes? See how silly things can get when we start to say things like it by association...... this must be this...if a square is a rectangle by association all rectangles are squares.

I do not follow that logic. How can a framework control for every possible way in which a person can corrupt a system while still permitting them to have free will? Government's performance is a result of the people which make it up, and in a republic such as ours, that is determined by the voters. If we elected better people, then we could experience a better functioning government. The constitution defines the limitation of the power of government and is intended to protect the rights of the people from the government. The power can be distributed by definition and limits given, but cannot provide dictation of the wills of the people in power. That will is a result of many things: personal beliefs, voter feedback, and lobbying. Creating a new constitution would provide the same problematic people a way to change their power and influence. How is that a solution?

Quote time:

[herbivor]

^^^ hard to argue with logic



Strictly out of curiosity, what would you like to see in a newly established constitution that would adequately reflect our current social conditions and beliefs?

I don't pretend to be an expert at constitutional law but admittedly there are some basic things that should be repealed or revised that would improve our government. Repeal of the antiquated electoral college would be a good start as well as some better language that would define governments role with regards to our monetary system and campaign financing. I would also like to see the bill of rights defined more specifically so that things like gun laws and laws defining speech are not such a hotly contested issue with both sides trying to interpret the intent of the constitution. Aside from basic flaws like that, have we really decided that our current organization of government is as good as it gets? Maybe it is, but maybe it's not. I don't know, but it's something worth contemplating.

[z31maniac]

heb, what makes you think lobbyists wouldn't be involved in the writing of a new constitution, thus, not allowing for things like anonymous campaign donations? Outlawing politicians from lying?

I'll even go a step further, remove ALL donations. Gov't funded campaigns (a very small amount) and get the media to give the candidates X amount of time per Y.

Let the candidate with the best planning and message win.

[naplesE30]

Herb do you think the const or replacement should be a rigid document spelling out exactly what guns, monetary issues, and speech are lawful. Not being sarcastic just curious as to your mindset? To me the beauty is in the vagueness. The more specific law becomes the more restrictive it is and the more loopholes it opens up as well. Who would define what speech is permissible, etc. The cons is a very fluid doc which is very applicable to today. Although the founders could have never dreamed what technology exists today they new that the cons would have to be open and adaptable which it is. Living as it is refered to.

The author of the article basically makes the point that a bunch of people did good things by not stictly adhearing to the cons so the whole damned thing is flawed and should be re-written.... To me that is an ass backwards way of arguing a point. By stealing and having riots a whole bunch of people may get property that they could have never aquired legaly so lets abolish property rights. That is an extreme example but along the same logic of legeslating from behind. I really think the flaw is in man who uses and abuses power to do what he feels is in the best intrest. Good intentions or not....

Fathom that in NYC you can only get a 16oz soft drink at a time, but you can drive to any sporting event and guzzle as much beer as you wish in a public place and then drive home illegaly. We are more worried about sugar content and enabling obesity then enabling drunk driving. Good intentiuon stop obesity but completly wrong. The solution is no law on consumption alcoholic or otherwise but self responsibility. How can anyone legeslate out self -responsibility? However, I fear that is what some ultimately are trying to do with weapons bans, hate speech, etc. We are trying to make the govt something it was never designed to be or should be,, a safety net where it is impossible for someone to fail on their own actions, and choices. However the const will allow us to do it if we so choose by voting politicians who run on such ideals.

[naplesE30]

Its ironic you and many are against the electoral college which was put in place because of the lack of educated citizens at the time. I now am starting to think it could be more important than ever in the comming years with the vast amount of biased and mis-information available ( both the right and left are guilty). That and the general lack of knowledge by most citizens.... As much as I may disagree with many on here it is great that you guys on both sides are engaged and informed.

[herbivor]

naples, I respect your viewpoints, and perhaps you're right and I'm wrong, but my viewpoint on this discussion is, that the constitution may not be a perfect document, and contemplating imagining a new constitution and type of government is something that should be explored. I'm not saying it should be done or will be done, I'm just saying that contemplating something different is healthy and should be encouraged, rather than sticking to an aging document that may or may not be relevant. That's why hardly anyone really follows the Bible literally, because it is not relevant to modern society.
Many countries have started since our country, and not a single one has copied our constitution exactly, or even that closely. There is a reason for that.

[rwh11385]

To me the beauty is in the vagueness. The more specific law becomes the more restrictive it is and the more loopholes it opens up as well. Who would define what speech is permissible, etc. The cons is a very fluid doc which is very applicable to today. Although the founders could have never dreamed what technology exists today they new that the cons would have to be open and adaptable which it is. Living as it is refered to.

More quotes along those lines:

"Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things." - Alexander Hamilton

“And that is what the Constitution is all about - providing freedom from abuse by those in authority. Anyone who says the American Constitution is obsolete just because social and economic conditions have changed does not understand the real genius of the Constitution. It was designed to control something which has not changed and will not change—namely, human nature.” (Cleon Skousen, The Five Thousand Year Leap, p. 166. 1981.)

Why would modern politicians give up so much power if they were creating a new government today?

naples, I respect your viewpoints, and perhaps you're right and I'm wrong, but my viewpoint on this discussion is, that the constitution may not be a perfect document, and contemplating imagining a new constitution and type of government is something that should be explored. I'm not saying it should be done or will be done, I'm just saying that contemplating something different is healthy and should be encouraged, rather than sticking to an aging document that may or may not be relevant. That's why hardly anyone really follows the Bible literally, because it is not relevant to modern society.
Many countries have started since our country, and not a single one has copied our constitution exactly, or even that closely. There is a reason for that.

What new type of government? Criticizing structure based on outcomes is like blaming the car for driving it off a cliff if it was functionally fine and the driver was poor.

Of course it is healthy and should be exercised, but such should be done with a strong effort made to proper research on the subject and also alternatives. Blindly making rash judgments on bad logic is not healthy.

What is your reasoning for the other countries not constructing their governments like ours?

[naplesE30]

Herb do you think your viewpoint is the minority or the majority view of your peers?

I don't think we need to worry about the const being abandoned as I don't think our current politicians could even agree on a name for the document let alone policy.

[CorvallisBMW]

Slightly OT here, but I had an interesting realization while reading this thread.

In every country where the US has 'set up' a government after some kind of war or collapse (Japan, W Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) we have never once instituted a Republican Democracy such as we have here. Every government we've ever set up has been a Parliamentary Democracy such as England, Australia, and nearly every other democratic state on earth. That strikes me as odd. If you believe what many on the political right believe, that we are the greatest nation in the history of the world, then why would we shy away from our own form of government?

[naplesE30]

I would assume because it is easier for us to control or influence as the powers of the chambers are not as strong or independent of each other. Also easier to switch p.m. if need be.

Your observation is a great example of how power corrupts. Even our gov has a hard time giving up the very power and freedom we enjoy.

[slammin.e28]

Slightly OT here, but I had an interesting realization while reading this thread.

In every country where the US has 'set up' a government after some kind of war or collapse (Japan, W Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) we have never once instituted a Republican Democracy such as we have here. Every government we've ever set up has been a Parliamentary Democracy such as England, Australia, and nearly every other democratic state on earth. That strikes me as odd. If you believe what many on the political right believe, that we are the greatest nation in the history of the world, then why would we shy away from our own form of government?

Because the Brits are always right and we should have never rebelled against them in the first place.

[Kershaw]

I'll even go a step further, remove ALL donations. Gov't funded campaigns (a very small amount) and get the media to give the candidates X amount of time per Y.

Let the candidate with the best planning and message win.

Individual media stations are inherent biased and will always spin for their candidate, like fox or msnbc does now.

I think our current system, but with forced anonymity concerning donations like herbivore(?) pointed out earlier is the way to go.

I wouldn't mind a 20-30 party system that needs to form alliances to pass bills. This 2 party system is really what's killing our legislature right now. And they are all corrupt.