|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jan 12, 2004 1:43:02 GMT -5
If you could go back and help them write the Constitution, with the experience of almost 250 years, what would you change?
- Rick
|
|
|
|
Post by dr snootch on Jan 13, 2004 18:35:52 GMT -5
I'm not sure I'd necessarily change anything about the Constitution except maybe to emphasize the principle of small government staying out of people's lives. I think we've gotten far away from what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote it.
I would definitely get rid of the electoral college and elect all officials by straight popular vote. Don't know if that's part of the Constitution or not, but it should be changed.
Further, I'm not so sure I support term liimits. If the people of the country want the same leader and the election system isn't compromised, I don't see why an individual shouldn't be able to be voted in for more than 2 terms.
I think we should be barely aware that our government exists. As long as nothing I do violates another individual's rights, I should have no problems with The Man.
|
|
|
|
Post by Izdaari on Jan 14, 2004 5:29:42 GMT -5
The only change needed to the Constitution as originally written, and I'll include the Bill of Rights in that, is to clarify the language, which would include modernizing it since the usage of words has changed. In particular the "general welfare clause" and the "elastic clause" (Article I Section 8 paragraph 18) have been the loopholes that have been used to expand government, so their language especially needs to be tightened up. Some later Amendments need to be repealed completely, starting with the Sixteenth (authorizing the income tax).
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jan 14, 2004 19:28:39 GMT -5
I think an amazing idea was given by FA Hayek to Walter Williams, and that would be an Amendment saying that the government cannot give something to one person without giving it to every person. That would definitely help secure the rights of the individual against the encroachment of collectivist freedom-robbers.
- Rick
|
|
|
|
Post by Argonaut on Feb 5, 2004 6:10:54 GMT -5
I would echo Izdaaris suggestions regarding clarification and modernization of the language giving utmost importance to the original authors understanding (and definition) of the words. The whole Preamble has become a giant black loop hole..."more perfect union"..."establish justice"..."insure domestic tranquility"..."promote the genaral welfare"..."secure the blessings"...What an unforseen disaster of vague language! Great question! I will have to give it more thought. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Feb 5, 2004 17:37:04 GMT -5
I would echo Izdaaris suggestions regarding clarification and modernization of the language giving utmost importance to the original authors understanding (and definition) of the words. The whole Preamble has become a giant black loop hole..."more perfect union"..."establish justice"..."insure domestic tranquility"..."promote the genaral welfare"..."secure the blessings"...What an unforseen disaster of vague language! Great question! I will have to give it more thought. ;D Thanks! I look forward to your thoughts. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by carter blance on Feb 25, 2004 23:18:50 GMT -5
The whole Preamble has become a giant black loop hole..."more perfect union"..."establish justice"..."insure domestic tranquility"..."promote the genaral welfare"..."secure the blessings"...What an unforseen disaster of vague language! I view the Preamble as an intro and nothing more...I don't think it was meant to enforce the legal arguements of the Constitution itself. To answer the original question, the general welfare clause as well as the 2nd need to be more specifically defined. I would also repeal the 17th amendment and throw the selection back to the state governments. Oh, and reintroduce the Bricker amendment...in this country, the Constitution should take precedence over every other legal document. |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Feb 26, 2004 4:36:36 GMT -5
I view the Preamble as an intro and nothing more...I don't think it was meant to enforce the legal arguements of the Constitution itself. To answer the original question, the general welfare clause as well as the 2nd need to be more specifically defined. I would also repeal the 17th amendment and throw the selection back to the state governments. Oh, and reintroduce the Bricker amendment...in this country, the Constitution should take precedence over every other legal document. Agreed. And I'd be more specific as to what the federal government cannot do. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by Argonaut on Feb 26, 2004 6:57:32 GMT -5
I view the Preamble as an intro and nothing more...I don't think it was meant to enforce the legal arguements of the Constitution itself. To answer the original question, the general welfare clause as well as the 2nd need to be more specifically defined. I would also repeal the 17th amendment and throw the selection back to the state governments. Oh, and reintroduce the Bricker amendment...in this country, the Constitution should take precedence over every other legal document. :)When I agreed with Izdaari that the language should be clarified or modernized, I meant all of it, not just the Preamble. And many people (including lawyers and politicians) often point to the vague language of the Preamble when arguing "original intent". That's all I meant to say (but didn't-sorry).  I hate to admit I don't know the answer to this, but where is the "General Welfare Clause"? I always thought that refered to the "promote the general welfare" in the Preamble. I am ignorant in this case I guess.(Damn! I feel stupid!) Help please! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Feb 26, 2004 8:08:32 GMT -5
I hate to admit I don't know the answer to this, but where is the "General Welfare Clause"? I always thought that refered to the "promote the general welfare" in the Preamble. I am ignorant in this case I guess.(Damn! I feel stupid!) Help please! ;D It appears in two places: Preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, [glow=red,2,300]promote the general welfare,[/glow] and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Article I
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and [glow=red,2,300]general welfare[/glow] of the United StatesThey've chosen the second instance to validate their expansionist policy, yet I do not see a program that takes from one and gives directly to another as promoting the general welfare - rather the specific welfare of some over others. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by Argonaut on Feb 26, 2004 9:06:01 GMT -5
It appears in two places: Preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, [glow=red,2,300]promote the general welfare,[/glow] and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Article I
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and [glow=red,2,300]general welfare[/glow] of the United StatesThey've chosen the second instance to validate their expansionist policy, yet I do not see a program that takes from one and gives directly to another as promoting the general welfare - rather the specific welfare of some over others. - Rick Yeah! That's what I meant to say (thanks Rick)! "General welfare" seems to be the vague phrase in question. I suppose that the parasites...ooops, I mean "progressives" could argue that stealing from you and I in order to "give" money, food, housing, education, health care (and/or anything else) to other sponges...ooops, I mean "people", is "providing" for the "general" "welfare".  I imagine that they might argue that paying off some leeches...ooops, I mean "fellow citizens" might prevent them from "rising up" and attacking their neighbors in "general". As an agnostic, I do not neccessarily believe in life after death, but i can imagine our founding fathers rolling over in their graves screaming in utter horror-"That's not what we meant you morons!" I can almost see them reaching for the "EDIT" button right now??? |
|
|
|
Post by jeffgoss on Feb 28, 2004 0:42:54 GMT -5
Maybe a clause to have all people study history. It may lead all citizens to learn to negotiate their wages for the service they provide. If all people were compensated fairly, no one would be concerned about the "welfare clause".
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Feb 28, 2004 2:35:56 GMT -5
Maybe a clause to have all people study history. It may lead all citizens to learn to negotiate their wages for the service they provide. If all people were compensated fairly, no one would be concerned about the "welfare clause". I see your point, and in my heart, agree with you. Unfortunately, the flip side of freedom is the freedom to not care to learn history. Everyone gets a fair wage. They are free to accept or not accept the terms of employment. What many fail to do is understand what they are worth, and what they can demand. Some think they are worth more than they are, as well, and never end up realizing their potential because they don't want to work for it. When someone understands exactly what they have to offer, they are in a better place for negotiating. Another thing people don't seem to understand is that everything is negotiable. The other day, with some crafty trades, I was able to get an oil change, fuel injector flush, a new headlight, a new brake light, and a new air filter for a grand total of $16.01. It's all about understanding costs and motivation. An oil change does not cost the guys working at Jiffy Lube a cent, so they will throw that stuff in if you offer them something they value more than the time it takes for an oil change. So, I went to a Papa John's, schmoozed the manager into giving me two gift certificates for large, one topping pizzas for $5 a piece. I then took those certificates to Jiffy Lube, and offered to trade them for what I needed. The extra $6 was for the headlight, which Jiffy Lube didn't have in stock. The point, though, is you have to understand what people value and what you have to offer before you can negotiate anything. That's the most important thing entitlement-minded Americans need to learn. - Rick PS - BTW, the name Jeff Goss is extremely familiar to me. Do I know you personally? Go ahead and register - I'd like to see you around here more. |
|
|
|
Post by Argonaut on Feb 28, 2004 5:54:54 GMT -5
Maybe a clause to have all people study history. It may lead all citizens to learn to negotiate their wages for the service they provide. If all people were compensated fairly, no one would be concerned about the "welfare clause".  Since we are just tossing ideas out for consideration, I would suggest that unless and/or until all governments (local, State, and Federal) repeal the unjust and coercicive laws requiring that "children" recieve "education" from the 90+% of schools that are "public" and tax-payer funded (can anyone say MONOPOLY?), a Constitutional ammendment be enacted that says: "History textbooks used in "public schools" since the early 20th century having been authored primarily by sympathizers of the philosophy/religion commonly known as "Socialism" will no longer be allowed to be used in any "public school" that relies on any form of "tax-revenue", all of which has been unjustly and coercively extracted from it's citizenry by any "government" whether "local", "State", or "Federal", notwithstanding any previous "clause" in this "Constitution". In their place, "history" textbooks paid for by the confiscated earnings of "wealthy" "Socialists" "Liberals" and "Progressives" (as these terms are now commonly defined) and recommended by the "Cato Institute" shall be required to be read and understood annually with a tested grade of "B+" or better until such time as the following clause is adhered to." "Furthermore, a course in "economics" based on the theories of "supply and demand" as described by Adam Smith (in his "Wealth of Nations" ) and others of like mind, in conjuction with a course in "philosophy" based on the writings of "Ayn Rand" (in such works as "Atlas Shrugged" ) and other "philosophers" of like mind (as determined by the aforementioned "Cato Institute" and paid for by the aforementioned "Socialists" etc...shall be required to be taken and passed annually with a grade of "A+" from the age of 12 until such time as each "student" is loosed upon their fellow human more commonly (and inaccurately since there is no such entity) refered to as "Society", notwithstanding any other "clause" however remotely percieved to be "in" this "Constitution." ;D |
|
|
|
Post by whatever on Mar 12, 2004 17:01:27 GMT -5
Now you're dreamin' Argonaut  And who would make the tests? I finally had a thought about this question. Please forgive my lack of knowledge, because I don't know much about, ah, the specifics of the Constitution. What can I say, I'm from Jefferson County. What I would like clarified is what is meant by "arms", being very inclusive, or more exclusive meaning only handguns, rifles, etc. Personally I interpret it to mean anything, though I'm not sure that's right. My thought is that the "founding fathers" basically took on another country; another government. I'm willing to bet that if they could have had a large bomb, they would have had one, whether they used it or not. So, as far as "bearing arms", to me it means you have the right to defend yourself against anything or anyone. No matter how big the enemy and no matter how few there are of you. I would like to make this point stronger; that anyone has the right to use this (or any?) form of lethal defense. And also the right to use it anywhere you might find yourself in need of defense. I think that goes along with updating the wording that you discussed. I haven't read everything here, so I'm not sure if this wasn't discussed already |
|
I imagine that they might argue that paying off some leeches...ooops, I mean "fellow citizens" might prevent them from "rising up" and attacking their neighbors in "general".
