 Author
|
Topic: Some ideas to fix the constitution... (Read 9573 times)
|
|
an1m3n00b
|
Extremely lightweight federal government: Federated States of whatever Three departments:
1) Defense Department - Defend the States from foreign enemies only, headed by a single executive elected by the federal senate.
2) State Department - Records State boundaries, memberships, and interstate agreements
3) Treasury Department - Calculate and collect state dues, assume and pay off defense debt.
A single unicameral senate comprised of n senators from each state.
The federal senate has 2 tasks:
Electorate for the defense executive. May be removed/replaced from office at any time with m% vote. (m>50%)
The federal senate also acts as a jury for any interstate disputes.
The federal senate will use parliamentary procedure.
All states may annex and secede from the federation at will.
This constitution may not be amended.
Federal costs are evenly distributed as state dues.
Any state that declares war on another state or refuses to pay dues shall be removed from the federation.
The federal senate shall vote regarding all federal debts. all assumed debts must receive an m% vote to be approved.
Interest on debt shall be added to federal costs.
All recorded agreements, boundaries, memberships, dues, and expenses will be made fully public. No legislature, so no trumping states rights in addition states are unconditionally allowed to leave the federation. The very few decisions that must be made are made by senators who can be decided by whatever means the state chooses. Also if any senators do go haywire and decide to recreate the american fed the other states will enforce it. I also think it's a good idea to have all computations and records stored and performed by computers running fixed open source software. With the source available to all. It also has the advantage of complete transparency. Any thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SuperPatriot
|
Personally, I think the US Constitution is pretty awesome (although not perfect). The U.S. form of government (Constitutional Republic) is the best form of government available. I also would like Anarchy, but don’t see that ever happening.
Reading the Federalist papers and other documents relating to our Constitution, it is obvious our Founders and their other liberty-minded forefathers and contemporaries really understood human nature.
The major issue our country has had is the gradual drift from a Constitutional Republic to an “anything goes” form of government. The Health Care Law is a perfect example. Constitutionally, there is no way that law could EVER get passed. But it was passed by congress and blessed as Constitutional by the Supreme Court, so it is law. This is how our government has become more and more lawless over time. The government passes a law it just says it is Constitutional. As time passes, more and more outrageous laws are deemed Constitutional, until the term “Constitutional” has no meaning. Following the Constitution will take care of the majority of your list of ideas.
One of the main sources of our current predicament is the deferential treatment the Supreme Court gives to Congress and the President. The Supreme Court should be much more vigorous defending the Constitution and keeping the Federal Government limited in scope, per the Constitution.
Directly electing the President is an absolute horrible idea. The left decries the fact that the most populous states can’t elect the President, and places like NH or Wyoming have a bigger say than (they think) they should. They get even more upset that a state like Wyoming has just as many Senators as a state like New York or California. This form of representation helps protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Many of the most populous states are full of “useful idiots” (Bloomberg or Quinn anyone?). Giving them more power to elect the President is scary. I realize that (Constitutionally) the President does not have a role superior to that of the Congress or Supreme Court, but it doesn’t make the office inconsequential.
I am 100% opposed to the government controlling ANY monopoly! That is an outrageous idea. It’s bad enough for me that the government CREATES so many monopolies!
Also, you talk about keeping Corporations out of the government and taking wealth out of elections. I agree Corporations should not purchase politicians to write laws to support their business/industry. On the other hand, government should stay out of Corporations. They should be separate entities, which mean government doesn’t try to control the corporations and corporations don’t try to control the government. One of the biggest problems with our economy is the government meddling with private business. Often, this is at the behest of the biggest corporations in any given industry, but it needs to stop. I also have no problem with any American citizen (or group of citizens) spending their money to advocate their candidates or issues. Americans should be free to advocate their issues in the manner they see fit. Asking the government to referee free speech is asking someone to step on your throat.
I would be in favor of a national flat tax of 4% or something like that to sustain the federal government. It would not to be locked in and unable to be altered in any way, and it would have to be the ONLY tax the government can use.
I think the greatest tragedy in our country is the fact that if we follow the Constitution and limit the size/scope of the federal government, EVERYONE will be better off. Liberty is the answer to our problems, not more government spending or more regulations.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
The major issue our country has had is the gradual drift from a Constitutional Republic to an “anything goes” form of government. "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." -Lysander Spooner |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
SuperPatriot
|
True, nothing is going to totally stop humanity's drive to enslave one another. That is why it is not perfect -- nothing made by man can be. Even anarchy will eventually lead to something bad.
Knowing that, we must still try and do the best we can. The key to any form of government is for a knowledgeable people continually guard their liberty.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
maxxoccupancy
|
Almost everyone I've talked to seems to believe that Constitutionally limited government would be a huge improvement over what we have in Washington, D.C., now.
Consensus is already built. I say we make that our platform, again.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We're in need of volunteers to help out with Freedom Expo. PM one of the organizers (like me) if you'd like to help.
"The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property." Freedom Expo is at Trinity Parish House, Seabrook, April 27, 2013! (right next to the Post Office)
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Even anarchy will eventually lead to something bad. Power corrupts. If power is not concentrated, that provides the lowest risk of corruption. Any concentration of power will corrupt a certain percentage of those who wield it and, more importantly, will attract those who are corruptible, until no uncorrupt individuals hold any position of power. The Constitution, of course, was written and unlawfully enacted by individuals who specifically wanted tyrannical power, being upset at the minimal centralization of power that was provided-for in the Articles of Confederation. The simplest solution would be to simply recognize that the Constitution is wholly without any legal support (the body that created it was not authorized to replace the Articles, and the Constitution was enacted without being unanimously ratified). The Federalists were traitors, and the Revolution died the day they were allowed to get away with their treason. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
maxxoccupancy
|
True, nothing is going to totally stop humanity's drive to enslave one another. That is why it is not perfect -- nothing made by man can be. Even anarchy will eventually lead to something bad.
Knowing that, we must still try and do the best we can. The key to any form of government is for a knowledgeable people continually guard their liberty.
There's minarchy and true minarchy. True minarchy is permitting only enough government to keep another government from taking us over. True minarchy is more like the anarchists answer to protecting our countrymen from bureaucracy, prisons, taxation, surveillance, and foreign military adventures. True minarchy is just the utter minimum of government needed to protect us from ending up with a modern, worldy government. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We're in need of volunteers to help out with Freedom Expo. PM one of the organizers (like me) if you'd like to help.
"The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property." Freedom Expo is at Trinity Parish House, Seabrook, April 27, 2013! (right next to the Post Office)
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
There's minarchy and true minarchy. True minarchy is permitting only enough government to keep another government from taking us over. True minarchy is more like the anarchists answer to protecting our countrymen from bureaucracy, prisons, taxation, surveillance, and foreign military adventures.
True minarchy is just the utter minimum of government needed to protect us from ending up with a modern, worldy government. "There's cancer and true cancer. True cancer is permitting only enough tumors to keep another tumor from taking over." Yeah, sorry, that doesn't work. Something bad, cannot protect you from that same bad thing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Even anarchy will eventually lead to something bad. Power corrupts. If power is not concentrated, that provides the lowest risk of corruption. Any concentration of power will corrupt a certain percentage of those who wield it and, more importantly, will attract those who are corruptible, until no uncorrupt individuals hold any position of power. The Constitution, of course, was written and unlawfully enacted by individuals who specifically wanted tyrannical power, being upset at the minimal centralization of power that was provided-for in the Articles of Confederation. The simplest solution would be to simply recognize that the Constitution is wholly without any legal support (the body that created it was not authorized to replace the Articles, and the Constitution was enacted without being unanimously ratified). The Federalists were traitors, and the Revolution died the day they were allowed to get away with their treason. Which State failed to ratify it? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Almost everyone I've talked to seems to believe that Constitutionally limited government would be a huge improvement over what we have in Washington, D.C., now.
Consensus is already built. I say we make that our platform, again.
Really? You must be talking to only few people... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SuperPatriot
|
In hindsight, it may have been better to just improve the Articles of Confederation than scrap it altogether.
Having said that, I do not think a new Constitutional Convention would work out too well for those of us that love liberty. I think a lot of new "rights" would be enshrined in a new constitution, most of which would attempt to mandate an equality of outcome, not opportunity. The 2nd Amendment and Free Speech would more than likely be watered down also.
Any overthrow of the government/Constitution would result in something MUCH worse, at least in the beginning. It would more than likely be mob rule with a more authoritarian government.
The shadow war being fought right now to enforce our current Constitution is where I think we should focus our efforts.
Hopefully the FSP and Tea Party-type groups can educate enough people that over time we can pull the country back from the brink.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
In hindsight, it may have been better to just improve the Articles of Confederation than scrap it altogether.
Having said that, I do not think a new Constitutional Convention would work out too well for those of us that love liberty. I think a lot of new "rights" would be enshrined in a new constitution, most of which would attempt to mandate an equality of outcome, not opportunity. The 2nd Amendment and Free Speech would more than likely be watered down also. Hence, why simply reverting to the Articles would be better than any attempt to "fix" the Constitution. The Articles already exist, so there is not the opportunity for change that would exist at a convention. Hopefully the FSP and Tea Party-type groups can educate enough people that over time we can pull the country back from the brink. Given how adamantly the Tea Party folks seem in wanting to destroy the parts of the Constitution that they don't happen to agree with, I cannot see how any actual Constitutionalist would want to ally with them. For example, just ask them about immigration, and listen to the unconstitutional rhetoric spew forth. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 05, 2012, 10:11:34 am by MaineShark »
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
SuperPatriot
|
I am not sure what you mean about destroying parts of the Constitution, unless you are talking about those people who don't want to grant citizenship to those who are born here but have an illegal mother (anchor babies). In which case, I agree.
I also admit that some in the Tea Party are not libertarian, but overall my experience has been that they are more libertarian than either the typical R or D.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
I am not sure what you mean about destroying parts of the Constitution, unless you are talking about those people who don't want to grant citizenship to those who are born here but have an illegal mother (anchor babies). In which case, I agree. The Constitution states that anyone born within any of the several states is automatically a citizen, so yes, attempting to over-ride that would also be attempting to destroy part of the Constitution. But in regards to immigration, there's a more critical issue: there's no such thing as an "illegal" immigrant, under the Constitution. The Federal government is granted no authority to regulate immigration. Control over immigration is reserved to the several states. The Federal government's only authority over immigrants is the naturalization process (ie, determining how they may become citizens). Any attempt to restrict or control immigration (or even to encourage it, for that matter) at the Federal level is unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Article One Section Nine lays out a date (year) before which Congress can not prohibit migration as the States allow.
It would be reasonable to presume that after such a date, Congress would have the power to prohibit migration... or through the Naturalization process set in motion the entrance policy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
