A New New Bill of Rights

Posted by Eudaimonia 12 years ago to Philosophy
118 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

The Progressives, since FDR, have been pushing a New Bill of Rights, a document of vague "positive liberties" such as the right of "freedom from fear" which, in practice, would give the government a blank check to do whatever it damned well pleased.

The Libertarian/Republitarian/Conservatarian/Tea Party/Constitutionalist/Originalist/Objectivist/Randian thinkers among us need to respond in kind.

If you were to suggest an actual amendment to a Constitutition (US, State, or Gulch), what would it be?

I will post my suggestions to the thread.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by 12 years ago
    As languages are living and breathing, and contracts are not, this Constitution shall be interpreted with its original intent, and not with any passing trend or use of language or rhetoric.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jwork 12 years ago
    No Amendment will be a solution to our problems. Review the latest ruling on Obamacare. Unfortunately our form of government is broken. The Founders regarded their creation an experiment, but it has failed, despite being the best form of government that the human race has yet achieved. The combination of "progressive" education, biased media, opportunistic politicians, and a corrupted legal system have brought us to this point. The majority of voters are too ignorant and indifferent to expect any real change for the better. Even a new Revolution will not be likely to return us to an age when our citizens were more moral and self-reliant. Objectivism is about seeing things as they are. Difficult times lie ahead.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 12 years ago
    No federal or state law shall be enacted or enforced until its constitutionality according to original intent shall be established.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -6
      Posted by victoriaz 12 years ago
      while this is a great idea, the concept of 'original intent' is a slippery slope. many forget or don't realize the founding fathers had to make many concessions on the constitution to get it passed. it's difficult to base things on 'original intent' because the constitution is not a true representation of what the founding fathers wanted. the constitution should be viewed more as a 'living document' that adapts and changes with the times. obviously some ideals from the 18th century don't apply to the 21st and vice versa. e.g., the right to bear arms- in 1776 they had muskets, in 2013 we have AK-47s. HUGE difference.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 12 years ago
        Not a huge difference at all, rather it is a specious argument.

        The Founders also did not have the Internet, so, by your logic, Freedom of The Press only adheres to The Printing Press.

        You are conflating, perhaps purposefully, the *letter* of the law and the *intention* of the law.

        The *intention* of the Second Amendment was that the people not be infringed from being armed in a manner relative to a soldier in a standing army.

        By that *intention*, AK47's and AR15's are *consistent* with original intent.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by victoriaz 12 years ago
          Quite the contrary. By the logic of original intent Freedom of the Press only adheres to the Printing Press since that's the only form of media that existed at the time. Looking at the Constitution as a "living document" would allow for the change in media and apply to the internet.

          The framers left slavery out of the Constitution because they knew they couldn't get the majority they needed by making it illegal or legal for that matter. Further more the framers disagreed on several issues so original intent differs from person to person. Especially when it comes to the Second Amendment and the even the First Amendment.

          The biggest problem with original intent is that we try to apply ideas of the framers to situations they couldn't forsee.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 12 years ago
            Wrong!

            The original intent of Freedom of The Press was freedom of the dissemination of information, especially information which the government did not want reported.

            But feel free to stick to your specious canned arguments and feel like you're scoring points.

            More to the original point though, this is not a thread to discuss competing philosophies of the current US Constitution, but rather to how a new one might be formed.

            So, look, victoriaz, you've got your Marxist Utopia, and we evil, evil monsters are finally making plans to go away and leave you to revel in it... so why don't you let us?

            Oh yeah, that's right... you can't... all must submit.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by victoriaz 12 years ago
              i'm sorry but i'm republican and i don't think anything i have said would lead someone to believe that i have socialist preferences.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by LionelHutz 12 years ago
                Party affiliation isn't the point here. The attack is on your reasoning. I'm afraid I find it faulty too. The founders most certainly did have an intent to their writings. They intended the country to be governed by their words. They ate their own dog food, so to speak. If one leaves the words open to the reader's own interpretation, then there is little point in even writing the law. The path you are on is the liberal path - one that "discovers" new meaning in old words, rather than being intellectually honest and just saying "let's propose an amendment, because we don't agree with those words anymore".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by UncommonSense 12 years ago
        The Constitution cannot be a "living document" if you expect us to have a nation we can securely live in and pass onto our children.
        Do you think it's a good idea to build a house on shifting sand? Why? Just because sand is a "living, changeable" thing doesn't mean there's no security in building on it right?

        The Founders of this nation fully understood Human Nature after studying all the previous empires for most of their lives. They understood that Human Nature defaults to tyranny if left unchecked. Why do you think they created a Republic and NOT a democracy? Because democracy ALWAYS ends in the same way: chaos and tyranny. Shortly after the Greeks came up with 1 vote per person, the fraudsters started scheming And over time, the democracy broke down. Why? Human nature.

        The Constitution can be amended and individual states can "experiment" with other forms of government, IF the People choose to. And based on the outcome, if the people don't like the results, they can go back to the way government was prior to any experiment. One of the Founder said this, apologies I don't recall at this time who said it.

        Look around you, CA, MI, IL, & NY have been "experimenting" with Socialism and guess what? It doesn't work. And when the stupid politicians refuse to listen to their constituency, the people will vote with their feet. Why do you think people flock to conservative states?



        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 12 years ago
        "Living and Breathing" is also a specious argument.

        A Constitution is a social contract and no contract is "living and breathing."

        Is your mortgage "living and breathing"?

        As I stated in another post as a suggested amendment:
        "As languages are living and breathing, and contracts are not, this Constitution shall be interpreted with its original intent, and not with any passing trend or use of language or rhetoric."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 12 years ago
        I find "living, breathing document" malleable. there of course were some compromises when framing the Constitution, and most in here are well-read on issues regarding this. "original intent" when used by most Constitutionalists, lie in laying out natural rights and their protections. sophistications in weaponry are smaller incrementally compared to world govt alliances, military weaponry and equipment compared to the time when the Constitution was written. Where are your concerns regarding that? does a "living breathing document" mold around rounding up japanese americans, taking their property and putting them in concentration camps? The Constitution does not allow for that. It was ignored. I'd rather there were clear lines drawn between the actions of the US at any time and how far we would be moving away or toward the "intent of the framers" I don't want a Constitution that may "allow" and a government saying don't worry, that's not our "intent"
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 12 years ago
    The right to protect, even from one's own government should it turn oppressive, one's own liberty, self, family, friend, or property with lethal force and the keeping and bearing of arms shall not be infringed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jwork 12 years ago
    In my earlier comment I said that I think our system of government has failed. A more constructive comment would have explained why or suggested a solution.

    I think the main problem is that the Constitution failed to state a set of basic principles. To get an idea of the importance of principles see David Kelley's "A Short Course in Rule Breaking" - http://www.atlassociety.org/tni/short-co.... For some good thoughts about the problems with our legal system and "legislative law" read Bruno Leoni's "Freedom and the Law" - http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_s.... And for an attempt at framing a Constitution in terms of principles see this page of my website - http://stardrivenovel.com/Constitution.p....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 12 years ago
      I am working backward on your links, but as to the Constitution you drafted, I assume it's yours, I am struck by your presumption that the citizen must sign anything. It is the government that must sign a contract. We hire them. They also have a monopoly on force. It is important to constrain them, not the people.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Kamanaopono 12 years ago
    If a federal, state or county employee uses their office, position or political influence for monetary gain, criminal activity or polital corruption, that person should face a life sentence in a federal prison and the forfeit of all salary gained through governmental employment. All government expenses should be checked and evaluated by a private accounting firm that should be evaluated by an independant third party watchdog group that answers to the Judiciary Department. The Judiciary will held under the same criminal comtempt as every government employee.We are talking about government employees who are not working for the good of the American people and these people should be encouraged to do their job correctly,held to the up most accountability or to just leave.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MrSelfish 12 years ago
    If we but honor and remain true to the 10th Amendment - - -

    'Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'

    - - then no new amendments are required!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CapitalistFool 12 years ago
      The 10th Amendment is the wrong place to focus. Before Amendment 17, the federal government was accountable to the states. Since then the only protection for states is through juristic interpretations of the 10th Amendment, instead of the states exercising it themselves. See post by CapitalistFool.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ragnars_Crew 12 years ago
    All taxes shall be "apportioned" across all tax payers, no more of the top 50% of tax payers covering almost all of the taxes and bottom 50% paying in almost none. Any tax increase on one tax bracket shall be applied to all tax brackets. Tax payers cannot get a "tax refund" that is an amount more than they put in.

    Also, there is a NATURAL right to private property. Local, state and federal governments can not tax more than a combined 25% of your gross income. All "death" and "wealth" taxes are null and void, again "private property".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment deleted.
    • Posted by khalling 12 years ago
      yea, what DK said. you were spot on until that last point. recheck your premise on that and get back to us, ragnar. This should not be based on income!!! write that 100 times before you go to bed tonight. Income earners are neither the drain on society nor the creators of overall wealth. therefore, not only is such a tax irrational, it is also onerous.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 12 years ago
    Congress shall make no law establishing or incorporating a theocracy, whether it be Judean, Christian, Muslim, Marxist, Eco, or any other; nor shall it make any law restricting the non-theocratic practice of any religion.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LauriJon 12 years ago
    This is what I would propose.
    Congress shall create no Law which applies to the citizens of the United States of America that exempts themselves, the judicial or the executive branches, nor any federal employee. This would also eliminate Obamacare, darlings.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 12 years ago
    (a) No law, executive order, or other means, shall be enacted, ratified, or signed, limiting, changing, weakening, or deleting, either in whole or in part, of this constitution or any amendment attached and ratified thereto, nor shall any article or amendment to the constitution be narrowly construed to limit the rights set forth under said section or amendment.

    (b) Any politician, elected official, or member of the Legislative, Executive, or Judicial branch of the Government of these United States, or of any lesser government entity within the boundaries of these United States, who violates section (a) above, shall be declared in absolute malfeasance of their office; they shall immediately be removed from their position and title(s); said office shall be immmediately vacated, they shall be barred from seeking, attaining, or holding future office in ANY capacity with ANY governmental entity, and all gains, monetary, Influential, or Material, shall be forfeit. Further, they shall be subject to arrest and immediate inprisonment, the term of which shall be no less than 25 years, in no less than a maximum security detention facility."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 12 years ago
    My post of 3/16 amended...

    1) The right of the Individual to own property shall not be infringed.

    2) Monies necessary for the Government to fund a military force, a police force, and a system of courts shall be raised by voluntary donations.

    3) The Government is hereby enjoined and forever prohibited from any spending beyond those listed in Article 2.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 12 years ago
    Candidates running for federal house or senate seat may only except donations from citizens of that state or district.

    Candidates may not campaign in any form more than 60 days prior to the election period.

    That might slow down some of the seat buying anyway.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo