A New New Bill of Rights
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.
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.
end of Atlas Shrugged
THIS exclusion is one of the main flaws in the Constitution
Science, to its detriment, is politicized as well.
2). Congressional members are barred from joining any lobbying group for a period of 4 years after last day of holding office in either chamber. (This prohibits lobbying firms from becoming an unofficial congress)
2, section 1. No one can run for Congressional Office in either chamber until after a 4-year period expires after their last day of employment by a lobbying firm.
Doing this ensures morons wouldn't be a lifetime lobbyist, whose little scheme build-up would culminate when they leave the firm to become a Senator or Representative.
Now I need to go shower. To think like todays' slimeball politician...so gross.
The principles are sound and timeless. The founders did not believe technology would remain static. All of history refutes such a premise. If it needs revising with the times that is what the amendment process is for. Surely if it truly needs adjusting that process will bear fruit. The slippery slope is not original intent, it is diverging from same. How do you suppose we got here?
The colonists had cannons. They had the most sophisticated weapons of the times. They did not kill each other any more than we do now. The equivalent of a musket today would be an M4A1 carbine that shoots fully automatic 5.56x45mm NATO with a 30 round magazine. AK-47s that are fully-automatic are illegal without special licensing. They are therefore no different than any other semi- auto hunting or sporting rifle.
Look, dead is dead, and hammers kill more people than rifles every year. Killers are the problem, part of the human condition. They have been and always will be. Now do you want to be at their mercy or do you wish to meet force with force?
I would write more but Eudaimonia and khalling have already addressed several of your assertions.
Respectfully,
O.A.
seriously, make the distinction before someone says hammer toes, and I have to jettison from the discussion, because that's just hard to take, like well anything with feet. NOT ALLOWED
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY-yr6qYU...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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."
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....
'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!
Must limit state and local govts as well.
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".
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.
(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."
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.
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.
Load more comments...