A 21st Century US Constitution?

So most of what I've seen in this thread are ADDITIONS to the Constitution, which the framers allowed for.

Problem is people keep voting in the same SOBs that will not do anything that hurts their political career and the Governors are just as bad playing for the party. People need to stop voting in the same people for 20 years and they need to start looking at all of the available candidates and not just the D and R candidates. Voting should be about who you think it best.....not who you think will win.

 

I would absolutely oppose a rewrite. Looking at the politicians we have today and what is going on today we would end up with a more blatantly, legally corrupt government, our rights would be heavily eroded if not outright removed just as is happening now, the government would certainly codify itself more power and the two major parties would likely end up even more entrenched. Nothing good could come of a rewrite.

 

Yeah I don't get this complete re-write. What needs to be done that can't be done by amendment?

 

An Article V is not a re-write, which I also oppose.

If you examine this page,

http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html

You will see that because congress has mal and non feased so much, 100 years worth, proposal and ratification are best done by states citizens AFTER preparatory amendment.

 

A very logical question.

I've spent the last 20 years testing the federal constitutionality possible in my state, California and have the vital issues separated from the many.

Firstly, freedom of speech has the same ultimate purpose as a firearm, to protect unalienable rights. That purpose is so widely abridged that murder and and treason cannot be effectively disclosed or opposed. Treason will lead to mass destruction of unalienable rights eventually.

With that experience, it is clear that the function of free speech must be restored in order for any amendnent to proceed constitutionally.

Primarily, because only state citizens can define constitutional intent while Article V requires all amendment have it. Logically, American state citizens have a right to be prepared to define constitutional intent do they may properly guide state legislators at Article V.

The most simple and logical way to secure the purpose of free speech is by state citizens invoking the 9th amendment and using it at Article V. Once citizens have educated themselves, a small number of very important amendments will be proposed.

 

Even when being written it was not supposed to be written. They were supposed to be amending the articles of confederation. Besides we dont have the people today we had back then. I dont trust anyone today in government other than maybe Ron Paul

- - - Updated - - -

Isnt this why we have an amendment process? The constitution is fine as written.

 

Yes . . . and no.

The civil war saw a significant but covert usurpation, and that happened because the purpose of free speech was abridged by the press.

Lincoln was working for an Article V convention to resolve the slavery issues between states, and the press opposed him in all cities. History does not even record the truth of his struggle, only the compromises he had agreed to make if he failed to get states citizens behind Article V.

What has withstood the test of time is the American stars citizen sense of their rights and freedoms under the 1787 constitution. I use the word "sense" because the right that protects all other rights is not understood. It is barely acknowledged.

If you can agree then accept the constitutional intent defined with these two inquiries, you will be an exception.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

 

Here's what's wrong with it. Read.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".

Sounds great, right? You may enjoy the faint odor of independence in the morning, but none of this has come to pass as written. In fact, it is a parody of itself these days. The path toward a "more perfect union" ended with this document. But much more seriously: a) There is no "justice" of ANY kind at all; b) "Domestic tranquility"??; and c) what is a "common defence" exactly?

 

Don't like the Constitution? There are reasonable, fair processes within it for undoing it entirely. Use those or don't.

In so doing, you will disband most of the federal government, and the country will be split apart into more reasonable, local governing units. Yahoo!

 

It's what allows you to avoid saluting a Japanese flag, for one, and enables you to speak freely on topics you obviously don't understand without being put in jail for sedition for another.

 

Well, who contributes to writing it is a consideration. For example, Franklin was 82 at the time of the original enactment and had deep ties with European aristocracy (particularly French) and is on record as disparaging "dirty Germans" who settled in the former colonies at the time.

So, I think what I am asking for is a new constitution that captures the *spirit* or *essence* of a young and renewed nation without hypocrisy, double-dealing and snobbery.
And then, protection of these ideals with oversight and real punishments for those who act otherwise.
Also, it would be a document that would not be a rough copy of 18th century European idealism, but one that is uniquely American for the 21st-century

 

Just because you chose the name "sandskrit" and have the word "guru" under it doesn't mean that you are in any way intellectual or otherwise useful in a debate. Every forum user knows that folks of your disposition rely on these flimsy frills for validation.

In any case, your answer is garbage. "Common" refers to you, and people like you - that is the 'everyday', non-noble born farmer-types of the day, who have no manners on forums either

It must be obvious, even to Sanskrit (unless a potential racist), that the idea of "everybody" includes every legal resident of the US. And that is why the US needs a re-authorization of the constitution - because it...does...not...do...that.

 

What written in the Constitution is hypocritical or snobbish though. Just because you believe the people were that wrote it, doesn't mean it is.

This would be an Amendment, which has been thoroughly discussed in this thread.

There isn't many original ideas left when it comes to run a large group of people, if there are any. Many things have been tried throughout history, and many more have been theorized on paper. So to write something now would be borrowing from someone somewhere.

 

there is no need for an "up-to-date 21st century constitution"

 

Cat's foot, iron claw
Neuro surgeons scream for more
At paranoia's poison door
21st century schizoid man

Blood rack, barbed wire
Politician's funeral pyre
Innocence raped with napalm fire
21st century schizoid man

Dead sea, blind man's greed
Poet's starving children bleed
Nothing he's got, he really needs
21st century schizoid man

 

1. I'm not the one who started a thread on the Constitution while not understanding the 8th grade civics basic concept, "common defence." 2. I don't know what being "useful" in a debate is, but I do know how to win one. 3. Do the "flimsy frills" of usernames and ratings... the latter a forum convention that users had no say in choosing... make all the posters with "guru" under their username suspect, or just me?

Rest of the post is just more unintelligible gibberish similar to the whole OP post.

 

Nobody and this thread is a complete failure.

 

Hyperbolic nonsense.

Yes. The states get along quite well with one another.
Wait... what did you think "domestic tranquility" referred to?

Hint: US Department of Defense

 

"Common" in "common defense" is the same "common" as used in "common good" and "common sense" - that of the people and nation as a whole.
You think it refers to a social class?
And then you attack someone for not being "intellectual" or "useful in a debate"?

Hyperbolic nonsense.