What's so good about the US Constitution?

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Mr Vicchio, The constitutions entire purpose is to set the limits of the government. That is all.

So why would we be willing to support a government that has superseded its limits for the last 71 years? Senate report 93-549...

[Jet]

The Supreme Court doesn't share your ideas, Patrick Henry, and it has authority over what is constitutional and what is not. Put another way, any debate outside the courtroom about what the constitution means and whether X is constitutional is purely intellectual and has no legal authority, exactly like a debate over whether policy X is good.


On edit: how is your reply relevant, PH?

On second edit: sorry, didn't see you addressed another reply... *blush*

[Osborn F Enready]

Jet, I totally disagree in almost all aspects of what has transpired here from your side of the argument.

The Constitution, is a foundation. Why? Because it has worked, it is logically proven theory, as well as actual time tested theory. Much like when it was above explained as the framework to a house,that can be updated over time, it also reveals new weaknesses in construction and allows them to be changed before, OR AFTER in effect. The problem is, the entire document or "system" as designed has been subverted through unconstitutional practices, through corruption in the "system". The people allowed critical checks and balances to be pushed out of balance by court rulings, executive orders, congressional acts, etc.

The Constitution, ours, much like most all others is a "system" designed to put rational argument above revoltuion in societal structure. It is vague on purpose, as to enumerate, actually serves to limit rights to those enumerated. The Constitution takes the place of a King, and is used as a guideline with which all courts "are supposed" to use to overcome questions arising from the vagueness with which it is written. They are not supposed to "re-establish" the meaning of the Constitution, nor are they to "solely" interpret its meaning. They have many tools to refer to its intentions and designs, which are part of its beauty. Look at how this country was formed, how critical the first Presidency and his precedents, and the rules of law up until the mid 1800's. These people that formed this country soon to be called the United States of America were all very different. They all had reasons to be here, not many shared much in common, other than a need for a society with which to provide the security and opprotunity with which they can live and conduct business. I laugh when they say trying to form a Libertarian party, is like trying to herd cats! It is very true, and very representative of WHY it was so hard to get all the states to sign on to the Constitution. Liberty was essential then, that is why it served as THE, major underlying factor of which OUR ENTIRE CONSTITUIONALLY LIMITED DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC were founded on. Without the Constitution, the system cannot function as intended, so it is therfore being subverted, by people who know not or care not of its function or its foundations. This is why our system provides an avenue for modification, an avenue for rebellion and an avenue for revolution. They understood that absolute power corrupts, and the absolute power of a system this liberty based, would be catastrophic to the concept of liberty known to all mankind. They realized the potential for faliure, corruption and mistakes. They warned the public to keep vigilant in their quest for liberty, and their observance of government.

As an example...Look below at George Washingtons farewell address...

"Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in
the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of
party, generally.

"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having
its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists,
under different shapes, in all governments, more of less stifled,
controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen
in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened
by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in
different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid
enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to
a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and
miseries which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek
security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and
sooner or later, the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or
more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the
purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which
nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and
continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it
the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

"It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the
Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded
jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part
against another; foments, occasionally, riot and insurrection. It
opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a
facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of
party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are
subjected to the policy and will of another.

"From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be
enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being
constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public
opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it
demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame,
lest, instead of warming, it should consume."



His meaning is clear, and it is evident today. We have allowed the system to be lopsided, and knocked off its checks and balances. We have allowed party loyalism to become accepted practice. We have allowed our government to infringe on almost every right that is enumerated, and almost all that aren't!

This is the time when we the people, must look to the Constitution, and use it to rectify the wrongs done to our system. This is OUR government, and they have time after time gone against THE WILL OF THE VERY PEOPLE THEY SERVE.

The tools are there, and that is why this constitution is so dear to all true Americans. They understand that either by rational logic, spirited debate, factual dialouge or if by necessary rebellion and revolution, all angles are covered in our wonderful constitution, and it only needs to be brought back to the place it was designed to occupy, THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

[Jet]

Again, you argue beautifully for why there needs to be a constitution, but not for why the current one is good. As for "working," it most certainly doesn't; there needed to be an amendment just to allow income tax, from about 1870 to the late 1930s the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional attempts to adapt to new notions created by capitalism; and voting rights are very poorly-established, constitutionally speaking. These are just 3 examples.

[Osborn F Enready]

So you have proposed 3 new amendments. PROPOSE THEM, but first try to reestablish the RULE of the one you are trying to AMEND.

What good is it, if tyranny subverts it? New or Old??

[Jet]

If it's new, then it'll most probably be adequate enough not to be subverted for several decades, after which it'll need to be rewritten anyway. If you want an example of a rewrite, you can go to leftist.i8.com/constitution3.html - though I can tell you won't like many parts of it.

Under the present constitution, I think that the following amendments are needed:
- A clear demarcation of a state of emergency, what can and can't be done in it, and how it can be ended; extra governmental powers might include more taxation powers and more control of issues usually left to states, but definitely not any revocation of civil liberties.
- Abolition of the electoral college.
- Making the House elected on a national level or in large districts by proportional representation, and either abolishing the Senate or changing it to being elected in districts of roughly equal population, like in state senates and the current HR except that the districts are larger.
- Repealing of the second amendment.
- Updating the powers of Congress and the President to reflect the reality of 2004 rather than 1787 ("calling the militia" for instance should be removed, whereas "regulating the market" should be added).
- Letting Congress kick out a president with a super majority without the need for impeachment.
- Federal initiative, referendum, and recall.

[Osborn F Enready]

I will visit the site, but from what I read in your post, I would say you may be spot on with your assesment I may not like it. We will see....

[PatrickHenry]

Jet, from your constitution at:
http://leftist.i8.com/constitution3.html , this stinks:
"All monetary authority in the United States is vested in a private and regulated Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve coins and prints money and is the sole authority concerning monetary policy."

You got some friends in international banking?
I like the provision in the original constitution.

[commonsense]

The majority of these posts only tragically confirm how effective has been the deliberate concerted effort of american socialists since John Dewey to use the American Public Education system to obscure our founding principles of freedom and the many contemporary writings of our founders, pervert history, and dumb-down and indoctrine generations of Americans.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Jet, The Supreme Court doesn't share your ideas, Patrick Henry, and it has authority over what is constitutional and what is not.

Are you aware of any cases in which the S. Court has examined the ligitimate basis of a 71 year state of emergency? Most of the public hasn't even heard that the Presidency is a dictatorship...It might fluster the public if it leaked. Somehow, I don't think America would be pleased.

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Jet, European countries' constitutions "worked," too, and yet after WW2 all European democracies, even those that continued to be democracies till WW2 such as France, had rewrites. 1. You're wrong; the Magna Carta is, and it predates the US Constitution by ~550 years. 2. Again, old doesn't mean good.

You forget that the countries of Europe are a lot smaller, and their ways of ratifying government documents such as constitutions are much different.

The Magna Carta is not a plan for government.

You keep saying old does not mean good. If a document has kept our country from a revolution for two hundred years, then I beg to differ.

[BlackVelvet]

What's good about the constitution? For starters it was written by men who had lived under governments that didn't work. They, unlike most of us, knew from experience what was necessary to limit the power of government and why it was necessary to limit the power of government.

Yes, the Bill of Rights was purposely vague. One reason is because there wasn't a lot of support for a Bill of Rights, but James Madison had promised a Bill of Rights to the people of Virginia if they would agree to become part of the union and approve the constitution.

Unfortunately, we the people have not enforced the consititution and have given up all the power to the federal government. States have sold out in order to get a share of the federal dollars. It's really pathetic to see what we have become and we can't blame the founders, we can't blame the constitution, we have only ourselves to blame.

And yes, I think the Constitution is great. We just need to get back to it.

[PatrickHenry]

Applause for your first post BV. Stick around.

[BlackVelvet]

Thanks, PH. BTW, Patrick Henry is my hero.....and James Madison.

[commonsense]

Wrong Black Velvet!
ALL governments work! They do exactly what they are designed to do: Create wealth for those in power off the backs of everyone else...

The only exception in all of human history was the U.S. Constitution.

[BlackVelvet]

What was I wrong about? Did I say the government didn't work? Sure, it works for the people in government. The Constitution works when it is followed. It isn't followed.........the federal government has grabbed power for itself. That's NOT what the constitution intended.

[commonsense]

I hear ya, BlackVelvet.
I guess my poetic expression needs alot of work. We were saying the same thing.

[BlackVelvet]

Sorry if I missed your point. Too little sleep and too much caffeine.

And on that note, I will say good night.

[Jet]

You got some friends in international banking?

No, I just think that monetary policy in its current form is alright. This is exactly how stuff works in practice in many democracies, e.g. the USA, Germany, and Switzerland; this is simply a codification of that.

Are you aware of any cases in which the S. Court has examined the ligitimate basis of a 71 year state of emergency?

No, but I'll bet you 500,000 that I don't even have that if anyone brings this case, it'll lose at least 7-2.

[Jet]

Originally posted by commonsense, The only exception in all of human history was the U.S. Constitution.

Yeah, right... Did you know that Washington and Henry were both very rich landowners, and in fact Washington was at one time the richest man in America? Did you know that the Supreme Court and hence the Constitution blocked any attempt to regulate the market for 60 years?



Now, BlackVelvet, like everyone else you're mkaing a red herring. The US Constitution was pretty good for 1787. For 2004, however, it sucks; let's face it, circumstances changed radically as did technology, population level, and education level.