Time to amend the wording in the Consitution?

[Technosoul]

As the population grows and as our free market is changing into a big monopoly I am thinking that the consitution needs to be reworded so that the government can deal with the more complex problems of our modern age.

Thanks to Ron Paul I must agree that many governmental programs might not be conforming to the ideas outlined in that Consitution (and related foundational documents).

People are expecting a change. But that change should not be unconsitutional. R.P. statements would suggest that these needed changes would be unconsitutional as it is now written and interpreted from the Consitution. Forcing a ever demanded choice to change the goal post.

In our 200 years only a few admendments have been put into effect.
Not a revolutionary one such as what Jefferson might have expected to happen.

Governmental overviews of social program dealing with health care is my main example of this. As long as that system is profit driven by private industry the costs might never become affordable to our citizens. Only the rich would have the advantages of full coverage (and Congressmen).

And health care is a life and death situation just like wars and the defense of our country from forien governments or radical groups of people.

So we need the a new Consitutional amendment that would allow for an expand federal governemnt in areas like socialized health care. And likewise concerning utilities and energy needs. After all, everyone needs to heat a house in winter and to have affordable transportation in our modern environment. We are no longer dependant on just a horse to get around that can eat free grass.

However, such federal programs must show proof of absoute need and demand (via voters) to be included in this and they must be relative to basic needs that might consitute a life and death situation, or long term injury, or the ability to compete in business on an equal bases with other people. And reworking the budget to put first things first must be done as Ron Paul suggested. A congressman should not vote for war funding just because they can tag on some pork project to that request. Eash bill should stand alone without any added contents to other projects being included or laws that would favor some special interest that the main bill is not addressing.

Ron Paul has always said. follow the Consitution or go through the right procedure to amend it. Do not just ignore it. I would agree.

Whatcha' think? (thinkers only please).

Realistically the best thing to do is elect Paul as President and then have a democratic congress try to seek those needed amendments, it they can get Paul to sign it then fine, we will be getting someplace at last. That would be a historical and revolutionary "unity" if it ever happens.

[Gods_Mercenary]

My impression of paul is that he'd fling himself in the Potomac before he touched the rag on which that ammendment is printed. At any rate, Our government is already unconstitutional to an extreme degree if it's read anywhere close to the way any of the founding fathers (Jefferson especially, the dudes probably spinning in his grave) Speaking of Jefferson, he'd have burned the Capitol to the ground if anything like socialized medecine came to his desk, he wanted revolution against government, not for bigger government.

[lsbskins1]

Though I believe it is good and right to look to those who came before us to save us from making the same mistakes over and over, I think what follows is the most reasonable and farseeing quote from any Founding Father:

"We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country."
Thomas Jefferson

So, I believe that even though Jefferson may have "burned the Capitol to the ground" if Universal Healthcare was introduced in his time, he clearly states that we have the right and the duty to bind ourselves to the solutions that work best for our time. If he was alive today, and of the same temperament, he would be advocating UHC and fighting the insurance industry, because they are roughly equivalent to the self interested power brokers who aligned themselves with Hamilton in his time.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Yet he also concsiously tried to shape america's future as a place where you could easily assume there was no federal government if you weren't aware. You can't take a man like Jefferson on one quote and assume it defines his ideas. The point remains that he would have seen these social programs and income tax in general as nothing better than a Redcoat kicking in your door and demanding your silverware. The Constitution is designed to be changed, but don't do it on the name of men who would see todays america as the Tyrranny they hated.

[lsbskins1]

And here is where I don't give a hoot about what Jefferson or Hamilton thought in total philosophical perspective - Jefferson had it half right and Hamilton had it half right. We need a strong central authority (Hamilton's correct view) to protect the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the monied interests (Jefferson's correct view). There is no universal or natural law that states that you have to accept the errors of an otherwise brilliant individual if you want to accept his/her useful contributions. Take truth where you find it and reject error where you discover it. It really is that simple.

[ren]

I don't know for sure what might be meant by "change the wording" of the Constitution. However, anything to address the Constitution at this point is better than ignoring a crisis.

It appears to me we have some structural problems built in that should be addressed. I don't know if just changing the wording is enough. Examples:

One of the deep structural problems is the Senate. Fundamentally undemocratic as it gives inordinate voice to states with small populations, which undermines the concept of democratic representation.

The presidency itself is fundamentally flawed. At the moment many of us see that it needs to be defanged and none of our Constitutional institutions seem to be able to rein it in. But the problem goes deeper, and as we have expanded in geographic size and number of states, and more and more complex as a society, the nature of the office and what it has come to involve pushes it towards avoiding the messiness of any oversight when it needs to exercise its Constitutional mandates. The President likes to blame Congress and vice versa. That often equals stalemate. Stalemate itself is messy and that adds to the pressure to allow more authority in presidential decision making.

We desperately need a press that is not beholden to money interests. The Fourth Estate is owned by a handful of corporations.

Now we have interactive technology that could change the whole static nature of the relationship between the citizens and their representatives -- and the President. The Constitution was conceived in horse and buggy technology, and that's worth some thought.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary My impression of paul is that he'd fling himself in the Potomac before he touched the rag on which that ammendment is printed. At any rate, Our government is already unconstitutional to an extreme degree if it's read anywhere close to the way any of the founding fathers (Jefferson especially, the dudes probably spinning in his grave) Speaking of Jefferson, he'd have burned the Capitol to the ground if anything like socialized medecine came to his desk, he wanted revolution against government, not for bigger government.

I do not feel that the harsh way England used to enforce their laws, or the way the King and Queen dictatorship they had compares to our government today would consitute the same kind of reaction that Jefferson felt towards that government. In the days of Jefferson they only had a rare few doctors and so medicene was mostly a do it your self thing. Mostly it was women who had a few hand me down tricks they used to deal with a sickness. Many people just died if they got too sick.

Whatever the case such programs were not even thought of back then nor known about. Often it was the preachers who doubled as doctors.
Living off donations based on what the community could afford.

But Jefferson does not live today in our complex society. He might get mad if he could not ride his horse down the freeway. But if he had any brains at all he would make adjustments to how things are now.

Which means he would likewise adjust the Consitution to meet the needs of the changing times. This is not England. In fact, England is no longer the England it once was. We have advanced in science and have arrived at a time in history when many medical problems can be cured or treated to make then less of a problem, we have resources to train as many doctors as needed and being one of the most wealthy countries (still) it is a shame to not allow some people no access to the progress our country as a whole has reached in medical care. Many rich people have donated money to collages to encourage education as a sound investment in the nation's future. The reward of such charity and grovernmental grants to universities is our advanced health care knowledge, which should be used for the good of all people in our nation. Those donations replaced what otherwise would have been taxes for our federal government, monies designed to be usefull to the general public. The schools owe the mainstream population some doctors.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: lsbskins1 And here is where I don't give a hoot about what Jefferson or Hamilton thought in total philosophical perspective - Jefferson had it half right and Hamilton had it half right. We need a strong central authority (Hamilton's correct view) to protect the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the monied interests (Jefferson's correct view). There is no universal or natural law that states that you have to accept the errors of an otherwise brilliant individual if you want to accept his/her useful contributions. Take truth where you find it and reject error where you discover it. It really is that simple.

Strong central authority is Tyrranny and a moneyed interest. At times, government may be non-malevolent, but power is the most addictive drug in existance. You can't only take part of Jefferson's theories because in the same sentence he would have said that government is the main Tyrranny we need protection from.

As to a change in the presidency, the current form pf presidency is not what the founders intended anyway. They intended a man who was submissive to congress in most issues and certainly not one who was the most powerful man in the world.

[lsbskins1]

Not when it can be thrown out 2, 4 or 6 six years from the day it takes power. The institution is strong, the individuals should be tied to the will of the people. And I certainly can take only part of any theory. I choose to take the reasonable parts.What law says that I have to accept a theory in total to accept any of it's parts? Technology, science, medicine - all would be dead - if that were the case.

[Gods_Mercenary]

First of all, even in a perfect democracy, government is tied to the will of the majority of the people. Jefferson would have supported the government not interfering in most aspects of a person's life no matter how much the majority wanted to. Second of all, the people as a whole are idiotic. Jefferson thought that through the correct environment and tighter voting requirements, the voting people could be made inteligent and virtuous enough to sustain a functioning republic for quite a while. Naive, perhaps, but jefferson was nothing if not idealistically naive. All power changeover does is ensure more people are drawn into the cult of power. Remember, the founding fathers noted (though they borrowed their ideas from others) that Tyrranny is often not a function of one person, but of the institution itself.

Jefferson's ideas were not theories, really (I apologize for using the term), they were a philosophical line of reasoning, the parts of which were interdependant "power=bad, government=power, therefore, government=bad" You can't just take a chunk of that line of reasoning out and say jefferson agreed with you.

[ren]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Strong central authority is Tyrranny and a moneyed interest. At times, government may be non-malevolent, but power is the most addictive drug in existance. You can't only take part of Jefferson's theories because in the same sentence he would have said that government is the main Tyrranny we need protection from. As to a change in the presidency, the current form pf presidency is not what the founders intended anyway. They intended a man who was submissive to congress in most issues and certainly not one who was the most powerful man in the world.

What the founders imagined when they were designing this system was based on very few democratic prototypes to choose from at the time. While apparently Franklin brought in some ideas from the Iroquois participatory democracy model, for the most part the US prototype drew from the Roman Republic model. There simply wasn't a big supermarket of democracy prototypes to choose from. They had to use their imaginations, and most of those Founders were the elite of their time, educated in the classical traditions of Europe, so knowing what we know about the mind now, we can assume their imaginations conscribed to what they knew at that time. That's one reason why our Constitution is called an experiment. Since then a lot of models have evolved. Ours is something of an antique. Perhaps 19th Century American Exceptionalism still holds sway in our thinking and accumulated traditions of American hubris makes questioning the document's greatness inhibitory.

As you said, power is a drug, and it works in many nefarious ways. Most of the Founders were from a European class structure in which as elites they had advantages they took for granted. The "drug of power" of their very positions can be expected to have dimmed their imaginative faculties, no matter how excited they each may have been about the new "revolution of individualism" they were in, and they had difficulty extending full humanity and a corresponding application of the Bill of Rights to all the individuals we are now willing to consider fully human in this country after some 200 years.

What they didn't know was that a presidential system itself has ontological implications built in, and no matter how much they didn't want it to become like the monarchies of Europe, they didn't recognize how evolution of institutions themselves can supersede the individual. We ourselves still focus on personality, when it's the institution itself that the next president will inherit, and much of what they say while stumping for election will vanish once they sit in the seat of power.

With the evolution of society, the growth of corporations, and the economic system that altogether has evolved, all along the way the government has had to try to adapt to meet the Constitutional mandates and the contingencies of reality. What's being tested in the process is the legal structure itself. Often the resolutions are an unhappy result of paradox, like applying the 14th Amendment, which is about individuals, to a corporate entity, the private corporation, and declaring that a corporate entity is a person under the law. The very notion of the revolution of individualism and the Bill of Rights is thrown into some sort of conceptual chaos with that.

What's evolved is a result of basic structures that were in place, some of those results have features that are almost Frankensteinian. The point is there may have been no way to interpret the Constitution that could have come out to look anything like what the Founders hoped for, and a kind of legal fundamentalism calling upon an originalist interpretaiton itself puts a chain around the pressures calling for a creative approach to problem solving that maintains democracy. If we find we are giving up our democracy for anything -- security from terrorism, for instance -- then perhaps there may be an inherent structural problem worth considering in the Constitution itself.

[thx1138]

Ron Paul has always said. follow the Consitution or go through the right procedure to amend it. Do not just ignore it. I would agree.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. “I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.” “Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.” “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.” And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “goddamned piece of paper” used to guarantee. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”

It's being ignored now, unless it fits in with something that the current leaders are planning or if someone outside the sphere of power is breaking one of its laws.

[lsbskins1]

The fundamental idea of the founders that remains sound is that government should exist to benefit the citizens and that the best way to achieve that end is to ensure that law governs and not individual will. The Constitution was all about insuring that principle. I point again to the words of the Preamble: ...in order to form a more perfect union...". The basic thrust of that statement is an acknowledgement that what they had given us was not perfect, but a move towards something better. It seems that you, and other "strict constructionists" want to leave a simple fact out of the equation. As we learn and grow and develop, what worked before may not work now. I am not suggesting that the ideal of Constitutional protections is flawed. I am not saying that the Constitution is a "god damned scrap of paper", I am saying that that very fine and important document is not frozen in time and if you think that we must freeze ourselves into the modes of thinking of people who never experienced the modern world, you are asking for stagnation and decay that will destroy your country quicker than any other danger.

[Osborn F Enready]

I have no intrest in compromising with fools and fascists.

If the current or future governments don't want to abide by the law of the land, eventually, they and their supporters will be held accountable...... just ask the Tories.

[Jayjhis]

What you are all witnessing is the natural process of entropy as it acts on government. Democracy has been done before, and with similar result as it would seem so far. The power was originally in the hands of the people, but gradually drifted towards the central governing body. The cause of this was always economic failure and relatively minor attacks from foreign places that created fear and paranoia, which allowed the government to slowly shift the balance between civil rights and defense towards the latter. As the power continues to centralize itself, eventually the government is able to take the power from the people entirely and become totalitarian. Corruption ensues and the empire falls to ruin creating anarchy, which lasts about 30 seconds since inevitably someone will have a bigger gun or more friends and will take power of his immediate surroundings, creating thousands of tiny kingdoms warring with one another, overthrowing each other, and through a process akin to natural selection of the strongest "kings" it becomes feudalism, followed eventually by monarchy, revolution, and finally democracy again.

The western world has been through this cycle at least 3 times, it would be naive to think that simply because we have bombs and computers now the cycle has ceased, especially in light of recent developments.

[ren]

Gods_Mercenary: First of all, even in a perfect democracy, government is tied to the will of the majority of the people.

Please define "perfect democracy."

[GHook93]

What should be changed and added:

The 14th Amendment: We need to change it to rid ourselves of the birth right clause. Its intent was to protect the children of the newly free slaves, which is not needed anymore. It's now getting distorted to protect the rights of children of illegal immigrants. Get rid of it now.

The 16th Amendment: Get rid of it now and replace it with the fair tax. Make max amount for federal government at 22%, 5% and 1% for local government. Make provisions for some exceptions (reductions or eliminates) for education. medical and real estate.

Create the 28th Amendment: For a national primary Day. All primaries will be held on __________ day of before each election. Preferably September , just a few months before the general. Also put in place that every general debate must provide for at least 1 3rd party candidate.

Create the 29th Amendment: Balanced Budget Duty - The Congress and President must do their best to balance the budget of the US to reduce any deficits

Create the 30th Amendment: The Accountability Amendment - Candidates whether in the House, Senate, Governorship or President, may be held accountable for promises and pledges they make during their Presidency. Breaking those promises can be grounds for impeachment.

Create the 31st Amendment: Answer abortion! Personally want an answer on this in the constitution, so this won't be a issue every election. Such as, each state has the absolute right to create and govern its abortion laws. They may outright outlaw it and outright decriminatize it. All other states must respect their sister states decisions. I am sure the conservative states will outlaw it and the liberal states will legalize it. Then we will have a balance.

Create the 32nd Amendment on Gay Marriage. Each state has the right to choose on whether to allow gay marriages. If a gay couple legally marries in a state that allows gay marriage, then no other state can consider it a defective marriage.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: ren Please define "perfect democracy."

People are well educated, invested in the country, and understand the underpinnings of a republic, while the politicians aren't too corrupt.

[ren]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary People are well educated, invested in the country, and understand the underpinnings of a republic, while the politicians aren't too corrupt.

Doesn't give me much in the way of a definition to work with.

What about the "rule of law"? How about then the definitions of the rules in the rule of law? Once defined, how is it determined they should be interpreted? Is there a single legal theory that would be the perfect one for the task? We have all sorts of legal theories in play right now, is one of them the "perfect" one for the "perfect" democracy?

How does this "perfect" democracy deal with the paradox of individual rights and group rights when put to a test?

Then the original point, and why I asked: how does the "tyranny" of the majority come to play a role, is a tyranny of a majority actually necessary in a democracy? Or is it a structural assumption? That's why I want to know what "perfect" means.

On another thread, de Tocqueville's Democracy in America was invoked. He himself struggled with this paradox of individual rights and group association in his effort to describe the American version of democracy he observed as an early Aristotelian inspired detached social scientist:

A critic of individualism, Tocqueville thought that association, the coming together of people for common purpose, would bind Americans to an idea of nation larger than selfish desires, thus making a civil society which wasn't exclusively dependent on the state. -----> More than just imploding any traces of old-world aristocracy, ordinary Americans also refused to defer to those possessing, as Tocqueville put it, superior talent and intelligence. These natural elites, who Tocqueville asserted were the lone virtuous members of American society, could not enjoy much share in the political sphere as a result. Ordinary Americans enjoyed too much power, claimed too great a voice in the public sphere, to defer to intellectual superiors. This culture promoted a relatively pronounced equality, Tocqueville argued, but the same mores and opinions that ensured such equality also promoted, as he put it, a middling mediocrity. Those who possessed true virtue and talent would be left with limited choices, choices which many have suggested shed light on American society today. Those with the most education and intelligence would either, Tocqueville prognosticated, join limited intellectual circles to explore the weighty and complex problems facing society which have today become the academic or contemplative realms, or use their superior talents to take advantage of America's growing obsession with money-making and amass vast fortunes in the private sector

Somehow, I don't think it's quite worked out the way he anticipated. It seems that money now defines elite, and elite is what composes the upper levels of government decision makers. A kind of polyarchy of rulership if you will, which seems to predominate through most . Would that be part of a perfect democracy?

This form of government was first implemented in the United States and was gradually adopted by many other countries. According to Dahl, the fundamental democratic principle is that, when it comes to binding collective decisions, each person in a political community is entitled to have his or her interests be given equal consideration. A polyarchy is a nation-state that has certain procedures that are necessary conditions for following the democratic principle.

[Gods_Mercenary]

What about the "rule of law"? How about then the definitions of the rules in the rule of law? Once defined, how is it determined they should be interpreted? Is there a single legal theory that would be the perfect one for the task? We have all sorts of legal theories in play right now, is one of them the "perfect" one for the "perfect" democracy? How does this "perfect" democracy deal with the paradox of individual rights and group rights when put to a test? Then the original point, and why I asked: how does the "tyranny" of the majority come to play a role, is a tyranny of a majority actually necessary in a democracy? Or is it a structural assumption? That's why I want to know what "perfect" means.

If people's property and lives are protected, the rule of law exists. What do you mean by group rights? I'm not sure I'd recognize any. The individual's rights are what matters. Democracy is the rule of the majority, no? Unless you get everyone to agree, the majority will always have to impose some sort of rules on others, the key is to keep that to an absolute minimum. Perfect is, of course, an absract, because people are far from perfect.