# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Jefferson - Constitution Should Be Rewritten Every 19 Years

## botounami

http://news.illinois.edu/news/07/0212constitution.html

_CHAMPAIGN, Ill.  Thomas Jefferson believed that a countrys constitution should be rewritten every 19 years. Instead, the U.S. Constitution, which Jefferson did not help to write (he was in Paris serving as U.S. minister to France when the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia), has prevailed since 1789.

Jefferson thought the dead should not rule the living, thus constitutions should expire frequently, but the fact is that the U.S. Constitution quickly became enshrined by the public and is the oldest constitution in the world, said Zachary Elkins, a professor of political science at Illinois._

Knowing Paul is pretty Jeffersonian, what can be said about something like this? If Jefferson didn't believe our Constitution should be "everlasting", my views about what is intended for our government definitely shift.

What do you guys think?

----------


## BuddyRey

Doesn't sound like Jefferson to me, but I could be wrong.

----------


## Travlyr

The Constitution is completely irrelevant to the  mercantilist  ruling class.  Assassinations, bills of credit, and undeclared wars are not authorized under the constitution; therefore, the current rulers are simply illegitimate oligarchs with military might.

----------


## blocks

Not denying the possibility of this being true, but I'll like to read what Jefferson actually wrote in this regard. This article is just some professor stating Jefferson's viewpoint. These things are often taken out of context.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Not denying the possibility of this being true, but I'll like to read what Jefferson actually wrote in this regard. This article is just some professor stating Jefferson's viewpoint. These things are often taken out of context.


Exactly.  If he said such a thing, it most likely was in the same spirit as this:



> God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
> The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
> wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
> they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
> it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
> And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
> warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
> resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
> to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
> ...

----------


## osan

> http://news.illinois.edu/news/07/0212constitution.html
> 
> _CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Thomas Jefferson believed that a country’s constitution should be rewritten every 19 years. Instead, the U.S. Constitution, which Jefferson did not help to write (he was in Paris serving as U.S. minister to France when the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia), has prevailed since 1789.
> 
> “Jefferson thought the dead should not rule the living, thus constitutions should expire frequently, but the fact is that the U.S. Constitution quickly became enshrined by the public and is the oldest constitution in the world,” said Zachary Elkins, a professor of political science at Illinois._
> 
> Knowing Paul is pretty Jeffersonian, what can be said about something like this? If Jefferson didn't believe our Constitution should be "everlasting", my views about what is intended for our government definitely shift.
> 
> What do you guys think?


Several things.  Firstly, I would like to see a credible attribution rather than just the say-so of someone who, being from Ill-Annoy, may well be a "leftie" and thereby more than comfy with pulling strings of hot dogs out if his butt to bolster his position.

Secondly, Jefferson was a man just like the rest of us in that he was flesh and blood and did not walk on water, fabulous as he may have been in many other ways.

Thirdly, who cares?  A constitution is not an immutable thing - especially given the outright crap that they almost all seem to be.  What counts are the PRINCIPLES by which people live.  The choice is simple: freedom on the one hand, slavery on the other.  Principle is all that matters.  The rest is noise.

----------


## muzzled dogg

I thought he said a revolution every couple decades

----------


## Zippyjuan

Just a question. If we were to have the Constitution re-written every 19 years or so- would you trust the current members of the House and Senate to do such a thing? 

As written, the Constitution does allow for modifications, but was careful to make the requirements very stringent to reduce the chance of medling.

----------


## low preference guy

Probably because he lived during the Enlightenment and didn't know that so many people would renounce to reason a few years later.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> http://news.illinois.edu/news/07/0212constitution.html
> 
> _CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Thomas Jefferson believed that a country’s constitution should be rewritten every 19 years. Instead, the U.S. Constitution, which Jefferson did not help to write (he was in Paris serving as U.S. minister to France when the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia), has prevailed since 1789.
> 
> “Jefferson thought the dead should not rule the living, thus constitutions should expire frequently, but the fact is that the U.S. Constitution quickly became enshrined by the public and is the oldest constitution in the world,” said Zachary Elkins, a professor of political science at Illinois._
> 
> Knowing Paul is pretty Jeffersonian, what can be said about something like this? If Jefferson didn't believe our Constitution should be "everlasting", my views about what is intended for our government definitely shift.
> 
> What do you guys think?


I agree with TJ.  No one has the natural or legal right to bind future generations to some form of government without their permission (as adults).

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

How many of you want a civil war every two decades?

Jefferson had another nutty idea: Letters of marque and reprisal

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> How many of you want a civil war every two decades?
> 
> Jefferson had another nutty idea: Letters of marque and reprisal


Jefferson was referring to a bloodless revolution.

----------


## donnay

> http://news.illinois.edu/news/07/0212constitution.html
> 
> _CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Thomas Jefferson believed that a country’s constitution should be rewritten every 19 years. Instead, the U.S. Constitution, which Jefferson did not help to write (he was in Paris serving as U.S. minister to France when the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia), has prevailed since 1789.
> 
> “Jefferson thought the dead should not rule the living, thus constitutions should expire frequently, but the fact is that the U.S. Constitution quickly became enshrined by the public and is the oldest constitution in the world,” said Zachary Elkins, a professor of political science at Illinois._
> 
> Knowing Paul is pretty Jeffersonian, what can be said about something like this? If Jefferson didn't believe our Constitution should be "everlasting", my views about what is intended for our government definitely shift.
> 
> What do you guys think?


Wrong, no where that I can recall Jefferson ever saying that.  Jefferson said:  

"I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. *God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.*[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787[2]

http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki...28Quotation%29

----------


## botounami

You guys seemed awfully quick to throw this out. Jefferson did say it directly in his letter to Madison. 

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl81.htm

I was hoping more for some kind of discussion instead of a refusal to admit that Jefferson might believe such a thing. 

Is it unjust to bind people by the laws of "ghosts"? It seems the process that we have now is very good for allowing generational changes to be expressed. I'm glad we don't have to rewrite every few decades. Can you imagine how that would go?!

----------


## Seraphim

I agree with Jefferson. A country needs to rewrite it's foundational statues every generation or so. If something is so good, then all that is good will be kept and changes will be made that need to be made.

----------


## osan

> I agree with Jefferson. A country needs to rewrite it's foundational statues every generation or so. If something is so good, then all that is good will be kept and changes will be made that need to be made.


Interesting perspective.  I seem to be of the diametrically opposite mind.  If a group of people have identified the proper set of principles by which to live and govern themselves, it would seem to me that such principles would be immutable in their propriety and should, therefore, remain sacrosanct.  I can see your point, but the other side of that coin is the fact that in every population there is always that subset of scoundrels who scheme and plot to force the rest to toe their lines, whether malevolently or benevolently intended.  To my way of thinking, such principles need to be sacrosanct for the sake of protecting one population from the predatory behavior of another.  This is necessary IMO because without it the alternative is either tyranny of one group over another or violence as the oppressed fight to throw off would-be masters.  

Best that freedom be codified at the most basic level such that there is little to no margin for misinterpretation so that would-be tyrants and other scoundrels are provided with no clearly legitimate basis for any perfidious designs for which they may hold hopes.

----------


## brushfire

IMO the constitution would be made better by these 3 amendments:

1. Sunset amendment that makes no law permanent, other than the bill of rights, and these 3 amendments.  All laws expire in 5 or 10 years, whatever the consensus is.
2. Double binding laws - Any law passed by the government on the people will also apply to the government.
3. Penalties on elected officials, and any other government official, for any action they commit which violates the constitution/law. If your actions as an office holder (voting or otherwise) violate the constitution, upon conviction you'll go to jail for a long time.

So the BOR+3, and all the other laws expire.  This keeps the politicians busy, and it better ensures that laws passed are concise, constitutional, and necessary.

----------


## osan

> IMO the constitution would be made better by these 3 amendments:
> 
> 1. Sunset amendment that makes no law permanent, other than the bill of rights, and these 3 amendments.  All laws expire in 5 or 10 years, whatever the consensus is.
> 2. Double binding laws - Any law passed by the government on the people will also apply to the government.
> 3. Penalties on elected officials, and any other government official, for any action they commit which violates the constitution/law. If your actions as an office holder (voting or otherwise) violate the constitution, upon conviction you'll go to jail for a long time.
> 
> So the BOR+3, and all the other laws expire.  This keeps the politicians busy, and it better ensures that laws passed are concise, constitutional, and necessary.


I would add the elimination of politics as a profession.  Nobody can occupy a given office for more than one term.  I might limit the number of offices as well... not sure on that one; have not thought it out yet.  I am similarly tempted to limit salary to one dollar per year.  This makes most such offices part time affairs for most.  The less time these people are spending politicking, the less opportunity for trouble.

The constitution I wrote has all of this.  It also is designed such that the immutable law of the land is structurally separated from the rest.  These two constructs are called the Nucleus and the Orbit.  The Nucleus is immutable. It cannot be changed by any legitimate means whatsoever.  It establishes the fundamental principles of behavior to which all are to be held such as privagte property rights and so forth.  The entire body of criminal law as it applies to the individual is contained therein, as well as a dictionary of all terms as they so apply.  The Orbit contains law of a changeable nature as well as the specifications for various procedures.  Corporate law would be found there as it may change in time in accord with need, but must always fail before the rights of the individual.  This is how the individual is protected against corporate misconduct... at least in theory.

----------

