# Think Tank > History >  Thomas Jefferson thought the U.S. Constitution ought to be rewritten every 19 years

## smartguy911

http://progressingamerica.blogspot.c...1_archive.html

In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following:




> Constitutions - No society can make a perpetual Constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please during their usufruct. They are masters, too, of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The Constitution and laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every Constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer it is an act of force and not of right.

----------


## muzzled dogg

each time individuals could voluntarily sign it they wanted to be governed by it

----------


## Sam I am

Thomas Jefferson thought a lot of things.

I, for one, really don't care, what Thomas Jefferson thought.


It's a good thing that the Constitution is amendable and changeable, but when you fully rewrite it every 2 decades, you seriously undermine it's stability.  

Imagine where we would be today, if the Constitution had been re-written fifteen times.

----------


## brushfire

I believe the BOR should be perpetual, but I'm fine with all laws expiring after a certain point.

----------


## AGRP

How silly to believe that the philosophy of liberty changes every 19 years.  

Are people to rewrite the rules of math every 19 years as well?  Will 2+2 = 6 next year?

----------


## TheTexan

> Imagine where we would be today, if the Constitution had been re-written fifteen times.


Probably the same place we are now.  The only difference is, we'd know where we stand in plain ink, instead of through evasive & manipulative judicial & legislative decisions designed to bypass the constitution.

If our Constitution were rewritten, instead of simply ignored, it would say something similar to:

1) The Federal Government is all powerful, and here is a list of your privileges that we allow you: <insert Bill of Rights>
2) Any privilege in the Bill of Rights may be taken away by the 50 states, as they so choose
3) Your land belongs to the government, your money belongs to the government, and your body belongs to the government
4) You must use a currency that allows the Federal Government and its constituent banks to grow without limit at the expense of your dollar.
5) Perpetual war is good for the economy and spreads freedom, so that is what we shall do

Maybe if our Constitution said this more people would care about how bad their government is $#@!ing them over.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I believe the BOR should be perpetual, but I'm fine with all laws expiring after a certain point.


I am fine with all the laws passed by Congress, enacted by the President, and the Supreme Court expiring.  But, not the law of the land, the Constitution.  The reason being that I do not trust leaving the rewriting of a governing document up to the traitorous jackasses who are all over our country in high places today.   

Rather, I would prefer we just follow the dang thing.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Probably the same place we are now.  The only difference is, we'd know where we stand in plain ink, instead of through evasive & manipulative judicial & legislative decisions designed to bypass the constitution.
> 
> If our Constitution were rewritten, instead of simply ignored, it would say something similar to:
> 
> 1) The Federal Government is all powerful, and here is a list of your privileges that we allow you: <insert Bill of Rights>
> 2) Any privilege in the Bill of Rights may be taken away by the 50 states, as they so choose
> 3) Your land belongs to the government, your money belongs to the government, and your body belongs to the government
> 4) You must use a currency that allows the Federal Government and its constituent banks to grow without limit at the expense of your dollar.
> 5) Perpetual war is good for the economy and spreads freedom, so that is what we shall do
> ...


What makes you think you would control who would be doing the rewriting?

----------


## TheTexan

> I am fine with all the laws passed by Congress, enacted by the President, and the Supreme Court expiring.  But, not the law of the land, the Constitution.  The reason being that I do not trust leaving the rewriting of a governing document up to the traitorous jackasses who are all over our country in high places today.


You're under the mistaken impression that the current Constitution is limiting them somehow.




> Rather, I would prefer we just follow the dang thing.


Not gonna happen.  May as well let them rewrite it so we know where we stand.



Though you still think this country wants freedom.  My apologies, please ignore this post.  I know a brick wall when I see one.

----------


## TheTexan

> What makes you think you would control who would be doing the rewriting?


I wouldn't.  That's kind of the point.  The country would rewrite it in a way that more honestly reflects our current reality.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You're under the mistaken impression that the current Constitution is limiting them somehow.


Nope.  Not true.  Much of it is being ignored, yes, but can you honestly stand there and tell me that you would allowed to own any kind of gun at all, if the 2nd amendment did not exist?




> Not gonna happen.  May as well let them rewrite it so we know where we stand.


Sorry, this is a very bad idea.  Everything would be up for grabs and I mean, EVERYTHING.  No thanks.  I wouldn't mind an amendment or two to clarify things like the general welfare clause, but that's it.




> Though you still think this country wants freedom.  My apologies, please ignore this post.  I know a brick wall when I see one.


Be careful, you're sounding very much like a throw-in-the-towel quitter.  

Your argument seems to be that since it's a tough road, stop fighting and just go on and become a communist country.

----------


## TheTexan

> Be careful, you're sounding very much like a throw-in-the-towel quitter.  
> 
> Your argument seems to be that since it's a tough road, stop fighting and just go on and become a communist country.


Quite the opposite.  You're trying to swim up creek without a paddle.  I'm saying get out of the $#@!in creek.

I'm saying stop fighting for the freedom of this country, and start fighting for the freedom of those who want it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Quite the opposite.  You're trying to swim up creek without a paddle.  I'm saying get out of the $#@!in creek.
> 
> I'm saying stop fighting for the freedom of this country, and start fighting for the freedom of those who want it.


And you do that, by allowing the Constitution to be rewritten?  I don't think so.

We aren't one trick ponies.  If we truly want to take this country back, we have to do it from the ground floor on up.  That means taking back our local and state governments.

----------


## fisharmor

I think it's instructive to look at the one time in US history after 1789 when the US constitution was actually scrapped and replaced with a new constitution.
http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html



> To *regulate commerce* with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; *but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce*; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.


Just imagine what life would be like if that little clarification was in our own constitution....




> 7. To establish post offices and post routes; but the expenses of the Post Office Department, after the 1st day of March in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and sixty-three, shall be paid out of its own revenues.


More gold!  Pay your own way, leeches.




> *Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses*, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the Confederate States, the justice of which shall have been judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish.


WTF?




> 10. All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and* Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.*


More WTF....

Article 9 also contains the entire bill of rights minus 9 and 10, but including this gem:




> 20. *Every law*, or resolution having the force of law, *shall relate to but one subject*, *and that shall be expressed in the title.*





> 1. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.


Yes, it does contain ugly bits about slavery.  (So does the original.)  However, the right of travel is not enshrined explicitly in the original.  It is in the confederate constitution.

Check out its article 5 convention, though:




> Article 5. - Amendment   1. *Upon the demand of any three States*, legally assembled in their several conventions, *the Congress shall summon a convention of all the States*, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made; and should any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution be agreed on by the said convention ~ voting by States ~ and the same be ratified by the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, or by conventions in two-thirds thereof ~ as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the general convention ~ they shall thenceforward form a part of this Constitution. But no State shall, without its consent, be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate.


Did the CSA constitution enshrine slavery?  Yes.  They also made it pretty stupid easy to debate the matter.


Was it perfect?  No, as mentioned there was the slavery thing that they were intentionally protecting.  But if you read it line-by-line next to the original, aside from explicitly protecting slavery, the modifications are VERY FEW and IMO a net positive.

----------


## Czolgosz

Y'all have all your rights under the Constitution.  They still exist.  You just simply are afraid to use them.

----------


## TheTexan

> And you do that, by allowing the Constitution to be rewritten?


Yes.  Any government is only a representation of its people.  Society as it is today has nothing to do with the Constitution, and everything to do with the will of the people.  If the will of the people demand something, the Constitution is bent or broken to make it fit.

Many of them don't even believe they're breaking the Constitution.  They think the Commerce Clause _does_ allow for an individual mandate, because that's the kind of world view that they themselves hold.

It's deceptive.  For conservatives who believe in things such as limited government, states rights, the right to bear arms, etc, the Constitution has all these glorious promises.  Promises that have long been broken.

The benefit of allowing the Constitution to be rewritten, is that it would shine an honest light on the tyranny of today, and hopefully inspire the minority who do want freedom to do something about it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yes.  Any government is only a representation of its people.  Society as it is today has nothing to do with the Constitution, and everything to do with the will of the people.  If the will of the people demand something, the Constitution is bent or broken to make it fit.
> 
> Many of them don't even believe they're breaking the Constitution.  They think the Commerce Clause _does_ allow for an individual mandate, because that's the kind of world view that they themselves hold.
> 
> It's deceptive.  For conservatives who believe in things such as limited government, states rights, the right to bear arms, etc, the Constitution has all these glorious promises.  Promises that have long been broken.
> 
> The benefit of allowing the Constitution to be rewritten, is that it would shine an honest light on the tyranny of today, and hopefully inspire the minority who do want freedom to do something about it.


That is a huge risk.  I'll tell you what.  Why don't you talk your state government into rewriting their own constitution and come back and tell us how it all worked out.  In other words, try it in a smaller pond.  Personally, I think it will be a huge failure, but ya never know.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Jefferson is assuming that a new generation would be created in 19 years. With some people living with their parents until 35, he would probably have to update his time frame.

----------


## fisharmor

> That is a huge risk.  I'll tell you what.  Why don't you talk your state government into rewriting their own constitution and come back and tell us how it all worked out.  In other words, try it in a smaller pond.  Personally, I think it will be a huge failure, but ya never know.


Virginia's has been rewritten twice, if memory serves.  (edit: not sure about the 1861-65 period.  Have to look it up: it has had 3 under the USA.)
We have healthier gun rights here than in 90% of the USA.
And our AG, Ken Cucinelli, was the _very first guy to file legal challenge to Obamacare._

----------


## A Son of Liberty

lThe Constitution does not and cannot limit the government.  This is 100% true.  The proof is that, well, the government is not limited.

----------


## fisharmor

> (edit: not sure about the 1861-65 period.  Have to look it up: it has had 3 under the USA.)


The actual number is 7 total since 1776.

----------


## Pericles

> Y'all have all your rights under the Constitution.  They still exist.  You just simply are afraid to use enforce them.


That is the provence of the 2A. The militia of the several states is the enforcement mechanism. Get the states to turn over their militias to the federal government via the Dick Act of 1903, and the Constitution is essentially unenforcable.

----------


## BrittanySligar

> each time individuals could voluntarily sign it they wanted to be governed by it


Yep.  That way, we could always opt out.

----------


## Phil

Saw this on reddit this morning and was thinking about posting it here. You beat me to it!

----------


## Czolgosz

> That is the provence of the 2A. The militia of the several states is the enforcement mechanism. Get the states to turn over their militias to the federal government via the Dick Act of 1903, and the Constitution is essentially unenforcable.


I thought you were kidding   had to look it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

----------


## mport1

I think this is a great idea.  I propose the following for the new constitution:




> 


Done.  Well that was easy enough.

----------


## bolil

The constitution relies upon citizen viligance.  It is a document, it cannot protect itself.  The people are responsible for the erosion of liberty, not a piece of paper.

----------


## AFPVet

I agree with some of the above posts... I don't think Jefferson could have foreseen the kinds of corruption which exists in Washington today. The Constitution works... they just need to follow the damn thing.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The constitution relies upon citizen viligance.  It is a document, it cannot protect itself.  The people are responsible for the erosion of liberty, not a piece of paper.


Yeah, blame the victim.  If it's a "social contract" as Constitutionalists claim it is, then it does "protect itself". (of course, it's not and it doesn't) Just goes to show how flimsy the Constitutionalists'/Federalists' arguments are.  Lysander Spooner smiles.

----------


## Crotale

As an Englishman, I can't quite grasp why numerous individuals within the American liberty movement like the constitution so much. Surely freedom is derived from self-ownership not some document? You shouldn't have freedom because some piece of paper says so, you should be free because it's morally right.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Nope.  Not true.  Much of it is being ignored, yes, but can you honestly stand there and tell me that you would allowed to own any kind of gun at all, if the 2nd amendment did not exist?
> 
> 
> Sorry, this is a very bad idea.  Everything would be up for grabs and I mean, EVERYTHING.  No thanks.  I wouldn't mind an amendment or two to clarify things like the general welfare clause, but that's it.
> 
> 
> Be careful, you're sounding very much like a throw-in-the-towel quitter.  
> 
> Your argument seems to be that since it's a tough road, stop fighting and just go on and become a communist country.


He is an anarchist, ignore him. 

Anything you say in defense of the Constitution, he will label you as a "statist." 

Been there, done that.

----------


## No Free Beer

> As an Englishman, I can't quite grasp why numerous individuals within the American liberty movement like the constitution so much. Surely freedom is derived from self-ownership not some document? You shouldn't have freedom because some piece of paper says so, you should be free because it's morally right.


It's amazing how some people don't seem to understand the Constitution...specifically the BOR.

----------


## Crotale

> It's amazing how some people don't seem to understand the Constitution...specifically the BOR.


Just because I don't support it doesn't mean I don't understand it. I've read and understand the constitution perfectly well thank you.

----------


## Crotale

> He is an anarchist, ignore him.


Nice to see you're keeping an open mind.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Just because I don't support it doesn't mean I don't understand it. I've read and understand the constitution perfectly well thank you.


I wasn't talking to you.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Nice to see you're keeping an open mind.


I opened it to anarchy before, there wasn't anything there to get excited about.

----------


## PierzStyx

> You're under the mistaken impression that the current Constitution is limiting them somehow.
> 
> 
> 
> Not gonna happen.  May as well let them rewrite it so we know where we stand.
> 
> 
> 
> Though you still think this country wants freedom.  My apologies, please ignore this post.  I know a brick wall when I see one.



It is limiting. It is the people who have abandoned their part of the matter and allowed, even encouraged, government to expand.

----------


## PierzStyx

> I opened it to anarchy before, there wasn't anything there to get excited about.


As an ideology its great. As a real system, communism is more do-able.

----------


## TheTexan

> It is limiting.


Clearly it's not.




> It is the people who have abandoned their part of the matter and allowed, even encouraged, government to expand.


Yes, that's what I've been saying, for a long time now.  Including the post you quoted :P

----------


## tttppp

> http://progressingamerica.blogspot.c...1_archive.html
> 
> In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following:


I agree with him. Forcing the government to rewrite their laws periodically, would prevent the government from adding layer upon layer of overlapping laws and would force the government to be smaller and more efficient.

I've been saying for the longest time that the U.S. needs to scrap all its laws and start from scratch. Seems Thomas Jefferson would argue for the same thing.

----------


## moderate libertarian

TJ was sipping wine aged for 19 years when he said this.

All right, I'm J/K.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Thomas Jefferson thought a lot of things.
> 
> I, for one, really don't care, what Thomas Jefferson thought.
> 
> 
> It's a good thing that the Constitution is amendable and changeable, but when you fully rewrite it every 2 decades, you seriously undermine it's stability.  
> 
> Imagine where we would be today, if the Constitution had been re-written fifteen times.


We might have had these amendments which were proposed but never ratified if it was: 

1916 All acts of war shall be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army

1936 An attempt to allow the American people to vote on whether or not the United States should go to war

1947 The income tax for an individual shall not exceed 25% (a step in the right direction at least). 

1971 American citizens should have the alienable right to an environment free of pollution (it sounds good but I'm not even sure this is enforceable without us becoming some totalitarian state so I'll say no to this one). 

I definitely care what Thomas Jefferson had to say. I can think of a few things I'd like to change in the Constitution (how about that pesky income tax?)

----------


## Czolgosz

How about just a 19 year reset button?  All laws and regulations not in the Constitution are wiped, the Constitution continues w/ it's core and any previous amendments ratified, finally any proposed amendments are discussed and possibly ratified.

----------


## awake

"Conventional wisdom" dictates that it be rewritten as a matter of political expediency.

----------


## Evangelical_Protestant

Justice doesn't change with time. There has only ever been one truth, and an infinite number of corruptions on every topic. People always think there is some massive change in consciousness throughout time, but I think there are only corruptions in original truth, then a turning back away from the later corruption to the original truth, which is then seen as some new exciting endeavor in human philosophy. In reality anything you could possibly imagine has already been tried somewhere by somebody.

*The thing that has been, it is that which will be; and that which is done is that which will be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.*

So basically what I'm trying to say is...that I do not support writing the constitution every nineteen years.

----------


## WarNoMore

Anything that allows the people to have more of a say in how they are governed(including self-governorship), is a good idea to me. It also makes the people put thought into the type of government they wish to have, another positive benefit. right now people are just automatons for a 2 party oligarchical system.

----------


## Seraphim

This was not the intent of what he was saying.

Human experience is a state of perpetual change and learning.

The principals of liberty NEVER change, they are constant. Our subjective understanding of liberty DOES change as we learn from generations prior.

The Constitution of the USA, although fantastic, is not perfect. This statement by TJ is an excercise in HUMILITY. Wise enough to understand that they were not perfect, ergo the Constitution is not perfect...and SHOULD be amended when a flaw within it's contents is shown to hinder LIBERTY.




> How silly to believe that the philosophy of liberty changes every 19 years.  
> 
> Are people to rewrite the rules of math every 19 years as well?  Will 2+2 = 6 next year?

----------


## MaxPower

It's a bit obtuse to just say "Jefferson thought the Constitution should be rewritten every 19 years;" rather, Jefferson suggested as much once in a letter to Madison (who disagreed), and shortly thereafter abandoned the idea. If you live to be 86 years old, write literally tens of thousands of letters, and at one point have an idea which you raise and then drop within the span of a year, do you think it would be reasonable to state in an unqualified sense, "smartguy911 thought X"?

Beyond that, I want to state that it is absurd to try to use this as an argument against Constitutional originalism; Jefferson said "The Constitution should be replaced or renewed every 19 years," not "If we _don't_ change or replace the Constitution, we should just pretend it says something else every 19 years." Furthermore, well over 19 years past the passage of the Constitution, Jefferson was still defending constitutionalism, and specifically originalist constitutionalism, as this quote illustrates: 

_"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."_ -Jefferson to William Johnson, June 12th, 1823.

----------


## farrar

> As an Englishman, I can't quite grasp why numerous individuals within the American liberty movement like the constitution so much. Surely freedom is derived from self-ownership not some document? You shouldn't have freedom because some piece of paper says so, you should be free because it's morally right.


It makes your argument a lot more palatable to frame it around the constitution (At least to a lot of americans and conservatives). Most people, even here don't really care about what the constitution says. And for those of you who claim you do, how many of you would still agree with the constitution if an amendment was passed legalizing slavery, or clarifying and permitting the abuse of the commerce clause? We even question  the income tax and the election of senators even though there is an amendment for them. Is their really a reason to question those amendments, or are we just looking for a way to defend the constitution without defending it?

just saying.

----------


## Pericles

> It makes your argument a lot more palatable to frame it around the constitution (At least to a lot of americans and conservatives). Most people, even here don't really care about what the constitution says. And for those of you who claim you do, how many of you would still agree with the constitution if an amendment was passed legalizing slavery, or clarifying and permitting the abuse of the commerce clause? We even question  the income tax and the election of senators even though there is an amendment for them. Is their really a reason to question those amendments, or are we just looking for a way to defend the constitution without defending it?
> 
> just saying.


It is instructive that in oder for the federal government to enforce prohibition and tax income, it was necessary to pass amendments to the Constitution, as ill advised as they many be. That such is no longer the case for each expansion of federal power is also instructive.

As to the value of the US Constitution,, or Magna Carta for that matter, both documents are a statement of principle that individuals have rights against the rest of society (whatever form that society may take) which the individual may enforce via either a peaceful process if society allows, or by violence if society makes no provision for the respect of individual rights.

----------


## fisharmor

> Most people, even here don't really care about what the constitution says.


Sorry to go here, but a demonstration is necessary:



> And for those of you who claim you do, how many of you would still agree with the constitution if an amendment was passed legalizing slavery


According to the United States Constitution in its current form, slavery is legal in the United States.

ETA: I'm not intending to imply you don't care what it says.  Just demonstrating that unless society in general is willing to learn colossally important things like this, the US constitution isn't binding $#@!.

----------


## Czolgosz

> Justice doesn't change with time. There has only ever been one truth, and an infinite number of corruptions on every topic. People always think there is some massive change in consciousness throughout time, but I think there are only corruptions in original truth, then a turning back away from the later corruption to the original truth, which is then seen as some new exciting endeavor in human philosophy. In reality anything you could possibly imagine has already been tried somewhere by somebody.
> 
> *The thing that has been, it is that which will be; and that which is done is that which will be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.*
> 
> So basically what I'm trying to say is...that I do not support writing the constitution every nineteen years.



You are dead on correct about change.  Humans are so myopic, they act as though the revelation in front of them is something new.

----------


## sailingaway

There is a means within it for amending it, and it is intentionally difficult. You should NOT be able to centrally commit that many people without that level of buy in.

----------


## sailingaway

> Sorry to go here, but a demonstration is necessary:
> 
> According to the United States Constitution in its current form, slavery is legal in the United States.
> 
> ETA: I'm not intending to imply you don't care what it says.  Just demonstrating that unless society in general is willing to learn colossally important things like this, the US constitution isn't binding $#@!.


That is not true. An amendment was adopted against that.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> That is not true. An amendment was adopted against that.


That's what I thought also...what's up with that?

----------

