Thomas Jefferson thought the U.S. Constitution ought to be rewritten every 19 years

[smartguy911]

http://progressingamerica.blogspot.com/2012_02_01_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 fucking 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

Maybe if our Constitution said this more people would care about how bad their government is fucking them over.

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 fuckin 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 fuckin 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.