What would you strike from the Constitution?

[Matt Collins]

The 14th and 16th Amendments were never lawfully ratified.


And "We The People" is a fallacy. The "People" never signed, drafted, or ratified the document, only the State governments did.

 

[Matt Collins]

"The Constitution either gives us the government we have now, or it is powerless to prevent it.... either way it is unfit to exist" - Lysander Spooner

 

[Qdog]

The constitution isn't bad as it is... the problem is WE DONT FOLLOW IT!!!! I agree that probably all the amendments since the civil war could have been done without.

 

[low preference guy]

The constitution isn't bad as it is... the problem is WE DONT FOLLOW IT!!!! I agree that probably all the amendments since the civil war could have been done without.

i don't know. i think it has too much text, and thus loopholes. i wish it said that the sole function of the government was national defense. add the bill of rights to that so that they don't violate them during war time. lastly, an explicit prohibition to borrow money. i'd really like that Constitution.

 

[awake]

"The Constitution either gives us the government we have now, or it is powerless to prevent it.... either way it is unfit to exist" - Lysander Spooner

Jeez Matt, I never thought you were a fan of Spooner... He is a powerful mind.

 

[Matt Collins]

Jeez Matt, I never thought you were a fan of Spooner... He is a powerful mind.

I'm not an anarchist, but his quote is ironclad logic and cannot be refuted.

 

[nayjevin]

"The Constitution either gives us the government we have now, or it is powerless to prevent it.... either way it is unfit to exist" - Lysander Spooner

But, any group of people bound by any Constitution will result in this government every time it is tried = false.

What if the best changes in this thread were incorporated and a new expiriment began?

Step one being to erect a monument in every state with the wording of the document, for every schoolchild to visit.

Get Ron Paul and Thomas Woods and Thomas DiLorenzo and a dozen more geniuses together with the greatest web developers and video producers and teachers of our time and develop a training system for children which emphasizes, I dunno,

- individualism
- rule of law
- honest money

.... and toothpick kids eyes open until they understand it.

Then would a Constitution work?

 

[ClayTrainor]

What would you strike from the Constitution / Bill of Rights / later amendments if you could do it by waving a wand?

And what would you add?

I think this whole idea that a state will obey rules on paper to be a bit Utopian, but for the hell of it, I would add the tenth principle from Ron Pauls 'Liberty Defined'.

10. Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.

To follow this to it's logical conclusion, renders the state powerless.

 

[showpan]

Our constitution was flawed from the start which is why some of our founding fathers never signed it. If you read the federalist papers written by Hamilton, you will soon realize that he is a corporatist and the constitution advocated much of those wishes in it's vagueness. The anti federalist papers, written by DeWitt pretty much spelled out our doom. Jefferson wrote many speeches forewarning us about the predicament we have found ourselves in today. It would be vary hard to come up with a viable solution given all of the changes that have been made. Jefferson suggested that a new one should be written every 20 years or so. Kind of like a contract that expires. This way, the things that have worked could be kept and the things that didn't be expunged. A 3/4 majority of states vote would be needed to change anything. If the government tried to grab too much power like they have, it was the a right of the people to take that power away. The main problem we face today is that there are not enough people who are passionate enough to demand that their respective spokesperson be held accountable and actually vote for legislation that only a majority approved. If the constituents of a particular representative showed up in mass at the capitol every time a vote was not made on their behalf, this country would not be where it is today.

 

[eduardo89]

Remove:

16th Allows the federal government to collect income tax
17th Requires senators to be directly elected

Add

Balanced budget, federal government may not account for more than 15% of GDP
Tax increases require 2/3 majority
Borrowing requires 4/5 majority
Human Life Amendment
Federal Term Limits (6 terms in House, 2 terms in Senate max)
Repeal Amendment giving two-thirds of the states the power to repeal any federal law or regulation
US Military may not go to war except: if attacked or imminent attack on US
Treaties cannot be ratified if they are not compatible with Bill of Rights
Only those born to legal residents or citizens are natural born citizens
President need not be born in US, just needed to be citizen at time of birth

 

[matt0611]

My changes to the constitution:

-remove 16th and 17th amendments
-make 2nd amendment more clear so that there is no doubt
-get rid of the power of the federal government to take land from people who don't consent to it (eminent domain)
-add an amendment to limit senators to 2 6-year terms, and representatives to 4 2-year terms
-just get rid of the general welfare clause because it adds confusion and leads to the government we have today
-specifically forbid the federal government from making fiat money, specifically say they can only coin gold and silver and thats it, they can only use gold and silver as payments of taxes and salaries
-specifically lay out the rules for states to leave the union if they so wish to
-amendment to limit the borrowing that the federal government can do (but I'm not exactly sure how it would work yet)

 

[erowe1]

I'm not an anarchist, but his quote is ironclad logic and cannot be refuted.

Of course the first part of the quote can't be refuted. But that's because it's tautological.

It's just another way of saying, "We have the government that we have." regardless of what caused it.

You could replace the word "Constitution" with anything, and it would still be an irrefutable claim.

• The big bang either caused the government we had, or was powerless to prevent it.
• Bert and Ernie either caused the government we have or were powerless to prevent it.
• The antifederalists either caused the government we have or were powerless to prevent it.
• Lysander Spooner either caused the government we have or was powerless to prevent it.
• And so on.

The problem is with Spooner's conclusion. It doesn't follow from the tautological premise that the Constitution (or Bert and Ernie, or Lysander Spooner, etc.) is unfit to exist.

Edit: For the record, I'm not a huge fan of the Constitution. I just don't really care for that Spooner quote either.

 

[low preference guy]

For the record, I'm not a huge fan of the Constitution. I just don't really care for that Spooner quote either.

+1

 

[Matt Collins]

Of course the first part of the quote can't be refuted. But that's because it's tautological.

It's just another way of saying, "We have the government that we have." regardless of what caused it.

You could replace the word "Constitution" with anything, and it would still be an irrefutable claim.

• The big bang either caused the government we had, or was powerless to prevent it.
• Bert and Ernie either caused the government we have or were powerless to prevent it.
• The antifederalists either caused the government we have or were powerless to prevent it.
• Lysander Spooner either caused the government we have or was powerless to prevent it.
• And so on.

The problem is with Spooner's conclusion. It doesn't follow from the tautological premise that the Constitution (or Bert and Ernie, or Lysander Spooner, etc.) is unfit to exist.

Edit: For the record, I'm not a huge fan of the Constitution. I just don't really care for that Spooner quote either.

I see what you're saying, except that your examples are flawed because the Constitution DID set up the federal government whereas none of the other things did.

 

[erowe1]

I see what you're saying, except that your examples are flawed because the Constitution DID set up the federal government whereas none of the other things did.

No it didn't. It's a piece of parchment. Furthermore, most (albeit not all) of the bad things federal officials do, they can do only by violating their oaths to uphold it.

 

[Matt Collins]

No it didn't. It's a piece of parchment. Furthermore, most (albeit not all) of the bad things federal officials do, they can do only by violating their oaths to uphold it.

Of course they don't uphold it; the Constitution has no enforcement provisions.

And yes the Constitution set up the federal government.

 

[erowe1]

Of course they don't uphold it; the Constitution has no enforcement provisions.

What's an enforcement provision?

 

[Matt Collins]

What's an enforcement provision?

"If you violate this document, you get removed from office or throw in in jail. "

Of course the enforcement provision would have to itself be enforced

 

[erowe1]

"If you violate this document, you get removed from office or throw in in jail. "

Of course the enforcement provision would have to itself be enforced

It is in there (Article I, Sections 2 and 3; Article II, Section 4), and it doesn't get enforced.

 

[osan]

The constitution isn't bad as it is...

It is a very weak document with many gaping holes and it fails to address many issues of central importance. It relies on both common sense and assumes the existence of a minimum standard of decency and knowledge, both terrible flaws.

the problem is WE DONT FOLLOW IT!!!!

Agreed. A nation is only as good as its people, the quality or even the presence of a constitution notwithstanding. But if a nation is to have a constitution, it should be as explicit, clear, precise, and complete as possible. The body of proper criminal law pursuant to the ideals and principles of individual liberty is so small as to comprise an article of but a few paragraphs, presenting the slightest burden of added volume to such a document. Had our constitution been even marginally better structured than it is, those who have so successfully stolen away the protections guaranteed by that flawed document would have had a substantially tougher time of it.

In principle I am all for a concon. I can and have written a document that far outstrips the extant one in terms of making clear the powers and limitations of so-called "government", as well as the metes and bounds of individual rights. In reality, however, I would be loathe to see a convention take place. There are no rules and it is pretty clear that people could and probably would go hogwild. What remains of our freedoms would be swept away and the people of this nation would be faced with the very unattractive choice of either going to war against the would-be masters or grabbing their ankles.

If perchance it would be agreed that I could write the new constitution, liberty would be assured for one and all.