Personally, I don't think that there's any problems with understanding the Constitution as it stands now...The problems arose when those in Office
started to bypass the limitations
that the Constitution levies against their duties & obligations. When you also consider that every Government
Official (all 3 Branches on State & Federal levels) must swear a legally-binding Oath/Affirmation to obey the Constitution in their official
capacities of Office, then you must realize that there are extremely few in government who actually abide by that Oath.
IMO, the Constitution isn't broken to begin with...It's just that the People haven't been enforcing
it upon the government.
Here are some specifics based upon many points already posted here:
--A clarified 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment needs no further clarification: The main reason that the Framers of the Constitution included no limits
on the right to keep
& bear arms is so that the People could protect themselves from not only a foreign invasion, but to also protect themselves from a tyrannical
. The right to establish militias is not restricted to only Fed or State approval--To the Framers, a militia is composed of every
ale-bodied person capable of using whatever armament they can physically & safely handle (remember the Minutemen?).
--Limited Terms for Congress.
It doesn't matter how many terms Reps or Senators serve, as long as they strictly abide by their Constitutional Oaths. It's their dedication
to Public Service that matters, not how long they serve.
--Deny earmarks & pork with legislation.
Earmarks are the means to specify
how much money can be dedicated to a specific task...As Ron Paul has consistently done, any excess funds that
weren't required to complete the task must be sent back to the Treasury. There's too many Officials that add "pork" to an earmark & then spend the
excess for other things, even though they're legally forbidden to do so.
--Nation's foundation upon Judeo-Christian principles.
Yes, it's true that the whole evolution of freedom, beginning with the Magna Carta to the Declaration of Independence to the Articles of
Confederation to the Constitution, was based upon that particular religion. However, since the Constitution Framers respected freedom of worship as
highly as they did, they avoided any specific
reference to the Judeo-Christian God. They instead built a system of government that abided by
the "Natural Laws as set forth by the Creator" & did a damn good job of doing just that. One of the Natural Laws is that, governments are a
neccesary evil for a nation to protect itself from foreign conquerers--Therefore, they set certain limitations
for the government even more so
than to delegate duties & obligations for it. Another of those Natural Laws is that all people are born free & the government must be responsible for
keeping people free
from aggressors, even if the aggressor happens to be the government itself. The main reason for this is that the People
held the most Power, as shown by the history of civilization--After all, the People have always had an overwhelming numerical
over the government & will rebel when pushed far enough.
--Recognize human life from conception.
Not very practical, since (until actual birth) an undeveloped child in the womb can still die for any number of medical problems. If the mother is is
serious danger of her life by either the term of pregnancy or the actual delivery, then the mother should still have the rightful
choice...After all, it's her
body & life that's the main consideration for such a decision. The government should have no authority over
enforcing such a decision for a Free Citizen
. As for cloning, I would think that it should be left up to the States or the People to decide,
not the Feds...As per Amendment 10. As for genetic discrimination, the Constitution & Bill of Rights should be in force
no matter if a person
is a clone or any particular genetic heritage anyway.
--Legal unions between man & woman only.
Consider the fact that "legal" marriage is nothing more than a "business contract" that "incorporates" a couple together for legal & financial
obligations...A "Common Law" marriage can be based on love, but a Legal marriage is a legal contract. Either way, the gender of each partner
shouldn't make any difference as far as validity goes. Hey, I don't like the idea of same-sex marriages, but then I don't have the right
deny that freedom to anybody else!
--Minimum government service.
When America was a new nation, the population was small enough that this may have been viable. With over 300 Million today, such mandatory
service would bloat the government on State & Federal levels, make it too costly to run the government & drive taxes over the rainbow. How about
instead, requiring a test on Constitutional comprehension & understanding before any government official assumes Office?
--Prohibit Taxes on Income & primary Property.
Believe it or not, it's already prohibited! Every Citizen is rightfully
entitled to own land (how could you owe property taxes to yourself?) &
even according to the IRS' own tax Codes, only the gain
made from principle is taxable (ie: appreciation of property values, net profits from
business, any kind of profit from investments, etc.): For the average Citizen living & working within the boundaries of the 50 States,
wages/salaries/compensation is not
taxable...Only those who work in Federal Zones, US Possessions/Territories & those who live & work in
--Emphasize Individual Responsibilities.
Well, for every Right enumerated within the Constitution (& others Constitutionally enumerated by Supreme Court ruling), there also comes the personal
responsibility to not
violate the Rights of others in the process. For example, the Right of Free Speech does not
include starting a
panic by yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater...Anyone who winds up hurt or killed due to the panic has had their Rights violated & the perpetrator
will be indicted & tried.
--Checks & balances.
Yep, they were great...For some reason the People let various government branches illegally usurp power from each other & the People. This is just
another example of the Officers violating their Oaths to the Constitution.
--Money owned by the People
This was violated with the legislation of the Federal Reserve Act...Check out the Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 5 & 6: The powers to coin
money, determine its value & punish the counterfeiting thereof. The Federal Reserve is not
an Agency under Congress, but a cartel of
multi-national banks under private ownership & operation. Also, I see nothing wrong with multiple forms of currency, as long as the value
that currency is factored in with Gross National Production as well as trade...As it is, the Fed Res only adjust interest rates, which has sucked us
into a debt based economy
instead of an economy based upon labor, value & trade.
IMO, this should only be required of government officers.
But there should also be extensive & thorough
studies of the Constitution in public & private schools so that the People can be aware enough to
keep the government on track with the Constitution.
--Decentralization of power.
That's already written into the Constitution, through the checks & balances system. The problem is the wide abuse of the Constitution perpetrated by
--Legalization of hemp.
Yes, there's been a lot of valid reasons researched over this...Right here at ATS, no less. It never should have been criminalized in the first
--Financial Education Centers.
Wouldn't really be needed...At least not on a mandatory
basis...If the government got straightened back on the Constitutional track first.
Originally posted by theoutsidr
I believe that the constituion should focus on natural rights.
It does that already...It's just that the government has gotten quite practiced at violating those Natural Rights. Since those Rights are
, the government's violations will boomerang back...Either by social upheaval that changes the government, or by violent revolution.
These are the "natural facts" as proven by history.
Originally posted by sarcastic
I think criminals ought to be kept out of public service, not just off the voter rolls.
Actually, that's what Impeachment is about...After removal from Office, they would be barred from any such "office of trust" ever again. This
should also include the various judges who serve under the term of "good behavior." Even though the Supreme Court has ruled that term to mean "for
life," it still says & means
good behavior...Still subject to Impeachment if acting with "bad behavior."
Of course, even after Impeachment, indictment for trial is still required: From Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7--
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment
shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United
States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Notice that it says "shall...be liable & subject to Indictment, Trial..."
be subject, but shall
It should also go without saying that even a Presidential Pardon still wouldn't be enough to "re-qualify" anyone with a criminal record to serve in
any "office of trust" either...Their crimes will still be "forgiven," but they would still be disqualified from any Office.
--------Post Continued Below--------