America 2.0 - the next Constitution

As a veteran it pains me to say I don't think America as we know it can last. My only hope, is that the citizens can correct the problems before it is too late and all is lost. I do believe that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are wonders that changed the idea of government forever. Sadly, I think some of it was too ambiguous and some things lacking. I would think starting with that as a foundation and reworking it would be a good idea.

That being said, if you were helping to write a new constitution, what would you want to see in it that would protect us from going down the same or worse road, and keep the USA a free society?

Things I would like to see:
-A clarified 2nd amendment, eliminating all question as to if people have the right to own firearms/weapons for self defense and to secure a free state. They would.
-Limit Senator and Representative terms to 12 years.
-Keep earmarks and pork out of legislation
-Recognize that judeo-christian principles are at the foundation of the nation
-recognize human life from conception, prohibit cloning, genetic discrimination
-recognize legal unions between man and woman only
-require a minimum of 2 years of federal or state service after completing high school. college or before the age of 25.
-prohibit taxation of income or on primary residence
-emphasize individual responsibility and prohibit socialist forms of government.

Many will disagree with my recommendations, and that is fine. This thread is just to see what ideas each of you would want to see in a new US Constitution. I hope that you don't criticize or find faults with individual ideas. We can save those debates for the new Constitutional Convention

[edit on 11-5-2008 by Wolf321]

checks and balances were great...why was that altered?
We should definitely reinstate checks and balances.

money owned by the people and always by the people.
whats wrong with multiple forms of currency in this country.
Massive re-education of the indoctrinated. Not forced re-education, but more like an awareness 101 course depending on severity of ignorance.
revival of anti trust to the extent that major monopolies cannot exceed a certain limit...to ensure that power cannot become centralized...
the legalization of hemp for multiple reason
government sponsored money education centers. People go to school to learn how to be better slaves...why not go and learn how to make money be your slave?

reply to post by Wolf321

-Recognize that judeo-christian principles are at the foundation of the nation

No thanks. And actually, I thought it was more of a freedom of religion, or lack thereof if that's ones' choice. I don't want your religious beliefs stuffed down my throat and plastered all over our money and thruout our government and our laws.

Live and let live.

Well, I wasn't asking for agreement or disagreement with my ideas, just for contributions. My inclusion of that in my ideas does not force anyone to believe or recognize a god/gods or even practice or agree with any religion. Simply to indicate that the basis for the values that influence the laws come from judeo-christian principles, and that the country was founded with the belief in a higher power. Perhaps your post would have been more constructive to say that you would want a clause prohibiting acknowledgment of any spirit or god. But thanks for trying.

Originally posted by Wolf321
Well, I wasn't asking for agreement or disagreement with my ideas, just for contributions. My inclusion of that in my ideas does not force anyone to believe or recognize a god/gods or even practice or agree with any religion. Simply to indicate that the basis for the values that influence the laws come from judeo-christian principles, and that the country was founded with the belief in a higher power. Perhaps your post would have been more constructive to say that you would want a clause prohibiting acknowledgment of any spirit or god. But thanks for trying.

You dont have to ask for agreement or disagreement... thats taken for granted your talking on a forum, theyre made for sharing ideas and debating them. I believe that the constituion should focus on natural rights.
I believe that sexual orientation should not determine your right to wed. Everyone should have the right to do what makes them happy so long as they are not obstructing another persons natural rights. And think about what a marriage actually is, its a promise between two individuals to be together for the rest of their lives and never to stray from each other. There should be no law banning two people from doing so. But if churches CHOOSE not to marry same sex couples that is their choice, religion is a choice. Your natural rights/constitutional rights you are born with. But as for making same sex marriage unconstitutional is completely ubsurd, ignorant and hateful.

hmm.. not sure if people just don't care, aren't American so don't want to participate, or are happy with my suggestion or the way things are now, but I expected more people might have ideas on this matter.

North American Union Ratified Under The Smoke Screen of 9/11 ??

[This] belief was reflected in the outcomes of nearly all of the 17 elections held in 2006. And it has been the real story of recent years: Not some "Left Turn." Not some populist rejection of markets and trade - but the creation of a new hemispheric consensus that, as our Inter-American Democratic Charter[1] states, "democracy is essential for the social, political, and economic development of the people of the Americas." -Condoleezza Rice

The Bush Administration likes to brag that they create their own reality and that when we are focused on that reality they will create new realities. For a very long time in this freedom movement we have done just that, pay attention and analyze the reality that they create for us. After September 11th the majority of us were arguing with each other over theories such as planes or no planes as many had not a clue that our country has been irrevocably altered and our sovereignty has been surrendered at the stroke of a pen by Colin Powell[2]. Something that enemies with nuclear weapons could not do, multinational non-governmental organizations have done slowly over time.

"The terrorist catastrophes in New York and Washington swept away media comment on other global events taking place on September 11, 2001. Virtually obscured on that historic agreement reached in Lima, Peru by the foreign ministers of the Organization of American States (OAS) on the Inter-American Democratic Charter." -Lou Dobbs, CNN

On September 11th Colin Powell was in Peru with the rest of the ‘ministers' of the Organization of American States which has been forming since 1959. All of the member states of the OAS were in attendance to sign the Inter-American Democratic Charter which was a groundbreaking document for cementing the globalist policies such as the Inter-American system that puts the United States under International Law and standardizes English, Spanish, Portuguese and French as official languages for member states. The OAS has tentacles that reach deeper than the SPP and it also has a very United Nations like structure with a permanent council and general assembly.

Secretary Powell should be credited for signing the Inter-American Democratic Charter in Lima, but what does that act mean when others in the Administration support a coup d'etat in Venezuela, only to be chastised by the rest of the inter-American community? What does our declared support for democracy mean when U.S. Ambassadors take sides in a presidential election in Bolivia and El Salvador? Does this Administration not realize that Latin Americans remain suspicious of U.S. declarations on democracy because we sometimes undermined democratically-elected leaders, who were anti-American?

Let me request that you consider a second hearing specifically on North America and look beyond NAFTA to the issue of integration and policy coordination. There is much to be learned from the European experience - both in terms of what we should adapt and what we should avoid. Beyond that, Congress could take the lead in merging the two bilateral parliamentary commissions with Mexico and Canada to create a new Inter-Parliamentary Group on North America[3] that could consider new initiatives, including a North American passport, a Customs Union, a Permanent Court on Trade and Investment to replace the ad hoc dispute settlement mechanism, and a North American Plan for Infrastructure and Transportation." -Robert Pastor

What ever happened to "a nation of the people, by the people and for the people", "governance by consent of the governed" ??

It appears that all has been removed from our options, as if we were chattel to others, elites, decision-makers behind closed doors.

WTH? www.thought-criminal.org...

Added link

[edit on 12-5-2008 by sarcastic]

reply to post by sarcastic


sooo...what would you want to see in a new stronger constitution?

This thread considers the probability that NWO is forming, but assumes that the people will prevail and will seek to secure the freedoms they had and prohibit opportunities for future oppression.

I don't think we the people -- anywhere -- need to be subject to leaders who are world-class criminals, drug-dealers, usurers, money-launderers, assassins and terrorists.

I think criminals ought to be kept out of public service, not just off the voter rolls.

That's what I think.

OK. People have many opinions on same-sex marriage, but there's something every gay person won't acknowledge or doesn't know;
Marriage is religious.

Regardless of ideas, it is a religious idea. So, there is no right way to do same-sex marriage, because, technically, it's an oxymoron.

No amount of petitioning can change the Bible. At least not in this day and age.

A WikiDocument must be made. Something on the web which can be revised and edited. Think of projects like wikipedia and linux. They both have impressive results by combining the talents of millions of minds in a free and open manner (although admittedly to some degree this process has been corrupted) A discussion forum attached to the site would be nice as well.


Anyone know how to set up a web site where a new document can be drawn up?

reply to post by Wolf321


If you read 'The Federalist papers' you'll see that many at the constituional convention fought hard to make many of the amendments and bill of rights more direct in they're meaning. Others where afraid that it would make it too restrictive. I can see both sides here but I agree that we realy needed a bit more clarification as to intent in many of the amendments as well as the intent for writing in such a manner. It sure would prevent much of the discourse seen today at trying to mislead citizens about our rights!!

Zindo

reply to post by Wolf321


Sorry, I can't resist. I have to pick apart your ideas, because frankly, I don't have one overall great idea for a new Constitution. I think the original one was pretty damned good if it hadn't been circumvented, ignored, disgraced, etc.

-A clarified 2nd amendment, eliminating all question as to if people have the right to own firearms/weapons for self defense and to secure a free state. They would.

There is nothing ambiguous about "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." As far as I'm concerned, if you have the cash, you should be able to buy a brand new jet fighter just as easily as any murderous third-world dictator. If you have been convicted of a felony and have done your time, they should give you all your guns back at the prison gate (except maybe the one you used to commit a crime.)

The ONLY real exception I could make, would be people who have clinical mental problems. But even then, if they're really that dangerous, they should be in an institution anyway.

-Limit Senator and Representative terms to 12 years.

Not a bad idea, but perhaps this one would eliminate the need for that. Campaign finance reform. Make it so they could stay in as long as they had the confidence of their contituents in a hard won election for each term.

-Keep earmarks and pork out of legislation

Never did understand how that did any good for the people really, so I'm with you on that.

-Recognize that judeo-christian principles are at the foundation of the nation

Simply not necessary. But I don't think that anyone should have to hide their religious beliefs either, in public. If the town hall wants to put up a Christmas tree, so be it. If a Jewish President wanted to put a menorah on the front lawn of the White House, fine by me. If a Buddhist teacher wanted to tell her class about her beliefs during a relevant course of study, such as Asian history, not a problem. If an atheist judge decides to not have a Bible in their courtroom, leave it to them to decide how to invoke a promise of truth.

-recognize human life from conception, prohibit cloning, genetic discrimination

I'm not for all sorts of freaky science lab stuff by some Frankenstein working with human materials, but the recognition of human life can not be made until the embryo is viable to survive independent of the mother.

This does not mean however, that human genetic material should still not be treated with the utmost respect. There should be strict oversight of all science done with such materials, to ensure that the utmost care is taken to balance the needs of the living with crimes against nature. Genetic discrimination is a very real possibility in the next decade or two I think. See the movie Gattaca. This topic should be looked into and discussed more thoroughly, soon.

-recognize legal unions between man and woman only

Disagree. This may sound pointless, or that I am just getting hung up on a word, but I think "marriage" should only be between a man and a woman. However, I do support the right of civil unions for same sex couples.

And really, for that matter, you should be allowed to put anyone you want on your insurance, or as the benefactor of your estate.

-require a minimum of 2 years of federal or state service after completing high school. college or before the age of 25.

Agreed. But let it be at any time from age sixteen on. Something based along the lines of Reserve duty. Basic training, a few weeks a year, a weekend a month. Something along those lines anyway. And standards should be relaxed somewhat, but just to the point that everyone can participate without being driven to a breaking point. Military service is not for everyone, but everyone can be of some use.

-prohibit taxation of income or on primary residence

Agreed. Particulalry on your primary residence. If I own my own home, there should be no way that anyone should ever be able to come and take it away from me. If old folks didn't have to worry about those taxes, we wouldn't need so much Social Security. Or at least they would be able to use more of it for the food and medicine that they need.

-emphasize individual responsibility and prohibit socialist forms of government.

Individual responsiblity is a given, but it only goes just so far. No man is an island. I for one am not willing to let some neighbor starve to death, even though I never met him, because all the jobs ran out of town. The government has a responsiblity to the people. More precisely, a government by the people, has a responsibility to provide for the common welfare of their own citizen-neighbors. And truthfully, even if a man is a drunken bum, he is still entitled to a warm room and three square a day in my book. Even if it is just to keep my family protected from having to deal with the bum in any other fashion than paying our dues. I'm willing to pay for a little bit of out of sight, out of mind. This would also justify much harsher penalties for criminal behavior.










[edit on 5/18/0808 by jackinthebox]

I'll take a crack at it too...

-A clarified 2nd amendment, eliminating all question as to if people have the right to own firearms/weapons for self defense and to secure a free state. They would.

Agree. Reading the opinions of the founding fathers spells it out very clearly. It is too bad those documents do not have any force of law behind them.

-Limit Senator and Representative terms to 12 years.

Agree. I would go a step further and eliminate all terms. You serve for one term in any office. You can lengthen the terms to compensate for this. This would stop the re-election crap that we have to put up with. It would stop politicians from passing laws for the sole reason of getting re-elected. etc.

-Keep earmarks and pork out of legislation

Agree. Separating Money and Government in any way that we can is a good thing.

-Recognize that judeo-christian principles are at the foundation of the nation

Disagree. I despise religious dogma, but fully support freedom of religion. Want to put the ten commandments in your court room? A big buddha statue on the white house lawn? Go for it. As long as you are not forcing me to comply with your religion then I don't care.

-recognize human life from conception, prohibit cloning, genetic discrimination

Disagree. I believe a person has absolute say over their own body. If you want to take drugs, suicide pills, or have an abortion, then it is your choice. Until a fetus can survive with no connection to the woman then it is A PART OF THE WOMAN and she has the ultimate say in the matter.

-recognize legal unions between man and woman only

Disagree. I don't care what people do in their own bedrooms. A marriage is a contract between people and a private matter. If you want to marry 2 men and 4 women then have fun. As far as insurance goes, Why is it even an issue? If you add a person you pay more. Add another and pay even more.

-require a minimum of 2 years of federal or state service after completing high school. college or before the age of 25.

Disagree. This is the very definition of slavery even if only temporary. Many people have been successful in life because they took an opportunity when it came knocking. What if they missed that chance to start a business or such because they were forced into service instead? Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness go out the window when your life is not your own.

-prohibit taxation of income or on primary residence

Agree. It is already in the constitution. No direct tax. We need to make it a bit stronger perhaps. The reason for no direct tax is because the entire system of government was supposed to bottom-up. You pay tax to the town, they pay tax to the state, they pay tax to the federal government. This allows the smaller governments and people to have more say and control over the money. With the direct(income) tax the federal government cuts them out of the loop and takes money directly form the citizen. They then re-dole it out to the states, but ONLY if the states stay in line and do what the federal govt wants. Otherwise they withhold the federal highway funds, etc. The states also then have to hand that money out to the towns with the same results. This is why the federal govt can tell a state that they must have x law on the books or they will withhold the money.

-emphasize individual responsibility and prohibit socialist forms of government.

Agree. Keep the bloat out of the govt.

Many will disagree with my recommendations, and that is fine. This thread is just to see what ideas each of you would want to see in a new US Constitution. I hope that you don't criticize or find faults with individual ideas. We can save those debates for the new Constitutional Convention

Yeah, but it's fun to debate it. =)

I would add:

-Eliminate no-knock warrants.
-Eliminate the seizure of property to pad the budget. If property must be seized, then the govt must donate any money obtained to charities.
-Eliminate eminent domain for anything other than necessary infrastructure. No stealing property to give it to a private corporation.
-Change to a run-off election and fix the glaring holes in election transparency, security, and accountability.
-Eliminate the nanny state. The govt should not be able to tell people how to live and what they can and cannot do except when a person is violating another's rights. If I don't want to wear a helmet, seatbelt then it is my choice. If I want to take drugs, kill myself, visit a prostitute, gamble away all my life savings, then it is my choice to do so.
-End corporate person-hood.
-Recognize lobbying for what it is. Bribery.
-Reign in the police forces. Having the very same people who commit crimes also investigate them is a bad idea no matter how you look at it (Internal Investigations).
-Get rid of the War on Drugs. This has led to the militarization of the police. It is directly responsible for the black market, street gangs and huge amount of violence in America. We are a big end market for drugs and gangs fight for turf to sell them in. Other countries have legalized drugs with great success at eliminating most of this and addiction levels are much lower there.
-Fix the rest of the wording in the constitution. Spell it ALL out so even a moron can understand it. Leave no ambiguity for lawyers and politicians to create loopholes.
-Stop schools from running peoples lives via threats to take children away if parents don't do as they are told. Same for the various family services.
-Reduce the barriers of entry for pharmaceutical/medical companies. When it (intentionally) costs $100 million before you can get a drug out it makes it impossible for competition to start up. This is why we have these huge monopolies in this field. The people in charge of regulating them end up working for them after leaving office. The FDA etc are captured institutions.

I could go on and on and on. Basically: More Freedom, Less Government.

reply to post by Snap


Thanks for the post. I hope more people will chime in with ideas on what we the people would want. Since it seems this thread isn't going to be able to avoid discussion on suggestion, I did like the idea on eminent domain. The issue of illegal drugs becoming legal is a tricky one. I understand the libertarian view on the matter. Basically let drug users smoke/snort/shoot-up until they kill themselves or break the habit. At the same time, I wouldn't want some casual user roaming the streets or driving high. Do I want some mom coming home after a hard day at work and shooting up with heroin and then accidentally feeds her infant a bottle of liquid plumber? Not at all.

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:

From Wolf321
--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 government. 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 have always held the most Power, as shown by the history of civilization--After all, the People have always had an overwhelming numerical advantage 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 to 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 foreign countries.

--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.

From iiinvision
--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 of 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.

--Awareness 101.
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 our Officials.

--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 place.

--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 natural, 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..."...Not may be subject, but shall be subject.
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--------

---------Post Concluded from Above--------

Originally posted by ianr5741
A WikiDocument must be made.

Try TinWiki...That's ATS' own sponsored subsection of Wikipedia. You can get more info from a tab at the top of your screen.

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
I can see both sides here but I agree that we realy needed a bit more clarification as to intent in many of the amendments as well as the intent for writing in such a manner. It sure would prevent much of the discourse seen today at trying to mislead citizens about our rights!!

By also reading the Congressional Journals during those early times, there was a lot of discourse over meanings of specific words...Today, the Constitutional scholars look at the Webster's Dictionaries published at that time in order to interpret their meanings according to contemporary use of language. If there's still any ambiguity left over these days, the scholars are very certain of one thing in particular...If there was doubt over the meaning & intent of the original documents, they always tried to err on the side of individual freedom instead of government power.

I will probably be posting my own "suggestions" later...When I get more time to research & link my posts...

Originally posted by Wolf321
Simply to indicate that the basis for the values that influence the laws come from judeo-christian principles, and that the country was founded with the belief in a higher power.

Except that it wasnt

Perhaps your post would have been more constructive to say that you would want a clause prohibiting acknowledgment of any spirit or god. But thanks for trying.

Perhaps your post would have been more constructive if it hadn't been based on misinformation and dogma. You could have stated your principles. Instead you grounded your 'principles' in a reaction to contemporary debate on the principles of the original constitution. Can you restate your ideas so that they may stand on their own?

i.e. My America would be founded with the basis for the values that influence the laws coming from judeo-christian principles, and that my America will be founded with the belief in a higher power.

That way people won't get confused and think that you are trolling..

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

By also reading the Congressional Journals during those early times, there was a lot of discourse over meanings of specific words...Today, the Constitutional scholars look at the Webster's Dictionaries published at that time in order to interpret their meanings according to contemporary use of language. If there's still any ambiguity left over these days, the scholars are very certain of one thing in particular...If there was doubt over the meaning & intent of the original documents, they always tried to err on the side of individual freedom instead of government power.

Thanks for this post!

What I meant by that is directly in the Constitution. It would have made the debate clearer. Many of those articles and opinions written in local newspapers of the time have been lost. It was only very lucky that relatives of some of the framers owned or worked on papers and kept anything written about the documant. I saw a tv show a few years back with an interview with one of the achivists for the Smithsonian who talked about the fact that Congress has not fully funded the project to save pertinate documents warehoused in the Smithsonian and the federal archives.This project was voted on in the early 60's. He said because of the paper used it was not uncommon to open a box of documents and find it turned to dust or confetti. This seems to be a 'real conspiracy' . Historic as well as current documents are not being put on media that will stand the test of time and age. Library of congress has the same problem. Minutes of Congressional meetings should never be let to rot sitting in warehouses. Its the business of the people and should be preserved.
Zindo