America 2.0 - the next Constitution

reply to post by Wolf321


You do not need a new constitution.

You just need to stand up for the one you already have... It is perfect in my opinion.

Enforce your rights instead of giving up and trying to create a new set!

reply to post by ZindoDoone


I don't think you need a conspiracy for that one. Just the usual priorities in the wrong place does the job...

As for the vague wording of this or that amendment I think that the phenomena you are noticing is a trend to abstraction / vagueness on ideas that began in much more specific language. I do not think that was an accident. I think they intended that the finer points would shift over time and be rightly the matters of debate. If you want to pick on the second amendment, say what you want about either side (I think both sides get it wrong and tend towards hysteria), but you have to concede that the framers were not talking about fully automatic weapons. They could not have been. They didn't exist.

I think there is a rather intentional and disingenuous practice to apply contemporary mores backwards in time to make a point seem more legitimate by wrapping them in the 'intentions of the original framers' when the only intention we can really see evidence of is that the Constitution was intended to be a living document that evolved over time. Hence the vague wording...

Originally posted by wytworm
Except that it wasnt

Are you serious? Read historical documents. The Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta and the Articles of Confederation are three listed by another poster that show belief in a higher power, and the correlation of principles and laws in the US and those of the bible should be quite clear.

... the only intention we can really see evidence of is that the Constitution was intended to be a living document that evolved over time.

Wrong, it wasn't intended to be a living document by your interpretation, that is the debate over what terminology means. It was meant to be an amendable document that can be changed.


[edit on 18-5-2008 by Wolf321]

Great ideas overall! Also drugs should all be legalised, prostitution legalised so there's no more or less abuse by gangs and all those bad things that illegal prostitution lead to. After all, prostitution has ALWAYS been there and will be there FOREVER. So if we acknowledge this fact, we can fix what's wrong in it.

There's HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS of things to fix in legislation so we don't end up with what we are seeing now and will see even worse things in the future if the trend continues.

And for the second amendment, back in 1776, private citizens had cannons, so nowadays, state militias should be able to have rockets launchers and be able to defeat the US army in a war... so we can have a free state. But of course nowadays, the state militias are under federal orders.

Are you serious? Read historical documents.

Link?

Wrong, it wasn't intended to be a living document by your interpretation

Thats right, it was their interpretation.

It was meant to be an amendable document that can be changed.

Which is by definition a living document...what is your point?

And for the second amendment, back in 1776, private citizens had cannons, so nowadays, state militias should be able to have rockets launchers and be able to defeat the US army in a war... so we can have a free state. But of course nowadays, the state militias are under federal orders.

I think we all are promised by 2nd amendment to maintain nuclear stockpiles in our backyards!

Originally posted by wytworm
Link?

Magna Carta : www.britannia.com...
Declaration of Independence : www.ushistory.org...
Articles of Confederation : www.usconstitution.net...

Which is by definition a living document...what is your point?

By your definition of a living document earlier, a living document was interpretable at a given point in time. Interpretation of the constitution was not intended to change, it was the actual constitution that was supposed to be changeable if the people felt it should be.

reply to post by Wolf321


I think i am missing your point both times on interpretation and living document. Can you restate?

By link I meant some evidence that they were intended to create a judeo-christian state... also a link between bible laws and US laws would be fascinating.

[edit on 18-5-2008 by wytworm]

[edit on 18-5-2008 by wytworm]

reply to post by wytworm


You mentioned earlier that the wording of the constitution was intentionally vague as to be interpreted over time. As many people now argue, for example, on the second amendment. There is the side that interprets the words to mean a state run militia (equivalent by some to the present national guard) are who is addressed here. The other argument is that individuals, being the basis for a militia, are the targets intent. Hence, the interpretation of militia today by some is the National Guard. This was how I understood your concept of a living document.

As for the links, I never said that the intent was to create a judeo-christian state, but that our nation was founded on the many principles of judaism and Christianity, and that virtually all the founding fathers believe in a higher being. Clearly not all of the principles or religious laws could be applied without infringing on the free practice of other religions. But it is judeo-christian principles that were instilled in the founding documents and not islamic or buddist principles, although there are some that would be similar. Does that clear things up?

Nice thread got going here

-2nd Amendment
Yes and no I suppose. There shouldn't be as many hurdles to get a gun like there is now. If I want an Ak47 and don't use it for crime or anything, I should keep it.

-Limiting senator terms and represantive terms to 12 years
No, I think that a senator should be allowed to keep going as long as they're doing a good job.

-Keep out earmarks and pork
Agreed.

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

I thought freedom of religion was kinda the base of the nation. Why recongnize it?

-recognize human life from conception, prohibit cloning, genetic discrimination
Yes to the 3rd one. Limit the second one and no to the first.

--recognize legal unions between man and woman only
INSTEAD, let's just make getting divorces illegal or heavily fined or something. That way, the already legal unions between men and women are somewhat meaningful.

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

That's not as good as your other suggetions. Ever heard the saying that the expanding burecracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding burecracy?

-prohibit taxation of income or on primary residence
-emphasize individual responsibility and prohibit socialist forms of government

Agree, it's my house, I shouldn't be able to lose it. Personal responsibility needs emphasization (made up word).

--Legalization of hemp
Yes. I don't do it myself (or any other drug) but it's not as much as a big deal as some try to make it.



I think that I was playing Mass Effect or something when I read about this group in the game where drugs and stuff were legal. A LOT of stuff was legal as long as
1. No one was hurting someone else by stealing or physical harm
2. That the person was still upholding their responsibilities.

I have another big one for you:
Remove the govt's ability to pass "emotional response" laws. There should be more logic and reason in the passage of laws and less religious fanaticism and knee-jerk reactions. Every law passed should require PROOF that the law will do as intended. A politician must cite sources and studies supporting their law.

A good example are the gun control laws. It has been proven over and over again that allowing concealed carry in an area will immediately and directly lead to lower crime in that area. Those that want to take guns away from citizens always ignore any proof because they "feel" that guns are scary and dangerous and they just "don't like them".

Prostitution is another area where the law goes against the reality of the situation. Prostitution has existed since we humans have existed and will continue to exist regardless of any laws against it until we humans stop having sex.

Attempting to legislate the "problem" away has NOT WORKED and will continue to NOT WORK but they keep attempting anyway. Until we make it legal and then work toward real solutions to real problems we will be left with the mess that is prostitution or drug use in this country. Disease, poverty, abuse, violence, etc. Again, other countries have dealt with this issue in a MUCH more sane manner, and have benefited by doing so.

reply to post by Wolf321


I don't think we have a disagreement on the first point.

On the second we do but I fully understand your position.

No unbacked money.

The complete and entire set of laws should be no larger than 50 pages long.

Anyone and everyone with an 8th grade education should be able to understand the laws. Meaning plain English laws. The law should be explicit and well crafted enough that the meanings leave little room for judgment or debate.

The laws are enforced. Not the opinion of judges. Judges should get an additional 50 pages of education. Most of that should be defining the how and why of the little latitude they are given. There should be no lawyers. A defending judge a prosecuting judge and a deciding judge will be involved. The accused gets to choose a set of three legal professionals. From the available sets. But does not know which role each will perform.

When a judge rules, they must explain in one page their ruling in accordance with the law. All three judges must sign off agreement, or another set performs their role.

A group of 12 judges can be called to address any case where the judgment is believed to be outside the lines.

All legal cases will be abstracted by a first set of legal professionals, then judgment passed by a second. The second set shall not be allowed to know if the defendant is a police officer. This is the reason for the abstraction.


To be a citizen, you must successfully perform military or public service for a minimum of three years. Only citizens may vote. Citizens will be allowed to bear swords in public. Guns, in private. All others are prohibited from these activities.

Police will be equally treated under the law. You may not be police without being a citizen. All citizens will have the full rights to perform as police officers and be treated equally under the law in that service. A police training must be provided as part of the public or military service to all.




Everyone is guaranteed a minimum wage job with benefits working for the government, which will supply all energy needs for profit.

There will be no taxes except for corporations.

The government will be funded strictly by profits from the energy sales, and whatever they can make a profit at with their employee base. Since governments are notoriously inefficient, there is no problem with the government competing with private industry.

Corporate officers for US corporations will only be allowed to make 100 times the rate of the lowest paid employee in gross income, including temp or part time employees. No more than 5% of any corporation’s work force may be contractors, unless the corporation is strictly project based as in the construction industry.

Multinational corporations will pay a 25% tribute to be allowed to trade in the US. The tribute will be eliminated if they abide by US salary rules, and manufacture all product for the US market in the US market, the percentage of imported assembly in the product will be prorated for the 25% tribute.

US corporations will not be allowed to manufacture outside the US, or export jobs.

Truly democratic elections, with publicly published sourcecode for all software involved. Each town nominates their best in a series of elections which lasts from one term to the next, progressing through, Town, Township, State, Region, National. Anyone may put their name in for an office and get equal time in the publicly available election bandwidth.

No campaigning may be allotted to give a preferred candidate a time slot advantage over other candidates. All candidates will get round robin coverage, in all presentations.

All campaigning will be on the internet or free public service television station. Having essentially no cost. A budget of up to 10,000 dollars may be used at the town level only. It does not matter where the 10k comes from.

News agencies will be forbidden to participate in elections or comment upon them in any way. The people can think for themselves.

Originally posted by wytworm
I do not think that was an accident. I think they intended that the finer points would shift over time and be rightly the matters of debate...
...you have to concede that the framers were not talking about fully automatic weapons. They could not have been. They didn't exist.

You're correct...They couldn't have forseen automatic weapons. However, they did forsee that the government would eventually try to take Power from the People & needed to be certain that the People would be able to have similar weaponry as the Federal Military...To back up the superior numbers possessed by the People, which would make government resistance futile. This is precisely the same reason that the government tries to "abridge" the Peoples' Right to keep & bear arms. As quoted by Thomas Jefferson, "The People...are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

Another example falls under the Right to Life, Liberty & Pursuit of Happiness (in this case, liberty & the pursuit): The Supreme Court has ruled the Right to Travel Freely as one of the Rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution itself, but grant that it was intended for the People. According to that Right, you can buy a vehicle of contemporary style & expect not to have it registered, licensed, etc. because that would be an "abridgement" of the Right to Travel Freely.

However, if you register the "automobile" (this is a general class that would include pickup truck, SUV, or any kind of conveyance that you intend to use for personal use only), you enter into a contract that signs ultimate ownership of that auto to the State (specifically under the State-level Department of Motor Vehicles)...Which they automatically re-classify it as a Motor Vehicle (a vehicle used for commercial or business purposes). From there, the State can & does force you to license it & yourself to drive it...Because you have just signed a "Waiver of your Right to Travel Freely" & the State replaces your Right with State-sponsored "privileges." The registration, liscensing, etc. is only required if you intend to use your "motor vehicle" in the course of conducting business to earn some kind of gain or profit.

The Right to Travel Freely means that you are a "traveler" in your "automobile" using public roads for the purpose of traveling and/or transporting your personal property. Once you've gone through the whole State-sponsored schmeer, you become a "driver" or "operator" in a "motor vehicle" for conducting business...It's all a matter of the legal terminology & nothing more!

In order to get around those registrations, licensing, etc, the best way would be to sign every document in a particular manner...Wherever they need your signature, you should write these two phrases right next to your name: Under Duress & All Rights Reserved. The "duress" involved is the State's threat to fine you, incarcerate you/etc. if you would otherwise get caught "driving without a license," "driving an unregistered vehicle," etc. By including "All Rights Reserved," you can maintain your Constitutional Right to Travel Freely in the courtroom & make sure that you can appeal to a Federal Court. The Supreme Courts have already established precedents in previous cases to support your Right.

In the case of the Right to "keep & bear arms," the possession of modern arms is the same as your acquisition of your "automobile," & that Right cannot be "abridged" by the State...Or the Feds, for that matter.

As I've said before, the Framers of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers & the administrations that followed immediately after them always tried to "err on the side of personal freedom."

Originally posted by Vitchilo
And for the second amendment, back in 1776, private citizens had cannons, so nowadays, state militias should be able to have rockets launchers and be able to defeat the US army in a war... so we can have a free state. But of course nowadays, the state militias are under federal orders.

Ah, but as I've already indicated, the Framers of the Constitution considered a "militia" to be any group of Citizens with the capability to arm themselves for mutual defense...It did not require any State or Federal sponsorship! Of course, that same Amendment did authorize each State to form their own Militias, but the People themselves could also form militias!--Yes, the use of capital letters in specific terms is important! Remember that I've already mentioned that the Constitutional scholars of today use the specific definitions of the time period because that's the reason the Framers would have used that terminology in the first place. Even as the language itself changes over time, the People of today must learn the intent of the Framers by their use of the language.

Originally posted by Snap
I have another big one for you:
Remove the govt's ability to pass "emotional response" laws. There should be more logic and reason in the passage of laws and less religious fanaticism and knee-jerk reactions.

This is already covered in the Constitution...Specifically, the Bill of Rights, Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This means that, if the Feds can't do it, the States can...Except for certain Powers denied to the States...If neither the States or the Feds can do it, then it's up to the People! Notice that, when combined with the First Amendment, not even the People can "vote away" their own Rights the way a Democracy does. This is why the Framers also included Article 4, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
*****Bold Emphasis is mine*****

They included this because they feared Democracy & knew that a Democracy is nothing less than Mob Rule, where 51% of the population can vote away the Rights of the other 49%. All Democracies fall into tyranny, as proven by history (look at Hitler's Germany for a prime example)! This is why America should not be a Democracy & should never engage in the "spread of Democracy" anywhere else in the world!

Everything I've mentioned in this post about paying attention to the laws & how they zig-zag around the Constitution is better covered in another thread: Attention ATS! Know The Hidden Meanings Behind the Laws in America, Before it is Too Late!. There's also a lot more examples there & supporting links to start with some leads for further research.

[edit on 18-5-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

In the case of the Right to "keep & bear arms," the possession of modern arms is the same as your acquisition of your "automobile," & that Right cannot be "abridged" by the State...Or the Feds, for that matter.

So you are pro personal possession of suitcase nukes for self defense against the govt.?

As I've said before, the Framers of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers & the administrations that followed immediately after them always tried to "err on the side of personal freedom."

I am more concerned with erring on the side of personal accountability and a nation of laws not men.

Originally posted by wytworm
So you are pro personal possession of suitcase nukes for self defense against the govt.

I'm curious to hear others response, but from my line of thinking, the radiation factor and transportation and storage requirements would create a hazardous environment for others, infringing on their rights. Other forms of weapons, such that the mere possession of causes no harm unless utilized.

Originally posted by Wolf321

Originally posted by wytworm
So you are pro personal possession of suitcase nukes for self defense against the govt.

I'm curious to hear others response, but from my line of thinking, the radiation factor and transportation and storage requirements would create a hazardous environment for others, infringing on their rights. Other forms of weapons, such that the mere possession of causes no harm unless utilized.

You can store with no harm.

reply to post by wytworm


Absolutely, it can be stored without harm, but even then it would require regulation. Which like any law could be disobeyed by someone leading to exposure. The same goes for transport.

reply to post by Wolf321


So you are denying my right to bear arms? Go regulate your automatic weapons and keep the nukes free. Why do you promote a country where only the criminals get to have the nukes? I am keeping mine for self defense!


[edit on 19-5-2008 by wytworm]

reply to post by Snap


Snap
Your point list is dead on.I would only add that the true power be returned to the states.It is far easier to keep tabs on state and local government.State representatives tend to listen to their voters.This would allow us to return to a republic of soverign states instead of a bloated federalist overlord.