US Constitution for the 21st Century

Two visions: A highly amended current Constitution, or a new alternative US Constitution. Both ensure the intent of the founders to protect Individual Rights and limit the Powers of the Federal and State Governments, but are updated with 224 years of hindsight since the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Why do that? Because we have to! We are broker than we have ever been: $15 trillion in debt…that’s $15,000,000,000,000.00… 100% of GDP… for a sense of perspective, that is bigger than ELEVEN Canadas.

Hello, Bill,

I must say, you are exactly the type of person I expected to encounter on Free Republic: Thoughtful, yet tactful. I DO appreciate it.

My purpose was to lay out a prototype for a free society which would be improved upon by those smarter than I, such as those on this forum.

I did, as you said, lay out an expanded Bill of Rights. Stuff that many of us talk about and “take for granted, duh” but have not explicitly codified. Stuff that enemies of liberty would twist to mean something different if it weren’t explicitly stated.

I figure, not to be contentious but simply to state to the counterargument, that it is actually, very useful as a model for government to lay out Rights which government may not violate and which Courts will enforce on the other branches of government. It has worked reasonably well for the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendments, and occasionally for the 9th and 10th. These are far more than (simply) a statement of principle, but a statement of the inherent (god-given, or natural) rights of man, which no (legitimate) government may violate. Not only not-useless, but required by a government by consent.

On plastic surgery and intoxicating substances, I must (heh heh) yield, because Constitutions are supposed to lay out principles, not specifics, as I have done.

The remaining parts (II-VI, grouped by topic) lay out the cybernetics (that is, proper functioning) of this limited government. This makes the document far broader than simply an expanded statement of Rights, but an actual (but long- winded) blueprint for Government. (To be pared down and refined by others wiser than I.)

Your Loyal Servant,
JKP

Hello, person adopting the names of the three most admirable qualities anyone can exercise...

I vote for keeping the old (current) one, too, since I am inherently conservative...

However, we may not get that choice! I am looking two moves ahead in this chess game...my point being: The current debt/fiscal situation may implode the government, requiring a new one to be figured out.

This isn’t a trivial matter! No less than the Great One, Mark Levin, has stated that he thinks we live in a “post-constitutional” republic. That means we are living in a time when the law is uncertain...rights are uncertain...settled law is unsettled. If we are to live in a nation of laws and not of men, we need to figure this out, or we will implode fiscally, and legally.
This pipe dream constitution is one way. I also propose amendments to the constitution as another way. Neither is perfect, but both law out ideas for you to chew on.

Your Loyal Servant,
JKP

The US Constitution failed to stop us(??) from drifting toward a socialistic servile state.

The Constitution doesn't endanger our liberty and longevity...
..POLITICIANS (elected by an ignorant and nonchalant people) endanger our liberty and longevity

*********************

On paper, it reads pretty well, but after 200+ years of practice, we've ended up in a bad place.

We've ended up in a bad place because:

(1) We didn't insist on enforcing the Constitutional matrix of governing principles...

(2) We passed amendments that weakened the basic framework ... as you accurately noted...

(3) We have taken a laissez-faire approach to the (lack of) teaching American history and imparting American ideals and values in our education system for the last 40 years...

--AND--
(4) Lately --we have elected TRAITORS!!!
(Just sayin')

***********

I'd like a reset, because I don't like where we are.

Can you imagine...??

Attempting a "reset" over a several years period with the radical left occasionally running the country??

IMO --
We should do all that we can to reject the ideas and usurpations of the radical left...

IOW -- Toss them out of the halls of power by a large margin.. and with a stern warning.

Pray for a God-sent revival of our faith and renewed honor for the sacred laws that serve as foundation to our earth-bound laws....

--AND--
Promote a renewal of our historical values and a refreshing of our history --

This Constitution will do just fine --
...Should we again choose to live by it....

Again.... jmho...
No flames...
Just tryin' to think it through...

Thank you; it was lovely hearing from you. I think it takes an effort such as this to appreciate just how daunting a task writing the Constitution really was, for it does have to be both a plan on government and a strict set of limitations on government power. I am coming around to the point of view of the anti-Federalists that an attached Bill of Rights was likely to be less persuasive than actually incorporating those principles into the main body of the document. It does provide an easier target for those intent on circumventing them.

An exhaustive listing of corresponding features is beyond the scope of a forum posting, but it seems clear to me that certain ones have proven advantageous well beyond their theoretical predictions. Edmund Burke would probably chuckle to read that. A bicameral legislature, for one, that serves both to present a form of power sharing between equal state governments and unequal populations. This has, sadly, been seriously weakened by the progressive enthusiasms that gave us the 17th Amendment. Separation of powers for another, for which we have to thank Sydney and Montesquieu. Checks and balances. The list is long.

I shouldn’t have been too hard on your inclusion of such items as plastic surgery and intoxicating substances in view of the facts that (1) I do think limitations on government power belong in the body, and (2) the Framers decided to include a couple of specifics there themselves – bills of attainder, for one, importation of slaves for another.

The real difficulty with Constitutional language is not in the enumerated powers but in those the federal government has assumed under the general rubrics of the Necessary and Proper clause and the Commerce clause. This, for Constitutional conservatives, has proceeded from the suspicious to the abusive and now resides in the category of the grotesque. We now see serious debates in Congress on matters such as vehicle fuel from corn squeezings and weddings for individuals fond of alternate sexual practices. It is, to say the least, a degradation of an institution meant for loftier purposes.

I’ve bookmarked the thread to see what others have to offer. Thanks for posting!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.