Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: johnkpiper
Welcome to FR, John. With respect, the part of the Constitution dispensed with in the Pipe-Dream version is the entire purpose of the original document: to lay out the structure and relationships of the various branches of government. A Constitution consisting only of an augmented Bill of Rights is fine as a statement of principle but useless as a model for government.

I'm not entirely certain that such minutiae as plastic surgery and the ingestion of intoxicating substances really belong in such a source document. Rather, I would submit that these are to be governed under a broader principle that would be equally applicable to topics not so specifically delineated - the Constitution is, after all, supposed to be a framework for future legislation.

It may be that I have misinterpreted your intentions here and if so I apologize, but it appears to me that the proper focus of the body of your text ought to be on the Bill of Rights exclusively. Whether I've missed the point or not (and that is quite likely), thanks for an interesting read.

10 posted on 08/29/2012 8:06:13 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Billthedrill

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,

22 posted on 09/10/2012 11:32:29 PM PDT by johnkpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson