Quantcast
Is it time America writes a new Constitution?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Is it time America writes a new Constitution?

SpokenTruth said:
Insidb said:
Fun facts:

When the Constitution was written, there was no:
1) Automobile
2) Computer
3) Republican/Democratic Party
4) X-Ray/MRI
5) Electric Power
6) Telephone
7) IRS/Federal Reserve
8) Internal Medicine
9) Airplane
10) Pledge of Allegiance
11) Television
12) Internet
13) Abolition/CRA
14) Women's Suffrage

In hindsight, treating a document that was written 230 years ago as sacrosanct seems like a great idea!

Do you know what an amendment is?

Le sarcasm, mio amico.



Around the Network

With today's governments you don't need to rewrite the constitution.



Insidb said:
sc94597 said:

2. I disagree first with your suggestion that persons in the enlightment era believed they knew most of the world. This wasn't called the age of reason and empiricism without proper substance. I secondly disagree with your use of the phrase "human nature." When one speaks of human nature one is only speaking of the qualities that are common to all or almost all human beings. The rights to life, liberty, and the estate summarized this human nature well in 1791 and today in 2015 just the same. So when a document is constructed to protect the corollaries of said rights, it does not hold any less valid in 2015 than it did in 1791. The various inventions have not affected the intent and logic behind the codification of rights. 

3. I was speaking of the origins and ends of governments. The monopolies you alluded to would not exist without the backing of force. Whether it is the framers presupposing how the other ten million Americans and future Americans want to be governed, a mobocracy in which the individual is at the whims of a majority absolutely, a king who thinks of persons as his property, etc etc it is all substantiated by the use of force to secure monopolies in law, power, money, defense, and a plethora of other goods and services. That is the nature of government the use or threat of monopolic force.

2. My contention focused on their awareness, or lack thereof. If a document is to be a fully-informed expression of human will and desire then it most certainly should be lacking the input and insight of the majority. If the document is a reflection of the prevailing sensibilites (which it was), then it is a reflection of the sentiment that women and blacks (amongst other minorities) are incapable of sophisticated decision-making. That precept was and is inherently flawed, yet it guided the rationale behind the drafting. From the outset, the character of human nature that is prescribed therein is incomplete and insufficient. This is only exacerbated by the fact that these elite, white men were not simultaneuosly integrating the female (for obvious reasons) perspective or "nature." No matter the enlightenment fo their perspectives, they were doomed to a myopic characterization of human nature that was an incomplete data set. Ergo, a document constructed to protect "the rights to life, liberty, and the estate "can very easily be "less valid[sic] in 2015 than it did in 1791." The fact that the primary precepts of the constitution have been largely sufficient speaks volumes to their forethough and wherewithal, despite the aforementioned limitations.

3. I think this comes down to a matter of semantics, with regards to perceived force. If one controls the means of production, they can "force" those who need their products to meet their demands. All of this can be dome without any physical exertion or construct: their power can be intrinsically linked to privately held, necesary knowledge (trade secret) to produce. This is why I belive that power is the true prerequisite, because it is inclusive of force. "Force" just seems to lack the appropriate depth and breadth, in my opinion, to capture the multitudinous ways one can exert control.

Conceptually, I do not believe that are that far apart.

2. This is only true for a subset of the framers. Most of the anti-federalists were anti-slavery and pro-women rights. Of course, it took time for their - at the time - radical ideas to become the consensus, and in my opinion it was the democratic process and the majority which prolonged these misdeeds rather than the codified constitution. The southern population just wanted slavery so much that the precepts of liberty and equality before the law were rationalized as not applying to black persons. 

3. I view force as (or the threat therof) damage to one's property, person, or freedoms without the consent of the person whom it affects and with the intention of the aggressor. Not all force is bad. Defensive force is alright. But aggression is bad. One can only achieve total control of a means of production with the use of force (note that the only monopolies in history lasted as long as the government supported them, and once that support ended they reverted back to more competitive markets, a key example is standard oil which held 94% market share because of a patent, and once it lost the patent it went down to 68% within fifteen years. Another example was the U.S. Postal Service between late 19th century until 1970.) Without government there would be far more prevalent instances of diseconomies of scale and that would mean more local competition, and overall fewer global monopolies/oligopolies, increasing total competition, reducing prices, and increasing the quality of goods and employment (easier to negotiate with a local employer than a large employer.) 



sc94597 said:

2. This is only true for a subset of the framers. Most of the anti-federalists were anti-slavery and pro-women rights. Of course, it took time for their - at the time - radical ideas to become the consensus, and in my opinion it was the democratic process and the majority which prolonged these misdeeds rather than the codified constitution. The southern population just wanted slavery so much that the precepts of liberty and equality before the law were rationalized as not applying to black persons. 

3. I view force as (or the threat therof) damage to one's property, person, or freedoms without the consent of the person whom it affects and with the intention of the aggressor. Not all force is bad. Defensive force is alright. But aggression is bad. One can only achieve total control of a means of production with the use of force (note that the only monopolies in history lasted as long as the government supported them, and once that support ended they reverted back to more competitive markets, a key example is standard oil which held 94% market share because of a patent, and once it lost the patent it went down to 68% within fifteen years. Another example was the U.S. Postal Service between late 19th century until 1970.) Without government there would be far more prevalent instances of diseconomies of scale and that would mean more local competition, and overall fewer global monopolies/oligopolies, increasing total competition, reducing prices, and increasing the quality of goods and employment (easier to negotiate with a local employer than a large employer.) 

Well said, my friend; I think I like you.



You see, the genius of or constitution is the ability to amend it. This means you don't have to waste time recreating an entire rule of law.



Around the Network

Usually the people who want to rewrite the Constitution are just people who are bitter they can't remove something (usually or almost always 2A), which pretty much shows that the original is doing it's job.



No, it's just time we start you know, following the original constitution though....

Right to bear arms didn't have an asterisk next to it with a little thing saying "for hunting purposes"...nope, it's for personal defence in any way necessary...including against the governemnt and to overthrow it when they get out of control.



Insidb said:
Fun facts:

When the Constitution was written, there was no:
1) Automobile
2) Computer
3) Republican/Democratic Party
4) X-Ray/MRI
5) Electric Power
6) Telephone
7) IRS/Federal Reserve
8) Internal Medicine
9) Airplane
10) Pledge of Allegiance
11) Television
12) Internet
13) Abolition/CRA
14) Women's Suffrage

In hindsight, treating a document that was written 230 years ago as sacrosanct seems like a great idea!


So what changed lol? Almost all of them are still relevant today, there's the odd one like the 3rd (quartering soldiers in your home) that are no longer used but the 1st, 2nd, 4th-8th, 10th (goes unnoticed and gets ignored apparently), etc. are still hugely important. And btw there's no asterisk with restrictions on the 2nd...it wasn't specifically for hunting or personal defence...it was so you could overthrow corrupt governments. Fuck I think anyone with no criminal record or major mental health issue should be allowed an AK-47 if he so chooses. 



Marks said:
Insidb said:
Fun facts:

When the Constitution was written, there was no:
1) Automobile
2) Computer
3) Republican/Democratic Party
4) X-Ray/MRI
5) Electric Power
6) Telephone
7) IRS/Federal Reserve
8) Internal Medicine
9) Airplane
10) Pledge of Allegiance
11) Television
12) Internet
13) Abolition/CRA
14) Women's Suffrage

In hindsight, treating a document that was written 230 years ago as sacrosanct seems like a great idea!


So what changed lol? Almost all of them are still relevant today, there's the odd one like the 3rd (quartering soldiers in your home) that are no longer used but the 1st, 2nd, 4th-8th, 10th (goes unnoticed and gets ignored apparently), etc. are still hugely important. And btw there's no asterisk with restrictions on the 2nd...it wasn't specifically for hunting or personal defence...it was so you could overthrow corrupt governments. Fuck I think anyone with no criminal record or major mental health issue should be allowed an AK-47 if he so chooses. 

 

What does the internet, television, automobiles, computers, automatic weapons, etc have to do with basic ideological principles regarding individual liberty and limits on government power where individual rights take precedence over government and the then revolutionary idea that it is government that should be restricted, and not the people, with a Constitution explicitly stating what government can do instead of the other way around?

The idea that liberty of the individual is sacred and absolute and already exists naturally, and that government does not exist to grant liberty but instead to protect it, ironically from the very government itself first and foremost, transcends all time and space and is not influenced by technology or human progress.

Freedom of speech and press for example wasn't limited to just speaking or pens only but not printing presses.  It made no mention of the means at all. It is far less tangible and wider scope than that the technological means available at any given point in time be it a pen or the internet.

Right to bear arms = "every terrible implement of the soldier", for governed citizens to have parity (vgchartz loves this word) and deterence with any standing army or government force that could some day be used against the people, not just "duck hunting shotguns".  It's about government not having monopoly on deadly force or the most efficient means to wield it, and again this is an idea that needs not specify any particular technology or era.

etc.

The majority of real flaws (slavery and womens rights) have already long been formally fixed.



exdeath said:
What does the internet, television, automobiles, computers, automatic weapons, etc have to do with basic ideological principles regarding individual liberty and limits on government power where individual rights take precedence over government and the then revolutionary idea that it is government that should be restricted, and not the people, with a Constitution explicitly stating what government can do instead of the other way around?

The idea that liberty of the individual is sacred and absolute and already exists naturally, and that government does not exist to grant liberty but instead to protect it, ironically from the very government itself first and foremost, transcends all time and space and is not influenced by technology or human progress.

Freedom of speech and press for example wasn't limited to just speaking or pens only but not printing presses.  It made no mention of the means at all. It is far less tangible and wider scope than that the technological means available at any given point in time be it a pen or the internet.

Right to bear arms = "every terrible implement of the soldier", for governed citizens to have parity (vgchartz loves this word) and deterence with any standing army or government force that could some day be used against the people, not just "duck hunting shotguns".  It's about government not having monopoly on deadly force or the most efficient means to wield it, and again this is an idea that needs not specify any particular technology or era.

etc.

The majority of real flaws (slavery and womens rights) have already long been formally fixed.

I addressed that question in an earlier post, and you highlighted my point with your closing statement: the original constitution was flawed, so it was eventually amended. The Founding Fathers knew that the scope of their awareness was limited, so they created the best contract they could with the nest information they had and provided for greater awareness to evovle the contract. There is a stark contrast between their world and ours, and people need to pull their heads out of the sand and acknowledge that amendments exist because things change. It is natural to evolve, and our laws should evolve along with us.

I think the rest of your post was excellently put, and I, too, have qualms with uninformed and context-less opinions driving conversations about law.