US Constitution: Our biggest problem

[Slapper]

We have a Constitution in place that was created in 1787 to mediate the social, cultural and economic circumstances of 1787.

Fast forward to today, 2014. Most lawyer teams have figured out the loopholes in the laws, and that which they can't get around of they get from the politicians.

System is corrupt to its core.

Do you agree on a large, HUGE, constitutional amendment?

[Kazan]

We have a Constitution in place that was created in 1787 to mediate the social, cultural and economic circumstances of 1787.

Fast forward to today, 2014. Most lawyer teams have figured out the loopholes in the laws, and that which they can't get around of they get from the politicians.

System is corrupt to its core.

Do you agree on a large, HUGE, constitutional amendment?

No, if the .gov actually followed the constitution, the country would not be in the mess it is. On top of that it's the American people's fault for letting it get to this point, by electing the same assclowns over and over again.

[Dos Equis]

We have a Constitution in place that was created in 1787 to mediate the social, cultural and economic circumstances of 1787.

Fast forward to today, 2014. Most lawyer teams have figured out the loopholes in the laws, and that which they can't get around of they get from the politicians.

System is corrupt to its core.

Do you agree on a large, HUGE, constitutional amendment?

To amend what specifically? 

[avxo]

We have a Constitution in place that was created in 1787 to mediate the social, cultural and economic circumstances of 1787.

Fast forward to today, 2014. Most lawyer teams have figured out the loopholes in the laws, and that which they can't get around of they get from the politicians.

System is corrupt to its core.

Do you agree on a large, HUGE, constitutional amendment?

You don't mention what, exactly, you'd like to amend, but it's not like you have any serious proposals anyways, so we'll let that slide. The fact is simple:

Our Constitution is a brilliant document and the only thing that's still sane and sensible, these many years later.

[Slapper]

You don't mention what, exactly, you'd like to amend, but it's not like you have any serious proposals anyways, so we'll let that slide. The fact is simple:

Our Constitution is a brilliant document and the only thing that's still sane and sensible, these many years later.

Take your pick: Repeal of the 16th amendment, elimination of the clause that gives Congress the authority to suspend habeas corpus, an amendment that ensures that personhood only applies to individual human beings, elimination of the clause that gives Congress the authority over the US Armed Forces, et cetera.

And no, you can't be serious when talking about the US Constitution: It was written by people who believed only rich landowners should vote, that expanding the colonies to the west was a must (expansion to the west = Native American genocide,) that slavery was good because blacks were an inferior species, et cetera.

That these rich cocksuckers created a modern constitution has more to do with convenience that anything else: The newly empowered rich landowners knew that a well-armed local civilian population, tired of the queen of England, would have ZERO tolerance for anything that remotely resembled authoritative government (aka civil war). This is the only reason why they created such an advanced constitution for its time, not because they believed what they were saying (it's well known most did not,) but because they wanted to send the message to the "undecided" (40% were patriots, 20% loyalists and the rest, 40%, were people who went about their daily business not given a single fuck about who was going to get to collect taxes) that the center of power laid in the state government, not some queen 4000 miles away.

And once the Brits were gone the federal government wasted no time in absorbing as much power back from the state governments as they could. Which is why we nowadays have state governments devoid of any real function but garbage collection, driver license issuing and other state-worthy endeavors.

Albania enjoys more independence than any of the states in the US.

[T-REX007]

The concept of Federalism has been lost in America- power of the states to pretty much run their own affairs, govt. has gotten too big, too intrusive

Wilson and the Fed. Reserve
FDR and the New Deal
LBJ war on poverty etc...
Nixon - about as crooked as can be imagined, scary
Clinton was no friend to states rights
Bush and the Patriot Act - oh my the implications of this in the future

The American PEOPLE have gotten apathetic and lazy, ALLOWED it to happen is the sad fact

Seems like Kennedy may have been the last true Pres. who somewhat tried to represent and protect the American people, deal with out of control govt. corruption ....

[avxo]

Take your pick: Repeal of the 16th amendment, elimination of the clause that gives Congress the authority to suspend habeas corpus, an amendment that ensures that personhood only applies to individual human beings, elimination of the clause that gives Congress the authority over the US Armed Forces, et cetera.

Hey. Some actual suggestions. Great, let's look at them one by one, shall we?

• Repeal of the 16th amendment: I would support a repeat of Amendments XVI and XVII. Unfortunately, we both know that a repeal is not happening.
• elimination of the clause that gives Congress the authority to suspend habeas corpus: This may sound great, but I'm not sure it's needed as such. Case law on when habeas corpus may be suspended is well established and, for the most part, pretty clear. Still, the less power the government has the better, so I could get behind this too.
• an amendment that ensures that personhood only applies to individual human beings: Even if I support such a definition conceptually, I can't help but be amused at the fact that later on in your post you want to give States more power, but here you seek to take it away.
• elimination of the clause that gives Congress the authority over the US Armed Forces: Which clause is that? And who should have authority over the armed forces? I don't know about you, but I want our armed forces to be under political authority.

And no, you can't be serious when talking about the US Constitution

Why yes, I am very serious.

It was written by people who believed only rich landowners should vote, that expanding the colonies to the west was a must (expansion to the west = Native American genocide,) that slavery was good because blacks were an inferior species, et cetera.

Even if everything you write were 100% true (and, of course, it isn't) what does it matter? The personal beliefs of the people who wrote the document aren't as important as the document itself.

That these rich cocksuckers created a modern constitution has more to do with convenience that anything else: The newly empowered rich landowners knew that a well-armed local civilian population, tired of the queen of England, would have ZERO tolerance for anything that remotely resembled authoritative government (aka civil war). This is the only reason why they created such an advanced constitution for its time, not because they believed what they were saying (it's well known most did not,) but because they wanted to send the message to the "undecided" (40% were patriots, 20% loyalists and the rest, 40%, were people who went about their daily business not given a single fuck about who was going to get to collect taxes) that the center of power laid in the state government, not some queen 4000 miles away.

Again, even if all this is accurate, what does it matter why they created such an "advanced constitution"? The important thing is that they did.

And once the Brits were gone the federal government wasted no time in absorbing as much power back from the state governments as they could.

We can discuss whether the Federal Government has used things like the Commerce Clause to consolidate power and bring under it's authority things which it was not originally meant to do. Amending the Constitution shouldn't be the first step in such a discussion. It should be the last.

Which is why we nowadays have state governments devoid of any real function but garbage collection, driver license issuing and other state-worthy endeavors.

I don't think anyone will argue that the Federal Government has amassed power at the expense of the States. The question is how to go about correcting that imbalance. Your statement that the Constitution is the problem and that a rewrite is needed is not only premature, it's based on faulty premises.

Albania enjoys more independence than any of the states in the US.

Sure, in the same way that a doughnut enjoys more glazing than any of the 31 ice-cream flavors at your local Baskin-Robbins.

[Slapper]

Hey. Some actual suggestions. Great, let's look at them one by one, shall we?

• Repeal of the 16th amendment: I would support a repeat of Amendments XVI and XVII. Unfortunately, we both know that a repeal is not happening.
• elimination of the clause that gives Congress the authority to suspend habeas corpus: This may sound great, but I'm not sure it's needed as such. Case law on when habeas corpus may be suspended is well established and, for the most part, pretty clear. Still, the less power the government has the better, so I could get behind this too.
• an amendment that ensures that personhood only applies to individual human beings: Even if I support such a definition conceptually, I can't help but be amused at the fact that later on in your post you want to give States more power, but here you seek to take it away.
• elimination of the clause that gives Congress the authority over the US Armed Forces: Which clause is that? And who should have authority over the armed forces? I don't know about you, but I want our armed forces to be under political authority.

Why yes, I am very serious.


Even if everything you write were 100% true (and, of course, it isn't) what does it matter? The personal beliefs of the people who wrote the document aren't as important as the document itself.


Again, even if all this is accurate, what does it matter why they created such an "advanced constitution"? The important thing is that they did.


We can discuss whether the Federal Government has used things like the Commerce Clause to consolidate power and bring under it's authority things which it was not originally meant to do. Amending the Constitution shouldn't be the first step in such a discussion. It should be the last.


I don't think anyone will argue that the Federal Government has amassed power at the expense of the States. The question is how to go about correcting that imbalance. Your statement that the Constitution is the problem and that a rewrite is needed is not only premature, it's based on faulty premises.


Sure, in the same way that a doughnut enjoys more glazing than any of the 31 ice-cream flavors at your local Baskin-Robbins.

Dude, I am not interested in what your opinion is on what I say. Tell me what you would change in the US Constitution.

[avxo]

Dude, I am not interested in what your opinion is on what I say.

You seemed interested in your previous post which did not contain a "what would you change?" question.

Tell me what you would change in the US Constitution.

Not very much actually, and every change would be aimed at an actual problem:

• more tightly circumscribe the Commerce Clause to limit when Congress can use it to act because it's been abused and stretched wider than goatse's asshole;
• make crystal clear and unambigious some language that has, at times, been controversial (e.g. the bullshit "only militias can have guns" argument);
• require the Senate to vote on Presidential nominees within 45 days of nomination;
• repeal Amendments XVI and XVII;
• require that all bills originate in and must be passed by the House before being considered by the Senate;
• eliminate the Senate practice of secret holds.

Nothing structural. I stand by my original assertion that the document is very well-written.

[Dos Equis]

One of the things I'd change is clarify that we don't have anchor babies.  You are only a citizen by birth if one of your parents is a citizen. 

Another is a balanced budget amendment. 

In terms of the balance of the Constitution, it is fine.  Doesn't matter if the some of the framers were racist, or that it was drafted in a different era.  It works. 

[avxo]

One of the things I'd change is clarify that we don't have anchor babies.  You are only a citizen by birth if one of your parents is a citizen. 

Another is a balanced budget amendment. 

In terms of the balance of the Constitution, it is fine.  Doesn't matter if the some of the framers were racist, or that it was drafted in a different era.  It works. 

I'm not sure that a balanced budget amendment is a good idea. There are legitimate reasons why you might want to have decific spending (imagine, for example, a world-war type situation) where the Government again issues war bonds. Obviously, it's gotten out of control and something must be done about it, but that sometihng might be difficult to express as a Constitutional Amendment that's not open to abuse.

[Bear232]

No.


the document was written in a form that stands time.  Even the Magna carta is still relevant, it established property rights.

The Problem is the legal code we have today. 

[Dos Equis]

I'm not sure that a balanced budget amendment is a good idea. There are legitimate reasons why you might want to have decific spending (imagine, for example, a world-war type situation) where the Government again issues war bonds. Obviously, it's gotten out of control and something must be done about it, but that sometihng might be difficult to express as a Constitutional Amendment that's not open to abuse.

I don't think there are legitimate reasons to have perpetual deficit spending.  What we need to do is plan for war, natural disasters, etc.  We have government funds at varying levels set aside for emergencies.  We just dip into those funds and spend the money.  I don't have a problem at all with forcing government to be responsible with my money.  It's not impossible. 

[JOHN MATRIX]

The principles of the Constitution remain as relevent today as ever. They remain constant throughout human history, regardless of what era it is...thats the point of it and the beauty of it.

The major problems began when the government began STRAYING from the Constitutional ideals, not because of it

[Mawse]

I like the way you think!

we should revise the 14th amendment since it was designed to apply to recently freed slaves, not the millions of children of illegal aliens.


good talk.

[chadstallion]

it just needs some updating.

[avxo]

I don't think there are legitimate reasons to have perpetual deficit spending.  What we need to do is plan for war, natural disasters, etc.  We have government funds at varying levels set aside for emergencies.  We just dip into those funds and spend the money.  I don't have a problem at all with forcing government to be responsible with my money.  It's not impossible. 

But perpetual deficit spending isn't the same as temporary deficit spending though. Debt isn't bad; perpetual debt is. I don't want to shackle the government, should a need for it go into debt emerges.

[Dos Equis]

But perpetual deficit spending isn't the same as temporary deficit spending though. Debt isn't bad; perpetual debt is. I don't want to shackle the government, should a need for it go into debt emerges.

When was the last time the federal government had no debt, no deficit, and a balanced budget?  I don't recall it happening in my lifetime.  And it has only gotten worse. 

I have zero confidence that the politicians in D.C., from either party, will ever be responsible enough to get our fiscal house in order, unless there is some mandate that has consequences. 

Also, I'd amend the Constitution to include term limits. 

[Skip8282]

We have a Constitution in place that was created in 1787 to mediate the social, cultural and economic circumstances of 1787.

Fast forward to today, 2014. Most lawyer teams have figured out the loopholes in the laws, and that which they can't get around of they get from the politicians.

System is corrupt to its core.

Do you agree on a large, HUGE, constitutional amendment?

Fuck no I don't agree.

How is anybody going to agree with that?

You're a good example.  Stupid, ignorant, racist - I don't want you even voting much less determining any government issues for me.

[chadstallion]

Fuck no I don't agree.

How is anybody going to agree with that?

You're a good example.  Stupid, ignorant, racist - I don't want you even voting much less determining any government issues for me.

well, then, you'd have to change the constitution 

[Roger Bacon]

I wish the founding fathers had clarified that nothing in the Constitution is open for reinterpretation.

[Soul Crusher]

The biggest problem is not the const but an idiotic public who demand free shit, care only about gays marriage abd abortion, and are obsessed w frivolous bs

[Core]

The biggest problem is not the const but an idiotic public who demand free shit, care only about gays marriage abd abortion, and are obsessed w frivolous bs

and they only care about such things because of the right to free speech which allows such shit to be broadcast on the news instead of things that really do matter. catch 22 really. people wanna be entertained with retarded news stories, but everyone watches the news and takes it as thats whats important at that moment in time. the news is a tv show like anything else, entertainment only. its got us brainwashed just like hitler brainwashed the german people. funny thing is, people are too dumb to realise it because they've been brainwashed into thinking the USA are the good guys.

another catch 22.

fucking retarded right?

[Core]

the us govt took a page right out of goebbels' book. used the media to subdue the population and control them, throwing the hood over the horses head in a word and leading it along a path of idiocy and corruption. whats more is that the important shit isnt even reported. never do you hear of anything happening in a country outside of the us, on a us news station. if it does get reported, its all about what america is doing, or what americans died or disappeared or whatever.

usa is literally just as ethnocentric as china or north korea. the only difference is that WE live in this country, and are often too naive to realise it.

hilarious that more people cant see this, and that no one does anything about it. but then, whats to be done? thats the big question i think

[rachaelsnav]

And no, you can't be serious when talking about the US Constitution: It was written by people who believed only rich landowners should vote, that expanding the colonies to the west was a must (expansion to the west = Native American genocide,) that slavery was good because blacks were an inferior species, et cetera.

Once again, half the country did oppose slavery and a bunch of people died to end slavery in this country FYI Africans, sold Africans into slavery and still do and I suspect Americans of African descent are better off today than if they were African of African descent and still being sold into slavery.

Since the country was formed from those who expanded to the West what would you expect, I think we bought a lot of the land from other countries that had already expanded westward anyway Louisiana purchase and such.  Native Americans liked to kill each other off in mass too.

Not so sure they were wrong about land owners being the ones allowed to vote, they have the most to contribute and lose and had to work hard for what they own.  Given the chance I would support a Starship Troopers government that makes even more sense since people who contribute vote and not a bunch of freeloaders voting for free phones and healthcare for no work like we have today,