RE: If the Constitution were written today?I

RE: If the Constitution were written today?I (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Tristan -> RE: If the Constitution were written today?I (4/8/2006 4:25:59 PM)
It's been a while since I read the constitution, but if I remember correctly, it was a very vague document. It kind of spelled out what offices shall be created, what powers each office shall have, and what the checks and balances are going to be. I remember wondering how any government could have been formed based on that document. I recently read that one of the critisms of the constitution before it was ratified was that it was too vague. It did not provide enough detail as to how the government was to work. I think it was George W (as in Washington) who established much of how our government was to actually work. I think most of what we have today is based on tradition and what worked. I'm not sure that any other country could implement a similar constitution and get the same outcome. Great question! I look forward to reading the responses from those who are more knowledgable about the constitution. Tristan

Level -> RE: If the Constitution were written today?I (4/8/2006 4:38:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom It is protected because no State Constitution prohibits such consentual activity. 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." 10th Amendment: "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." Remember, under our Federalist system and those Amendments, ANYTHING that is not harmful to another citizen or prohibited by the State's Consitution are technically the RIGHTS and POWERS reserved to the People. :) Colour me a dirty dirty libertarian. :-D meow Okay you dirty libertarian.........now, what if the states chose to pass amendments to their constitutions banning kink? Would it not be better to have an overarching protection covering private behavior?

ArtCatDom -> RE: If the Constitution were written today?I (4/8/2006 5:03:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom It is protected because no State Constitution prohibits such consentual activity. 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." 10th Amendment: "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." Remember, under our Federalist system and those Amendments, ANYTHING that is not harmful to another citizen or prohibited by the State's Consitution are technically the RIGHTS and POWERS reserved to the People. :) Colour me a dirty dirty libertarian. :-D meow Okay you dirty libertarian.........now, what if the states chose to pass amendments to their constitutions banning kink? Would it not be better to have an overarching protection covering private behavior? Good observation. :) I believe such concerns would be covered by the protections of the 9th and 14th Amendments, which would require the State to PROVE a compelling interest and harm. Tad more complicated if the State tries to enforce such a rule, but as the smack down on sodomy statutes has shown, even in our terribly corrupted system the 9th and 14th Amendments carry a huge amount of sway. I'd have a hard time imaging the Supreme Court denying the same rights to Kink as they have to Sodomy (which isn't just about homosexuals). meow

ArtCatDom -> RE: If the Constitution were written today?I (4/8/2006 5:05:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tristan It's been a while since I read the constitution, but if I remember correctly, it was a very vague document. It kind of spelled out what offices shall be created, what powers each office shall have, and what the checks and balances are going to be. I remember wondering how any government could have been formed based on that document. I recently read that one of the critisms of the constitution before it was ratified was that it was too vague. It did not provide enough detail as to how the government was to work. I think it was George W (as in Washington) who established much of how our government was to actually work. I think most of what we have today is based on tradition and what worked. I'm not sure that any other country could implement a similar constitution and get the same outcome. Great question! I look forward to reading the responses from those who are more knowledgable about the constitution. Tristan Oddly enough being vague and limited was intended. It was supposed to provide flexibility while sharply limiting the government. Interestingly, the Framers were reluctant to include the Bill of Rights fearing an enumeration would lead to only that set of rights being respected (how unfortunately true ...). They included the 9th and 10th Amendments to assuage these concerns, though sadly those two Amendments are much neglected in our modern workings. meow

TahoeSadist -> RE: If the Constitution were written today?I (4/8/2006 5:24:18 PM)
Okay you dirty libertarian.........now, what if the states chose to pass amendments to their constitutions banning kink? Would it not be better to have an overarching protection covering private behavior? Ahhh a states rights question! The simple answer to your question is "no", because the assumption that the outcome of a fed mandate would be to your liking is a 50/50 proposition at best. One of the basic concepts of the Founders was that the bulk of the power was to be held by the People and the States. The logic of this is beautiful, and often under-appreciated. lets say that your state wishes to pass a law, and you're for it. The legislators realize that they have to depend on you the voters of their states to keep them in their cushy, not-working-for-a-living jobs. Thus you have some influence on the result. Now say the same bill is heading through Congress. You're still for it, but you can only influence in any way 2 out of 50 senators, and whatever number of Representatives your state has. Even if you convince every single one of your Congressional reps, you can still lose and be stuck. Another prob is that if it is a national thing, then you have no relief from it. While if it's a State thing, you can always move to another state where whatever it is you like is legal. Freedom is a wonderful thing. That is why I am very much a states rights person. I think that many things that the Feds have usurped need to be returned to the States where they belong: drug policy, taxation, highway construction and maintenance, health care, etc. Eric

proudsub -> RE: If the Constitution were written today?I (4/8/2006 6:33:52 PM)
I would like to see the feedoms clause include freedom of consensual acts by adults behind closed doors.[:)]

Level -> RE: If the Constitution were written today?I (4/8/2006 6:36:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom I'd have a hard time imaging the Supreme Court denying the same rights to Kink as they have to Sodomy (which isn't just about homosexuals). meow I do too.....but not near as hard a time believing it now as I did a couple of Justices ago lol.

Level -> RE: If the Constitution were written today?I (4/8/2006 8:25:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TahoeSadist Okay you dirty libertarian.........now, what if the states chose to pass amendments to their constitutions banning kink? Would it not be better to have an overarching protection covering private behavior? Ahhh a states rights question! The simple answer to your question is "no", because the assumption that the outcome of a fed mandate would be to your liking is a 50/50 proposition at best. One of the basic concepts of the Founders was that the bulk of the power was to be held by the People and the States. The logic of this is beautiful, and often under-appreciated. lets say that your state wishes to pass a law, and you're for it. The legislators realize that they have to depend on you the voters of their states to keep them in their cushy, not-working-for-a-living jobs. Thus you have some influence on the result. Now say the same bill is heading through Congress. You're still for it, but you can only influence in any way 2 out of 50 senators, and whatever number of Representatives your state has. Even if you convince every single one of your Congressional reps, you can still lose and be stuck. Another prob is that if it is a national thing, then you have no relief from it. While if it's a State thing, you can always move to another state where whatever it is you like is legal. Freedom is a wonderful thing. That is why I am very much a states rights person. I think that many things that the Feds have usurped need to be returned to the States where they belong: drug policy, taxation, highway construction and maintenance, health care, etc. Eric But the gist of this thread is how we would like to write the Constitution....if I were wielding the pen, there would be 100% certainty that it would protect us kinksters lol....then again, our politicians ignore what's already written, so maybe they'd ignore this too.... Another thing....I am not a proponent of democracy, except when it pans out the way I want. I have no great faith in the masses. You state that "freedom is a wonderful thing. That's why I am very much a state's rights person".... I would change "state's rights" to "individual's rights" if you really love freedom. By relying on the state you are still placing your freedom in a whole bunch of other folks hands. Level

cloudboy -> RE: If the Constitution were written today?I (4/8/2006 8:38:58 PM)
It would be nice to see our present day Constitution amended so that: 1. The President was empowered with a line-item veto. 2. Congress would need more votes to pass deficit spending measures. ---- It might also be nice to go back to the old days when Congress had to DECLARE WAR. ---- As for Proudsub's wish, the Supreme Court has alreadey infered a "right of privacy" into the Constitution. Ironically, conservative judges may overrule that.

caitlyn -> RE: If the Constitution were written today?I (4/8/2006 11:09:16 PM)
As a living document, the Constitution is satisfactory, however there are two situations that the document hasn't and could never anticipate. Changes must be made. 1. Clearly the Constitution couldn't have anticipated the complete stupidity of the American voter, and how various "get out the vote", drives would bring them to the polls. Anything designed to get Joe Blow average American to the polls, should be outlawed. Voting should be irritating. If you aren't willing to work for the vote, we really don't want you voting anyway. Once successfully at the polls, you get to vote as normal, but afterwards there will be a simple, ten question, multiple choice test concerning the candidates stance on important issues, as outlined by the actual candidates. If you miss a question ... we are sorry, your vote will not count. Lastly, you will have to actually spell out the candidates name for your vote to register. This should eliminate rednecks with mullets that think W is an actual name, or can't stand that Jon Keri dude, because he is married to Hitlery Clinton. 2. The Constitution did not anticipate modern access to the media, or it's impact on elections. Yes, there has always been slash/bash media from the time of Aaron Burr and J.Q. Adams, but what we see today, is just out of control. There needs to be a bi-partisan body empowered to establish harsh penalties for anyone, a n y o n e, that tells out and out lies in a political context. Freedom of the press, was never meant to mean freedom to lie, cheat and spread innuendo ... and even if some believe it does, nobody is telling them they don't have that freedom, we will just also have the freedom to stick their lying ass in jail if they do so. It iis insanity that a major deciding factor in a Presidental race, could possibly be what Senator Kerry did on a boat in Vietnam, or what President Bush did while in the National Guard ... when none of what was accused, was ever proven to be true. The people making those accusations should be taken to task, and if proof is not forthcoming, perhaps some time spent with "Bubba" as a roommate is in order. The problem isn't with the Constitution, it is with the people in office, governing off the menu it provides.

TahoeSadist -> RE: If the Constitution were written today?I (4/9/2006 7:10:17 AM)
But the gist of this thread is how we would like to write the Constitution....if I were wielding the pen, there would be 100% certainty that it would protect us kinksters lol....then again, our politicians ignore what's already written, so maybe they'd ignore this too.... Another thing....I am not a proponent of democracy, except when it pans out the way I want. I have no great faith in the masses. You state that "freedom is a wonderful thing. That's why I am very much a state's rights person".... I would change "state's rights" to "individual's rights" if you really love freedom. By relying on the state you are still placing your freedom in a whole bunch of other folks hands. Yes, Level, I understand the gist of the thread. That reply was specific to the question I answered. That also is the context of my states rights view. To state my overall view of Gov't, I'd have to rip off various qoutes: "That government governs best which governs least" "Government is not the answer it is the problem" etc. That and to say that my reasons and logic for disagreeing with a central gov't to "protect" me were laid out specifically. Eric

TahoeSadist -> RE: If the Constitution were written today?I (4/9/2006 7:41:41 AM)
I see I skipped answering the OP question. The cynical side of me says that the only things that would be put in today would be what the media could propagandize the people into believing. That said, I cannot see a need to rewrite it at all. The current state of US politics is not a fault of the Constitution, but the fault of the Executive and Legislative branches overstepping their Constitutionally limited roles, pretty much from FDR to present, and a Supreme Court that's afraid to stand up and say "no, this is not a matter for the federal government to rule on/legislate, etc. Deficits? Intrusive Federal Government? all products of ignoring the limits placed on Congress. I guess if I were to have a change for it, I'd say that right at the top of Article 1 I'd place the requirement that anyone proposing a Bill would have to state exactly which section of the Constitution authorizes Congress to take the action or spending in the bill. I would require a supermajority vote for any tax increase and a simple majority for any tax reduction. In addition any tax reduction bill would be noneligible for a filibuster. Further, I'd add a section that would prohibit perpetual government programs. I know, that's not needed if Congress was reined in, but still. Eric

Saratov -> RE: If the Constitution were written today?I (4/9/2006 7:54:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom Good observation. :) I believe such concerns would be covered by the protections of the 9th and 14th Amendments, which would require the State to PROVE a compelling interest and harm. Tad more complicated if the State tries to enforce such a rule, but as the smack down on sodomy statutes has shown, even in our terribly corrupted system the 9th and 14th Amendments carry a huge amount of sway. I'd have a hard time imaging the Supreme Court denying the same rights to Kink as they have to Sodomy (which isn't just about homosexuals). meow And remember, in most states 'Sodomy' is basicly defined to be anything other than 'missonary' Also, the supreme court needs to be reminded that their job is to decide on constatutional questions NOT make or set law!

ArtCatDom -> RE: If the Constitution were written today?I (4/9/2006 5:16:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Saratov quote: ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom Good observation. :) I believe such concerns would be covered by the protections of the 9th and 14th Amendments, which would require the State to PROVE a compelling interest and harm. Tad more complicated if the State tries to enforce such a rule, but as the smack down on sodomy statutes has shown, even in our terribly corrupted system the 9th and 14th Amendments carry a huge amount of sway. I'd have a hard time imaging the Supreme Court denying the same rights to Kink as they have to Sodomy (which isn't just about homosexuals). meow And remember, in most states 'Sodomy' is basicly defined to be anything other than 'missonary' Also, the supreme court needs to be reminded that their job is to decide on constatutional questions NOT make or set law! Hence my statement that sodomy is not just about homosexuals. Though, actuallyn in most States it's simply defined as anything but vaginal sex. The "missionary position" restriction is generally only found in Bible Belt states and even then not terribly many. I agree with you what the role of the Surpreme Court is meant to be. However, the Supreme Court did not "invent" a right to homosexual sex, nor a right to abortion, the Supreme Court weighed that these protections are inherent in the 1st, 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments. meow

UtopianRanger -> RE: If the Constitution were written today?I (4/9/2006 10:03:27 PM)
quote: Capitalism is a good thing generally.....it's no fool-proof panacea for the ills of society though. I believe a decent society helps those that honestly need it....and until we actually saw a 3-tiered system, or a single-tiered value-added one in action, I don't know how those needy ones would fare. As for "forcing the non-productive into becoming more productive", yes, often times it would, but I again point to the honestly needy. I was one of them once, and will be grateful the rest of my life that help was available until I was able to stand on my own two feet again. We agree. Most definitely we should help the very needy. My comments were directed towards all the lazy-asses out there. - R

FelinePersuasion -> RE: If the Constitution were written today?I (4/9/2006 10:32:56 PM)
I would write swiming naked as being permissiable and allowed in all places swiming takes place. no more spending needless amounts of money for an item you may only need once or twice in my case.

Level -> RE: If the Constitution were written today?I (4/10/2006 4:12:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger quote: Capitalism is a good thing generally.....it's no fool-proof panacea for the ills of society though. I believe a decent society helps those that honestly need it....and until we actually saw a 3-tiered system, or a single-tiered value-added one in action, I don't know how those needy ones would fare. As for "forcing the non-productive into becoming more productive", yes, often times it would, but I again point to the honestly needy. I was one of them once, and will be grateful the rest of my life that help was available until I was able to stand on my own two feet again. We agree. Most definitely we should help the very needy. My comments were directed towards all the lazy-asses out there. - R Definitely agreed on that one! Level

PrinceSitri -> RE: If the Constitution were written today?I (4/10/2006 5:55:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger quote: We could/should go to some sort of flat-tax (or a 3-tiered tax rate with NO loopholes) and send a large percentage of the current tax code and IRS system down the shitter. It is obscene the way government makes life so convoluted. The current system is anti-capitalistic as it punishes the productive and rewards the non-productive. I'd gut the whole income tax system and move to a single tier, value-added tax system. Sorry.... I don't share the progressive theory that re-distribution of wealth improves collective security. A value added system would force the non-productive into becoming more productive. - R Capitalism is a good thing generally.....it's no fool-proof panacea for the ills of society though. I believe a decent society helps those that honestly need it....and until we actually saw a 3-tiered system, or a single-tiered value-added one in action, I don't know how those needy ones would fare. They would fare badly. The problem with regressive taxation is that its burden falls most heavily on those with the lowest income: it's a very effective tool for making the poor poorer and the rich richer. You may wish to view my comments in the light of my own belief that capitalism is a bad thing generally, however.

Moloch -> RE: If the Constitution were written today?I (4/10/2006 7:50:17 AM)
quote: role of the Surpreme Court is meant to be. However, the Supreme Court did not "invent" a right to homosexual sex, nor a right quote: ORIGINAL: PrinceSitri quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger quote: We could/should go to some sort of flat-tax (or a 3-tiered tax rate with NO loopholes) and send a large percentage of the current tax code and IRS system down the shitter. It is obscene the way government makes life so convoluted. The current system is anti-capitalistic as it punishes the productive and rewards the non-productive. I'd gut the whole income tax system and move to a single tier, value-added tax system. Sorry.... I don't share the progressive theory that re-distribution of wealth improves collective security. A value added system would force the non-productive into becoming more productive. - R Capitalism is a good thing generally.....it's no fool-proof panacea for the ills of society though. I believe a decent society helps those that honestly need it....and until we actually saw a 3-tiered system, or a single-tiered value-added one in action, I don't know how those needy ones would fare. They would fare badly. The problem with regressive taxation is that its burden falls most heavily on those with the lowest income: it's a very effective tool for making the poor poorer and the rich richer. You may wish to view my comments in the light of my own belief that capitalism is a bad thing generally, however. Capitalism made this country, the alternatives suck.

PrinceSitri -> RE: If the Constitution were written today?I (4/10/2006 8:18:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moloch quote: role of the Surpreme Court is meant to be. However, the Supreme Court did not "invent" a right to homosexual sex, nor a right quote: ORIGINAL: PrinceSitri quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger quote: We could/should go to some sort of flat-tax (or a 3-tiered tax rate with NO loopholes) and send a large percentage of the current tax code and IRS system down the shitter. It is obscene the way government makes life so convoluted. The current system is anti-capitalistic as it punishes the productive and rewards the non-productive. I'd gut the whole income tax system and move to a single tier, value-added tax system. Sorry.... I don't share the progressive theory that re-distribution of wealth improves collective security. A value added system would force the non-productive into becoming more productive. - R Capitalism is a good thing generally.....it's no fool-proof panacea for the ills of society though. I believe a decent society helps those that honestly need it....and until we actually saw a 3-tiered system, or a single-tiered value-added one in action, I don't know how those needy ones would fare. They would fare badly. The problem with regressive taxation is that its burden falls most heavily on those with the lowest income: it's a very effective tool for making the poor poorer and the rich richer. You may wish to view my comments in the light of my own belief that capitalism is a bad thing generally, however. Capitalism made this country, the alternatives suck. Which alternatives did you have in mind, and what is it about them that makes them suck?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875