Would You Change Anything? (Constitution, BoR)

[UnIrWE]

Keep It Simple

1) Congress can only be in session for four weeks per year...August in Washington, DC, no AC allowed.

2) They can only vote on laws proposed during the previous session and reviewed over the past year by "the people."

3) No military appropriation shall be used for offensive purposes.

4) No executive department "regulations." If it don't come from the Constitution to Congress...it don't come. But then again, We the People have given up the high ground and not enforced the 9th & 10th amendments.

5) Any "citizen" who receives more than 50% of their annual income, wages or other sustenance from the central government forfeits their right to vote, until they have remedied the situation for one full election cycle.

I know there are others...but :barf: they're caught in my throat right now...

 

[oldbillthundercheif]

Wayne thanks y'all for the ideas.
Cheers,
-Bill

 

[Musketeer]

Quote:

Make the right to vote based on completion of a term of service in the armed forces of the state and or nation.

I strongly disagree with that. The founders of this country thought that standing peacetime armies were a very bad idea, and I agree with them.

Not all of them. Washington and any who were actually charged with fighting the war against the British thought the lack of a formal army and dependence on militia alone was a horrible mistake and it almost cost the colonies the war several times before a formal army was established.

The Founding Fathers were pretty sharp but not always right, we have the benifit of hindsight. It is pretty easy to argue they buggerred up the concept of the SCOTUS and judiciary pretty badly. They assumed lifetime appointments would make justices impartial and honest, they were horribly wrong and came to realize so pretty quickly.

If you are going to have an army with the purpose of using force on others and risking its own life then how can you justify the right of those who have refused such service to determine the fate of those who have? How can people who have pledged no blood or sweat to the government then have a say over what rules that government can inflict on others? Taken further and simply put, the average person is incapable of appreciating the responisbility of their vote because they have done absolutely nothing to earn it. Look at turn out and voter education for proof. You will wind up with an electorate that may not be the smartest, the richest, the poorest or even a perfectly diverse and even distribution of races and sexes. What you will end up with is an electorate that has all made a commitment to the state and their fellow man that cost them time out of their lives and effort. They will know thier vote is worth something because THEY will have paid something to get it that has nothing to do with money and could not be paid for them by another.

FYI, I did not serve but if a system as I have proposed was put in place I probably would have. I do vote though and I do investigate the options but I do not consider myself the average elegible voter.

 

[Samurai]

You could have your son get REALLY cynical about it... Let's see, something about how black people, women, Indians, and non-landowners are PEOPLE TOO!

I would have put in something about how "separation of church and state" means that you can't dictate a ban on abortions just because Jesus says it's "wrong." Also, no bans on gay-marriage for the same reason.

I think refusal to extradite a fugitive felon upon request to a U.S. court of law should be considered an act of War. Also, I'm of the opinion that hanging should be Constitutionally mandated as the official execution method in this country, also specifying that it must be done with a rope having 10 times the strength of the weight of the person to be hanged, maximum 1" diameter, with a drop from at least 20 feet. (Do the job right!)

 

[Musketeer]

Remember the premise... giving advice to a founding father to take back to the 18th century.

As noble as eliminating slavery and giving the right to vote to women would be it simply would not fly in the 18th century. Slavery was already a major sticking point that could have broken the colonies apart if it were pushed.

I think specifying things in terms that are not dependent on time would be key. Explaining the internet to Madison for inclusion into a document being written before electricity was used would be meaningless. Stating things like... "All communication between citizens spoken or written in a private setting and with the common expectation of privacy shall be considerred protected from unwarranted search, seizure, observation or listenning." covers what would be needed while not going beyond what could be comprehended and enacted in the day.

"No search of ones person, property or dwelling by methods beyond simple visual observation or senses of the common man without the need to disrobe, open or reveal and article of clothing or property will be deemed legal unless supported by a duly signed warrant to search for the article in question in the location specified in the warrant."

 

[nobody_special]

The Founding Fathers were pretty sharp but not always right, we have the benifit of hindsight. It is pretty easy to argue they buggerred up the concept of the SCOTUS and judiciary pretty badly. They assumed lifetime appointments would make justices impartial and honest, they were horribly wrong and came to realize so pretty quickly.

I don't think it's quite so bad, but yes - judicial reform would benefit the nation. Though I can't think of any better system than the one we have. Making judges more answerable to the public is not the answer, as they will then be swayed by public opinion. We want them to be answerable to the law (in it's intended meaning!), and the problem right now in 2nd amendment cases is that they rule via public opinion rather than the intent of the constitution. It's a judicial tyranny of the majority, and I don't know how to fix it.

If you are going to have an army with the purpose of using force on others and risking its own life then how can you justify the right of those who have refused such service to determine the fate of those who have?

Very easily! Risking your life to use force on others says nothing about whether or not you are correct in doing so, or morally superior. Saddam Hussein's elite guards risked their lives to use sadistic force on others - do you think they are the only ones who should have had the right to vote in Iraq?

Military rule makes for military dictatorships and oppressive regimes. You're advocating that only people who are indoctrinated and trained for violence and aggression should have a say in government. That provides the military with a disproportionate amount of influence over the political process, whereas in this country the military is supposed to be subservient to civilian leadership.

Furthermore, making military service a prerequisite for sufferage would greatly increase the size of the military, even in peacetime. But of course, there wouldn't be any peacetime, as the government seems to find an application for whatever tools are available.

To take a similar but contrary viewpoint (which I don't personally believe), how about this proposal: only people who have served in the Peace Corps have a right to vote.

How can people who have pledged no blood or sweat to the government then have a say over what rules that government can inflict on others?

They have a fundamental right to self-determination, and sometimes those "others" are us. Basically, you are advocating tyranny. Our government was designed to prevent "tyranny of the majority" - essentially, to protect everyone's rights, not just those of a select group or even the majority. You would abandon that fundamental principle?

Taken further and simply put, the average person is incapable of appreciating the responisbility of their vote because they have done absolutely nothing to earn it.

That is a very dangerous statement, for several reasons. First, you're saying that people shouldn't have rights (and the right to participate in politics is fundamental in protecting all the other rights) unless they risk their life for those rights. What if someone doesn't meet the fitness standards for the military? Also, consider that historically, not everyone was allowed to serve in the military; in particular, minorities and women. (Even today, with gays. Would you deny gay people the right to vote?)

And just because the average person might not be politically savvy, does that justify denying every non-veteran the right to vote, including those who are above average?

Look at turn out and voter education for proof. You will wind up with an electorate that may not be the smartest, the richest, the poorest or even a perfectly diverse and even distribution of races and sexes. What you will end up with is an electorate that has all made a commitment to the state and their fellow man that cost them time out of their lives and effort. They will know thier vote is worth something because THEY will have paid something to get it that has nothing to do with money and could not be paid for them by another.

That's a nice sentiment, but I don't believe it's actually true. What you'd really end up with is a military state. Everyone would want to be in the military, because without a service record they'd have no rights. (Once you take away sufferage for non-veterans, what's to stop the veteran-controlled gov't from taking other rights away? And there would be pressure on the leadership to find a use for the large standing peacetime military, and the leaders would also be veterans, you can see where this could lead...)

 

[mack59]

1. The inalienable right of individuals to own, keep, carry, manufacture, and use firearms and arms shall not be restricted, infringed, hindered, or regulated by any federal, state, or local government, nor shall any corporation or other state created entity have any power to restrict or regulate this right, including conviction for any past legal offenses.

2. No governemnt, federal, state, or local shall have the right to levy, assess, or collect any taxes, fees, or monies on personal property or land, excluding annual income.

3. All governemnt spending must be paid for out of collected tax monies, excluding during periods of declared war. A plan to repay any deficit spending from a time of declared war must be developed and implemented immediately following the ceasation of hostilities, said plan not to excede the span of 20 years.

4. Total taxes paid by individuals or families may never excede 10 percent of their annual income - this shall include the sum of all federal, state, and local taxes paid or collected. Should an individual provide documentation of having paid 10 percent of their annual income in taxes and/or user fees then they shall be exempt from the collection or imposition of further taxes or user fees during the year in question. There shall be no tax deductions. Individuals who fail to pay taxes may be forced to repay their taxes by garnishment of their annual income not to exceed 30 percent of annual income and from confiscation of their private property, excluding their primary residence and the land on which it is located. Their shall be no criminal imprisonment or penalties for failure to pay taxes.

5. All government owned/controlled land shall be accessible to the general public at all times - excluding active miliitary bases and land that is currently leased by an individual or business were said lease provides revenue for the government.

6. All citizens are entitled to a trial by jury, to be chosen by random lottery from their peers. During trial jurors are empowered and it is their duty to consider the constituationality of the law under which an individual is charged. They are not bound by the judges instructions or by court precedent. Jury verdicts must be unanimous for a finding of guilt, all non-unanimous findings shall be considered a finding of not guilty.

7. No individual shall be tried in a court of law for any crime more that once unless the individual charged desires to appeal a conviction, this also strictly forbids charging an individual under mutiple statutes for the same incident or charging an individual seperately under federal or state or local laws or regulations. (example - someone may not be charged with murder by the state and then later with the violation of civil rights by the federal government).

8. Within 90 days of the beginning of any military action or hostilites outside of the borders of these United States, the president must obtain the support of three fourths of congress and a majority of the american people for a formal declaration of war - all declarations of war must be reviewed every 12 months and be reapproved or they will automatically expire.

9. No individual may serve more than 12 years in government service or as a government employee during their lifetime.

10. There shall be no limits on advertising or monies given to candidates running for political office - however all candidates must fully disclose the monies they recieve and from whom they recived them - this information must be posted publically within 48 hours of receipt or deposit.

11. Individuals and associations of indviduals are free to express their political speech without government oversight or regulation.

12. Government is forbidden to officially fund or formally endorse any specific religion, church, or system of belief or non-belief. However this does not mean that state or local governments are forbidden from the public display of historical or traditional religious symbols, writings, teachings, statues, or holiday displays.

13. Individuals who are employed privately or by government may freely express their spiritual or religious beliefs so long as it does not materially and demonstrably directly interfer with their abilty of perform their duty.

14. Individuals have the right to purchase, produce, sell, and use any product that they choose, excluding those instances where it can be demonstrated that doing so would specifically and directly physically injure another individual.

15. The commerce clause shall never be used to restrict commerce between states, nor shall it apply to private non-commercial commerce. The commerce clause also shall not apply to individuals wishing to trade, sell, possess, barter, transfer, gift, or otherwise tranfer possession of an object or instrument to another individual.

16. One third of all congressional bodies and legislatures, (state, federal, and local), shall by chosen by lottery.

17. One third of all new judges must be chosen by random lottery.

18. An individuals private property shall be exempt from all government regulation - except where it can be plainly shown that such regulations directly prevent specific immediate physical harm to individuals other than the property owner.

19. All private consensual behavior, transactions, or activities between adult parties shall be exempt from government regulation, except where it can be plainly shown that such regulations directly prevent specific immediate physical harm to individuals other than the individuals involved in the consensual behavior.

20. There shall be no class action lawsuits. Individuals or businesses that are wrongfully sued may collect damages for the cost of their defense with 10 percent interest compounded annually for any monies spent over the duration of the lawsuit.

21. Individuals have God given inalienable rights. Governments derive their powers from the consent the people. Therefore government powers are inferior and subservient to indivdual rights and liberties. It is the duty of the people to strike down all laws and regulations that stand in violation of their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. Individuals may therefor petition their legislators and/or their courts for a redress of their grievances. They are entitled to challenge the constitutionality of any law in court and to have the case decided by a jury of their peers should they so decide.

22. Governemnt does not have the power to legislate or create entities that enjoy the same or surperior rights and privledges as individuals. Corporations cannot legally be treated as indviduals.

23. All amendments to this constitution, that in any way restrict the free exercise of indivdual liberty, must be passed by unanimous popular vote.

24. All amendments that increase the free exercise of indvidual liberty may be passed by a popular vote of seventy five percent of the people and four fifths of the states legislatures.

25. Under no circumstances may a state, federal, or local government confiscate an individuals primary residence or the land on which the home is located.

Well here's a start....

 

[nobody_special]

Mack59, very interesting! I hope you don't mind if I steal some of these for my list.

Some of them (the random lottery ones, the 12 year limit to government service - unless restricted to elected officials only) I don't agree with. Others, such as your judicial, jury, and tax reform, are great - though the tax reform needs some work, as I foresee potential conflict between local/state/federal governments. And if someone is entitled to a refund, who pays the refund? (Federal, state, local?)

 

[mack59]

Feel free to take what you want. Those are just a list of a few random thoughts on reforms.

Perhaps the twelve years service should apply to all elected officials and to all agency and senior department heads.

The refund and division of tax monies could be fought out by state, federal, and local governments or perhaps based on the percentage of current tax receipts collected and spent/controlled currently by local, state, and federal government, with refunds made proportionally also.

The random lottery for elected officials in legislatures and local boards, and for judges, I do feel strongly about. Yes, you would get some goof-balls but it would be limited to one third of elected officials which would mitigate any real problems. Also I feel that part of the problem in this country is the development of professional politicians such that ordinary citizens have been shut out of the process. A random lottery would require the professional politicains and politicos to work with and rub elbows with ordinary folks. It would also lead, I believe, to a simplification in regulations and statutes. Also ordinary citizens would have a real voice in their own government and a place at the table. Individuals for the most part without a political agenda and not driven by a desire for power. It might not be perfect but I see it as much more beneficial than the current system. It would also lead to governemnt being much more open and truthful - both current parties would have to convince and win the support and trust of ordinary citizens in order to get anything done. Finally it would, I beleive lead a lot of people to become more interested in government as they would take it more seriously, be more likely to think through the issues, and give it more thought if they knew there was a real chance that they could end up directly involved in government.

 

[Crosshair]

I have to STRONGLY disagree with you Musketeer. I am disqualified from military service due to medical problems. (Extreme nearsightedness and a lack of depth perception being just two of them.) Are you saying that I have no right to vote because I was unfortunate enough to me born with poor eyesight. I have to agree with nobody_special and his thoughts.

Not only will those of us who have medical conditions that prevent us from serving be denied the vote, others can easily be prevented from serving. Oops, we don't want Catholics, only Protestants and other religions can serve and openly procalim their religion. (If they can do it with gays, why not religions.) By making military service a condition to vote, you put the country in the control of the military instead of civilians. (Dumb as they may be at times.)

 

[Musketeer]

I don't see one valid argument against my requirement of service to the state prior to EARNING the right to vote. If you have some form of disability that precludes holding a rifle then fine, I am certain the governemnt can find some other form of service you can contribute. EVERY person should be allowed the opportunity to serve. Be a blind deaf mute and there should be some form a service found if you want it. Perhaps it is two years spent sorting shell casings by touch but it is a sacrifce of your time and freedom to perform a service for the state

I see no reason why someone who hasn't made a real sacrafice for the state should then have a say in how that state then uses the power at its disposal over others.

While military service I think should be the main service option I can see the inclusion of others. We need people to fight forest fires, build levies to counter floods, clean up from hurricanes and perform other functions. All though would be services that stress the group over the individual. Responsibility to something beyond one's self. All would require the surrenderring of your own free will and choices, as in military service, and all should require significant personal effort. Finally, you should be able to resign from all of them with no more penalty than the loss of the opportunity to vote.

This is NOT a military dictatorship. It is a representative republic by which the right to vote is earned. Finish your term, say two years, and you can vote for whoever you want, the military can't tell you who to vote for.

Is anyone really naive enough to think this would cause an enormous growth in service? Look at voter turn out and apathy now. You can barely get a majority to turn out to cast a vote. Tell the lazy couch potatoes out there they must actually do something to have that right and do you really think they will? Personally I want the people who have the power to vote to cherish it and have earned it. Most don't now.

The founding fathers' greatest error was a belief in the higher nobility of the common man. I can understand where this came from, they pledged their lives to the birth of a new nation based on freedom and were surrounded by men who did the same. The morality of the age also reinforced this. The truth though is sadly different. Man, left to his own devices, as often as not turns out to be selfish and bigotted. This does not mean we do not create a government system that aspires to the ideal, supports it, and encourages it. It means we accept man for his faults as well as his strengths and account for them. We accept that men will be led to vote out of selfishness or not at all as often as not unless we have a method of insuring those who weild that power have come to both value it and have experienced service to a group.

Don't serve and you still have every other right, you just can't vote. The only thing that keeps you from voting is yourself by NOT serving.

 

[Samurai]

Gee, Mack... Libertarian much???

 

[Crosshair]

So if I don't get to vote does that mean I don't have to pay taxes? Remember the phrase, "No taxation without representation". Remember what that phrase led to?

 

[Musketeer]

So if I don't get to vote does that mean I don't have to pay taxes? Remember the phrase, "No taxation without representation". Remember what that phrase led to?

Coorect. Using money to buy your vote is not a way of insuring its value. Money is too easy to acquire for many that simply saying paying taxes shouldn't allow one to vote. For those taxes you get all the other benifits and rights of being a citizen SHORT of voting.

Are you saying if you don't pay taxes you shouldn't be allowed to vote? That will upset a whole other crowd.

I do remember what the "No taxation without representation" phrase led to. It led to men who were motivated enough to want that right to be willing to sacrafice their freedom and very lives to achieve it. I ask you, in the system I propose WHO is going to have the motivation to fight and die for the right to vote for themselves and their common man who has not already shown the initiative to serve his society as I laid out?

There will certainly be those who complain about being required to serve to vote but if they are too lazy and unmotivated to serve for that right do you see them taking up arms against that system? Nope, they will sit on their butts, complain and watch reality TV.

 

[Recon7]

I just don't like the concept of earned citizenship.
I don't like the idea of two types of citizens the voting type and the non-voting type. That would make people who have never fulfilled their "government service requirement" second class citizens maybe the voting class could pass discriminating laws against them.

Musketeer reminds me of people who think everybody should serve a mandatory government service. sorry, but that sounds like slavery to me.

government exists to serve the people, not the other way around.

so if government service was a requirement to vote would they have to hire you? could they fire you? that sounds like a huge expansion of government. how are we going to pay for all these new government servants?

You could double the tax on the non-voters

 

[Musketeer]

That would make people who have never fulfilled their "government service requirement" second class citizens maybe the voting class could pass discriminating laws against them.

We have already faced that when a bunch of white European descended guys decided they could own blacks yet some how, without those blacks having the vote, such an injustice was solved by the class that had nothign to gain from it.

How do you protect against it in the future though... simple. It is enshrined in the Bill of Rights that "ALL rights applicable to citizens who have served with the exception of the right to vote are equally applicable to those who have not and no law shall be made to abridge exiting rights nor extend additional rights to one group full without inclusion of the other." Done.

Again people think this would break the gov't.

First this is voluntary and unpleasant service. Most will not opt for it as most Americans are lazy when it comes to the right to vote.

Second, who says they need to be paid a wage equal to that they would get in the private sector. It should be less, especially for those who elect for only a term of service and not career. The gov't can then use those people to fill jobs they need filled. There are always plenty of unpleasant jobs people do not want to do and there would be a batch of people now who could fill them. Provide housing, food, healthcare and a minimal wages to those opting for just their term then use them to benifit the state.

It is not slavery in any sense. It is purely voluntary. If you don't want to do it then quit. Get up and leave. All you sacrafice is your opportunity to vote.

You are very right that gov't exists to serve the people and I am certain that those who have shed blood, sweat and tears in the service of that government will come away with a far better impression of what that governemnt does do for their society and the value of their vote in deciding such.

Plenty have tried to poke holes in the system I have proposed by I do not see one argument that cannot be defused or effectively counterred.

What not one person though has put forward is a proposal different than mine that would ensure we have a responsible electorate who appreciates the power they weild and have an understanding of service to someone besides themselves. The great weakness of our system is unlimited franchise. We were set up as a Republic that is quickly devolving into a true Deomcracy. Total Democracies are failures becasue eventually they wil all reach the point where the people just vote for what they want irregardless of what it costs. We see that now with those paying off entire groups of the population with welfare hand outs in order to win votes. If anyone else has a system where the right to vote is contained within an group less likely to vote themselves Cadillacs and Caviar then speak up.

 

[Crosshair]

It is not slavery in any sense. It is purely voluntary. If you don't want to do it then quit. Get up and leave. All you sacrafice is your opportunity to vote.

At first it will be like that. Then they will make it so you need to serve to get a drivers license. Then you will have to serve to get admission to a publicly funded college or get Stanford Loans. Then to be able to own a business, etc. If they can abuse it, they will. It is only a matter of time. Remember how income tax was only supposed to be for rich people? How your Social Security number would never be used as an ID number. Guess what, they lied and abused it as much as they could.

Heck, they could make you serve 3 years 8 months of your 4 years of service and find some obscure rule that you broke and kick you out and not let you vote because you didn't "complete" your service.

Hell, they could send you to Alaska to build a dirt wall along the Canadian border if they wanted to. They can abuse the h*ll out of you until you have to quit. They don't care, you won't be able to vote if you quit and change things.

The fact is, I pay my taxes, I should get to vote for the people who currently piss it away faster than a crackhead ever could.

 

[Vermont Carry]

Where to begin.

Wow.

The founders essentially blew it because the FEDERALISTS won (and have since been proven wrong and extremely naive about the future explosion of federal tyranny/power grabs-so called "patriot" act comes to mind).

1. The constitution should have specifically forbidden the bankers from taking over the government from behind the scenes via public debt. This should have been prevented by specifically forbidding the bankers from forming a corporate cartel ("Federal" reserve incorporated in 1913) and ESPECIALLY forbidden from taking over the nations currency.

I know I know, the constitution ALREADY forbids the states (and by definition the feds also) from "emitting bills of credit" (i.e. what you falsely call your dollar bill in your pocket), and forbids them from "using anything but gold and silver as a tender." The PROBLEM is that the constitution was totally overthrown in 1933 when the federal corporation was forced into bankruptcy and insolvency and completely reorganized in favor of the creditors (the international banking establishment).

Ongoing national debt should have been explicitly forbidden. Unless a war had been openly and legally declared, the federal government should have been forbidden from taking on debt.

2. The interstate commerce clause :barf: :barf: :barf: should NEVER have been added. PERIOD. That is the biggest place where the pro federalist founders BLEW IT BIG TIME.

 

[Musketeer]

This isn't so hard people. You state clearly in the US Constitution that the service I have proposed ONLY grants the right to vote and EVERY other right, liberty and protection granted under the law extends to both service vets and non-vets with no differentiation. Also add that no law or ammendment may be created to grant new rights or privledges to one group without including the other.

You put it right in the body of the Constitution. Problem solved.

The fact is, I pay my taxes, I should get to vote for the people who currently piss it away faster than a crackhead ever could.

WRONG!!!! That you pay taxes has nothing to do with the right to vote. Earn nothing, pay not taxes, collect welfare, depend on public housing, and you still under the current system have the right to vote. What is more the vote of that person is as important as yours and if enough of them decide so they can mandate by their vote that YOU must pay THEM more of your salary through taxes. People think that is a good system?

 

[mack59]

Have to disagree on requirement of public service in exchange for the right to vote.

1. People are by birth endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights - the right to choose, the right to believe in what the choose to believe, the right to life, the right to the product of their time, labor, and energy.

2. We voluntarily engage in work, labor, devote energy and time to third parties/employers in exchange for compensation - typically money.

3. Taxes - particularily in the case where one does not get to vote or participate in the government that levies or collects taxes are not voluntary.

4. A man or woman that does not own the fruits of his time and labor is a slave.

5. I do not endorse slavery.

6. A government that does not serve at the consent of the governed is not a legitimate government and should be overthrown. One cannot remove the right of individuals to have a direct say in their governence, replace it with a priviledge contingent on serving the government and then say that they are still free. We are free - we have two classes of citizens and some are more equal than others - as determined by the state - but we are free?


7. While it might be appealing emotionally to require individuals to prove/demonstrate their responsibilty or to make a deposit/payment before they are allowed to fully exercise their natural rights - it is not possible to do so without undermining the basic principles of freedom - overwise one is well on the way to creating a meritocracy where one must earn their full freedom and freedom is endowed by the state. No thank you - I'd rather suffer the company of fools- than be ruled by even wise men.

What you argue in the above post is more an arguement for reform of the tax and welfare system - ie..requiring that everyone pay the same tax rate and removal of all deductions - and requiring work or service for the acceptance of welfare.