What should be in a new US constitution?

that's not how the process begins . it has a root of sensibility , peace and fearless confidence .

the present constitution is weak in guiding international relations . thus , the national defense is offensive and supports a culture of war .

the culture of war exists in the schiz of heart and mind .

constitutionally , the 9-11 event could've been forgivable .

wholesomeness would be the essence of a renewal , a new nation .

 

Interesting the thing is that the military spirit of ‘war’ seems to run deep in the American psyche, not just in the foreign but also the domestic. When taking of social issues you get phases like – the war on poverty – or – the war on drugs. Even the abstract can be declared war on like in – the war on terror.

But to quote Winston Churchill “to jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war”

Wouldn’t it be better to talk about these things and try and understand them rather than just declaring war on them? I mean don’t you need to understand why people are living in poverty or why drugs are being used before you can tackle them, and couldn’t it be said that the reason why things like the war on drugs fail is because these things aren’t understood?

Anyway back to the question at hand.

 

The original posts question has raised another important one – what is wrong with the present constitution?

Here are my first thoughts on that -

To me the problem was that it was NOT set up to serve the people, it was set up to serve the interests of the propertied classes, the landed gentry, the squire class or those above. Amongst that group there was a great mistrust of ‘the people’ which were often thought of as the uneducated ramble or mob.

Later things that did serve ‘the people’ were added on such as the extension of the voting rights but they had to be fought for they were not in place from the beginning. They were bolted on not integral and so could possibly be unbolted; there are those on the right who’d be quite happy with a system where wealth could block or veto the popular vote.

 

Looks like your views are in the minority here now, Balbus.

 

What form any new constitution is to take is almost irrelevant in my opinion. The problem is in how it is creatively "followed" by those charged with governing. Rhetoric that seems to establish political issues solely in terms of a document's weakness sidesteps the real issue (in my opinion) of the governed collectively abdicating their role to exercise vigilance over the process. At a certain point a pattern of deception should be sufficiently established to where we stop taking promises at face value and start holding newly elected politicians to them.

 

the usa govt promises prosperity , eternal prosperity .
no thanks . it has the face value of confuction ..
.
.

should american democracy be wedded with
capitalism ? then let the constitution say so
directly and beyond confusion .

shall the people be entitled to a clean environment ?
likewiely let this be an agreement beyond confusion .

 

Nothing new, just remove the 16th and 17th amendments, and adhere to it.