Imagine - A new Constitution

Which is why I suggest 3/4 rather than 2/3 or a simple majority vote, recognizing the fact that 100% approval is probably impossible on most any issue involving humans.

 

Maybe a vote in each State to confirm they wish to remain a member of the U.S.A. initially would be a starting point and then work on a Constitution or Constitutions which individual States could form alliances with if they wished. In any event it would appear that division will only increase with time as issues pertaining to government only increase as time goes on.

Sadly, looking at election maps many States would likely want to break up as divisions seem to exist mostly between the areas relative to population density.

 

First of all, as was said, this was tried. Didn't pan out too well.

Second of all, I suppose this view goes well with your original post.... you see two sides: the left, which is everybody, and the right, which is you. It's not the left that's changed the constitution's interpretation, it's everybody. You can't simply say that they're not on the right, because you don't like something they did. Maybe you don't identify with the right, or with most of it, but the simple fact is that you're trying to take a name that's already taken, and taken by those who don't agree with you.

Classic "no true scotsman".

 

Entrusting the writing of a new constitution to Barack Obama and the left would be disastrous. The fact that any of you trust our politicians, left or right, astounds me.

 

Point of historical order: what Individual put forward has never been tried before.

 

Sig already answered the first part so I won't bother with it.

Second, I don't see just two sides, but a great many sides and if it were true as you claim, that the Left is everybody, there would be no purpose at all to any further discussion as everyone, aside from me, would be in total agreement. I've yet to find a label I would claim to agree with completely, and it is my view that government works more efficiently and effectively when those who are governed by it have greater control of it. So I'm not trying to take a name that's already been taken, but made use of Left and Right as those words indicate opposing political views.

Have you anything constructive to contribute?

 

Of course the left isn't everybody.

They're just everybody, if one accepts your numerous logical fallacies.

Tell us about the republican party, and how truly conservative each member is, won't you?

 

Never said it was, it was you that made that implication. If you were to take the number of the population raised to the power equal to the number of issues politicized you would come close to knowing how many variations of political views exist.

The intent was to produce conversation relating to the U.S. Constitution, which seems to be interpreted in many different ways, with no attempt to define political leanings other than how a single Constitution might be created leaving little room for reinterpretation that might satisfy all.

I couldn't tell you anything about the Republican party as I neither belong to it nor do I have great knowledge of each and every one of its members, and likely we would differ greatly in how we each define conservative.

Once again, have you anything constructive to contribute?

 

"Jefferson's dedication to "consent of the governed" was so thorough that he believed that individuals could not be morally bound by the actions of preceding generations. This included debts as well as law. He said that "no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation." He even calculated what he believed to be the proper cycle of legal revolution: "Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it is to be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

In fact many people have believed that the US constitution should have been re-written or dramatically altered.

Here is some historical background

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_newc.html

 

Masons words,you're own and your Posters make 'serious' reading Individual. I can see .,now, the points you have been making better and the delemmas before you more clearly. Is there a National level campaign group or other special interest group looking at this to take it forward?

 

Oops-'Special Interest Group' can take a negative meaning in your County,I meant no offence,any kind of discussion/exploritory group ?

 

Eleven days and no reply to a simple,sincerely asked question! Perhaps the answer to your dillema lies there ; no one cares enough about the Constitution (apart from the NRA & those who wish to avoid legal questions) to find a modern relevance for it.

Democracy,however, demands modernity,constantly in a state of flux, under pressure from competeing interests , mirroring ever changing societies warped by history versus progress , its still our best hope yet.

In Britain we baulk at European Union 'interferance' just as Americans resent 'Big' Government,though nowhere near as much. Our Constitution does exist but it is an unwritten one,guarded carefully by the two Houses yet subject to debate and reinterpretation as it progresses in keeping with society. It works,but it has to be worked AT!

The arguments for the independent governance of federal States seems to be largely based on the cultural & economic diversities of the USA as well as its geographical vastness. Is it inevitabley the fate of large Democracies (eg,India ect) to have great inequalities in wealth? Masons warnings ring in my minds ear! In Indias case it may be as much about an old 'status quo' and mismanagement in the heat of recent progress as the geographical size issue.

Russia was long said to be ungovernable,under the Tzars and the Communitsts (both effectively 'top-down' autocracies) because of its geography and its diversities. Again , the USA is nowhere near as badly managed but some of us outsiders fear for its democracy as more of its citizens are alienated and issues like the Constitution are dug up,reheated and fed to the disgruntled as feasible alternatives.

It is , I suggest, the development (or lack of) of your Cenral Government and the involvement in it by the citizenry that needs serious review ,along with the lack of controling limits on Lobbyists & 'special interest groups' that influence policy undemocraticly. Such a review would have to be at State level too and indeed below to the most local. The ultimate aim being to encourage the citizen to take an active ownership of their Democracy. This would inevitabley , ultimately, challenge the cosy Two Party system,that allows only the very well financed access to power,its high time that happend !

Given that such a task could be attempted by 'The Greatest Democracy on Earth', local developments of ideas like Republican Constitutionalism may be feasible,even seen as progressive.

 

Are you referring to the question "Is there a special interest group looking at this to take it forward?"? I cannot answer that question as I've been living abroad for nearly 2 decades.

Democracy, along with constraints placed on the powers allowed government by the governed, allows change to occur within the societies although more gradually, also more peacefully.

I'm sure some of the citizens of Great Britain would raise their voices if Brussels and the application of democracy became the source of all their laws, regulations, currency, and taxation.

I can't speak for democracy as applied in India, other than the fact that it is much less diverse culturally than the U.S.A. and I think the caste system is still a major factor to contend with.

In the U.S.A. democracy, except in the case of picking from a small selection of candidates of which only one of two, a Republican and a Democrat, are likely to be elected, is the extent of the peoples involvement in their government. After the elections are over, the people have very little, if any voice in the democratic process as carried out by those who were elected to serve and represent them.

Sadly, in the U.S.A. the 'Central' or Federal government continues to gradually assume greater power, at the expense of both the States and the people, in the name of doing what is best for the society as a whole.

The Federal government as defined in the U.S. Constitution has a very important role to play, but has become so deeply involved in nearly every facet of life of the individual citizens and States that it can do very little, if anything at all efficiently, and cost effectively. I still feel the U.S. Constitution is a very good basis for the government of a free people, if and only if those who the people elect to office are held to no more than the powers granted them by their democratic consent, and not simply the implication of a mandate acquired by winning an election which can be relative to many issues, none of which are supported by a majority.

 

I suppose I was trying to play devils advocate a bit ,to stimulate discussion,but to try to look at the process of making progress from a different angle . my working assumption was that your democracy is too under developed & laden with current problems & deadwood to feasibley integrate the existing ,let alone an updated Constitution. That attempting to do so would result in division and unrest that other Posters have expessed real concern about.

My hunch is that a longer term strategy is needed,aiming to fix the national democratic issues working gradually toward the local (or both toward the middle) so that priorites are reset enough to allow constitutional ideas to find fertile ground without strife or threat .

The 'mechanics' of how a Constitution would evolve to complement the National Democracy ,and vice versa , may well become apparent during the process. The means to achieve such a task would ideally contain the end within itself-a popularist movement of citizens at a grassroots level with some allied supporters among the Elected representatives .

A journey of a Thousand miles begins with a single step !

 

Why set out on a journey if all possible destinations are no better or worse than where you are presently?

 

from my vantage here in the middle , i think the natural rift
is east-west . i feel it culturally . expressed politically - the
eastern states shall carry on with the present federalist trend
toward hive mentality , psychic manipulation and

The U.S Navy : A Force for Good

a constitution of the west would address foreign relations with
more refinement ... power to the peaceful .