Imagine - A new Constitution

i'd imagine that in convening a Constitutional council there'd be
only two rights self-evident : free speech and peaceful assembly .
one issue that might appear early on is the right to a clean environ-
ment , in particular and very practically , of how we treat this very
place where we council as well as smoke , eat , pee and crap .

voting would be long time away yet , if ever . i'd razor it for
now . private property rights are also of no immediate concern
since we obviously are assembling somewhere free .

our citizen minds are programmed to consider the U.S. Constitution
a holy document . to be free from that - razor it - feel ungoverned -
and don't be lonesome - freaky is ok .

Article S : Punishment is abolished .

 

If only it were so simple. Information is little more than the presentation of facts from a point of view. People will most often find acceptable the presentation which benefits them most or harms them the least. Those who wish to achieve a goal will present facts in a way that allows for individual interpretation to produce the desired results.

Power can be put to use to accomplish both good and bad, and that is not always something that can be immediately determined.

 

a constitution will produce its desired result ? hmm . in making
a new one this should be a warning . caution : a constitution
made by business guys and lawyer yahoos . the artists will
do better , now , or afterwhile .

 

A Constitution does nothing, but if written in a way that the words are both understood and acceptable to those under which their government is constrained by it, produces results which the people can then demand amending to achieve the results they are willing to provide power to their government consensually.

 

the Constitution has produced a national dilemma . would you like
to offer an amendment ? it needn't be perfect - just a first draft
of course .

 

What dilemma are you referring to?

As I've noted before in other threads, repealing the 16th and 17th amendments would be the most effective means of restoring sovereignty to the States and the people.

 

the Imagine Nation

 

I'm still wondering what dilemma you were referring to.

 

Imagine your aunt having balls and becoming your uncle. That's about as likely as starting over with a new set of rules. The powerful like it and use it well, just as it is.



Shut up--it's my birthday.

 

You know I totally disagree with your whole premise.

 

I wouldn't care to imagine my Aunt having a sex reassignment and scrotoplasty, but it happens. As it is the set of rules have been changing by reinterpretation to the point that no one really can say what the rules are for certain. The powerful always find a way to interpret the rules to their liking, but of course they do so for the benefit of the governed, knowing what is best for them, the governed, that is.

Happy birthday.

 

Of course. And it seems that as soon as you learn the rules--they change 'em. Buy a house. Get a new car. Play by the rules. We've got you covered. Go for the american dream. 00000000PPPSSSS. Never mind.


Sorry if I didn't play by the rules of the thread. I'll get right gone.

 

delete article 16

no income tax? ain't no nation like a Donation . that's how
it's gotta be . don't pay em anything and , anyway , make 'em
cry for the humanity of it .

 

There is no Article XVI to delete, the Articles conclude with Article VII, and taxation is covered under Article I, Section 8 and Section 9.

I began this thread, NOT because I feel a new Constitution is needed, nor do I feel one could be written today in a way acceptable to even a simple majority of the population AND any attempt would likely result in a great loss of freedom of the governed being given up to those who would govern the Nation as a unitary State with the centralized Federal government having much greater power to rule over both the States and the people, employing democracy ONLY as the means by which the governed are allowed to select those who would rule them. The Federal government has pretty much achieved that already through reinterpretation of the existing Constitution, but it can and will get much worse if we, the people allow it.

 

You mean the 16th Amendment.

I agree with your donation nation bit. I'd like to see a constitution like that. That's how it was under the Articles of Confederation (our original constitution). The federal government had no taxing authority, and could only request voluntarily contributions from the states. It was a valuable check on government waste. It ensured that only money that was absolutely necessary went to the federal government.

 

It's not being claimed that the 16th amendment was improperly ratified, only that the consequences of ratification have had a major impact on how our Federal government operates, as does the 17th amendment.

The 2 amendments combined with the Federal reserve act are the major most factors in changing the government being one governed "by the people" into a "government of the people", not to mention the effect it has had in more or less nullifying the 10th amendment.

Read George Masons words once again in the OP.

Where in the wording of the 16th amendment, quoted below do you see clarification of your boldened words?

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

 

The problem created by the 16th amendment is not 'what' can be taxed, or 'how' it can be taxed, but instead 'by whom' it can be taxed, which has had a very detrimental effect on how our form of Federal government works allowing it to accumulate a massive amount of debt.