U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-08-2012, 11:23 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
8,090 posts, read 4,726,226 times
Reputation: 2877

Advertisements

It seems to me that our constitution seems to create more questions than answers. And those questions are only capable of being resolved by the Supreme Court, and many times those decisions are unsatisfactory for the vast majority of American citizens(IE Citizens United, Roe v. Wade, McDonald v. Chicago, etc).

It seems to me that the best way to settle the questions in regards to the constitution and federal authority, is to just have the states come together and draft a new constitution, which could address and clarify the role of the federal government and the role of the states.

Who would object, and why? I mean, worst-case scenario, we just keep what we already have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-08-2012, 11:28 PM
 
17,028 posts, read 9,572,987 times
Reputation: 5701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
It seems to me that our constitution seems to create more questions than answers. And those questions are only capable of being resolved by the Supreme Court, and many times those decisions are unsatisfactory for the vast majority of American citizens(IE Citizens United).

It seems to me that the best way to settle the questions in regards to the constitution and federal authority, is to just have the states come together and draft a new constitution, which could address and clarify the role of the federal government and the role of the states.

Who would object, and why? I mean, worst-case scenario, we just keep what we already have.



Our current Constituion is very clear.
It is the Supreme Court that has muddied it.

Wickard v Filburn for one.
WHy do you think Nancy Pelosi said, "We can do anything we want". in reference to any limitation on Congress to protect the people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 11:31 PM
 
17,028 posts, read 9,572,987 times
Reputation: 5701
Those we have in power pay the Consitution no heed.

A good example even is ObamaCare.
Under the Commerce Clause it is not Constitutional.
ONLY the individual mandate declared a tax kept it alive.

That ruling in turn opened the door to even more abuse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 11:34 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,818,383 times
Reputation: 5420
Never happen....

Cooler heads will prevail.

I remain convinced that one day we will have a new Constitution in the US...but it will be written from scratch and not under the terms required to modify the old.

You really think you could get the second amendment into a new constitution?

Or preserve the structure of the states?

Pandora's box in spades...and we will really be annoyed about something before it happens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 12:31 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
8,090 posts, read 4,726,226 times
Reputation: 2877
You guys are objecting to my proposal, while agreeing with the basic premise of what I'm trying to accomplish.


The constitution may seem clear, but obviously the wording is simply too vague, and can be misconstrued to mean whatever the court wants it to mean. There must be a way to recreate the constitution where it is basically a bullet-proof contract that can only mean one thing.


Moreover, I was arguing that we need a convention to create a new constitution. Because our constitution, is becoming more and more a subject of disagreement and division.


I believe the best thing that could possibly happen in this country, would be to draft a new constitution, that would need to be ratified by the states, just as our previous constitution was. That way we can settle all the current issues that plague this country, without having to turn them over to unelected, life-termed Supreme court judges.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 12:40 AM
 
32,522 posts, read 26,415,828 times
Reputation: 19170
be very careful about wanting a constitutional convention. if that happens, then you can essentially kiss the current bill of rights good by as you can bet the progressives in this country will do everything they can to eliminate them. or constitution is just fine the way it is, the problem is all three branches of government, especially activist judges. we have a congress that passes laws that are unconstitutional, a president that signs those laws(regardless of party by the way), and a scotus that will decide to rewrite the law to allow constitutionality.

we need true constitutionalists on the court instead of the group of activists we have now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 12:44 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
8,090 posts, read 4,726,226 times
Reputation: 2877
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
Never happen....

Cooler heads will prevail.

I remain convinced that one day we will have a new Constitution in the US...but it will be written from scratch and not under the terms required to modify the old.

You really think you could get the second amendment into a new constitution?

Or preserve the structure of the states?

Pandora's box in spades...and we will really be annoyed about something before it happens.

Would a new constitution have a second amendment? The answer is both yes and no. In my opinion, there wouldn't be a second amendment that would guarantee everyone in the entire country the right to bear arms. But, there is no way the new constitution would prevent gun ownership on the national level. There would be a provision that would make it a state issue, and the federal government from getting involved.


But while that might feel like a loss, because it would allow places like New York, Chicago, or California to effectively ban guns in their areas of control. It is actually a win, because it would preserve that right everywhere else.

The recent case of "McDonald v. Chicago", that overturned the gun ban in Chicago, went 5-4. Once Antonin Scalia is gone, do you think the next case is going to go the same way? Obama just got four more years.


You are going to have to pick your battles. The real outcome of a new constitution would not be an expansion of the federal government, because it would require 3/4ths of the states to agree. The real result of a constitutional convention, would be to show how divided we are as a country. And would empower the states to stand up and put limits on the federal government, and return much of the sovereignty to the states that has been slowly stolen from them.


If any conservative/libertarian believes that a new constitution would be a bad idea. You obviously haven't thought it through.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 12:58 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
8,090 posts, read 4,726,226 times
Reputation: 2877
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
be very careful about wanting a constitutional convention. if that happens, then you can essentially kiss the current bill of rights good by as you can bet the progressives in this country will do everything they can to eliminate them. or constitution is just fine the way it is, the problem is all three branches of government, especially activist judges. we have a congress that passes laws that are unconstitutional, a president that signs those laws(regardless of party by the way), and a scotus that will decide to rewrite the law to allow constitutionality.

we need true constitutionalists on the court instead of the group of activists we have now.


A constitutional convention would require 3/4ths of the states to agree on the new constitution. If they had to rewrite the constitution in a way to get 3/4ths of the states to agree, do you really think we would see bigger government? Do you really see us losing the Bill of Rights?


What would actually happen is, people from both sides would go to the convention, at first believing that they are going to be victorious in creating a constitution in the image of their political ideology. Once they get there, they will realize that in order to get the support they need to pass the constitution, they will need a broad consensus.

The actual result of that convention will be basically exactly the same as the original constitutional convention. Each state and region of the country won't be able to agree with each other, and so in order to pass the new constitution, the federal government would end up being severely limited, and the states would be empowered.


Look at it like this. Take immigration for example. What would happen if 3/4ths of the country was forced right now to agree on a constitutional provision for the regulation of immigration? What would immigration look like under that provision?



In my view, the provision could only pass if it gave the states more authority over whether or not aliens/immigrants/non-citizens could reside in their states, minimizing the role of the federal government in immigration. But still preserving the power over naturalization/citizenship within the federal government. And there is no way birthright citizenship would pass.


In a new constitutional convention, almost all of the states would have to agree, which is impossible. So what would actually happen is, each of the states would be forced to simply agree to leave each other alone, except where it was absolutely necessary. And that would mean an extreme clarification and restriction of the federal government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 01:03 AM
 
19,950 posts, read 13,656,082 times
Reputation: 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
It seems to me that our constitution seems to create more questions than answers. And those questions are only capable of being resolved by the Supreme Court, and many times those decisions are unsatisfactory for the vast majority of American citizens(IE Citizens United, Roe v. Wade, McDonald v. Chicago, etc).

It seems to me that the best way to settle the questions in regards to the constitution and federal authority, is to just have the states come together and draft a new constitution, which could address and clarify the role of the federal government and the role of the states.

Who would object, and why? I mean, worst-case scenario, we just keep what we already have.
What in the world makes you think we would get a new Constitution that wasn't Communist? If they elected Obama....who would they possibly get that actually cared about the people?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 01:10 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
8,090 posts, read 4,726,226 times
Reputation: 2877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
What in the world makes you think we would get a new Constitution that wasn't Communist? If they elected Obama....who would they possibly get that actually cared about the people?
Do you really think a new constitution would be communist? Look, the healthcare reform wasn't even supported by the majority of people in this country. Moreover, to ratify a constitution wouldn't just require 3/4ths of the people in this country, it would require 3/4ths of the states in this country to agree on the constitution. Do you really see 3/4ths of the country agreeing to communism? Do you really see 3/4ths of the states in this country agreeing on much of anything?


The truth is, they won't agree, and that is a good thing. What will happen is, as the convention went along, the states would start speaking with louder and louder voices about what is good for their own state. What will end up happening is, the only way for all the states to get what they want, is to basically get rid of the federal government altogether, and turn over most of everything back to the states.

And while California, under the new constitution, might try to impose socialism/communism, it would simply fail as long as the other states are capitalist.


A new constitution should be the fix to all of the problems in this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:57 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top