We need to call for a new constitutional convention.

[Pretzelogik]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

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.

We need to split the US into two....those who work and those who loaf.

[jeffpv]

Originally Posted by rbohm

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.

I other words, what you believe is right (those would be "true constitutionalists"...as if there are a bunch of them aroudn) and whatever 'progressives' want is wrong. Just say it.

[urbanologist]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

I wouldn't be destroying anything. If health and safety was important, the states themselves would implement it. There is absolutely nothing stopping them, the constitution does practically nothing to limit state power. Did you ever wonder why this country is called "The United States". We are a union of states. A state is a country. We are a union of sovereign nations, that ceded a small amount of sovereignty to the federal government for specific purposes which were outlined in the constitution. We are not a single nation, run by an all-powerful central government.

That is true. The states should have more power to decide on issues for themselves not Washington.

The Federal Reserve for instance didn't come into existence until 1913. The value of US dollars was pegged to gold all the way until 1972, when Richard Nixon delinked the dollar from gold.

The biggest mistake they ever made. Value of something is only worth what value is placed in it. Gold is stable not paper and ious.

The only reason the US government established a national bank, is because the US government wants to be able to borrow money at no limit to pay for its entitlement programs. If the US government doesn't have its own bank that can loan it endless amounts of money, then it can only live within its means. It can only spend if it can tax, and we would not have a 16 trillion dollar national debt.

That's the problem it hasn't lived within it's own means which is why we are in the mess we're in right now.

I always go back to a quote I heard about the way the government works... It said... When we declared war on Iraq, it called for hundreds of billions of dollars in increased military spending. Did the government come to us and say "this war is going to be expensive, so we need to all chip in to pay for it, by raising taxes"... No, after the war started, they passed a stimulus bill, and gave us all $600.

Gave $600 dollars only to get it back in taxation through other means. It would have been more if we could used the money from two wars and bailouts for large irresponsible corporations.

The way the Federal Reserve works, allows the government to manipulate money, to give the appearance that nothing really costs anything at all. But in reality, it pays for itself by devaluing the dollar, manipulating markets, and piling on the debt.

The devaluation of the dollar trend is a very big problem right now. We still have very high prices for food, gas, etc.. The dollar in 2000 was much stronger than it is right now. The purchasing power of the businesses and individuals will decrease if we keep printing what we don't have and spend more than what we are actually taking in. The ratio of input/output is obviously way off.

[Konraden]

Your post is long, so I'm going to gut it for the essence and go from there.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

The constitutions sole purpose was to create an incredibly limited federal government, whose powers are clearly stated and limited by the constitution.

The constitution didn't just create the branches of government, and then turn them loose. The constitution spelled out all the powers of the federal government, then in the 10th amendment it says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


A constitution is a fixed body of law.

The powers granted to the federal government were only given to the federal government because they were deemed what was absolutely necessary to provide for a national defense, and to provide for free movement of people and to promote trade in this country. Other than the things specifically mentioned in the constitution, the federal government is supposed to have absolutely no authority. In

But I don't want to sit and argue the particulars.

Neither did Madison, which is why he points out that it's absurd to generally define a law and then spell out all of its particulars. General language however, is open to interpretation by its very means.

The real proof about the nature of our constitution, the framers intentions, and future court rulings, is easily pointed out by the fact that so many previous court rulings were overruled by future courts.

A constitution is created to have but one meaning, which was the meaning the framers themselves gave that constitution. If James Madison says the general welfare clause means one thing in 1790, then some Supreme Court justice in 2012 can't come along and say it means something else.

And if you argue that it does mean something different in 2012 than in 1790, then you are really arguing that it has no real definition at all. Other than what the five of the nine justices on the Supreme Court claim it means.

Our constitution and government are not a religion. You might see it as a bad thing that it changes over time--as a scientist, this is wonderful news to me. It means as we progress through time, learn and discover more, we change our views to better reflect our understanding and knowledge. I'd rather see a court change its mind than keep it the same.

A simple way to explain this. The original constitution set up a limited government, states rights, and minimal government spending and practically a completely free market. Which political party best embodies the views of the framers of our constitution?

If I said the founders would be considered "libertarians" today, would I be right? If I said that the framers most likely would have voted for Ron Paul for president, would I be right?

You can't use revisionist glasses when looking back in time. They were no more libertarians than conservatives or liberals.

My problem with the Supreme Court isn't just that I disagree with their decisions. Its that they disagree with their own decisions. How can you argue that the court has absolutely any integrity at all, if it is constantly overturning previous Supreme Court decisions? How do we know which court decision was the right one? When the court overturns past court decisions, is it because the past decisions were wrong? Did they not understand what the constitution meant back then, but now we do?

If a constitution it supposed to be a fixed body of law, meant to protect the people from the whims of the majority. Then it cannot be tolerable to have a constitution so vague that a simple majority of unelected life-termed judges can make up new definitions for the constitution at their discretion.

Ergo lies a problem with a "fixed" document--when society decides we can do better--we can't because we're bound to archaic thought. Anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, but we don't have an amendment for that--are you saying we should still have those laws?

We're not a static people and the government is not a religion. It must change in order to survive, and if you nail it to the wall because of a literalist interpretation of the constitution, you'll kill the nation faster than any economic policy.

Why? If the projects were good projects, they could make separate bills for each one, and they would be passed.

No, earmarks are really just bribes. Its a way of saying, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. In the case of the healthcare law, they used earmarks and special provisions to bribe "blue-dog" democrats to support the bill. By handing their districts extra money for "projects", and giving them opt-out clauses. And they only gave those "bribes" out to a few of their "friends", because they needed their vote.

Obamacare, the Republican Monstrosity that we have to deal with? People like to complain about the "bridge to nowhere" as well up in Alaska, but fail to realize that earmarked money was actually going towards a project that was supposed to help people. The accompanying road for it was just a giant wasted sinkhole.

We can reform earmarks, but abolishing them all together is going to reek of inefficiency.

It limits bills to a single topic. It doesn't limit them to a single item. If the government wants to build a house as per your example. The bill has to only be about that house, and what is necessary to build that house. You can't have a bill for building a house, then throw in funding for some wildlife sanctuary in Alaska, or funding for a bridge in Ohio.

But "topic" is so broad, you'll have the same problem. We need money for this wildlife sanctuary. Well, that also means we need money for the bridge up to it, for the DEA officials to patrol the area for drugs, for small business loans due to the increased tourism traffic, etc. You can tie anything back to a "topic."

This has absolutely nothing to do with racism. A large percentage of illegal immigrants are also Polish and other Eastern Europeans. In Chicago there is a Polish language newspaper. A lot of them are also Asians. Mexicans are the largest group, because Mexico is a large poor country that shares a border with us. I mean, imagine how much illegal immigration from China we would have if there wasn't an ocean separating us.

It's implicitly racist. How many Poles are having 'anchor babies' as you say? It's not about immigration reform--it's about stopping Mexicans from entering the country. Nobody gives a **** about illegal Canadians.

The problem we have with anchor babies is that, they didn't choose to be Americans, and many times their parents have basically zero allegiance to the United States. A lot of people who gain citizenship in the United States because of immigrant mothers, don't even live in the United States. Their parents take them back to places like Mexico, and even China. There is a huge industry in this country where wealthy Chinese mothers will come to the United States to give birth so that their child will have US citizenship, to guarantee them access to the United States in the future.

I want you to provide evidence to support that claim.

I am for relaxing immigration rules, but I am not for relaxing citizenship requirements. I think it should be much harder to become a citizen, not easier. And that goes for everyone. I don't want Chinese people, or Polish people coming here if they really hate America and refuse to learn English.

Like I said--implicitly racist.

I wouldn't be destroying anything. If health and safety was important, the states themselves would implement it. There is absolutely nothing stopping them, the constitution does practically nothing to limit state power.

50 different states implementing 50 different standards of health? Hell no.

We might be 50 different organization units, but we're under the umbrella of the U.S. as a single massive entity. 200 years ago, when people couldn't get on a plane and fly to the other end of the country in a few hours, you might have a case for absolute state rights. We are significantly more integrated as a nation and a people, and some fields should be under the purview of the federal government. The General Welfare, health-and-safety, would be one such field.

That is why we cannot legitimately have a third-party candidate running for president. The system only allows for two parties, which aren't even a homogeneous group. The parties are really nothing more than coalitions. Libertarians despise the Republican party, but the only alternative is the democrat party, which is even worse.

Run better candidates. Third-party members win all the time at local and even state level, with a few independents in congress. Ron Paul was not a good candidate.

And as much as you hate it, a two (or three) party system is significantly more preferable than having multiple parties with equal representation. Forcing people to choose between a small selection kills out the extremes and prevents fraud and corruption. Imagine if there was a presidential candidate from every state running his or her own political party?

The problem is that since the only parties who can legitimately win elections are the Republicans and Democrats, then the Republican party basically gets to set the policy for all people on the political right, and the democrats get to set the policy for people on the left. Even though libertarians despise practically everything the Republicans stand for, and many people on the left hate the wars that Obama is waging, and the drones, and other militarism.

The president is not a dictator. You have congress as well who very much hold a selection of views as well.

In the end, even though libertarians hate Republicans, there is almost a sense where you have to defend Republicans because the alternative is worse. On the forums, this turns into a situation of "US vs Them". Where people on the political right who disagree with the Republican policy, have to defend every last word of it to protect the Republican "brand". And same has to be done by the political left and democrat policy.

Most libertarians I know aren't Ayn Randian morons and tend to vote Democrat for the social issues.

But it's a limited sample.

Well, that isn't necessarily true. This country didn't have a national bank for quite a while. The Federal Reserve for instance didn't come into existence until 1913. The value of US dollars was pegged to gold all the way until 1972, when Richard Nixon delinked the dollar from gold.

The Fed is the third attempt at a centralized banking system in the United States.

The US government needs a mint, the US government needs a treasury, the US government doesn't need a bank. The purpose of a bank is to give out loans. The Federal Government doesn't need to give out loans. It can sell bonds, sure, but it doesn't need to give out loans, which is all the Federal Reserve does.

It allows the government to exhibit monetary policy to help control the economy from inflating, deflating, stalling, etc. The Fed is a Public\Private entity, and while it might be a cute talking point to claim that it's sole purpose is to fund welfare programs, it has a much stronger history than that.

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by Konraden

Neither did Madison, which is why he points out that it's absurd to generally define a law and then spell out all of its particulars. General language however, is open to interpretation by its very means.

Do you have reading comprehension problems or something? That would explain a lot.

James Madison did not think it was absurd to define a law then spell out all of its particulars. James Madison thought it was absurd that people misunderstood the general welfare clause. He said effectively, why create a general power and then spell out the particulars, if the general power was effectively unlimited. If it was unlimited, there would be no point in spelling out its particulars.

I advise you reread what James Madison said...

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.

"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

Our constitution and government are not a religion. You might see it as a bad thing that it changes over time--as a scientist, this is wonderful news to me. It means as we progress through time, learn and discover more, we change our views to better reflect our understanding and knowledge. I'd rather see a court change its mind than keep it the same.

Our constitution is not a religion, I totally agree. But you misunderstand the avenue in which one should pursue to change the constitution. The framers of the constitution wanted to leave the power to change the constitution in the hands of the people, through the amendment process. The framers did not want to leave the ability to change the constitution in the hands of the Supreme Court.

And more importantly, as I said before, the constitution is designed to protect the minority from the majority. It was intended to stop the evils of simple majority rule. And so the amendment process did not require a simple majority. The process required far more than a simple majority. And so we can change the constitution at any time, but that decision needs to have very strong support, almost to the point of being unanimous.

What would be the point in having a constitution with rights and protections to prevent Congress from passing laws which would strip away those rights, if all it took was a simple majority to change the constitution to mean anything we wanted it to mean? Under such a system, the constitution would be absolutely worthless.

The constitution can be changed, go change it, its article V of the US constitution. If you can't change it the right way, don't undermine its integrity by completely subverting it.

You can't use revisionist glasses when looking back in time. They were no more libertarians than conservatives or liberals.

Stop, think about it logically, don't just spew out rhetoric. The founders created a nation of states rights, and very limited government, they didn't trust government, they were non-interventionists, who wanted to push for free trade in a nearly free market, and back then, government spending only amounted to 3-4% of GDP, and who constantly complained about the welfare state.

Its hard for me to believe that if you could transport those founders forward to the present, that they would be democrats or republicans. That doesn't mean a few of them would be, Alexander Hamilton would most certainly be a war-mongering Republican. But Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would most certainly be libertarians. I don't think any of the founders would have been democrats.

Obamacare, the Republican Monstrosity that we have to deal with? People like to complain about the "bridge to nowhere" as well up in Alaska, but fail to realize that earmarked money was actually going towards a project that was supposed to help people. The accompanying road for it was just a giant wasted sinkhole.

I am not saying that earmarks don't intend to do well. But the problem with the federal government is really that, the whole job of our representatives is to go to Congress and beg for money. It is to go to Congress and try to throw as many earmarks into all the bills that you can get away with, so that you can bring that federal money back to your state. If you can find a way to extort more money by forcing someone to buy your vote, then you can go back to your state and tell the people all the wonderful government spending projects you secured for the people of your state.

You can argue that any spending is good for the people of that state because it creates jobs. But some spending is simply better than others. In my state of Oklahoma, there are toll roads all over which don't produce enough revenue to pay for themselves. When they were created, I'm sure they produced tons of jobs for the people of Oklahoma. But, was that the best way to spend the money and resources of the people? What might that money have been spent on, if it hadn't been wasted on toll roads that no one uses?

My point is, if a project was important to the people of a state, they would find a way to pay for it themselves. If Alaska wanted to build a bridge, they could build a bridge. They just didn't really want a bridge that badly, but hey, if the federal government is going to be the one paying for it, why not?

It is the "spending other peoples money" problem. If you are spending your own money, you are cautious in how you spend it. But if you are spending other peoples money, you blow it. And we all seem to think we are spending other peoples money with these earmarks. And in a way its true. But everyone else is spending your money.

And you can't create a system where everyone is fighting for spending for practically any reason, just because they want to bring some money back to their state that the federal government already took from them. Because much of that spending will invariably be wasteful.

It's implicitly racist. How many Poles are having 'anchor babies' as you say? It's not about immigration reform--it's about stopping Mexicans from entering the country. Nobody gives a **** about illegal Canadians.

I'm not going to argue that much of the rhetoric about the need for immigration reform isn't blatant racism. I am sure much of it is racist. But you can't say that all calls for immigration reform are because of racism, just because a lot of it is. And so you can't say that everyone who wants immigration reform, is racist. There are plenty of Hispanics who hate the fact that so many Mexicans come here illegally, are they racist?

I am just saying, I don't agree with birthright citizenship, because it doesn't create a united country, it creates a system of squabbling nationalities, and a great many of them seem to despise America, because they never earned their citizenship to begin with.

I want you to provide evidence to support that claim.

Its called birth tourism, look it up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzwN4JVeKtk

Like I said--implicitly racist.

Requiring people to learn English is not racist. For instance black people in this country overwhelmingly support a requirement that people learn to speak English. If we don't speak a common language, then we are a divided nation, incapable of intercourse with each other.

We might be 50 different organization units, but we're under the umbrella of the U.S. as a single massive entity. 200 years ago, when people couldn't get on a plane and fly to the other end of the country in a few hours, you might have a case for absolute state rights. We are significantly more integrated as a nation and a people, and some fields should be under the purview of the federal government. The General Welfare, health-and-safety, would be one such field.

Look, you are making the argument for a one-world government. Do you really want a one-world government? A government where middle-easterners and the Chinese, who vastly outnumber us, can tell us what to do? I feel the same way about San Francisco as I do about China. I don't want either of them telling me what to do in my own state of Oklahoma. Just like I'm sure you don't want my state of Oklahoma telling your state what to do either.

Having a large state isn't better, the happiest countries in the world are all small countries. What happens in regards to large states is, the people in power argue that an expansion of their power is justified because "the people will benefit". And so they expand their power, and there is nothing that the minority of the people can do about it, because they are the minority.

Run better candidates. Third-party members win all the time at local and even state level, with a few independents in congress. Ron Paul was not a good candidate.

Look, in most other countries there aren't two parties, there are usually 10-20 parties. Why is it that in most states in this country, there were only two names on the ballot for president?

It isn't about running good candidates, its that whichever side of the political spectrum the third candidate leans more towards, guarantees that that side of the political spectrum splits the vote and loses. When Ross Perot ran for instance, most of the vote that went to him, would have gone to the Republicans. Which is what enabled Bill Clinton to win the presidency. The same can be said about Ralph Nader splitting the democrat vote in 2000. And splitting the vote is even what allowed Abraham Lincoln to win in 1860. Had the democrats not split the vote, Lincoln never would have won the presidency.

And as much as you hate it, a two (or three) party system is significantly more preferable than having multiple parties with equal representation. Forcing people to choose between a small selection kills out the extremes and prevents fraud and corruption. Imagine if there was a presidential candidate from every state running his or her own political party?

The IRV system does not create multiple parties with equal representation, go read. It just allows you to vote in order of preference for parties that you like.

The point of the IRV is that, third-party and fourth-party candidates will be able to enter the discussion, and to help keep the political narrative honest. It would be much better to have a debate with three to four people, than just two. It helps keep each party honest.

I always think of it like, Ron Paul helped to keep the Republican party at least somewhat honest at the primary debates. Had there been no Ron Paul in 2008, there never would have been the tea-party. Dennis Kucinich is example of someone on the democratic side who says things that don't follow the democrat narrative, which should be heard.

Lets hypothetically create an election with four candidates. Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green party. Lets pretend that 33% of the population was democrat, 34% was Republican, 18% was green party, and 15% libertarian.

If all four candidates were on the ballot, and everyone voted honestly for their candidate. Then under our current system, the party with the most votes would win, thus the Republicans would win.

Lets, lets pretend we had an IRV election. What happens in IRV, is that the candidates with the least votes gets knocked off, and their second choice gets applied to the totals, this continues until there are only two candidates, and whoever has the most votes, wins.

So lets pretend that all libertarians voted for Republicans, and all green party people voted for democrats. Then in the first round, the group with the lowest number of votes(libertarians) gets removed, and their second-place votes get applied. So at the end of the first round, it would be Democrat 33%, Republican 49%, Green party 18%... But then the second round starts, and the lowest groups gets knocked off, and their second-place votes get applied. So, the 18% from the Green party goes to the Democrats, and the final vote would be Democrat 51%, Republican 49%... democrat wins.

My point is, under our current system, if you vote for anyone other than the democrats and republicans, then you are really wasting your vote or ruining your parties chances of winning. For instance, had all libertarians voted for the libertarian candidate this year, the Republicans would have lost by far more than they already did. And if some like socialist party, workers party, communist party, etc.. was to run and people voted for those parties, the democrats would have lost big.

Most libertarians I know aren't Ayn Randian morons and tend to vote Democrat for the social issues.

Libertarians are socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Legalize drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, and practically everything else. But no welfare state, and minimal government regulations in a free market.

It allows the government to exhibit monetary policy to help control the economy from inflating, deflating, stalling, etc. The Fed is a Public\Private entity, and while it might be a cute talking point to claim that it's sole purpose is to fund welfare programs, it has a much stronger history than that.

Look, I understand the argument for having a federal reserve. But did it solve any of those things in practice? The currency has inflated far more in the 100 years under the federal reserve, than the 100 years before the federal reserve, in fact there was practically no inflation in the 100 years before the federal reserve.

Did the federal reserve prevent the economy from stalling? No, the federal reserve caused the great depression, and the great recession, with their monetary policies. And we have had recessions about every 10 years since the federal reserve was put in place.

I understand what they were trying to do, but they failed. And the federal reserve has since become nothing but a way to have unlimited funding for entitlement programs, by devaluing the currency through inflation.

[RoguePolitics]

Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy

It's NOT going to happen.

You are not going to your "States Rights" mandate so you and the rest of conservative Talibans can run roughshod over people how don't look like you, think like you or vote like you.

Thanks for sharing.

He says as his leftwing statists run roughshod over individual liberty and freedom.

[RoguePolitics]

Just reads the document and doesn't add or subtract words.
If progressives want to add words they should amendment the document, if they can.

It is totally ridiculous to have an argument about gun rights for example when the language clearly says shall not be infringed. BUT activists pretend those words don't exist. Or they insist on twisting the words into an impossible form in order to infringe upon that which shall not be infringed.

At the same time, they grant the power of amending the constitution to ONE man in Thomas Jefferson by reference to an obscure letter. This despite the fact that Jefferson, as president, BOUGHT bibles to be used to evangelize Native Americans using federal money.

And then they make up other stuff from whole cloth like abortion rights. As though the Declaration's reference to natural rights of LIFE, LIBERTY and PURSUIT of HAPPINESS didn't mean that "kind" of life.

SO yes, when progressives want to make it up or twist the words they are always "wrong."

Originally Posted by jeffpv

I other words, what you believe is right (those would be "true constitutionalists"...as if there are a bunch of them aroudn) and whatever 'progressives' want is wrong. Just say it.