What Would You Put in the Constitution?
Thomas Jefferson had this idea that the Constitution should be torn up once per generation (which, being Thomas Jefferson, he used actuarial tables to calculate at 19 years).
This idea terrifies me, by the way, because I wouldn't want people like Rick Santorum or Al Franken writing a new constitution, since their ideas of personal liberty are horribly, horribly at odds with my own.
Our Constitution was written in 1787, in a three-mile-per-hour world. It was pre-Freud, pre-Darwin, pre-Einstein, pre-germ theory, pre-atomic theory. It reflects the values and the times that produced it.
So, if you were writing the New Constitution in the year 2012, what would you add or take out? Or would you scrap the whole thing?
By the way, I'm going to preemptively address two reactions to this:
1. We wouldn't need to rewrite the constitution if we followed it as written.
Fine. That's my view too. But if you're going to say that, keep in mind that that's Ron Paul's position, and it's a degree of libertarianism you may not be comfortable with. It's not just ending the Drug War, it'd be eliminating things like the USDA, the FAA, the CIA, the FDA, Social Security and the FBI.
2. The Constitution was handed down by God/is divinely inspired, et cetera.
Believe that if you wish, but it doesn't further the discussion. The men who wrote it certainly didn't believe so. And not everyone believes in your god, so it may not be persuasive to them.
- Comment (79)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Feb '12
Re: What Would You Put in the Constitution?
drpete:
The Framers were careful to obfuscate by referencing, e.g., "importation of Persons" at Article 1, Section 9 for the slave trade, "other persons" at Article 1, Section 2, and "person held to service or labor" at Article 4, Section 2 for slaves.
Meanwhile, the Constitution assured continuation of the importing slaves to at least 1808.
They weren't obfuscating; they were carefully denying any validity to slavery - which is obvious from the text itself and even more than obvious if you look at Madison's notes from the Convention. At one point during the convention, for instance, "held to service" was the phrase, but "bound to service" was chosen because it was believed that "held to service" might imply that the persons were legitimately in service.
And the importation clause was a necessary compromise with the South, just like the 3/5ths clause about representation.
And as Lincoln enumerated later in his Cooper Union address, a majority of the Framers supported a ban on the importation of slaves into the federal territories in the 1790's.
You didn't read the article, but you should. The schools and media don't teach this stuff.
Edited on May 15, 2012 at 11:24pmApr '11
Re: What Would You Put in the Constitution?
I think that would take care of most of it.
Re: What Would You Put in the Constitution?
Great post!
1. I would incorporate the language of the Declaration of Independence to ensure it has the force of law (the parts before the rant against King George, of course);
2. I would incorporate that life begins at conception.
3. I would incorporate that dogs are better than cats.
Apr '12
Re: What Would You Put in the Constitution?
Establish a third house in the Legislature--call it "The House of Langoliers." Their job will be to eliminate federal laws.
A) Once a bill has passed Congress and has been signed into law for over a year, it must come before the House of Langoliers. At that time, the Langoliers decide if it is to continue--if 1/3 of the body votes to end the measure, the law ceases to exist.
b) Also, the Langoliers must review older legislation on a rotational basis--any bill which has 1/3 against sustaining the legislation, the law is automatically and immediately eliminated.
Mar '12
Re: What Would You Put in the Constitution?
Abolish the Supreme Court. Let Article III provide that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in whatever Courts Congress shall ordain and establish. Reverse Marbury vs Madison. Allow judicial review of state legislation, but not of federal legislation, and allow Congress to reverse any such holding of unconstitutionality by a simple majority vote.
May '11
Re: What Would You Put in the Constitution?
tabula rasa
20 days would be even better. · 7 hours ago
Just think of all the recess appointments!
Wait... are we keeping those?
Feb '12
Re: What Would You Put in the Constitution?
Money doesn't have any meaning at that level. I would like the family members of congress jailed if there isn't a balanced budget. That should keep it in the black.
Feb '12
Re: What Would You Put in the Constitution?
A citizen must be a human, not a corporation or a tax number
Nov '11
Re: What Would You Put in the Constitution?
I'd make it say "Robin Hood was totally awesome".
Nov '10
Re: What Would You Put in the Constitution?
Jury-style random selection for Senate.
Aug '10
Re: What Would You Put in the Constitution?
Would the purpose of this be to prevent corporations from being taxed?
Our existing Constitution makes a distinction between persons and citizens, and though corporations are persons with a certain nationality, they are not, as far as I know, citizens (I would want to check with a corporate lawyer to be sure about this, though).
It is the legal fiction of corporate personhood that allows corporations to be sued, taxed, and otherwise held accountable under common law. The US ascribes more personal rights to corporations than other countries do, but I think this is a good thing, as it protects our freedom of association and freedom of speech.
However, if you would like to deprive corporations of US nationality on the grounds that that way they can no longer be taxed or regulated by Uncle Sam... well, that would be a novel take, and you'd have my sympathy.
I am not sure it's necessary to deprive corporations of citizenship, since I don't know that they have citizenship to begin with. Citizenship may already be restricted to natural persons.
Edited on May 16, 2012 at 7:44amJul '10
Re: What Would You Put in the Constitution?
Only those who pay taxes get the privilege of voting. . .
May '10
Re: What Would You Put in the Constitution?
It is more important what is in the culture than what is in the Constitution. That is why our Constitution is short; they didn't try to spell out all the details. It was designed to enable the Federal Govt. to do everything necessary to maintain a Union of the States while restricting it from doing more than that. That was their great accomplishment. They weren't inspired by God but were informed by knowledge of Him as well as of past successes and failures of government.
Apr '11
Re: What Would You Put in the Constitution?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Would the purpose of this be to prevent corporations from being taxed?
Our existing Constitution makes a distinction between persons and citizens, and though corporations are persons with a certain nationality, they are not, as far as I know, citizens (I would want to check with a corporate lawyer to be sure about this, though).
Corporations have dual citizenship (alert Troy Senik!) of the state they're incorporated in and their primary place of business. It's important for diversity jurisdiction and suchlike. As Citizens United reminds us, though, removing the rights of corporations is merely a way of removing the rights of natural persons, since everything a corporation is and does is, ultimately, done for and by natural persons.
Apr '11
Re: What Would You Put in the Constitution?
Only if you've used a tanning bed or made another taxed purchase in the year before the election can you vote? I'm not sure that this would have the impact you imagine.
Apr '11
Re: What Would You Put in the Constitution?
Fred Cole:
By the way, I'm going to preemptively address two reactions to this:
1. ....keep in mind that that's Ron Paul's position, and it's a degree of libertarianism you may not be comfortable with. ....it'd be eliminating..... the FAA, the CIA.....
2. The Constitution was handed down by God/is divinely inspired, et cetera.
Believe that if you wish, but it doesn't further the discussion. The men who wrote it certainly didn't believe so. And not everyone believes in your god, so it may not be persuasive to them. ·
1. How does the Constitution ban the CIA? Was Monroe acting unconstitutionally when, as Sec. State, he scouted out the British Army before Bladensburg? Also, Constitutionally, should Ron Paul be in Congress?
2. While not everyone believes in my God (*looks innocently in the air, specifically not at any Mormons present*), there was a lot of talk of providence for people who "certainly" didn't believe in, well, providence. I find it hard to otherwise understand the transition from Sons of Liberty thuggery through the adolescence of the Declaration to the sublime wonder of the Constitution, unparalleled before or since (even amongst imitations!).
Apr '11
Re: What Would You Put in the Constitution?
I should note, incidentally, that the thuggery, adolescence, and nobility were each required at the moment they dominated: Jefferson could not have produced the instability required to provoke the necessary crackdowns, and the Constitution's restraint would have been too mealy-mouthed; the war required poetry and the sort of vague idealism that avoided too much analysis and would have been lost if it had not risen above thuggery, or had allowed the revolutionaries to be split over ideology; having Jefferson's ideology unchecked after the revolution... well, the French showed us where that led .
I think it fascinating that the mix of non-structural amendments is so closely contested, with some wanting to remove judges discretion to create rights, some wanting to grant near unlimited judicial discretion to create rights, some anti OWS (the anti-income tax suggestions), some in favor (the anti-corporation suggestion). It's a pretty good demonstration of how fine the document is that even ideologically aligned debaters have approximately zero consensus about which direction they'd like to change things, let alone on the details.
Feb '12
Re: What Would You Put in the Constitution?
The King Prawn
Leporello
I think you don't want to go back to an arrangement whereby the national government had no ability to collect tariffs directly, and had no ability to call out the military. Under the Articles, the national government had to rely on the good will of the states to make contributions voluntarily.
But the NJ Plan fixed these problems without going as far as our Constitution, so you might like that (see my above post). · 3 minutes ago
From the NJ Plan, "they be authorized to pass acts for raising a revenue, by levying a duty or duties on all goods or merchandizes of foreign growth or manufacture, imported into any part of the U. States,by Stamps on paper, vellum or parchment..."
Isn't that part of what got us into a revolution to begin with? · 17 hours ago
Heh. No, not the stamp tax in principle but as applied - too high, and passed without entertaining American opinion. These sort of taxess, along with tariffs, were the typical ways the national government raised money before the 16th amendment (as far as I know, but I welcome correction or elaboration).
Aug '10
Re: What Would You Put in the Constitution?
James Of England
Corporations have dual citizenship (alert Troy Senik!) of the state they're incorporated in and their primary place of business. It's important for diversity jurisdiction and suchlike.
Thanks James!
With you around, I know all I have to do is make some half-baked, half-informed (or considerably less than half-informed) statement about common law, and pretty soon I'll find out the real story ;-) Another reason to love Ricochet.
I knew that corporations had a way of belonging to a certain state -- that you might, say, decide to incorporate in Ohio rather than Pennsylvania -- but I didn't know that citizenship was used to describe this. I'm happy to find out that it is.
(I was mainly familiar with "corporate citizenship" as a PR term used to sell consumers on the idea that Company X is somehow more "caring", or "gives more back to the community", than its competitors!)
James Of England
As Citizens United reminds us, though, removing the rights of corporations is merely a way of removing the rights of natural persons, since everything a corporation is and does is, ultimately, done for and by natural persons.
Oh, completely agree.
Edited on May 16, 2012 at 3:56pmApr '12
Re: What Would You Put in the Constitution?
They've already had more than that in the last 200+ years, so never again, eh?