Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Drafting the Constitution of the New World
Ladies and Gentlemen of Ricochet, let’s assume as a thought experiment what some of our members already suspect. The Great American Experiment has failed. Our Body Politic is afflicted with a terminal disease. Whether death will come quickly or slowly is not ours to know, but we may safely assume that our best days are behind us, we’re fastened to a dying animal; our children will inherit a morally and economically impoverished land; alea iacta est.
What though the radiance which was once so bright
Be now for ever taken from my sight,
Though nothing can bring back the hour
Of splendour in the grass, of glory in the flower;
We will grieve not, rather find …
… another country, obviously. Not for us a bunch of wussy poetry about finding strength in what remains behind. All very nice if you’re Wordsworth, but we are Americans. Time to move to the New World. New America, here we come!
Where is it? I don’t know yet, but large tracts of real estate are out there, waiting to be claimed, and we’re an adaptable people. Here’s a map showing uninhabited land: Where should we move?
(I wonder if Australia would sell us half of that uninhabited land? I bet we could make them an attractive offer.)
Anyway, without worrying overmuch about where, for now, let’s think about the basics. The Federalist Papers, Our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and our Bill of Rights. We’ve got outstanding foundational documents, we’d all agree, but clearly they’re flawed, because it turns out that Franklin’s warning, “We’ve got a Republic, if you can keep it,” was correct. We couldn’t keep it, so now we have to start fresh.
But let’s not make the same mistakes twice. It would be a shame to have to up sticks and leave again in another 239 years. So how shall we rewrite the Constitution to ensure that New America lasts forever, or at least longer than the old one did? I assume the Constitution needs only minor modifications to prevent us from losing our new country, but of course, the modifications are essential: To lose one country may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.
Clearly, we’re all the descendants of men and women who had the fortitude to leave a dying Old World and undertake the voyage to the New. So let the ancient lands keep the storied pomp, and let’s decamp for New America, where we’ll lift the lamp beside the golden door. Our ancestors did it, so we know we’ve got it in us.
It’ll be great.
But let’s make sure it works. We’ll basically keep the same Constitution, of course. But let’s get it exactly right, and let’s learn from experience, so that we don’t have to do it a third time. Ideas?
Published in Entertainment, General, History
Space.
The final frontier. It’s when the US ran out of frontier that things started to go wrong. Don’t try to fix the constitution, solve for the problem of making periodic reboots easier.
Space.
I think unfortunately we are going to have to fight it out on our own land this time.
If Scotland secedes getting into the UK may be a worthwhile exercise
Switzerland is generally sane
I have heard rumors that honduras is going to try some free cities type thing.
Our son, observing the descent of the last years, insists that the only way to assure this never happens again – is to enshrine in the constitution a firm proscription against socialism. He’s a planetary scientist and I think he had Mars in mind.
The drawback to Australia is that everything is poisonous – even the ants. It seems like a bridge too far to live with poisonous ants on purpose.
America’s constitution is not the problem. There is not much you can do when judges say that laws are not what their words say.
The fault ultimately lies in the spirit of the American people. But if we can get Texas to devolve (a less loaded word than “secession”), then we can move there, and make it the new land of the free.
Which parts of the current Constitution do you find problematic?
(Also, I’m sorry but we need all of Australia. Perhaps you could apply to Brazil for some of Amazonas? I mean you’re all totally welcome to come visit and all, but…)
Perhaps something simple to the effect that,
“No citizen of the United States shall be held accountable for any Federal law or regulation not expressly passed by vote of Congress. Neither shall Congress, the Executive branch, nor the Courts be able to create administrative agencies or departments of the Federal government whose regulations are binding upon the citizens of the United States without express vote of Congress on each regulation. All such agencies and their regulations, not prescribed in the original of this Constitution shall henceforth be abolished.”
The goal of the Constitution was to make government cumbersome and slow. Gridlock is a feature not a bug. So, make it excruciatingly cumbersome and slow. Make them vote on every last thing. Even sections and subsections of laws and regulations.
Well, I don’t think the system as such was the problem — the problem was slavery. And ultimately, that couldn’t be solved without long-term damage to our constitutional body politic. If you started all over again you wouldn’t have that problem, but you’d have some other one. We’d probably try to overcompensate for the problems we have now and create some other mess. That’s just human nature.
For me, though, I don’t think I’d leave, even in that theoretical situation. This is my country, my people. We’re a nation built on an idea, but we are more than that idea. The America I love is more than a system of government.
Jay Nordlinger talks about those who choose to go back to Cuba, knowing what they face in standing up to the Castros. I don’t know if I’d have that kind of courage, and I certainly don’t condemn — in fact, I can admire — those who chose to leave rather than play along with the regime, too. But I wouldn’t want to escape and start over. I don’t know if I’d have that kind of courage, but I’d want to have it.
1. Congress and the Executive may not transfer any money, products or services to any person, state, municipality, county, parish, or any other entity, save a sovereign nation with a 2/3 vote in both houses for any reason other than payment for services delivered. This article cannot be amended.
That would prevent, clearly, any single payer heath care, pensions etc. Let the states do it. Higher state taxes would be needed of course, but 2/3 of the current budget would go away.
2. No income taxes may be levied by the Federal government for any reason. No State my levy any income tax may only apply to individuals and many not be applied to any group. This article cannot be amended.
That is intended both to stop income taxes at a federal level, and to prevent things like a marriage penalty, and taxes on corporations.
3. Natural born citizens are defined as citizens born to one parent who is already a citizen. This birth can take place anywhere. Children born in America to non-citizens are not citizens. If someone violates immigration laws, that person shall never be allowed to become a citizen of the United States of America.
I think this one is self-explanatory.
4. The Interstate Commerce Clause does not give Congress the right to pass any legislation to control commerce within states.
Of course, right now a President could declare, “Congress cannot legislate away its ability to legislate. Until is passes all regulations line by line, all Executive Regulations are null and void as they are unconstitutional.”
That would be a POTUS who really is conservative. It would be a massive game changer, and the best way to roll back the regulatory state. And the time is ripe, because Obama has set the pattern of not enforcing some laws. This move would be to just not enforce regulations which the POTUS controls anyway.
If we’re taking for granted that the republic has gone the way of all earthly things–will have gone?–then you’re asking, what did it in?
I don’t have the sophistication of good political scientists or lawyers, but I think I’ve learned some banal things from reading old books. Politics is always about the few & the many–the conflict never goes away & it is usually to do with the rich & the poor.
It seems, Americans do not trust each other anymore to engage in big policy decisions. The poor vote Dem because they think the GOP is the party of rich people; the majority of the white electorate comprises people who vote GOP because they think Dems are the party of confiscation, retail or wholesale.
People are acquiring a more-than-human wisdom–they see through each other. Remember the fateful question in the ’12 elections: Do you think this guy cares about people like you? The coalition Dems have assembled sees through conservative talk about individual rights or liberties: It means those who can take care of themselves want to be left alone & have no community with the rest. There is a similar attitude in the GOP coalition: Social justice is nothing of the kind–talk about being responsible for those who do badly is just a moral pose for concealing the will to power of The Left.
No community is possible this way. The political conflict admits of management, not solutions–it requires trust.
You do conservatives a disservice. If you look at who donates more to charity in time and money, it is conservatives, not liberals.
Ah, but we don’t have grizzly bears. Just stay away from the northern waterways, though. Those Crocodiles are hungry.
So I’m not willing to assume that we restate the problem as a solution & we’re off to the races.
How can conservatives get some of the things they want–maybe all of them–in a situation like the one they are now facing? It will not be done by secession, which means American power, the condition of American freedom is gone; it will not be done by postulates or statements of principle–politics means people will change things they do not really believe in & nobody can make them stick to it without terror, & no one has what it takes to terrorize.
Maybe conservatives get a guy to win in 2016 who realizes you have to offer people a chance at the future. Maybe they lose the elections & realize they have got to take popular concerns far more seriously. Either way, the only solution I see is conservatives admit they have to take responsibility. That the problem is not, people just do not understand how good conservatism could be for them–but that people understand all too well that they cannot trust conservatives. So the work has to be done to earn that trust. Why? I’m not sure I have an answer, but conservatives do talk about having standards & measuring up to those standards. There are standards in leadership, too. You have to tell people what you’ve got, what you’re dealing with, & how you get from where you are to where you want to be-
Did I say or imply that conservatives are less charitable than liberals? Whether or not I said or implied that–how is that the thing that matters here?
Specifically, giant space stations. Massive rotating cylinders, by which artificial gravity is generated. A couple of kilometres across, a few kilometres long. Look straight up and see people two kilometres away. Maybe ten thousand people per space station.
Lots of space stations. Lots of small/midsized town populations. True federalism since each could organise politically as its inhabitants desired. But each community need only be minutes away from the others on a through-space commute.
Construction mostly of materials in space (asteroids, the Moon, etc). Lots of shielding, particularly on the sun side, to protect from radiation. Much of the shielding would be the metre of soil covering the interior of the outer shell. Might as well have gardens and trees and crops.
Residents would be shareholders and their dependants. Freely tradable in case you want to move to a community more to your taste.
And you could have fun flying through the air at the zero-G core.
To quote you:
The coalition Dems have assembled sees through conservative talk about individual rights or liberties: It means those who can take care of themselves want to be left alone & have no community with the rest.
That implies that conservatives have no sense of community with those of less means. That is just not true.
Now, if you mean that is how Dems characterize us, I agree. However, if you really look at how things fall out, it is the elite liberals in America who are busy isolating themselves from the poor.
I might also point out, if you want a sense of community, constantly calling the other side racist, and attacking their culture is not the way to go about it. If there is a breakdown, it comes from the left, who started the culture wars, and who have the goal of forcing everyone to think and live like they do.
Yeah, that’s precisely what I mean. Thanks for bringing it up, & if anyone else has misunderstood that comment in the same way–here’s the needed correction for my failure to get it across clearly–I’m trying to put briefly & clearly the causes in each side of the mistrust of the other side.
Yeah, elite liberals are not anybody’s friends, but especially not of the poor. But I’m not sure the poor have any friends anywhere–well, individual friends yes, but not political sides or parties or movements.
I can agree with some of this–but I’m not interested in saying it’s the other side’s fault. I’m worried about what’s coming if this discord deepens. I’d rather we not deepen it-
Simple. Clone Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito 3 times each. When one of the clones starts wearing out, just generate a new replacement without the need for those messy confirmation hearings.
I am of roughly three minds about this.
First: I would argue for keeping the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the other commentaries of the Founding Fathers. The reasoning and motivation are right and valuable; the problem is in the implementation. That means starting over with the Constitution. Or maybe it means starting over with the amendments. Most of the trouble seems to come from elastic interpretations of the Commerce Clause, the 9th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment. The 14th is my current pet peeve. I’ve never agreed with some of its clauses. If it were justifiable as a measure to protect against the worst kinds of state-enforced discrimination, then I think our society has gotten to the point that we’re in little danger of any state voting in those kinds of laws now. We should leave it out of New America’s Constitution, as an intolerable interference in local government. The interstate commerce clause is justifiable in its intent, but we’ll have to explicitly define “interstate” and “commerce.” I once thought dictionaries were enough, but I was wrong.
Second: Although there are some clauses and amendments that should be changed or eliminated (see above), the biggest problem is in how they are interpreted by the branches of government. Congress routinely uses the interstate commerce clause to justify regulating intrastate commerce and even things that involve no commerce at all. The 9th and 14th amendments are used by the Supreme and other courts to “discover” inherent rights to socially-destructive behavior, but the courts read the laws against the text and custom in order to permit greater government power over our lives in other cases. The Congress and Executive build up a massive administrative state that rules by regulation and undermines the separation of powers, bringing government control into countless aspects of everyday life.
The text of the Constitution is plain enough in many (though not all) of these cases, but the will to follow it is lacking. I think this follows from a society that has changed for the worse in some important ways (similar to iWe’s comment). Restore those missing virtues to society, and only minor changes might be needed to the Constitution. Among these are a sense of self-reliance, personal independence, and an anger at the idea that others can tell us what to do with and on our own land. Further, we need to rebuild the social networks that used to be stronger in supporting those who were truly in need. They exist today but have been weakened by the existence of government welfare programs. (This is not, I think, a contradiction of my previous sentence.)
Third: I agree with genferei that the closing of the frontier is probably an underlying cause of many of our problems. Settling an open frontier instills a certain mindset that is absent in old, “civilized” places, especially urban ones. But even *having* a frontier to go to might help back in the civilized parts, maybe as a pressure release valve for society, maybe as an attraction for those discontented with their neighbors, maybe for other reasons. The problem today is that while America’s frontier was largely habitable, fertile, and capable of being tamed, what’s left open in the world today (by Claire’s map) is largely made up of nasty spots in one way or another—disease-prone jungles, infertile soil, Canada, or just plain desert. (Sorry for the jab at Canada, Misthiocracy et al.—just kidding. What I really mean is that I’m a Southerner, and I would hate the cold.) The Amazon would be my first choice, given the world as it is, but man, there are literally fever swamps.
The trouble with this map, though, is that it only shows the places that are known to exist in the world. What we need is to settle the places that *aren’t* known. Those fertile, temperate, uninhabited continents that would give us another century or two of frontier. I’ve got some old maps that show islands that are missing from later editions. Coastlines that disappeared a century later. What we need is to rediscover those. They’re pretty well hidden (maybe on purpose—makes you think!), which will serve to keep out the riffraff, once we’ve rediscovered them. And we’ll quietly spread the word to the kinds of people we want, starting on the member feed here (we shouldn’t promote the notices to the public Main Feed).
First, though, I’m organizing an expedition to find them. Anybody else willing to sign on to a voyage of discovery?
Clone Justice Thomas eight times.
Agreed that America’s ruin results less from legal loopholes than from cultural changes. Wilson and the Roosevelts were duly elected. Technologies also change civil relationships.
Agreed that preventing income taxes is pivotal. Excluding amendment of particular articles seems unenforceable, but it’s worth warning people about income taxes up front.
Universal suffrage was a mistake. But I’m not sure what restrictions should be restored, other than the ability to read. Suffrage is not synonymous with political freedom.
Eliminate direct democracy at the federal level. Democracy works best as a tiered system of trust. Each person should vote only for someone he or she actually knows. For example: Town citizens vote for city leaders; city leaders vote for county leaders; county leaders vote for state leaders; states for regional; regional for national.
Cities might be limited by population, since large and densely populated cities uniformly fall to relativism, corruption, and ever-expanding governments. I don’t know the best means, though.
All post-constitutional laws should have sunset clauses.
Loser-pays tort standards should be enshrined from the start.
Forbid domestic charitable programs (entitlements) at the federal level. Charity should be voluntary and is most efficient among immediate neighbors.
Forbid national education standards. Education can and should be private. Charities, libraries, and apprenticeships can serve the poor’s educational needs.
That’s an imperial oligarchy you have in mind. Never ever worked so well as to consider replacing America’s cynical system with something so hopeful.
When you need millions to fight, how are you going to persuade them? Big man will tell slightly less big man & all the way down until little man hears it from a friendly voice? Or do you just order them to kill & die?
You might love Plato’s Laws! Also, consider that commerce by itself will effect all the corruption, be the city big or small. & ports, worst of all.
Again, you might love Plato’s dialogues about running cities! Even Machiavelli has kind of solution like this in mind.
This seems simultaneously small-ball & overly ambitious. All democracy has always been plagued by litigiousness. You’re trying to introduce too much justice in people’s plans to get an advantage…
This is anti-democratic–it would remove people’s sense of ownership in their gov’t. Unless you can somehow work state-level entitlements. I guess people can try it as many times as they want. I wish them the best–but I have a strong suspicion democracy wants to make itself known publicly & in none too subtle a manner…
This is about Americans having property rights over their children. This could work–look at the success of homeschooling & all sorts of non-democratic education.
Looking at uninhabited land, I would opt for a libertarian reservation in the southwest, on land liberated from the feds. A warmer clime may become important as – although it isn’t “settled science” yet, a new mini ice age may be coming due to an emergent solar minimum. So much for geography.
As to governance, lets keep the Constitution, adding Levin’s liberty amendments and do away with all supreme court (sic) precedent, including Marbury v. Madison.
That just might work, if we can “persuade” our all-knowing, all-benevolent government to part with a little territory.
ADDENDUM: After reading anonymous, #33, below, I am persuaded we need to junk the entire Constitution. His reasoning is irresistible.
This doesn’t happen often, but I think I agree with Titus. I’d add—regardless of what actual conservatives are actually like (or, for that matter, what actual liberals are actually like) these are masked (or walled-up) by what liberals and conservatives think each other is like. And often for good reason—there is at least a grain of truth in our perceptions of one another, though the grain is perceived as a boulder when conservatives and liberals don’t talk to each other but only about each other. When a few Richochetti answered the questions in http://ricochet.com/society-healthy-take-short-quiz-find/ recently, I was hard-pressed to find much in the answers to the question “how do you know when a society is healthy” that my liberal friends wouldn’t sign off on.
Presumably any American re-boot would eventually have to cope with major differences of opinion, strongly held and deeply felt. Even in the conservative paradise that Texas would doubtless be, Texans would have to deal with differences of opinion, worldview and experience. Absent the common enemy that holds Ricochet together, enmities between SoCons and Libertarians and FiCons and whatnot would magnify. See: Protestantism, History of for clues about what happens next.
The moon, I have heard, is a harsh mistress.
I always get a kick out of people trying to write a document that will prevent the populace from giving up their liberty in exchange for bread and circuses. Spoiler alert: That document cannot be written. If the citizens don’t care about their liberty, no document alone can save them.
I don’t believe that the American experiment has failed and if it has the constitution is hardly to blame. A constitution is no better than the people who interpret it. This is why I strongly believe that tweaking the US constitution is pointless, though very well intentioned. No matter how carefully drafted the wording you wind up with the same problem: Judges and politicians simply ignoring the documents. What James Madison & Friends drafted is perfectly fine, a few minor issues notwithstanding. Those minor flaws are not what is undermining America today.
But if you’re really looking to create a conservative country why bother with Australia? If 10 million conservative Americans from the Mid-West drove up to the Canadian prairie provinces you’d automatically create the most right-wing nation on earth. Contrary to common American perceptions there are many conservative Canadians, certainly on economic issues, and it would not be too difficult to form a working political alliance. That 10 million Americans would also more than off set the 7 million socialists in Quebec. Besides who is going to stop 10 million Americans on the move? The Canadian Army?