The NEO Constitution of the United States of America

originally posted by: TheNewRevolution
a reply to: bullcat

SMH.

Your beloved Constitution has failed. The rulers of government have decided that it does not matter anymore. How did this happen? By legal scholars finding ways to reinterpret the wording of the document and finding loopholes to more government power. Meanwhile, the people stood by and did nothing as this was happening.

The entirety of the original Constitution is included in my own. Every little bit. Reworded and reorganized to be unable to misconstrued. There are more things added to, more things to LIMIT government power, the get the country out of debt, to protect the Constitution, and have educated politicians that know their limitations, and to peacefully become the greatest nation on the Earth once again, after the fighting is over.

The Constitution was the greatest thing written at its time, but it did no justice in ensuring its longevity. If you cannot see that, then you are blinded by the nostalgia of patriotism.

I believe in defending the Constitution, and protecting it, and I believe revolution will be necessary. But if you are so gung ho to protect it, then why aren't you out there firing the first shots? Timing. That is all there is to it.

It failed because YOU (Americans) did not defend it.

You are gutless, hot air, all words, no action (at least in your own country).

Perhaps if you are less busy trampling all over OUR RIGHTS in OUR COUNTRIES all over the WORLD, and do more in YOUR COUNTRY you wouldn't be in this mess.

You have militia, use em. It is not MY constitution, frankly I am happy to watch you burn to the ground after what you all did to OUR countries.

Bastion of peace, spreader of Democracy ( you're not a democracy btw ).

a reply to: bullcat

whats it like to be such a hatefilled person?

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: bullcat

whats it like to be such a hatefilled person?

Terrible but it is currently offset by watching Baltimore burn. It is quite gratifying to watch the hate bubble up in your own country imploding on itself. You are a deeply divided and hateful nation.

I could say the same about all those hate filled yanks blowing up Iraq, Ukraine, wanting to burn Iran and more.

You should be bringing your own people together, instead you are out trampling all over the world dividing it up.

a reply to: TheNewRevolution

terrible idea in the current state of things and many of your own suggestions would make it much easier to abuse, i don't trust modern politicians to make a new constitution that follows reason instead of emotion, it would destroy the whole purpose of the amendment system and invalidate our rights, it would most likely lead to a true dictatorship being put in place and establish a new nobility system dominated by corporations.

it might seem like a good idea but good ideas often have terrible results if you aren't very careful, i mean modern politicians aren't as well educated in many areas and the education of politicians of old usually continued for life, meaning they had stronger more enduring minds that were much more focused on doing their jobs correctly.

a reply to: bullcat

Terrible but it is currently offset by watching Baltimore burn. It is quite gratifying to watch the hate bubble up in your own country imploding on itself. You are a deeply divided and hateful nation.

I disagree, I believe we are still a nation with the majority being good people who are willing to help each other...

Im sure its hard to see that when youre blinded by your own hate though...as you display the same thing you accuse americans of being, im glad youre not one of us to count among the ones that ARE hateful...

Remember as you are staring into the abyss, the abyss is staring back into you....

Might want to wipe your chin, your salivating

a reply to: bullcat

this is true, but i see we are beginning to turn on those in power. if enough goes down, it gets out of hand far enough, maybe the militias will begin to take the country back from the criminals.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: bullcat

Terrible but it is currently offset by watching Baltimore burn. It is quite gratifying to watch the hate bubble up in your own country imploding on itself. You are a deeply divided and hateful nation.

I disagree, I believe we are still a nation with the majority being good people who are willing to help each other...

Im sure its hard to see that when youre blinded by your own hate though...as you display the same thing you accuse americans of being, im glad youre not one of us to count among the ones that ARE hateful...

Remember as you are staring into the abyss, the abyss is staring back into you....

Might want to wipe your chin, your salivating

You are in no position to lecture others, your country is a failed state.

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: bullcat

Terrible but it is currently offset by watching Baltimore burn. It is quite gratifying to watch the hate bubble up in your own country imploding on itself. You are a deeply divided and hateful nation.

I disagree, I believe we are still a nation with the majority being good people who are willing to help each other...

Im sure its hard to see that when youre blinded by your own hate though...as you display the same thing you accuse americans of being, im glad youre not one of us to count among the ones that ARE hateful...

Remember as you are staring into the abyss, the abyss is staring back into you....

Might want to wipe your chin, your salivating

You are in no position to lecture others, your country is a failed state.

Im sorry do we know each other? Have we met? Do you know about the charity work I do every week? Do you know about the homes ive help build for those who less fortunate? Or the food boxes me and my family make every holiday to hand out to families?

How about the horse trailers we buy and barns we rebuild for therapeutic riding centers for kids with disabilities?

Speaking of judgment, perhaps youre better served just keeping them to yourself, youre looking foolish

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: bullcat

Terrible but it is currently offset by watching Baltimore burn. It is quite gratifying to watch the hate bubble up in your own country imploding on itself. You are a deeply divided and hateful nation.

I disagree, I believe we are still a nation with the majority being good people who are willing to help each other...

Im sure its hard to see that when youre blinded by your own hate though...as you display the same thing you accuse americans of being, im glad youre not one of us to count among the ones that ARE hateful...

Remember as you are staring into the abyss, the abyss is staring back into you....

Might want to wipe your chin, your salivating

You are in no position to lecture others, your country is a failed state.

Im sorry do we know each other? Have we met? Do you know about the charity work I do every week? Do you know about the homes ive help build for those who less fortunate? Or the food boxes me and my family make every holiday to hand out to families?

How about the horse trailers we buy and barns we rebuild for therapeutic riding centers for kids with disabilities?

Speaking of judgment, perhaps youre better served just keeping them to yourself, youre looking foolish

As foolish as those yanks trampling all over Europe in their little tanks demanding bigger guns.

Russians are a better peacemakers than Americans, who is saving the Americans in Yemen? Certainly isn't Americans.

Who is going to protect Europe from Chernobyl again (second time), certainly isn't the Americans.

a reply to: bullcat

I notice you dont list your country of Origin......care to share with the group so we can evaluate how well your country and its principles have been stacking up against our own?

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: bullcat

I notice you dont list your country of Origin......care to share with the group so we can evaluate how well your country and its principles have been stacking up against our own?

I don't need to, we are not the ones in the news constantly day in and day out.

We're not the ones spreading democracy (when in fact you are NOT a democracy).

We're not the ones meddling in others affairs.

We're not the ones in perpetual war.

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: bullcat

I notice you dont list your country of Origin......care to share with the group so we can evaluate how well your country and its principles have been stacking up against our own?

I don't need to, we are not the ones in the news constantly day in and day out.

We're not the ones spreading democracy (when in fact you are NOT a democracy).

We're not the ones meddling in others affairs.

So in other words you wont share? lets compare apples to apples, you can sit here all day and bash the US, but why dont you be forthright and lets talk about your country where your from, where its pitfalls are, and what its doing right and what its doing wrong....

Obviously if this is not something youre willing to do , then its hard to take you seriously at all...

Those in glass houses shouldnt throw stones....

Again I find it highly hypocritical that someone is being hateful and vitriolic , trying to tell us how hateful and vitriolic we are....

If you are any indication of YOUR country, Im a little skeptical

I feel like I'm losing intelligence simply by starting these topics and reading some of the replies.

I don't care about petty, off topic arguments about whether America is good or bad, I care about discussion of the new Constitution that is already made by me.

Go to the opening post, open the pdf file, and read the damn thing. Submit 5-10 minutes of your life to doing something that could promote change for the better, and respond your thoughts. Simple.

And before anyone comes in here saying "it's a bad idea" or "it will make it worse than before", once again - read the damn document.

The fact that nearly all my topics dissolve into petty arguments shows me one of two things:

1, I am hitting subjects too close to home and am attracting shills out tge wazoo.

Or

2. Americans and patriots truly are lazy and argumentative beyond all rational thought.

I can only hope it's the former or we as a nation are screwed.

originally posted by: TheNewRevolution
I have a question for people:

Has anyone actually read the document or care to do so, or is 18 pages of text a daunting task for the inhabitants of modern America?

I have not read it yet, but I do intend to do so tonight. I probably can't respond on the content of it until tomorrow though. 18 pages of legal text and nuance can be a difficult thing to decipher and that's from someone who loves both law and politics. I will say from having read the thread and your points about this new constitution specifically that I believe it misses the mark. I'll wait to expand on that however until I've actually finished reading it.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The first Constitution was perfect. The problem is not the document, but that people ignored it. Your new document will not be any different if people still ignore it.

It depends on your definition of perfect I suppose. The Constitution had and continues to have flaws, but what makes it such a good document is that we can update it over time. Within the Constitution is the potential for perfection but it is not perfect. Political needs and realities being what they are, I'm not so sure a perfect document could endure as it would lose it's perfection over time and eventually become it's own worst enemy. But, perhaps that's the true perfection in the Constitution... it isn't subject to that fate.

originally posted by: michaelbrux
if i could do it over again, i wouldn't give any rights...

....there would be the law and the system and attempts to change it, even a single letter, would be met with a systemic lethal response.

after a few hard heads tested it and got what they were promised, everyone would go about their lives and not worry about the Government anymore.

And who decides on and enforces the law? A government.

As promised, I read your constitution. On the first page or two I was reconsidering my initial impression that this is insane and completely misses the mark, but by the time I was halfway through I was back to my original thought. I don't mean to be negative here as you clearly put work into this but this is completely insane.

The Bill of Rights is more or less fine, any disagreement there is fairly minor, most of those sentiments make sense. Where it goes off the rails is with the Legislative Branch. In the Bill of Rights you call out states rights, but in your Legislative descriptions you give the states no representation in Congress. You have a very clear promotion system for members of Congress between term limits and requirements for office where a person goes from the state legislature, to the House, to the Senate. That's not how reality functions though, in reality each of these three bodies stands roughly equal to the other. The state legislature handles the internal issues of the state, the house represents the people in Congress, and the Senate represents the states in Congress. They have to stand mostly equal to each other because if the state legislature becomes subservient to Congress, then the states have no individual rights, and if the Senate stands over the House, the House effectively has no power, they are just yes men for the Senate.

Next is the representative to people ratio. You used 1 per 500,000 which creates a house of roughly 600 people opposed to our current 435. This doesn't really fix the problem, instead I would focus on ways to get back to the 1:20,000 ratio. When large groups are represented interests become too diverse and that leads to practices like gerrymandering in order to give districts a voice that echos their sentiments. The smaller the group, the more homogenous it is. Instead I would look to 1 per 20,000 and the 16,000 members of Congress that results in and then seek to subdivide powers. Create numerous federal committees of 20 people each where each congressman has their own small share of power, with appointments based on that individuals skills. The effect of this is twofold. Not only does each person become more specialized allowing for a greater knowledge pool among our representatives in congress, but it limits the scale of each member so that if a persons influence is bought, they can only influence a small part of the whole. Basically, you institute many members of Congress with compartmentalization of duties.

Next I want to address compensation and this also has to do with reducing corruption. Politicians follow the money, it's just human nature and it doesn't matter if you elect good people or not. Money represents power, it lets you get things done. Do you want to know why Congress is in the pockets of the corporations right now? It's because they pay Congress more than we do. If you want to eliminate or remove corporate influence (and what you wrote leaves many loopholes for corporations) you simply need to offer the politicians a better deal. Their power has a market value and right now the corporations are recognizing that. However, corporations cannot outspend the people. If every one of us paid 1 cent more in taxes it would cost the MPAA an extra $5000 per person to buy their votes. If we gave a dollar more it would cost them $500,000 per representative. If we paid them $2 more per person it would cost a million dollars per vote. How many corporations can do business when their rival can spend money 500,000 times more effectively than they can? If we tripled the wage of everyone in congress it would cost us maybe $3 each in additional taxes but it would effectively buy out the corporations, which means we would get better legislation, which would in turn lower the tax burden. Paying a person an average wage in an above average job is a great way to get below average performance.

Now I'm going to quote a part directly

All Bills shall be written in plain English,free of unnecessary verbiage

Words mean things, and when it comes to the law, if you wish to govern by the letter of the law, it is important for words to be defined, not be subject to slang, and not have their meanings change over time. Bills are written the way they are because legal terms mean specific things, and those meanings don't change over time, atleast not at the pace regular language does. The more a language is used, the quicker it evolves.

You mention polticial education many times in this document, you should instead be looking at legal education. It informs you how the laws are written and how the legal process works. It is a very important thing to have (and not something many do)

In another part you mention the authority to borrow money but only when the budget is balanced. This is a perfect example of your plain English and where it actually makes the situation worse. This statement can be taken to mean one of two things:
1. Money may only be borrowed when the budget is balanced. If this is the case there is never a need to borrow money, and there is effectively no borrowing provision, as the need only arises when the budget isn't balanced.
2. Money may be borrowed to maintain a balanced budget, this is effectively deficit spending and what we currently have.

A few lines below that you speak of federal funding for the "useful arts". For something written in plain English and designed for the everyman you don't specify what is and isn't useful. Poetry? Painting? 3d Modeling? Digital photos? Classical music? Rap music? What is and isn't useful? In any artistic medium you mention I can point out people who find it useful and a purpose it serves. So would it not be correct to just say "arts"? I'm not even going to touch your lead in to patent confiscation which was written in a way to apply to virtually every single patent in the country.

Now we get to the executive
It begins with the eligibility to be President, part of a system such as ours is that anyone can run for any office, and if they have good ideas they can win. That's not to say an outsider is always best but it's important for the potential to be there. With your requirement that the president hold government office for years prior, you massively reduce the electable pool of candidates. Only 100 Senators and 25% of the representatives (about 150) could run. That means that in any given election only 250 people in the nation even have the potential to take office, and on that note only from established parties. This delivers A LOT of power to Republicans and Democrats and effectively lets congress choose their candidate internally without a primary... the exact type of scenario that would guarantee Jeb vs Hillary.

Then we get to the removal from office clause for the President, and quite frankly it makes the office a complete and utter joke. A petition signed by 1 million people triggers a revote to throw someone out of office? You could get that every single week, 0.33% of the population could reject their current president and throw them out at any time, even if you figure half won't take action that's barely over 1/2 of 1% of people that can shut the entire process down until the guy they dislike is gone, and the guy they like is in. Repeat when the next guy is in. No president would last a month, it would be never ending elections with a constantly cycling executive. More down below

That plan would completely destroy the executive branch, it wouldn't even make them a puppet, it would make them non existent.

After that is the Judicial. There's a reason most judges are lawyers, it's because they're the ones equipped to understand the law and look at the nuance of right and wrong. People as juries tend to look at the spirit of the law, while lawyers convince them of if the letter of the law was met or not. Judges are different.

Judges should not run for election (in a few states they sadly do), and Supreme Court judges definitely not. They are supposed to be removed from the political process rather than involved in it. With detachment comes greater neutrality. By election outsiders you aren't getting people removed from the political process, but rather people who jump at the opportunity to legislate their beliefs from the bench and if they spout buzzwords like “tough on crime”, or “repeal x law” they will get the campaign money. Furthermore, Judges being short term non career jobs with the greatest power of any branch low pay, and few in number makes them prime targets for bribery. Do you really think random people with potentially no training in these concepts should be hearing about cases like Hobby Lobby and making informed constitutional arguments in the case? If you want something easier how about data security? What is the line in the sand on reasonable actions taken by police? Earlier you include securing the border... at/near the border how do you reconcile that need with the ability to search vehicles and being more vigilant? Are laws allowing conspiracy charges constitutional? I don't trust the average voter to understand any of that. I doubt you do either.

Also, you seem to have passed criminal trials to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not conduct criminal trials, those go to lower courts. The supreme court is basically the court for the constitution to determine if it has been improperly applied. On that note, the Supreme Court should not conduct criminal trials because it provides an appeals process bypassing the rights of the state. If you get the the state court and they deny you, that is the end of the line. There shouldn't be a federal level of courts where the big boys play to shoot down judicial rulings.

Section 7 in the judicial branch basically blows to hell any hope you have of writing bills in plain English. It invites review after review, each time adding in more and more details and specifics which gets into the territory of the letter of the law rather than the spirit and this guarantees the laws become convoluted over time.

The tax system I flat out disagree with, but I'll save that for a thread I'm in the process of writng on that subject.

No Lawcontaining misleading or unrelated inclusions or amendments that do not pertain to the title of the Law, shall be passed.

This is literally the ONLY way the House can conduct business. It's their job to represent their districts. If they bring a bill up with their districts issues, the other 434 members will vote against, because there's no benefit for them. Thus in order to get local issues passed, earmarks are a necessary part of the process.

The education reform needs work too but I've said enough

a reply to: TheNewRevolution

All that needs to be done is to proclaim original constitution as holy document

Divine document

No alteration for 10 000 years

originally posted by: iLikeCIAnot
a reply to: TheNewRevolution

All that needs to be done is to proclaim original constitution as holy document

Divine document

No alteration for 10 000 years

This is the 100% wrong approach.

a reply to: TheNewRevolution

If our original Constitution has failed what's to stop future leaders from doing the same with a new one? Some of what you responded to me in your prior post was covered by the 10th Amendment reserving to the states all rights not named in the Federal Constitution. That too was ignored and trampled upon.

It seems to me the original Constitution was fine, the real problem lies in human nature; namely greed and lust for power.
Until we can create a society where those traits are contained no political system will work equitably for all. Which may be my most pragmatic argument in favor of religion come to think of it.

originally posted by: TheNewRevolution


1. An expanded Bill of Rights to reflect Universal Human Rights as well as to clarify the original rights in the US Constitution.
2. A reworked separation of powers, requiring mandatory Political Education and limitations on powers of the federal government.
3. A complete reworking of the Supreme Court to act as a court of the people to determine Constitutionality and undermine corruption.
4. Expansion of States and peoples right and powers.
5. An introduction to education reform.
6. An introduction to tax reform.
7. An Article dedicated to the Interim Government and implementation of the Constitution that is to be automatically repealed after a certain time.

1: Maybe, but how much authority will parents have over their children?
2: Mandatory for whom?
3: Majority rule? If an amendment is ambiguous, the majority might interpret it to their benefit and thereby make it less beneficial to society.
4: States need to exercise their rights, they gave that up to the Federal government.
5: Education reform is good, but how are you going to get young people really interested in education?
6: Reform taxes how?
7: And the interim government can nullify and rewrite a new one.

Sounds good in theory and on paper..but how?