The Fallacy of a Return to the Constitution

Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

Originally posted by capob

Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
reply to post by capob

 

Here's a suggestion as to changes to be made...

How about letting the idea of 3 presidents being added. As soon as I heard of this idea, I was in favor!
Here's why:

1 President will never represent the sentiment that was the basis for their being elected. No matter how we slice it, it is never the case... Campaign promises are just rhetoric.

2 Presidents, will never wholly agree on EVERY issue, which will slow down the process of executing the powers of their position. It will also bring further warranted debate as to the true initiatives behind the decisions.

3 Presidents, being that 2 presidents can represent a duality in perceiving the right direction of our country. A third can/will represent the compromising between the two. Or, will represent more strength as to the decision made, for it will have greater backing, and be result of debate between the 3.

I think this would be perfect, and would work as such... each president serves 4 years.
2 are to be elected in one election, and 1 is to be elected in an election held 2 years later.

There's much to the reasoning behind this, but ATS can theorize as to the relationships that this will create. As it is late, and my mind isn't up to the task of fully describing the basis for this idea.

If this logic were true, then by the fact we have more than 2 senators, we should have a perfect senate. What would prevent these presidents from nominally arguing and then falling in line when it comes to actually doing things (like democrats and repubs in the house and senate)? It would appear the only thing this multiple president system would achieve is a distribution of the onus coming from bad decisions - just like in the house and senate..

Senators are there to represent each state... there ARE 2 from each. They can communicate/represent the dualistic nature of addressing issues. Being that there are 100 of them, their collective body then becomes the device in which a union of states can decide as to the course of action. And each, equally represented, regardless of population.

When you then add in the house of representatives (lower house) with the upper house, you now address strength in population of the states in relation to the union.

So yeah... I think it makes perfect sense, if we just made it 3 presidents, we'd have a stronger union.

edit on 21-4-2012 by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS because: clarifications

My example was meant more towards the general idea of senators acting for the good of the union and the people. I did not say "more than two senators per state" as I was referring to their total mass and their actions as a whole towards the aims of the society.

I didn't spend much time on refuting your idea because I don't see much value in the idea of 3 presidents. The concept I tried to convey was that there is nothing in the three presidents system you describe from preventing the three presidents all from working together in efforts against the people, just as you might consider how the house and senate act against the people for personal gain. The idea of having separate parties to check each other is a fine idea and was, supposedly, built into the constitution by way of the different branches and the state and the fed. However, it is insufficient, and, I suppose, I may have misinterpreted your post as being something like "this is my solution" such that I was saying -> "that is no solution". If, however, you intended your post to be more like, "this is one of the ways we might improve the system", then my response was ill-driven.

If you are inclined to search fo solutions on a much more abstract basis, I'd like to see what you have to say about my article entitled "Strong Government, Weak Officials" here:

persistencesociety.com...

It isn't a fallacy, the thing is we actually do need to have a couple amendments to address our current modern issues. Most of which big business won't particularly like.

1.) Changing elections to a publicly funded system, removing private money from the electoral process.
2.) Establishing the internet as an instrument of the press, according it the same rights as printed media.
3.) To close the revolving door between regulating agencies and private enterprise. You either choose to work for the people or for a corporation. No more using positions of public service to enrich yourself in the private sector.

Just starting with these would be sufficient enough to see a positive change that would enable us to better identify our other issues.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
It isn't a fallacy, the thing is we actually do need to have a couple amendments to address our current modern issues. Most of which big business won't particularly like.

1.) Changing elections to a publicly funded system, removing private money from the electoral process.
2.) Establishing the internet as an instrument of the press, according it the same rights as printed media.
3.) To close the revolving door between regulating agencies and private enterprise. You either choose to work for the people or for a corporation. No more using positions of public service to enrich yourself in the private sector.

Just starting with these would be sufficient enough to see a positive change that would enable us to better identify our other issues.

Your three changes are valid, but they don't address the problems I present in the article. Further, a return to the constitution would a returning to what it is now or before now; if you are saying that, a return to the constitution is not a fallacy because if we return to a changed (amended) constitution with X amendments then everything will be right as rain, then you would be wrong. By the idea the constitution would be changed negates the idea of "returning" to it. You could argue that the constitution provides for its amending, and so it is still in line with the constitution, but pretty much all contracts are like this; and, you might as well argue that all contracts are perfect because of their ability to be changed to perfection - a pretty meaningless argument.

reply to post by KeliOnyx

It isn't a fallacy, the thing is we actually do need to have a couple amendments to address our current modern issues. Most of which big business won't particularly like.

1.) Changing elections to a publicly funded system, removing private money from the electoral process.
2.) Establishing the internet as an instrument of the press, according it the same rights as printed media.
3.) To close the revolving door between regulating agencies and private enterprise. You either choose to work for the people or for a corporation. No more using positions of public service to enrich yourself in the private sector.

Just starting with these would be sufficient enough to see a positive change that would enable us to better identify our other issues.

That is so right on the money...

Our current system basically allows corporations to BUY votes. Just how is THAT a representative republic?

reply to post by capob

In other words, it is not a breach of the Constitution for the federal government to form new powers

Actually, you are quite mistaken.

The Constitution served as both a limit, and scope of the federal government's power.

As the formation document OF the federal government, the Constitution specifically labels the powers OF the federal government.

If the power isn't specifically GIVEN to the federal government BY the constitution, then the federal government does not have that power.

It's quite simple, actually.

Q.E.D.

You're Wrong.

As passionate as this subject makes me, my first instinct was to write out a long post expressing my point of view. However, I will substitute my thoughts for a couple Simple question

Is the Constitution a lawful contractual instrument?

Has that contract been breached?

Is a breached contract still lawfully valid?

On top of that, does the language even purport the Constitution as a contract between persons now existing?

I understand these are not the conventional Constitutional questions, but I believe they hit the root of this entire subject. I know there are some amazing Constitutional scholars here. I like to think I understand the Constitution quite well. I guess I have come full circle and I question whether or not the constitution even still exists according to law.

reply to post by capob

From a broad view, the measure of the effectiveness of a system can be taken by measuring the results of that system. In this case, if the current state of affairs, (the results of the implementation of the Constitution), are unfavorable, then why would anyone think that resetting the system would lead to some different outcome? However, this is certainly not enough to satisfy some, so I will go into detail about the Constitution of the United States. 

I think you got this part wrong. The current state of affairs is not the result of implimentation of the Constitution. Rather it is the result of the lack of adherence to Constitutional resctrictions on government. Don't get me wrong I am not a big fan of large parts of the Constitutution however your premise is flawed here IMO.

There are a couple cases where things can go awry in the US Constitutional government. For one, government can choose not to follow the Constitution. Even if those in government were composed of all upstanding people who would do nothing contrary to the word of the Constitution, the words of the Constitution allow interpretation that can stray from the intent of the writers. And, when the words are interpreted in either, cases where the writers did not envision the situation, or in cases where the writers did not intend the situation, unintended powers for the federal government can be justified by the word of the Constitution. And, additionally, the lack of a granted power is not a restriction of power. 

This is more the cruxt of the matter IMO. Government has chosen not to follow the constitution and the people have failed to hold them accountable. I disagree the words of the constitution allow for interpretation that is an excuse those in power use to circumvent it. The writers and founders left ample writings that there is no question as to thier specific meaning in the matters supposedly open to interpretation.

Indeed, it was interpreted prior to the bill of rights with that Amendment 10 limitation clause that the federal government's powers were indeed limited in justification to those prescribed by the Constitution, and those not prescribed by the Constitution were state affairs. Even with this amendment, however, there is still nothing explicitly stating that the federal government should not engage in actions which are not prescribed by or prohibited in the Constitution. In other words, it is not a breach of the Constitution for the federal government to form new powers; Instead, these additional powers are simply unsupported by the Constitution

Again I disagree the 9th and 10th amendments specifically state anything not specifically spelled out in the constitution is left to the states and the people. The maxim of law was well known then also that if it's not in there you can't do it. Not the other way around like lawyers and politicans would have you believe that if it is not mentioned then you have free reign to do it. The process of granting the federal expanded authoirty is also clear it is through the amendment process. Nothing in the constitution grants it authority to expand its power without and amendment. The concept of the federal governments limited 17 enumerated powers is a well known maxim of constitutional law even today despite the circumvention of the constitution.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land". 

The constitution has a number of flaws and this is one of them along with the commcerce clause and the power of taxation to name a few.

The real problem is that people are not willing to hold government accountable to its law. The constitution is the governing document of the federal government. It is clear it operates almost completley outside its scope these days not as a result of the langauge of the the constitution but as a result of the failure of the people to keep them in check to its restrictions. So Yes there is merit in "getting back to the constitution" and that is the real problem, how is that done or is it even possible... If we have a population willing to do that then it would also be relatively easy to fix the flaws in the constitution also. There is no garuntees and the people are apathetic and ignorant of thier founding documents so in that repsect there is propbably little hope in getting back to the constitution as most people dont even know what it says. It will take at least another generation or more before there is a chance of creating a better freerer society. And I am not married to the constutition. I would prefer the AOC with some modifications rather then the Constitution. But I am not opposed to starting from scratch when the time comes however none of it will fix the problem unless the people understand real freedom and most do not.

reply to post by capob


A new Constitution would not differ much from the original (easier to read english maybe) ,
unless you want to shaft the free man.
The people, free men must control Govt because anything else will eventually lead to total Tyranny .

Originally posted by satron
reply to post by capob

 

You don't want idiots writing it, and on the other hand, you want people you can trust that won't wind up buggering you over.

I know I wouldn't want the people that wrote out my car's warranty in on it, or else it wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. It's a start.

If there were people with their only foundation of self, based in absolute Truth, they would be the only individuals that could be trusted to look past hedonism and the lust for satisfying the senses. They also would have the power of vision in 4 dimensions and not 2 like the vast majority of humans choose to dwell within. The problem is the Absolute intentionally projects into the social realms no direct evidence of Its existence. Thus, the dwellers of satisfying the senses as the only value that currently rules this domain will remain as those that write the new constitution. This is certain long term failure.

The O.P. has clearly put much thought into this thread and has interesting ideas, most of them sounding suspiciously like the priest class lawyer sect who seem to genuinely believe that mystical incantations will so astound and confound their laity as to render any resistance to the spell moot. Of course, in fairness to that attitude, many are astounded and confounded by the shamanistic blather regarding U.S. Constitutional principles.

Statements such as the First Amendment prohibits Congress and not the states from infringing upon certain unalienable rights are outrageously disingenuous. Every state has their own constitution, and every state expressly declares freedom of religion a right, expressly prohibits state established religion, expressly declares freedom of speech and freedom of the press, guaranteeing a redress of grievance and the right to peaceably assemble. So such a remark is not only moot, it is pointless unless the point is to confound and confuse the ignorant who are prone to be mystified by such remarks.

Not every state constitution declares the right of the people to keep and bear arms a right - only 39 states do this, but the beauty of living in a United States is the ability to travel freely from state to state, and if one wants the protection of the state in regards to the right to keep and bear arms the all one has to do is move to a state that does so.

Part of the deal with federalism was that the federal Constitution was just one component of this United States and the constitutions of each state the other part. Ultimately, this compact between government and we the people places a huge burden upon we the people. Any individual can surrender their rights, either expressly and knowingly by contract, or tacitly even if unknowingly by either contract or simply by not asserting their unalienable rights at the time they are being abrogated and/or derogated.

We as individuals can, if we choose, fall prey to the mystical incantations of the priest class lawyer sect, or we can stand tall and assert our rights when necessary. This assertion of rights is no more a magical spell than any uttered by the shamanistic lawyers, and simply just asserting them is no guarantee that tyrants will melt away in a whiny screechy wail as if they are the Wicked Witch of the West and have just had a pail of water thrown on them, but if we the people do not assert our rights...well, then we get the government we deserve.

All nice and dandy. Except for one fact, which is, that It all sounds good and fair... on paper.

But anything can be made to sound good and fair on paper. And worse, if you muddle it up, it will in the end just end up muddling you up. I think our world has outgrown and got a bit to complex to be totally capture everything going on in a few paragraphs on a piece of paper no matter how fancy the words.

But that does not mean that we should not take the things that worked and continue them on, and even expand on them if need be. The only question seems to be exactly that...Is there a need to be expanding on that? And if there is or even if there isn't in either case there is little reason to circumvent around things, or indulge those that do.

So amend, retract, whatever. The question is does it work? And what does it do? And what does it work towards? And if it does not do all those three things, why is it there in the first place? The only worse thing then the fallacy of a return to the constitution would be the fallacy that something that has worked more then well enough in all this time and in creating a stable environment. Is to not know why and how it did that in the first place.

In fact its worse then a fallacy its a foolishness. In the end it was all an experiment, and still is, but one that in many ways has worked.

You probably won't get many responses but Sir, This is just about the best thing I have read on ATS in the entire short year I have been here. A lot of ATS is sensationalistic bull crap. I admit I've made some of those posts myself. But, this was really, really, really well done and yeah. In lawyer speak too! Which I enjoyed. Are you one? Just curious. You Can PM me the answer if you don't wanna tell everyone publicly. I won't tell anyone

This raises some very interesting questions that should be logically addressed by the Constitutional Religion. It's pretty much the same as Christians saying we need to go back to the Bible, when there are multiple parts of the Bible, if not the whole entire story that is interpreted contradictory to one another.

I will think about this thread tonight and come back to you tomorrow with detailed thoughts!

reply to post by galadofwarthethird

I think our world has outgrown and got a bit to complex to be totally capture everything going on in a few paragraphs on a piece of paper no matter how fancy the words.

The constitution was not meant to capture every possible thing that could happen on paper. Neither should it most of it is none of the governments business. It as written to strictly limit what government could do not the people...

reply to post by hawkiye

Kind of my point exactly, I suppose I should of worded that whole thing a bit differently. And considering that lots of people did not even read the constitution, or like me read it so many years ago in some class in high school that its a all a bit foggy. It helps to keep things simple and go from there, because a lot of unnecessary problems are caused by a lot of unnecessary things.

You know we would not want to misconstrued things, such as the right to bear arms.

As I predicted. Not many responses to this thread at all.

I agree with your points though. When the constitution was written people didn't know about wireless transmitters, flu vaccines, abortions, muslims, nazis, military law, international law, insurance, social security, medicare, lightbulbs, automobiles, the internet, movies, hollywood, gas prices, homosexuals etc..... So with the emergence of technology and events new laws have to be made to the Constitution. Or other laws which do have a moral compass but are not necessarily bound by the Constitution. I think the Constitutional Religious types like to place all laws under that document because it makes things simpler and easier for them to understand the complicated corrupt mess the government is in. If we go back to the constitution and eliminate every law considered unnecessary by some future ruler. Then it's just going to keep changing with society anyway. SO why bother?

I could go on and on and on about all the stuff that has happened since then, and each time something new comes along the government adapts to it. Sometimes its right and sometimes its wrong. But I don't see the world crumbling just yet. And if anything, humans are survivors. We will survive collapse if it comes. But more likely the system will fix itself and balance out. Just think of all of the possible and probabl WWIII triggers that could have caused the war over the past few years after 9/11. Things could be much much worse. But the government, world leaders, top generals, and I wouldn't be surprised if top CEOS all have a hand in keeping the status quo exactly where its needed so it doesn't fall off the edge! And that's exactly why government exists!

The Jeffersonian/Constitutional system has three main problems, that I can see.

a] The electoral college. Jefferson at least was an elitist, and at the time of the Constitution's writing, it was not intended for the right to vote to be universal. It was intended to be confined primarily to white adult males, and for the ultimate vote (as far as the Executive Branch in particular is concerned) to be made by a closed group, rather than a vote by the general population of the country.

b] There has never been a legislative branch, at any time within human political history, that has not been completely and hopelessly corrupt, and awash in bribe money at every possible turn. This was true in Rome, and although not at first, it was ultimately true in Athens.

The American Congress, as was every legislature before it, is a systemically and intractably evil, fascist gerontocracy, which consistently proves itself as an implacable enemy of the genuine public interest. We are seeing now, how the Judicial Branch and the Congress are at odds with each other, in that the Congress will pass fascist, inhuman legislation as a matter of course, and the people must then rely on the judges to protect them from it. The Congress are overwhelmingly the primary weak link of the entire Constitutional system.

The Congress, in this, are also worse than the Executive Branch. It is acknowledged that the Executive Branch is nothing other than a concession to the Fuhrer principle, and a particularly shrewd one on the part of the Constitution's authors. The Presidency is not expected to be associated with integrity; the very purpose of the Executive Branch, is to serve as a safe and acceptable concession to psychopathy, and the historical demand of the people for their Fuhrer, as mentioned. As prescribed by the Constitutional system, the Executive Branch accordingly has very little real power, and this is precisely as it should be.

The legislature, on the other hand, have no excuse. They are the enablers of the law, before said law is signed by the Executive, and it is their vote which decides what passes into law. As such, their integrity is vital to the political health of the nation. A Congress which is a den of iniquity on the scale of the current American Congress, can only result in a compromised government, and a degenerate, ruined country.

c] An elitist, non-direct democratic system, of the type that the Jeffersonian Republic was originally intended to be, cannot be expected to feasibly scale with a population approaching three hundred million people. Decentralised, localised, directly representative democracy (of the style embraced by Occupy's General Assemblies, which are themselves a mirror of what were used in Athens and Sparta) could work; but the Jeffersonian model will not.

reply to post by capob


Except that this is a country of over 300 million people.

It won't work to go back to "small" government.

Originally posted by capob
...
From a broad view, the measure of the effectiveness of a system can be taken by measuring the results of that system. In this case, if the current state of affairs, (the results of the implementation of the Constitution), are unfavorable, then why would anyone think that resetting the system would lead to some different outcome? However, this is certainly not enough to satisfy some, so I will go into detail about the Constitution of the United States.
...

You fail to remember that the reason of the "current affairs" is NOT because of the Constitution, but rather because PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS implemented socialist/leftwing ideas that lead to a dictatorship.

Do you forget who was it that gave all power over the economy of the United States to the Feds?... It was PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS under a PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT as President, Woodrow Wilson, who signed into law the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, alongside funding the IRS and taxes as they exist now, among other leftwing policies which seeked to restrict Americans, and small businesses, from succedding and lead to the Recession and the Depression of the 1930s...

PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS gave power over the economy of the United States to the Feds/aka the banker elites... It was the Feds who invented the U.S. dollar, making illegal the silver and gold standard because under the system of credit/the U.S. dollar, the banker elites could control the direction of the nation...

Whomever controls the economy of a nation, controls that nation...

It has been this LEFTWING idea that is the Feds which have bankrupted and corrupted this nation... It wasn't the U.S. Constitution...

These LEFTWINGER ideas were implemented despite the U.S. Constitution, and the warnings from the founding fathers not to allow these things to occur...

It has been the slow implementation of LEFTWINGER ideas which over the decades have made the United States, and even the world weaker...

The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the UN, and all those organizations that are in power now are ALL LEFTWINGER IDEAS...

These leftwinger ideas seek to CENTRALISE all infraestructure, and consolidate ALL power in the hands of a few who claim "it is all being done for the good of the collective/revolution, and the good of the Earth"...

When you seek to restrict people of their NATURAL individual freedom and freedom of choice for WHATEVER CAUSE, no matter how good you think the cause is, you are in fact establishing a DICTATORSHIP...

People should be FREE to choose what they want to do with their lives, and how to live it...

People should have INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM guaranteed for all of them. (there is also responsibility with freedom)

People should be able to live in their country and not being treated as common criminals "for the good and safety of all"...

When you give all power to a group of people "because it is good for the collective" or even "it is good for the Earth" you are simply giving EXCUSES for the elites to take control over EVERY aspect of people's lives...

Originally posted by The Sword


Except that this is a country of over 300 million people.

It won't work to go back to "small" government.

It worked for a LOOOONG time until LEFTWINGER ideas were implemented...

It is these LEFTWINGER ideas of giving more power to the state/government which has corrupted politics and the nation and allowed the socialist banker elites to take the true power of the people...

Even the founding fathers knew that there had to be smaller governments with people in charge who really had the good of the people in mind and not for the sake of obtaining more power...

You make smaller governments because ONE government with ALL power will simply and ALWAYS become a DICTATORSHIP. With smaller governments the people will have more control over such governments...

With smaller governments if you are in disagreement with the state government where you live you have the choice to MOVE to another state where you agree more with it's policies and laws... Meanwhile in a ONE GOVERNMENT WITH ALL POWER you have NOWHERE to move and will be subject to the whims of those in power...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I think you miss the point almost completely, but you do have some similar ideas to those I have had. See what you think about: persistencesociety.com...