Every 19 years we should...

[Harambe]

Re-write the constitution?

Following, and in tandem with, Obama may be the best president ever thread, I present to you the following:

https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html

I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish to develope a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general dispatches.

The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government.

Did the founding fathers have the right to institute a set of laws upon further generations? Yes, we can amend them... Yes that's the status quo... but should it be like that?

 

[fishonjazz]

I say we should do what works best for ourselves at the time.

25 years ago I would get up from the couch and walk to the tv to change the channel. I don't do that anymore. (I also don't watch commercials anymore..... thanks dvr!)

Times change. Rules, laws, policies, etc should change with the times.

 

[babe]

I say we should do what works best for ourselves at the time.

25 years ago I would get up from the couch and walk to the tv to change the channel. I don't do that anymore. (I also don't watch commercials anymore..... thanks dvr!)

Times change. Rules, laws, policies, etc should change with the times.

I say suit yourself. I hear smoking weed creates new ideas. Let's go for it.

 

[Stoked]

There is actually a process for this but it's never been done.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...5d4f1e-db02-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html

If 34 states pass in their legislatures a call for a constitutional convention then one is held. The problem is that it opens the door to the whole thing. With the current state of politics I have zero faith that it will undertaken in good faith. Lobbyists and special interest groups from unions to the NRA will spend billions upon billions to influence to their way.

What we would end up with is a new constitution geared towards special interests instead of the common man.

 

[Beer]

One of my biggest pet peeves is when someone says "Well the founding fathers said ... " I don't give a **** what some dude said 200 + years ago ... **** done changed.

 

[babe]

Re-write the constitution?

Following, and in tandem with, Obama may be the best president ever thread, I present to you the following:

https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html



Did the founding fathers have the right to institute a set of laws upon further generations? Yes, we can amend them... Yes that's the status quo... but should it be like that?

I think the argument is not about a generational imposition of laws, though I imagine a lot of teenagers would warm to a systematic rejection of the immediate preceding generation. Our Constitution had it's origin in contract law, it was a deal several states were willing to make between their sovereign selves for mutual defense and to promote mutually-beneficial relations with the outside world. There were deep misgivings about creating a Federal government that could potentially be harnessed to a tyrant's wagon and become another bad government like that of the former British overlords.

The Brits had worked out a system of law that vouchsafed certain rights to the citizens and to Peerage, the subordinate elites essential to the King. The appointed representatives of the King had denied American colonists the rights they expected under the Magna Carta of Great Britain. It was as simple as that.

Thomas Jefferson advocated regular, if not generational, overthrow of oppressive governments.

I think there are some principles of human nature that need to be understood and taken into account. Most schemes of governance ignore some or all of those principles. I think the discussion would be better framed as a topic on what inherent human rights should we respect.

 

[Jamezz]

One of my biggest pet peeves is when someone says "Well the founding fathers said ... " I don't give a **** what some dude said 200 + years ago ... **** done changed.

This is where you're wrong, the further we've driven from the Constitution the worse we've been. The problem is the Constitution is becoming a piece of toilet paper for today's politicians. So what re-write a document to justify today's wrong doing? That's ******** man, ******** I say. Long live the FF, who were so ahead of their time. They knew their ****, they knew what tyranny is having seen what it was like in the days of the British Empire of Kings and Queens and all the ****in' bullcrap that goes with it. The US became what it is today thanks to getting away from the old continent's medieval ways and was the most prosperous country till the Federal Reserve took over.

 

[Harambe]

There is actually a process for this but it's never been done.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...5d4f1e-db02-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html

If 34 states pass in their legislatures a call for a constitutional convention then one is held. The problem is that it opens the door to the whole thing. With the current state of politics I have zero faith that it will undertaken in good faith. Lobbyists and special interest groups from unions to the NRA will spend billions upon billions to influence to their way.

What we would end up with is a new constitution geared towards special interests instead of the common man.

It has. And as of last year, we had the numbers to do so. But we didn't do anything about it... (Thanks, Boehner![as head of congress])

There's trouble in it, but do we have more to lose, or more to gain? In the case of a constitutional convention with two thirds states requesting, we have to wait for that to happen again. If we re-write it every X years, we're forced to look at the values we had, and the values we have now, and evaluate how we(as the next generation) want to live our lives.

A whole generation of lawyers and law makers should want this. It's a chance to write up history. It's never been done before, completely uncharted territory. A chance to to really put your foot print somewhere, like we did with the moon.

And all of this from Thomas Jefferson in 1789. A very old idea that wasn't really given the light of day.

 

[franklin]

The only thing I wanted to do at 19 was build fast cars and find iron ***** that could bang for hours. Why do people ever grow up to worry about **** like this?

 

[Jamezz]

The only thing I wanted to do at 19 was build fast cars and find iron ***** that could bang for hours. Why do people ever grow up to worry about **** like this?

Because mediocrity

 

[Harambe]

The only thing I wanted to do at 19 was build fast cars and find iron ***** that could bang for hours. Why do people ever grow up to worry about **** like this?

In my opinion, we wouldn't be let 19-38 year olds do it. The idea would be let 29-47 year olds do it, as that's when they're coming up as the dominant, lasting political voice. By that time they'd also have the experience to make wise(r) choices than angsty teens.

 

[babe]

In my opinion, we wouldn't be let 19-38 year olds do it. The idea would be let 29-47 year olds do it, as that's when they're coming up as the dominant, lasting political voice. By that time they'd also have the experience to make wise(r) choices than angsty teens.

Franklin has a point. People have to make a choice in how they use their time. Those who serve the chicks leave a legacy of sorts, but those who by endowments must find other interests largely mess up corporations and governments, and achieve a more enduring resentment.

The LDS Church has a winning strategy, delegating power to old folks who have no prospect of gaining anything personal, and more of an interest in their grandkids.. Come to think of it, that's China's governance, too.

I wouldn't fare well under that system either, I'm such an obnoxious rabble-rouser. All I want is the opportunity to do what I want, so I don't like "management".

 

[Gameface]

I would be very concerned if there was a full blown constitutional convention. I don't trust anyone in government today to put aside their personal interests and make good law that would serve as the framework of our nation.

I think any new constitution would lean way too far to the right or the left.

I don't believe the current constitution is divinely inspired or something sacred, but I'm comfortable with it as a set of ground rules.

If "times have changed" so much that certain things no longer make sense then it should be easy enough to get a consensus and change those things. What I think is more likely is that there are things in the Constitution that some support and some don't and a constitutional convention would be a way for this side or that to win in either eliminating those things or solidifying them. I don't see any value in that.

 

[Harambe]

Franklin has a point. People have to make a choice in how they use their time. Those who serve the chicks leave a legacy of sorts, but those who by endowments must find other interests largely mess up corporations and governments, and achieve a more enduring resentment.

The LDS Church has a winning strategy, delegating power to old folks who have no prospect of gaining anything personal, and more of an interest in their grandkids.. Come to think of it, that's China's governance, too.

I wouldn't fare well under that system either, I'm such an obnoxious rabble-rouser. All I want is the opportunity to do what I want, so I don't like "management".

Last I heard, when you're old all you have is your reputation. And because of their huge push with Legacy, and great love for their lineage, they wouldn't do anything bad to make people question if they were good people.

In a BIG WAY, they have the most to lose.

 

[Harambe]

I would be very concerned if there was a full blown constitutional convention. I don't trust anyone in government today to put aside their personal interests and make good law that would serve as the framework of our nation.

I think any new constitution would lean way too far to the right or the left.

I don't believe the current constitution is divinely inspired or something sacred, but I'm comfortable with it as a set of ground rules.

If "times have changed" so much that certain things no longer make sense then it should be easy enough to get a consensus and change those things. What I think is more likely is that there are things in the Constitution that some support and some don't and a constitutional convention would be a way for this side or that to win in either eliminating those things or solidifying them. I don't see any value in that.

But the reverse is true, too. What happens if we find a way both sides can win? If left to the younger generations that aren't quite as stubborn as the old timers, it's much more possible.

I'm totally with you on the I don't trust the people in government. I won't cross the line and say they're evil, but I think they're too partitioned to make good decisions for America.

And that still doesn't address the initial question posed in the letter; what right do the now fallen generations have to bind us?

 

[babe]

I would be very concerned if there was a full blown constitutional convention. I don't trust anyone in government today to put aside their personal interests and make good law that would serve as the framework of our nation.

I think any new constitution would lean way too far to the right or the left.

I don't believe the current constitution is divinely inspired or something sacred, but I'm comfortable with it as a set of ground rules.

If "times have changed" so much that certain things no longer make sense then it should be easy enough to get a consensus and change those things. What I think is more likely is that there are things in the Constitution that some support and some don't and a constitutional convention would be a way for this side or that to win in either eliminating those things or solidifying them. I don't see any value in that.

I usually make a point to listen to anyone who can see both some pros and cons to any fashionable notion in the public discourse.

I am surprised with Game's opinion here, as I thought his trust and satisfaction level were both pretty high with the brave new world ideas. I differ perhaps on one point here, in that I consider our original Constitution an openly pragmatic compromise of many divergent personal and state interests. I might worry about the more "progressive" sort of thinkers being better-financed and better-organized to exploit a con-con opportunity, as Obama's mentor Ayers would have it. . . . Never let a crisis. . . .or a convention. . . . go to waste." I worry just as much about an indifferent general populace, and I think it's a win-win to have an wide-open wild west internet shootout of ideas going on. . . . the more people get involved, the better.