Should There Be A New Constitution?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Yes, let us abandon it so our "out of control" judges can become the real unelected dictators they want to be!

Sorry, somehow I missed this post first time I glanced thru this thread.
RMNIXON got right to the point with that quote.
Some leftist/liberals seek to subvert the results of our electoral process by
installing insane,moronic ,liberal supreme court judges . Judges that are increasingly seizing more power than allowed by our constitution.
Judges that increasingly seek out foreign law to base liberal rulings when they find no basis for such in our Constitution.
Some Leftist/liberal judges should be removed from thier positions and tried in court for failure to adequately perform thier duties and for openly seeking to destroy our constitution.
In short, judges already practicing as unelected dictators!-TZS

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by lew

I don't see how that would have prevented lawyers from entering into office since all they would have to do is drop the Esquire.

In order to become a lawyer, one must take the British Accreditation Regency examination (BAR exam). Lawyers are, as they say, the king's men.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by lew

Unfortunately, our Constitution is already fairly libertarian and our government breaks it.

If we had another Constitutional Convention, I'm very certain that the new one would be even more Hamiltonian / Lincolnian than our current one. A new Convention would be horrible for libertarians, Old Republic conservatives, and classical liberals.

Jefferson opposed the Constitution, as did most of the Antifederalists. The majority of it was written by Federalists (remember: Federalists wanted a national government, and Antifederalists wanted a federal government). I agree with the Federalists about making this a national government, but I agree with the Antifederalists on just about everything else.

Like I was saying, I'd like to see something more Jeffersonian. The current Constitution isn't it. I want something that specifically says that lawyers cannot hold office. I want something that firmly establishes a wall of separation. Above all, I want something that would strike fear into the bankers that would even dare attempt to establish an unaudited central bank that uses anything other than gold and silver. Andrew Jackson said it best when he called the bankers a "den of vipers."

Oh, plus I would write it to explicitly prevent another Amendment that could supercede our rights and give sovereignty to the States, not We the People (the Fourteenth Amendment took away all of our rights).

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

In order to become a lawyer, one must take the British Accreditation Regency examination (BAR exam). Lawyers are, as they say, the king's men.

I don't like the fact that Judges are all ex-lawyers. Talk about a "good old boys" club! And a large number of Law makers were also lawyers. Would I be dumb to suggest that all conspire to make laws complex so they can have exclusive power and influence over them?

[lew]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

In order to become a lawyer, one must take the British Accreditation Regency examination (BAR exam). Lawyers are, as they say, the king's men.

Right, but all the lawyers would have to do is change how they get accredited. A new amendment banning lawyers from holding office could work, but I don't see how that Amendment would prevent anything since it doesn't specifically say anything about lawyers.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by lew

Right, but all the lawyers would have to do is change how they get accredited. A new amendment banning lawyers from holding office could work, but I don't see how that Amendment would prevent anything since it doesn't specifically say anything about lawyers.

Aritcle I, Section 9: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States..."

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I don't like the fact that Judges are all ex-lawyers. Talk about a "good old boys" club! And a large number of Law makers were also lawyers. Would I be dumb to suggest that all conspire to make laws complex so they can have exclusive power and influence over them?

Right, that was the idea. The whole point of the amendment (Title of Nobility Amendment) was to disallow laywers from entering office.

[AntiCentrist]

The only way to get a new Constitution is to hold a Constitutional Convention. And how would the delegates be selected? Through election. Which basically means the Congress, more-or-less, would author the new Constitution, since those are the people with a proven track record of being able to win Federal elections. The very idea that the Constitution written by a committee made up of people like Charles Rangel and Susan Molinari would somehow outshine the present document is laughable in the extreme. If a new Constitutional Convention is ever held, I hope and pray, for the good of America, that some terrorist group blows it up and thus thwarts the process. The current Constitution of the United States is a flawed document, but I've been called upon to take the oath in its defense a time or two for various reasons, and I didn't have a problem so doing, because I recognize that despite its myriad flaws, we're lucky to have such a document as the basis for our government. And far more problems stem from not following it than do from any innate flaws within its text.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by AntiCentrist

The only way to get a new Constitution is to hold a Constitutional Convention. And how would the delegates be selected? Through election. Which basically means the Congress, more-or-less, would author the new Constitution, since those are the people with a proven track record of being able to win Federal elections. The very idea that the Constitution written by a committee made up of people like Charles Rangel and Susan Molinari would somehow outshine the present document is laughable in the extreme. If a new Constitutional Convention is ever held, I hope and pray, for the good of America, that some terrorist group blows it up and thus thwarts the process. The current Constitution of the United States is a flawed document, but I've been called upon to take the oath in its defense a time or two for various reasons, and I didn't have a problem so doing, because I recognize that despite its myriad flaws, we're lucky to have such a document as the basis for our government. And far more problems stem from not following it than do from any innate flaws within its text.

We the People can reestablish the Constitution however we see fit. We the People created it, and We the People can end it.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Hello, and welcome to the website.

On proportional voting, hasn't it already been tried and failed?

Not quite sure what you mean by that, do you have an example of Mixed-Member Proportional voting that was tried and failed?

[Diamond Cross]

I believe it was used in Ohio about 1915.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

I believe it was used in Ohio about 1915.

I must admit in the first place that I am not well versed in Ohio electoral history so I had to look it up and from what I read, it was stopped not because it failed but because the Republicans were able to overturn it in the 1950s. If I am wrong on this please let me know, but based off this and that proportional elections seems to work in other nations and moreover, given that I supports a particular type of proportional elections called Mixed-Member Proportional, I still think at least this part of my argument is sound.

If your interested in learning more about Mixed Member Proportional I found this article to be the best at explaining it:


http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/...g/howprwor.htm

It is in the middle of the article

-- David

[Diamond Cross]

Well, what I'm interested in is a system that would end the dominance of our two-parties, that would encourage less voter apathy, and having a vote that actually mattered. Because of things like our
President thumbing his nose at what the American people wants, I feel like my vote is wasted and doesn't really count.

[David Octavius]

Thats the catch Diamond, to have a system that embodies that you cant just simply legislate it into action, you have to change the fundamental processes our electoral system is built on. Just as changing the way the President is elected must be amended so would that have to be. But such a drastic change would never occur since the method to do so would have to come and be approved from the Congress itself and then go through the states. You think the two parties would ever pass something that would obviously destroy their power?

Its just like when people tell me term limits would solve alot issues, well in order to that, once again, we have to amend the constitution, it wont happen, they will not gut their own power especially since most are already career politicians.

PS - I know that an alternative to the amendment process is by convention through 2/3rds of the states to propose change and then approval by 3/4ths of them but since this has never happened and will prolly never happen since the same two parties control the states, this to me doesn’t matter.

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

We the People can reestablish the Constitution however we see fit. We the People created it, and We the People can end it.

No one was disputing that, oh Master of the Self-Evident Truism. What was being disputed was the wisdom of so doing.

We the People can also eat our own feces, or submit to being sodomized by a random gaggle of newly-released, HIV+ prison inmates, but frankly, I'd advise against both. I'd also advise against ordaining a Constitutional Convention so that people like Edward Kennedy and John Kyl was give us a new, "better" one. I suspect most rational people with a grip on reality would agree with me on that one thing at least.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by AntiCentrist

No one was disputing that, oh Master of the Self-Evident Truism. What was being disputed was the wisdom of so doing.

We the People can also eat our own feces, or submit to being sodomized by a random gaggle of newly-released, HIV+ prison inmates, but frankly, I'd advise against both. I'd also advise against ordaining a Constitutional Convention so that people like Edward Kennedy and John Kyl was give us a new, "better" one. I suspect most rational people with a grip on reality would agree with me on that one thing at least.

I guess my point was over your head.

[David Octavius]

One thing should be pointed out in regards to the perceived notion that we have too many polarizing figures to have a constructive convention:

Some of those that attended the constitutional convention in 1787 threatened to cede from the union (Delaware), others favored an aristocracy type of government and admired the British monarchy (Hamilton), still others didn’t even sign the resulting document and campaigned fiercely against it (Mason among others) and one state wasn’t even at the convention (Rhode Island).

In light of this, I don’t think a convention today would be as polarizing as the above one. And one more thing, yes we have a lot of mediocre leaders, so were many at the convention, but we don’t remember them now, we remember the very few who were able, through great leadership, to steer the debate. I am confident we have leaders like that in our time; it doesn’t take a convention full of them, just a couple.

[Diamond Cross]

I don't agree, considering the state of politics today, the vast majority of it is polarized, with rare examples of bipartisanship.

[David Octavius]

Will it not always be like that? Its the nature of politics but the question is, do you think it worse today then it was in 1787 when the fitness of having one UNION was considered a mainstream debate?

[Diamond Cross]

I do think it is worse today than in the past. For example, there is more negative campaigning and tit-for-tat actions (such as the Democrats trying to oust Gay republicans for their stance on homosexual marriage) than there ever has been before.