Should There Be A New Constitution?

[Diamond Cross]

According to the author:

Welcome to DavidOctavius.com, the purpose of this site is to raise awareness and start a dialogue for creating a new constitution. It is my argument the only way to make government accountable to the people is to make these structures more democratic to enable broader representation and to strengthen checks and balances. As long as we don’t have constitutional control of the structures that express our democracy, our liberty and prosperity will always be in danger. Campaign finance reforms, electoral reforms and other such remedies only treat the symptoms of the disease and not the illness itself, our system is compromised because the ones that control the democratic system are the same ones as those that run for office and legislate laws. This means our system of accountability is endanger, from elections to law making, allowing government power to be virtually unchecked by us.

The link:

David Octavius - A Discourse on a New Constitution

Considering all the attacks (from PResident Bush and others) on the Constitution, does this guy have the right idea?

The problem is though, how can the Constitution be changed without losing our rights?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Our current Constitution has been shat on so much that I think it's about time we scratch the whole thing and start over.

[lew]

Absolutely not. We don't follow the laws of the current Constitution, what's to stop the govt. from not following the laws of another? We need accountability and a return to constitutional government - not a new constitution.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by lew

Absolutely not. We don't follow the laws of the current Constitution, what's to stop the govt. from not following the laws of another? We need accountability and a return to constitutional government - not a new constitution.

[JaJae]

Our current government is incapable of creating a bipartisan constitution.

[RMNIXON]

(Let us abandon all real pretence of personal liberty) Require all citizens to contribute as so desigated by the majority to the good of the whole in the name of caring for the children and the poor and oppressed. Anything you can produce in your life will be subject as comminity property for the benefit of those in need (who could not produce it in the first place). You have the freedom of speech as long as it brings no offence to any such prior designated oppressed groups as represented (without consent). Gun ownership (even in the defence of private property or personal harm) is prohibited for the common safty of the people.....


Anything in ( ) not in actual text.

I have more but let me work on it.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

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

[Dumpy Dooby]

Our constitution doesn't put enough restrictions on the judicial branch, and the Bill of Rights ought to be scratched and revised to express equality in everybody. Also it's outdated and doesn't account for the ability to privatize industries like the postal service. Transcontinental travel seems like it ought to be considered as well. Some regulations are entirely necessary, like certain aspects of the FAA and the FCC.

Also, I think representatives should only have the ability to deligate funds to pay back debts, not to make laws. Nobody should be above the law.

The Founding Fathers did a great job with the Constitution. I think it's just about perfect, but I think we need to move more toward Jeffersonian libertarianism.

[RMNIXON]

Hey, don't end it just amend it. It was writen to protect people from the powers of government. That is the libertarian root of the document. I pity the fools who don't see that!

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Hey, don't end it just amend it. It was writen to protect people from the powers of government. That is the libertarian root of the document. I pity the fools who don't see that!

It wasn't very effective, now was it?

I pity the fool who don't see that!

[Diamond Cross]

A legal document is just a piece of paper if it's ignored by the people.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

A legal document is just a piece of paper if it's ignored by the people.

That was the biggest problem with our Constitution. It protects the inherent rights of We the People, but it neglects to consider that We the People need to be aware of such rights in order for us to continue using the government to protect them. Our government got out hand once we started using it for purposes other than protecting rights.

It all seems to have started with the Fourteenth Amendment (which wasn't properly ratified, IMO), and things have just gone down hill ever since. Also the War of 1812 seemed to have halted the Title of Nobility Amendment (original 13th Amendment), and there's even some evidence that the Amendment actually passed (because some of the states started printing it with the other Amendments), but was lost when the White House was burned down. That particular Amendment would have been one of the best things to happen to this country, as it would have prevented lawyers from entering into office.

Anyway, I think I might be getting a bit off topic now. I don't want to rant too much about how much the Constitution is ignored now, so I'll shut up about that.

Also, because I'm a Jeffersonian libertarian, I oppose the Constitution ... like all of the other Antifederalists. Now that we have 250yrs of hindsight, I would say that the Antifederalists were quite right when they said the national government proposed by the Federalists was too strong and able to abuse its power and violate the rights of the People.

[ballz2wallz]

I think we need fewer laws.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Our constitution doesn't put enough restrictions on the judicial branch, and the Bill of Rights ought to be scratched and revised to express equality in everybody. Also it's outdated and doesn't account for the ability to privatize industries like the postal service. Transcontinental travel seems like it ought to be considered as well. Some regulations are entirely necessary, like certain aspects of the FAA and the FCC.

Also, I think representatives should only have the ability to deligate funds to pay back debts, not to make laws. Nobody should be above the law.

The Founding Fathers did a great job with the Constitution. I think it's just about perfect, but I think we need to move more toward Jeffersonian libertarianism.

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.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

It all seems to have started with the Fourteenth Amendment (which wasn't properly ratified, IMO), and things have just gone down hill ever since. Also the War of 1812 seemed to have halted the Title of Nobility Amendment (original 13th Amendment), and there's even some evidence that the Amendment actually passed (because some of the states started printing it with the other Amendments), but was lost when the White House was burned down. That particular Amendment would have been one of the best things to happen to this country, as it would have prevented lawyers from entering into office

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.

[Donkey®]

Constitutional convention every 100 years please.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Constitutional convention every 100 years please.

If you're going to say 100 years, you might as well say every year or every other month. 100 years has no value on it other than you saying it. Having one every 100 years has no special purpose than any other time. Obviously, you are of the type that favors a "living constitution" so why not just have a Constitution that can change constantly? Why settle for a new one every 100 years?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by lew

If you're going to say 100 years, you might as well say every year or every other month. 100 years has no value on it other than you saying it. Having one every 100 years has no special purpose than any other time. Obviously, you are of the type that favors a "living constitution" so why not just have a Constitution that can change constantly? Why settle for a new one every 100 years?

The Constitution can change inside of 100 years with amendments...so 100 years is plenty. The reason 100 years would be my timeframe is because changes in society don't happen overnight. Changes in technology don't happen overnight. And yes, it is opinion.

[David Octavius]

Hi everyone, I found this site through a Google search and so happen to come across this post and I would like to respond to some of the comments made, as well as expand on what the purpose of my writing is.

I know what I propose seems crazy and I agree with most people that our present constitution is great and that if we can go back to the spirit of it, to check illegitimate government power that threatens our liberty, but still keep it strong enough to secure us, we will be much better off.

The principals, however noble they are, cannot work if the checks and balances prescribed in it are not effective and it is this reason that is the heart of my argument, that the constitution cannot prevent the very thing that is happing now: abuse of power that threatens liberty and our long term security because the checks dont work anymore

My aim is to have a constitution which embodies the very same principals of the present constitution but with stronger checks via stronger democracy to act as an outside check to government and stronger internal check between the branches, all while maintaining the republican nature of government.

Stronger internal and external checks give us the necessary elements needed to maintain a just system: Accountability, Separation of Powers and fragmentation of the control of liberty. By accountability I mean that the people have much more power, through freer elections and much broader representation in the House (Mixed Member Proportional), to have a real choice of candidates that most closely aligns with their ideals and to hold them to account for it. By fragmentation of liberty, I mean that no one part of government, nor the people themselves, have complete control over it, thus liberty is secure from government encroachment or the people using it to oppress the rights of another portion of the population. By separation of powers, I mean that no one branch of government takes on some power of another branch for this degrades checks, as an example, signing statements used by the president allows him to interpret the law as he see’s fit gutting the power of a legally passed bill making it difficult for the congress to check him.

With these three elements the people will have better representation without fear it will lead to violations of liberty and the government will still have the energy needed to protect as long as it doesn’t violate liberty.

What are these checks? Here is the short version:

For the People:

-Taking the control of elections out of the hands of the two major parties
-Proportional elections in the House (Mixed Member Proportional)
-Direct elections of the President

Internal checks:

-The Senate moves away from legislation to reviewer of laws for constitutionality internally before it is sent to the President to check the power of the people
-The House is the only part of government allowed to make legislation since it most closely represents the people.
-The actions of the President is also subject to Senatorial review but cannot be strike down, only the Supreme Court can do this. The Senate can only send it to the court and it can either rule on it or do nothing, in which case the action stands
-The judicial branch cannot legislate, once a law is deemed unconstitutional, it immediately goes to the House for consideration and can check the court by passing the same law, with support by the Senate, by two thirds majority

Again, these propositions are aimed at increasing Accountability through freer and broader elections, fragmenting the power of liberty through reciprocal checking between the people and government (and also between the three branches) and maintaining separation of powers through stronger reciprocal checks.

As justifications for these powers:

Why I believe we must have Proportional elections:

http://davidoctavius.com/applications8.html

Why the Senate should review legislation internally:

http://davidoctavius.com/applications10.html

Why it should check the President indirectly and why the Senate should still be elected

http://davidoctavius.com/applications11.html

Directly electing the President:

http://davidoctavius.com/applications14.html

Supreme Court:

http://davidoctavius.com/applications15.html

I hope this clarifies some things and I hope to hear some feedback on this.


-- David

[Diamond Cross]

Hello, and welcome to the website.

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