What if you had a chance to re-write the Constitution?

[GunnyFreedom]

And who determines whether the oath was upheld? Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan?

Sure why not? It doesn't matter. You will have a crap-ton of elected officials afraid to blow their flipping nose without explicit permission, and everyone looking to find violations in their political enemies. Fewer people will be willing to run on account of the price of power. The ones who do are either pure-grade psychopaths and we get to demonstrate our resolve on the death penalty, or actual people who mean to uphold the oath anyway and don't really care so much about the penalty.

The nature of the Constitution says that an elected official has to do something to violate it. There is very little in the way of violation by inaction, and that applies exclusively to the President. Having judges like Sotomykagan simply makes it more likely that they will find mercy rather than a hangman's noose. Because of the nature of the Constitution it would seem hard to unjustly indict an innocent elected person of violating it.

On the other hand, some of my political opponents are adamant and certain that I violated my own oath to the NC State Constitution (Article 1 Sec 5) by introducing 10th Amendment bills in NC in 2011. I happen to disagree, of course.

[Pericles]

Didn't work for who? The Federalists who wanted a centralized government or those who believed that the nation was founded by sovereign states?

The 1780 was a period of severe economic depression. Things were not working for loads of people.

[Sonny Tufts]

They didn't work to accomplish what?

To accomplish what the framers of the Articles intended. The primary reason the Articles failed was that the central government didn't have the power to tax but had to rely instead on requisitions from the states. Many times, states wouldn't pay their share, leaving the central government unable to pay for things that the Articles specifically left to the central government (conducting foreign affairs, waging war, maintaining an army, and paying the Revolutionary War debt).

If the Articles were in force today, and if Congress asked for money, say, to stop illegal immigration, the odds are that the southern border states would bear the brunt of the cost. Why in the world would Maine or North Dakota care about illegals coming over the border -- they don't have a problem with illegal Canadiens. Conversely, if Congress needed cash to implement a treaty with Canada, what reason would New Mexico or Florida have to pony up their share?

[Brian4Liberty]

USSR: (from Wiki) [It sounds so good on paper... what could go wrong?]

Constitutional rightsThe Soviet Constitution included a series of civil and political rights. Among these were the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of assembly and the right to religious belief and worship. In addition, the Constitution provided for freedom of artistic work, protection of the family, inviolability of the person and home, and the right to privacy. In line with the Marxist-Leninist ideology of the government, the Constitution also granted social and economic rights not provided by constitutions in capitalist nations. Among these were the rights to work, rest and leisure, health protection, care in old age and sickness, housing, education, and cultural benefits.
Unlike Western constitutions, the Soviet Constitution outlined limitations on political rights, whereas in democratic countries these limitations are usually left up to the legislative and/or judicial institutions. Article 6 effectively eliminated partisan opposition and division within government by granting to the CPSU the power to lead and guide society. Article 39 enabled the government to prohibit any activities it considered detrimental by stating that "Enjoyment of the rights and freedoms of citizens must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state." Article 59 obliged citizens to obey the laws and comply with the standards of socialist society as determined by the party. The government did not treat as inalienable those political and socioeconomic rights the Constitution granted to the people. Citizens enjoyed rights only when the exercise of those rights did not interfere with the interests of the state, and the CPSU alone had the power and authority to determine policies for the government and society. For example, the right to freedom of expression contained in Article 52 could be suspended if the exercise of that freedom failed to be in accord with party policies. Until the era of glasnost, freedom of expression did not entail the right to criticize the government. The constitution did provide a "freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda." It prohibited incitement of hatred or hostility on religious grounds.

Exactly how our Marxist-Lincolnist-Leninist politicians want it to be in the USSA...

[VIDEODROME]

There would be a Peace-Time Constitution and a War-Time contingency Constitution. War time would have different rules for things like how government is funded and for things like Income Taxes to pay for the war. I mean it recognizes the State itself as under dire threat.

However, the rules would explicitly demand a roll back to the Peace-Time Constitution which would include undoing the Income Taxes and scaling back the military. I would set it up so if the Government does a police action to another country like Yugoslavia than it legally activates the WarTime constitution.

I suppose one way I would like to see this work is if the President or Congress Drone strikes any place or sends military assests to Mexico over the drug war, it triggers the WarTime Contitution and everyone's paycheck sees a new deduction "War Tax". It's an attempt to make citizens feel like the own the cost and consequences of these things.

Or after WW2 if the government seemed to want to stay on the War-Time Constitution would people be like wtf are you guys doing? It's time to shift from bombing to building.

This is a crude description that needs a lot of detail filled in, but I like that people could look at these two documents and more easily see a government like our's today trying to stay in a perpetual state of war. The Peace-Time Constitution would be geared toward behavior described Ron Paul's books. Leave behind militarism in favor of commerce and trade. Show the two paths of acting like Belligerents or Businessmen.

[Weston White]

To accomplish what the framers of the Articles intended. The primary reason the Articles failed was that the central government didn't have the power to tax but had to rely instead on requisitions from the states. Many times, states wouldn't pay their share, leaving the central government unable to pay for things that the Articles specifically left to the central government (conducting foreign affairs, waging war, maintaining an army, and paying the Revolutionary War debt).

If the Articles were in force today, and if Congress asked for money, say, to stop illegal immigration, the odds are that the southern border states would bear the brunt of the cost. Why in the world would Maine or North Dakota care about illegals coming over the border -- they don't have a problem with illegal Canadiens. Conversely, if Congress needed cash to implement a treaty with Canada, what reason would New Mexico or Florida have to pony up their share?

Simply for that fact that "And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State"; also the Articles of Confederation did in fact have an Amendment clause, Article XIII. In many respects the U.S. Constitution is really a nuance of the Articles of Confederation; as upon the principles of the Magna Carta.

[Weston White]

"[It sounds so good on paper... what could go wrong?]"

No means of redress or due process are provided, so it is effectively a pipe-dream with the government always on tap.


Which is really what our own government is wanting for us all, oh certainly you have "rights", well so long as we say so that is; anybody ever heard of the Constitution for the Newstates of America?

[sailingaway]

There is no way in hell I would trust adoption of our Constitution to the slime currently in power.

[Sonny Tufts]

Simply for that fact that "And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State"

That didn't stop some of the original states from refusing to pay requisitions, did it?

[erowe1]

The 1780 was a period of severe economic depression. Things were not working for loads of people.

1) Was the cause of that really too small of a federal government?
2) Is the economy any of government's business?

[erowe1]

To accomplish what the framers of the Articles intended. The primary reason the Articles failed was that the central government didn't have the power to tax but had to rely instead on requisitions from the states. Many times, states wouldn't pay their share, leaving the central government unable to pay for things that the Articles specifically left to the central government (conducting foreign affairs, waging war, maintaining an army, and paying the Revolutionary War debt).

If the Articles were in force today, and if Congress asked for money, say, to stop illegal immigration, the odds are that the southern border states would bear the brunt of the cost. Why in the world would Maine or North Dakota care about illegals coming over the border -- they don't have a problem with illegal Canadiens. Conversely, if Congress needed cash to implement a treaty with Canada, what reason would New Mexico or Florida have to pony up their share?

It sounds like you're saying the Articles didn't work as well at taking away our freedom as the Constitution does.

Starving the regime of funding and preventing it from getting us into treaties would be great things.

[The Gold Standard]

There are a lot of things that could be changed, but at the end one simple sentence would have to be added.

"Any and all powers not expressly and specifically delegated to the federal government in this constitution are permanently denied it."

[Weston White]

That didn't stop some of the original states from refusing to pay requisitions, did it?

Actually, that logic avoids the cold reality that during this period of time the states really had little to no means to pay, regardless. Also, as you had already pointed out, the way the Articles of Confederation were crafted, it served to ensure a just balance of power between the states and the national government; ergo, if the states did not feel the Confederacy was serving the Union’s best interests then they could simply provide financial resistance, which is a fairly convenient and effective tool to possess. For nothing puts an end to infringements by the government quicker than to defund it. Moreover, they could have just as easily ratified a new Article/Amendment for powers to lay and collect duties and imposts, for example.

In effect the negative results of passing total powers of taxation to the national government are clearly observable in our present society. Governments, when left unrestrained, acquire only the desire to expand without impedance. In fact it could be well argued that due to advancements in technology (e.g., instant communication and varying mediums of economical or rapid transportation) the vast majority of national government is actually no longer needed and obsolete; for example, the governors for each state could serve on a council (as an ambassador figure) that meets every few months or in times of national emergencies to vote and finalize issues in accordance with the will of individual state legislatures, that is with concern to national issues, treaties, foreign affairs, etc.; each state could manage its own militia individually and then collectively the militias would serve as the Army National Guard, for example.

Moreover, much of the Executive Branch and even Legislative Branch are now serving in gross conflict with the desires of non-progressive states (which are still in the majority), more and more, we are seeing in the news, references to secession or debates concerning X Amendment protections. Clearly, the federal government, as a whole, has failed the whole of the United States of America... And of course those on the federal team realize this, which is why the are now pushing for all or nothing--so as to compel through force a new American revolution; meanwhile calling Obama the new "Lincoln" and suddenly Hollywood pimps out Lincoln movie after Lincoln movie. Plainly, in their absolute desperation they are going to lose on all such fronts.

[Weston White]

There are a lot of things that could be changed, but at the end one simple sentence would have to be added.

"Any and all powers not expressly and specifically delegated to the federal government in this constitution are permanently denied it."

That language is already included, it is in the Preamble to our Bill of Rights; which is the very reason why the federal government has worked to omit it from common knowledge.

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

[Sonny Tufts]

In effect the negative results of passing total powers of taxation to the national government are clearly observable in our present society.

But total powers of taxation weren't transferred to Congress; the states retained the authority to tax within their respective jurisdictions.

[Weston White]

But total powers of taxation weren't transferred to Congress; the states retained the authority to tax within their respective jurisdictions.

The states powers of taxation are secondary to the federal governments (i.e., federal supremacy), if the federal government wants to lay a tax upon something, the states cannot say sorry Charlie we are already taxing that, so in such instances the people of that state are effectively doubly taxed. But yes, Congress does have total powers of taxation within their respective jurisdiction, which in many instances includes the several states and the people thereof; while certain aspects of taxation have been restricted within the states without the explicit authority of Congress.

[Sonny Tufts]

if the federal government wants to lay a tax upon something, the states cannot say sorry Charlie we are already taxing that, so in such instances the people of that state are effectively doubly taxed.

True, but you are overlooking the realities. A state can easily impose property taxes, but the federal government would have to do so via an apportioned tax, which would be a political impossibility due to the different rates that would apply to each state. So as a practical matter, Congress is foreclosed from this type of tax.

[Weston White]

True, but you are overlooking the realities. A state can easily impose property taxes, but the federal government would have to do so via an apportioned tax, which would be a political impossibility due to the different rates that would apply to each state. So as a practical matter, Congress is foreclosed from this type of tax.

Actually, for the states acknowledging within their own State Constitution that the Constitution of the United States is as-fact, the supreme law of the land, are obligated to follow the stipulations as provided within the Constitution (also see the XIV Amendment for certain aspects pertaining to individual rights which are indissoluble), thereby applying to their internal means of taxation; relative to this issue are also historical perspectives and empirical foundations laid through the genius of enlightened economists and jurists centuries ago. It is wholly improper for states to levy property taxes upon non-productive property (e.g., primary residences), I believe it was Gouverneur Morris that had addressed the immorality or impropriety of this (I can't find the quote right now). Moreover, the federal government cannot lay direct/apportioned taxes outside of extraordinary exigent circumstances; neither can it tax for any other purpose except to pay its debts, having been incurred in the course of providing for either the common defense and general welfare of only the United States, being so "necessary and proper".

[heavenlyboy34]

Actually, for the states acknowledging within their own State Constitution that the Constitution of the United States is as-fact, the supreme law of the land, are obligated to follow the stipulations as provided within the Constitution (also see the XIV Amendment for certain aspects pertaining to individual rights which are indissoluble), thereby applying to their internal means of taxation; relative to this issue are also historical perspectives and empirical foundations laid through the genius of enlightened economists and jurists centuries ago. It is wholly improper for states to levy property taxes upon non-productive property (e.g., primary residences), I believe it was Gouverneur Morris that had addressed the immorality or impropriety of this (I can't find the quote right now). Moreover, the federal government cannot lay direct/apportioned taxes outside of extraordinary exigent circumstances; neither can it tax for any other purpose except to pay its debts, having been incurred in the course of providing for either the common defense and general welfare of only the United States, being so "necessary and proper".

No. The FedGov can constitutionally levy apportioned, direct taxes. It is unapportioned direct taxes that are theoretically prohibited.

[Danke]

No. The FedGov can constitutionally levy apportioned, direct taxes. It is unapportioned direct taxes that are theoretically prohibited.

You didn't understand what he wrote.

[Weston White]

No. The FedGov can constitutionally levy apportioned, direct taxes. It is unapportioned direct taxes that are theoretically prohibited.

Yes that is a good point as well. I was only meaning to state that when apportioned taxes are assessed, it must be due to an emergency, all direct taxes are last-resort taxes; this was addressed in the Federalist Papers and was included at length as judicial dictum within the Pollock case.

[Sonny Tufts]

I was only meaning to state that when apportioned taxes are assessed, it must be due to an emergency, all direct taxes are last-resort taxes; this was addressed in the Federalist Papers and was included at length as judicial dictum within the Pollock case.

But it wasn't included in the Constitution, and that's what counts. The plain language of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 and the 16th Amendment leaves no room for imposing an emergency condition to the exercise of the taxing power. The decision on what, when, and how much to tax is left up to Congress:

It is true that the power of congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. The License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866) (emphasis added)

Actually, for the states acknowledging within their own State Constitution that the Constitution of the United States is as-fact, the supreme law of the land, are obligated to follow the stipulations as provided within the Constitution (also see the XIV Amendment for certain aspects pertaining to individual rights which are indissoluble), thereby applying to their internal means of taxation.

The fact that a state constitution recognizes the U.S./ Constitution as the supreme law of the land doesn't mean that its restrictions on federal taxation also apply to state taxation. If the framers had intended that result, they would certainly have written it into the U.S. Constitution, just as as they explicitly provided, for example, that states can't coin money or enter into treaties.

[Athan]

I thought this might be a fun topic... If there ever was to be a Con-Con or a chance to get a total re-do on the Constitution, What revisions would delegates from the RPF community submit? this topic can be on any issue in or not currently in the document. A few examples:
would you add provisions to break up the possibility of a two party system? what would they be?
Should there be changes to the electoral college?
Would you propose an alternate way of selecting the Supreme court?

The original intent of the first document has been greatly perverted over the last 200+ years, what would you change in the constitution or our way of governing knowing what we know now to prevent that from happening again?

I would first add more teeth to the enforcement of provisions on elected officials. The first would be a "writ of amparo" revision. As per wikipedia:

The writ of amparo (also called recurso de amparo or juicio de amparo) is a remedy for the protection of constitutional rights, found in certain jurisdictions. In some legal systems, predominantly those of the Spanish-speaking world,[1] the amparo remedy or action is an effective and inexpensive instrument for the protection of individual rights.[2]

Amparo, generally granted by a supreme or constitutional court, serves a dual protective purpose: it protects the citizen and his basic guarantees, and protects the constitution itself by ensuring that its principles are not violated by statutes or actions of the state that undermine the basic rights enshrined therein. It resembles, in some respects, constitutional remedies such as the writ of security available in Brazil and the constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) procedure found in Germany.

In many countries, an amparo action is intended to protect all rights other than physical liberty, which may be protected instead by habeas corpus remedies. Thus, in the same way that habeas corpus guarantees physical freedom, amparo protects other basic rights. It may therefore be invoked by any person who believes that any of his rights, implicitly or explicitly protected by the constitution (or by applicable international treaties), is being violated.

I would also make a wording change to the second ammendment to read "cannot be infringed". And adjust it so it can not be construed only to mean militia run and organized by states.

Make it a crime of high treason to infringe on private trade of gold and silver tender, institute a federal income (and state income tax under threat of any penalty), and to make a federal proposal of any form monopolies of federal currency and certificates by banks and private organizations.

[Weston White]

But it wasn't included in the Constitution, and that's what counts. The plain language of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 and the 16th Amendment leaves no room for imposing an emergency condition to the exercise of the taxing power. The decision on what, when, and how much to tax is left up to Congress:
...

No, your progressivist assertions are outright wrong, that is so not “what counts”. A lot of things were not explicitly included within the U.S. Constitution. The Federalist Papers are a medium of legislative history (i.e., SCOTUS frequently quotes from and cites to the Federalist Papers), while perhaps the Anti-Federalist Papers do not hold as much influence as the former; hence, they establish definition, as to the intent of federalism. The Federalist Papers provide at great length the rightful and prudent breadth of the U.S. Constitution, just as does its Preamble, just as does the Preamble to our Bill of Rights, just as does our Declaration of Independence. Moreover, such are valid as evidence of persuasion within court.

If it were not for the Federalist and Anti-Federalist debates, leading to the creation of our Bill of Rights, there might very well have been a complete dissolution of our Union under the new U.S. Constitution. Again, the Federalist Papers eloquently argue the whole of intended principles for substantiating federalism.


“The Federalist is the most important work in political science that has ever been written, or is likely ever to be written, in the United States. … It would not be stretching the truth more than a few inches to say that The Federalist stands third only to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself among all the sacred writings of American political history.”
(Clinton Rossiter, The Federalist Papers (New York: New American Library, 1961), vii)

“The United States has produced three historic documents of major importance: The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and The Federalist.”
(Jacob E. Cooke, The Federalist (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1961), ix. v)


And no the Congress cannot exercise taxation at its discretion (e.g., to influence or inhibit certain activities, behaviors, or purchases, etc.), but only to (1) pay its debts while, (2) providing for the common defense and (3) general welfare of the United States. Congress only has powers of taxation to generate revenue for purposes that are both necessary and proper to its own grants of empowerment. That is all, no more and no less.

The fact that a state constitution recognizes the U.S./ Constitution as the supreme law of the land doesn't mean that its restrictions on federal taxation also apply to state taxation. If the framers had intended that result, they would certainly have written it into the U.S. Constitution, just as as they explicitly provided, for example, that states can't coin money or enter into treaties.

I wholly disagree. I believe that it is for the states to serve their residents in a good faith accord as to the sage prescriptions provided by the U.S. Constitution and all such founding documents, to its Union, and to the advancement of our republican form of government. Let the fixed maxims set forth within the Constitution of the United States serve as a beacon of positive efficacy for all; for: “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” – Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478-479 (1928)


Furthermore, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943): “One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” Such is legal precedent.

[TomtheTinker]

I'd leave out the executive branch or at least limit its powers and ban capping the number of representatives

[qh4dotcom]

I am surprised no one has said this:

Make central banks and fiat money unconstitutional

[Weston White]

I am surprised no one has said this:

Make central banks and fiat money unconstitutional

That was one of the issues I tackled, HERE.

[Sonny Tufts]

And no the Congress cannot exercise taxation at its discretion (e.g., to influence or inhibit certain activities, behaviors, or purchases, etc.)

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. That's why Congress may tax things thay can't otherwise regulate.

It is beyond serious question that a tax does not cease to be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or definitely deters the activity taxed. Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506, 513-514, 81 L. Ed. 772, 57 S. Ct. 554 (1937). The principle applies even though the revenue obtained is obviously neglible, Sonzinsky v. United States, supra, or the revenue purpose of tax may be secondary. Hampton & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 48 S. Ct. 348, 72 L. Ed. 624 (1928). Nor does a tax statute necessarily fall because it touches on activities which Congress may not otherwise regulate . . . U.S. v. Sanchez, 340 U.S. 42, 44-45 (1950)

For further proof, see National Federation of Businesses v. Sebelius, upholding Obamacare's individual mandate as a tax. Whether you agree with the decision or not, it is currently the law.

I believe that it is for the states to serve their residents in a good faith accord as to the sage prescriptions provided by the U.S. Constitution and all such founding documents, to its Union, and to the advancement of our republican form of government.

You seem to revere the Federalist Papers, but you missed this part from Federalist No. 33, which clearly provides that the States' power to tax isn't limited by the Constitution (except in cases of imports and exports):

The inference from the whole is, that the individual States would, under the proposed Constitution, retain an independent and uncontrollable authority to raise revenue to any extent of which they may stand in need, by every kind of taxation, except duties on imports and exports.

[Seraphim]

I would have a provision written indicating the Federal Goverment CANNOT levy a single tax on anyone. It's existence must be perpetually regenerated by voluntary contribution and import fees (the sole real service it provides being overseeing imports).

[Weston White]

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. That's why Congress may tax things thay can't otherwise regulate.

You are, yet again, misdirecting the argument. Besides I have already debated you on this issue, so I am not going to again--rather see at: http://www.community.defendindepende...p?p=1047#p1047 (and also: United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 61 (1936): “… A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the Constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the Government. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another. … The exaction cannot be wrested out of its setting, denominated an excise for raising revenue, and legalized by ignoring its purpose as a mere instrumentality for bringing about a desired end. To do this would be to shut our eyes to what all others than we can see and understand. Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U. S. 20, 259 U. S. 37.”).

However, to clarity even a bit further on this, Congress, for example, could tax the coal industry, though they could not tax it so as to bankrupt it, but only to generate necessary revenue; Congress could tax firearms or churches, but not so as to deny individuals reasonable acquisition of firearms (including ammunition) or to prevent the practicing of one's religion; etc.

For further proof, see National Federation of Businesses v. Sebelius, upholding Obamacare's individual mandate as a tax. Whether you agree with the decision or not, it is currently the law.

That ruling was made in-following the predicates of the socialistic New Deal, for if SCOTUS had dared to strike down the PPACA (in whole) it would have reopened Pandora's Box; as people began to realize the shame of the SSA class of taxes. Such was just too much of a risk to permit for within our presently fastuous forms of government that is spending itself several trillion dollars into deficit each year. Much was intentionally ignored by a few questionable Justices within that hearing.

You seem to revere the Federalist Papers, but you missed this part from Federalist No. 33, which clearly provides that the States' power to tax isn't limited by the Constitution (except in cases of imports and exports):

"You seem to revere the Federalist Papers" ...Well that about sums up the blindness of your logic. But, yes I do, as do many, many others. And all that quotation is stating is that the federal government is not be empowered to dictate unto the several states how they should and should not tax their own residents. Now that is not to mean that the states may act without regard to its citizens and just go unscrupulously hog-wild, however, such matters are to be purely an internal concern, not a national concern.