- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 33,522
- Reaction score
- 10,826
- Location
- Between Athens and Jerusalem
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
being a conseartive, I would think you would want the opposite.
We should have a definitions section? I remember reading that THomas Jefferson was against the supreme court and we could avoid having an SC by putting a definition section in the constitution to avoid misinterpretations.
Agreed with others, before we get to the preamble should we discuss the general government style we want to go with? I would be concerned with a preamble as the originating point assuming someone puts in language that suggests that model. Thoughts?
I think once we agree on a Preamble, we then design a government that will meet the principles set forth in that Preamble. It will be in that design that will determine what the form of government will be. We won't really know until we start hammering our values, perceptions, dreams, hopes, and morality into that design.
My suggestion for a Preamble:
We the people, in order to ensure peaceful cooperation and commerce between the various states, provide the common defense, promote justice and the general welfare without prejudice or favoritism, and secure the unalienable rights and blessings of liberty for every citizen, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.
I think once we agree on a Preamble, we then design a government that will meet the principles set forth in that Preamble. It will be in that design that will determine what the form of government will be. We won't really know until we start hammering our values, perceptions, dreams, hopes, and morality into that design.
My suggestion for a Preamble:
We the people, in order to ensure peaceful cooperation and commerce between the various states, provide the common defense, promote justice and the general welfare without prejudice or favoritism, and secure the unalienable rights and blessings of liberty for every sovereign citizen, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.
the founders created 2 bulwarks, as a check on federal power, one being the senate controlled by the state legislatures, the other the court.
since the 17th destroyed the check by the state legislatures, allowing unconstitutional [non delegated powers] to be created by congress in the first place, only the second bulwark exist and it takes a great deal of time to hear the case, and the court is no longer free from political influence.
I like it. I adjusted it just a tich. It needs to be said that the citizens are sovereign and are lending their sovereign powers to the government.
ensure peaceful cooperation and commerce between the various states
The govt's role in the economy is more than merely regulating interstate commerce.
I dont know that it should be.
things to think about?
is the government going to be national or federal, BECAUSE that is going to be monumental in determining, what government is going to be doing.
example: if its national then the preamble, can speak of doing things for the people on a personal level.
if its a federal government, then the preamble should speak of doing things for the people, on a national level only [for the union itself], such as protecting them from foreign threats, regulate foreign commerce, negotiation with foreign nations, be the arbitrator of problems among the states....... things which bind the union together only.
so before a preamble is even written, it most certainly is important to determine what kind of government its going to be......
another example: there is no point of creating delegated powers, ..if the government is national, and no point is creating state powers, if its federal .
I don't know of a nation whose govt doesn't try to promote its economy, both internally and externally.
There's a good reason why no govt on the planet that I'm aware of limits itself to only regulating commerce between the various regions/states/provinces/etc within its' borders. There are some nations that don't do much about this but that's because they have such weak economies they lack the resources needed to promote themselves but even those pitiful nations don't have this constitutional limit on their ability to regulate and promote commerce. Every nation with a modern, developed economy promotes and regulates their economy (to one extent or another) beyond inter-state commerce
Why cant we have a hybrid? A combination of federal and national aspects?
Sure we could, but what would be the benefit?
I see govt as better the closer it is to the people. That means more at the state level.
In times of war, diplomacy, etc, of course there would still be a fed govt to deal with such matters.
The primary benefit I see is to make certain things universal across the country such as gun rights laws, voting methods, jury trials methods, and others while leaving the less sensitive issues to the states such as business licensing zoning ect.
Not a bad idea, in this threads OP I linked to a legal dictionary, we should use one to avoid amorphous terms like "fairness" and "good" that will be exploited. The Constitutions knew human nature (that there would be exploiters), and so do we so we should do all we can to keep things very clear.
Getting rid of "general welfare" which been misinterpreted for centuries.
We have a better chance to avoid that misinterpretation if we define elsewhere in the document what general welfare actually means for our purposes and what limitations the government has in that regard.
I like it. I adjusted it just a tich. It needs to be said that the citizens are sovereign and are lending their sovereign powers to the government.
Vasuderatorrent's suggestion:
We the People of the United States, in order to form a better society, establish fairness under the law, insure peace among its citizens, provide for the national defense of our nation, promote a good life for all citizens, and secure liberty to ourselves and the future citizens, do establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Bigfoot88's suggestion:
We the citizens of the sovereign States, in order to accomplish together what is more difficult apart, do authorize a consensual union of limited powers, codified by this Constitution of the United States of America.
Sangha's suggestion:
We the People of the United States, in order to form a better society, establish equal protection and application for everyone under the law, insure peace among its citizens, provide for the national defense and security of our nation, promote the prosperity, safety and health of its' citizens, and secure liberty to ourselves and the future citizens, do establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
My suggestion:
We the people, in order to ensure peaceful cooperation and commerce between the various sovereign states, provide the common defense, promote justice and the general welfare without prejudice or favoritism, and secure the unalienable rights and blessings of liberty for every citizen, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.
Bigfoot88's suggestion gave me the idea of utilizing PirateMk88's suggestion re sovereignty, and I amended my original suggestion to say "the various sovereign states". That gets us closer to where he was coming from without the Preamble sanctioning anarchy in any way.
I would gently object to both Vasuderatorrent's and Sangha's wording because both suggest that it is the federal government's responsibility to create the society we will have. It is that very concept I wish to get away from. The federal government's responsibility must be to secure our unalienable God given rights and then leave the people alone to form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have or the new Constitution will accomplish little to correct what is an overreaching authoritarian central government.
Vasuderatorrent's suggestion:
We the People of the United States, in order to form a better society, establish fairness under the law, insure peace among its citizens, provide for the national defense of our nation, promote a good life for all citizens, and secure liberty to ourselves and the future citizens, do establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Bigfoot88's suggestion:
We the citizens of the sovereign States, in order to accomplish together what is more difficult apart, do authorize a consensual union of limited powers, codified by this Constitution of the United States of America.
Sangha's suggestion:
We the People of the United States, in order to form a better society, establish equal protection and application for everyone under the law, insure peace among its citizens, provide for the national defense and security of our nation, promote the prosperity, safety and health of its' citizens, and secure liberty to ourselves and the future citizens, do establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
My suggestion:
We the people, in order to ensure peaceful cooperation and commerce between the various sovereign states, provide the common defense, promote justice and the general welfare without prejudice or favoritism, and secure the unalienable rights and blessings of liberty for every citizen, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.
Bigfoot88's suggestion gave me the idea of utilizing PirateMk88's suggestion re sovereignty, and I amended my original suggestion to say "the various sovereign states". That gets us closer to where he was coming from without the Preamble sanctioning anarchy in any way.
I would gently object to both Vasuderatorrent's and Sangha's wording because both suggest that it is the federal government's responsibility to create the society we will have. It is that very concept I wish to get away from. The federal government's responsibility must be to secure our unalienable God given rights and then leave the people alone to form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have or the new Constitution will accomplish little to correct what is an overreaching authoritarian central government.
I generally agree with yours Albq - however I question the assumption underlying yours that ours is to be a federalist system. The tension between states and the federal government has been a source of problems pretty much from day 1 and in practice today states largely exist to collect taxes and enforce state laws. I'm not suggesting here that we do away with the concept of states but don't think we should just assume that states are needed going in.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?