(Re)Writing a New Constitution

[Mempho]

So I was thinking about what, in my mind, I would write if I had the opportunity to rewrite the Constitution and restructure the government in the present time. My thinking involves several thoughts, all of which are more or less connected either through my own theories or others. I’m not sure what I would call this type of political philosophy, though.

Assumptions:

1) This exists within the framework of the United States
2) Threats, both external and internal, are a part of the world in which we live
3) The principle laws would be those against violent crime, theft, etc. (you get the idea) and those meant to protect “the system.”
4) The system is highly “theoretical” and, therefore, you should avoid arguments about the extremely low likelihood of it ever occurring.
5) With the exception of the law added here, assume that regulation is eliminated.
6) Assume that laws regarding violent crime, theft, etc. are untouched on the state and federal levels.
7)

Things I Would Add:

1) I would keep the current Constitution in its present form for the most part except that I would add to it additional protections.
2) The Bill of Rights would remain intact.
3) I would end the income tax in favor of strictly business-related taxes. The payroll tax would also be gone.
4) No Social Security, Medicare, or entitlements
5) The only departments in the federal government would be those that relate to the military (and intelligence) (defense), diplomacy (state), taxation (treasury), law enforcement (only those crimes which are interstate), elections, and other oversight entities made necessary by this list. That’s it.
6) I would keep the military intact as a means for national defense
7) I would allow for intelligence gathering, as appropriate
8) Believing that a non-transparent government is a larger threat to democracy than any external threat, the need for transparency would win out over intelligence gathering in cases where the two conflicted
9) I would write in explicit protections for the electoral system so that national elections are verified by multiple independent firms at each local level. This would mean that, in effect, there would be literally thousands of firms verifying election results. Each voter would get a printout of his ballot prior to exiting the booth and an opportunity to verify the balloting before exiting. He would then walk out and drop it in a real ballot box. The electronic voting would mean that votes could be tabulated quickly but the paper ballot (presumably verified by the voter) would be there for cross-referencing. This is integral to the protection of the republic.
10) Money would largely be removed from politics. Business entities could not contribute at all to campaigns. Only people could contribute and only to an inflation-adjusted amount of say, $5,000. There would be no loopholes allowed at all. No $10K-a-plate fundraisers, no PACs, no organizations like the Sierra Club, the NRA, or unions.
11) Since good information is the key to keeping the citizenry informed, I would completely deconsolidate the media.
a. No company may own more than one network: cable, broadcast, radio, or otherwise. Each company may own a media website of its own making….(i.e. Fox News can own and operate foxnews.com but nothing else).
b. Further, investors can not be invested in more than one media company. Mutual funds, hedge funds, and otherwise would not be able to invest in such companies out of the necessity of record-keeping.
c. Every cable provider would be a separate entity with separate ownership.
d. Broadcast licenses would be granted to anyone who is legitimately operating a business, regardless of content
e. Cable providers cannot limit access by any network to their cable system. Channels may not be pre-packaged and are a-la-carte. Each cable network sets their subscriber rate and the local cable company uses the same mark-up percentage for each channel.
f. Individual households have the final say on what channels are purchased and what content gets blocked
g. Content is unregulated completely. If a bigot has money to burn or can turn a profit peddling his hate, then he has every right to do it. Cable companies, government, satellite companies, etc. have no ability to refuse the content. This is a necessary evil.

12) Business practices that favor larger businesses over smaller ones would be explicitly illegal. Volume discounts, for instance, in business would be completely illegal.
13) Antitrust legislation would remain intact and be more strictly enforced. Stifling competition (for the sake of stifling competition) would be strictly illegal. Using legitimate business practices or superior ideas, employees, marketing, etc. to deliver a better end product is the only legitimate means of “stifling competition.”
14) With an unregulated marketplace, bad things will happen. Information, however, will be free-flowing. While lawsuits would still be legal recourse, it should be very evident to the consumer, “Caveat Emptor.” If an airline crashes to much, let the consumers decide.
15) Supreme Court decisions would be made by randomly-selected jurors and not by justices. Grand juries would select which cases would be heard. Many more cases would be heard because there would be there would be enough “courts” to hear all of the cases deemed worthy of hearing by the Supreme Court Grand Jury. The pay would be the equivalent of the pay of the justices so as not to discriminate against the working class (i.e., 2 weeks of Supreme Court duty would get you paid about the same as a 2 week paycheck for a current Supreme Court justice.
16) States may not legislate laws or otherwise allow activities which conflict with the Constitution or SC decisions.
17) Bribery or extortion of a public official for the means of manipulating the system is akin to treason, punishable by death if convicted.
18) Attempts to manipulate the system by circumventing or exploiting laws is also considered treason if convicted by a jury and punishable by death. Treason can occur on the federal, state, or local levels.




Theory:

1) What is good for the vast majority of Americans (the masses) is generally what is good for America regardless of short-term pain or risk.
2) What is good for the masses is for talent, productivity, and ideas to be rewarded on their merits as much as possible because superior talent and superior ideas lift all boats through innovation.
3) The best way, in practice, to allow for the best ideas, productivity, and talent to win out is to do everything possible to enhance competition in business, politics, etc.
4) The consolidation of power, whether through the apparatus of the state or business, normally serves to stifle competition through the exercise of power.
5) When power is exercised, it is normally to the detriment of those without power
6) The expressed power of the federal government should be to defend the nation, promote the nation abroad (appropriately), and to protect “the system.”


Questions for the Forum

1) What would you call this political philosophy? What is the ideology involved?
2) What are the loopholes?
3) Would a system that stresses deconsolidation be superior?
4) What would be the problems with such a system?
5) What would be the benefits?

[PLOlover]

I don't think SS and welfare are allowed by the constitution anyway, but of course it hasn't stopped them.

[One Outer]

*sigh*

Yes, they're constitutional. There are only two possible legal challenges to the constitutionality of SS. One is the reserve clause which was struck down because the constitution allows the federal govt. to tax in the interest of the general public good. The other is that a payroll tax for social spending isn't actually mentioned in the Constitution. This was rejected because the definition of taxes used by the opponents of social security would be so narrow that if the court found in favor of it that it would rule out the ability of the federal government to tax "providing for the general welfare", which is a right given the feds specifically in the constitution.

So the OP is right in that if you want to do away with entitlement programs you need a new constitution.



http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/court.html

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
*sigh*

Yes, they're constitutional. There are only two possible legal challenges to the constitutionality of SS. One is the reserve clause which was struck down because the constitution allows the federal govt. to tax in the interest of the general public good.

[/ QUOTE ]

With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison, the man who freakin wrote the Constitution.

Yes, the Supreme Court has "struck that down" by completely ignoring the obvious and very clearly stated original intent. The Justices who made this "ruling" were blatantly legislating from the bench and are traitors to this country and everything it stands for.

[One Outer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*sigh*

Yes, they're constitutional. There are only two possible legal challenges to the constitutionality of SS. One is the reserve clause which was struck down because the constitution allows the federal govt. to tax in the interest of the general public good.

[/ QUOTE ]

With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison, the man who freakin wrote the Constitution.

Yes, the Supreme Court has "struck that down" by completely ignoring the obvious and very clearly stated original intent. The Justices who made this "ruling" were blatantly legislating from the bench and are traitors to this country and everything it stands for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like always, you have completely missed the point. The point is that in that particular case were the court to have approved of the definition of taxes purported by the plaintiff, it would have narrowed the scope of the federal governments taxing ability strictly to the taxes specifically mentioned in the Constitution. It is clear that the founders did not believe the taxes listed in the constitution were the be all end all of federal tax power, as is inferred your own freaking quote.

Of course, it's not like I care. Federal government is going to tax whatever they want anyway and this isn't a problem for me. We've essentially created a legal system where precedent has become more important than the strict letter of the constitution. For a rapidly evolving and changing society, precedent, and how we interpret that juxtaposed with the present circumstance, is a better way to make legal decisions than a constructionist perspective.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*sigh*

Yes, they're constitutional. There are only two possible legal challenges to the constitutionality of SS. One is the reserve clause which was struck down because the constitution allows the federal govt. to tax in the interest of the general public good.

[/ QUOTE ]

With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison, the man who freakin wrote the Constitution.

Yes, the Supreme Court has "struck that down" by completely ignoring the obvious and very clearly stated original intent. The Justices who made this "ruling" were blatantly legislating from the bench and are traitors to this country and everything it stands for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like always, you have completely missed the point. The point is that in that particular case were the court to have approved of the definition of taxes purported by the plaintiff, it would have narrowed the scope of the federal governments taxing ability strictly to the taxes specifically mentioned in the Constitution. It is clear that the founders did not believe the taxes listed in the constitution were the be all end all of federal tax power, as is inferred your own freaking quote.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not the taxes in the Constitution, the spending. They're legally allowed to tax as much as they want, but they can only spend it on the specific things that Congress is outlined as having power to legislate.

[ QUOTE ]
For a rapidly evolving and changing society, precedent, and how we interpret that juxtaposed with the present circumstance, is a better way to make legal decisions than a constructionist perspective anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

And of course, that rationalization always completely fails due to the fact that there's a process for amending the Constitution.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
*sigh*

Yes, they're constitutional. There are only two possible legal challenges to the constitutionality of SS. One is the reserve clause which was struck down because the constitution allows the federal govt. to tax in the interest of the general public good. The other is that a payroll tax for social spending isn't actually mentioned in the Constitution. This was rejected because the definition of taxes used by the opponents of social security would be so narrow that if the court found in favor of it that it would rule out the ability of the federal government to tax "providing for the general welfare", which is a right given the feds specifically in the constitution.

So the OP is right in that if you want to do away with entitlement programs you need a new constitution.



http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/court.html

[/ QUOTE ]

why did fdr have to change the supreme court (stack court) then to get his programs?

[One Outer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*sigh*

Yes, they're constitutional. There are only two possible legal challenges to the constitutionality of SS. One is the reserve clause which was struck down because the constitution allows the federal govt. to tax in the interest of the general public good. The other is that a payroll tax for social spending isn't actually mentioned in the Constitution. This was rejected because the definition of taxes used by the opponents of social security would be so narrow that if the court found in favor of it that it would rule out the ability of the federal government to tax "providing for the general welfare", which is a right given the feds specifically in the constitution.

So the OP is right in that if you want to do away with entitlement programs you need a new constitution.



http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/court.html

[/ QUOTE ]

why did fdr have to change the supreme court (stack court) then to get his programs?

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't. He tried and failed. The court handing down those decisions was appointed by Hoover and Coolidge, both Republican. It was the greatest failure of his presidency. He spent so much good will on that he couldn't get the rest of his program through congress. This is why the new deal is largely considered only half completed.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*sigh*

Yes, they're constitutional. There are only two possible legal challenges to the constitutionality of SS. One is the reserve clause which was struck down because the constitution allows the federal govt. to tax in the interest of the general public good. The other is that a payroll tax for social spending isn't actually mentioned in the Constitution. This was rejected because the definition of taxes used by the opponents of social security would be so narrow that if the court found in favor of it that it would rule out the ability of the federal government to tax "providing for the general welfare", which is a right given the feds specifically in the constitution.

So the OP is right in that if you want to do away with entitlement programs you need a new constitution.



http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/court.html

[/ QUOTE ]

why did fdr have to change the supreme court (stack court) then to get his programs?

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't. He tried and failed.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he failed to pass the legislation that would allow him to appoint a ton of extra Justices, but he definitely suceeding in packing the court 5-4 in his favor through the standard appointment process.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
*sigh*

in the interest of the general public good.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the worst terms in the history of the world..... The greater good in your opinion or mine? How about in Adolf Hitler's opinion?

Hitler's vision of the greater good for Germany didn't work out too well for a lot of people.

These words are the biggest flaw in the US Constitution, and have allowed the exponential growth of the govt into the monster it is today.