There have been plenty of threads started to discuss the desire of secession, but why not begin discussing what the new constitution would look like. What do we want?

I am not a lawyer and so I cannot read and fully grasp all the intricacies of the constitution or Texas' constitution, but I would start with the Bill of Rights. I would add to those by being explicit that the rights may not be forfeited under any circumstance. I would include that there will be no government welfare. Let churches and other organizations create funds to help those that are in need. I would add privacy for all citizens. we will not create programs to spy on our citizens. Term limits for all political positions with salaries equal to average salary of the citizens. Rules in place to limit or deter profiteering from political positions. Rules to make the government more transparent. The governments' job would be to control and protect our borders as well as protect the interest of the citizens of the country. I would also add that every person spends two to four years in some for of service. Voting rights would be for those who pay taxes. If you do not pay taxes you do not get to vote. Taxes would be a flat tax. Currency based on gold/silver.

These are some of my thoughts. I am interested in starting a discussion on how we would frame this. I realize the hot topic is do we or do we not secede, but why not begin framing what we want. Some might argue that nothing from a message board site would be looked at with serious intent, but why not?

There are many conservative and libertarian members of this board who I believe can offer real input. If your input involves taking from some to give to others, or to "protect" certain groups which hinders other groups then I am not interested in your input.

TLDR; I am interested in starting a discussion on the framing of a new constitution for a new union of states. No liberal ideas are requested at this time.

The Purge

I have seen the idea floated several times in the past about limiting voting rights for those who pay taxes. While I understand the thought behind this, let us not forget the past. Granted this was not here in America, but a major factor of European revolutions of the late 1840's were centered around the limits placed on common people to vote.

I like the idea of not allowing the government to be involved with any type of welfare, that's something the church or non profits can manage. If that responsibility is removed from the government, does that solve the issue of politicians promising "free stuff" just to gain votes?

Also, new laws should have a test period. Perhaps something between 1-2 years before being voted on to be finalized. If the law is not voted to be upheld after an initial 1-2 year implementation then the law becomes void; prior laws become the standard again.

(Wish we could have had this for Obamacare)

Bob09 said:

---

There have been plenty of threads started to discuss the desire of secession, but why not begin discussing what the new constitution would look like. What do we want?

I am not a lawyer and so I cannot read and fully grasp all the intricacies of the constitution or Texas' constitution, but I would start with the Bill of Rights. I would add to those by being explicit that the rights may not be forfeited under any circumstance. I would include that there will be no government welfare. Let churches and other organizations create funds to help those that are in need. I would add privacy for all citizens. we will not create programs to spy on our citizens. Term limits for all political positions with salaries equal to average salary of the citizens. Rules in place to limit or deter profiteering from political positions. Rules to make the government more transparent. The governments' job would be to control and protect our borders as well as protect the interest of the citizens of the country. I would also add that every person spends two to four years in some for of service. Voting rights would be for those who pay taxes. If you do not pay taxes you do not get to vote. Taxes would be a flat tax. Currency based on gold/silver.

These are some of my thoughts. I am interested in starting a discussion on how we would frame this. I realize the hot topic is do we or do we not secede, but why not begin framing what we want. Some might argue that nothing from a message board site would be looked at with serious intent, but why not?

There are many conservative and libertarian members of this board who I believe can offer real input. If your input involves taking from some to give to others, or to "protect" certain groups which hinders other groups then I am not interested in your input.

TLDR; I am interested in starting a discussion on the framing of a new constitution for a new union of states. No liberal ideas are requested at this time.

---

If it goes by the popular vote, expect the left to be the big winners.

What we need is to keep the Constitution we have, but to stop interpreting it in ways that create bigger and bigger government. For example, the Commerce Clause is now interpreted in such a way as to give the federal government massive control over the states.

Adopt the US Constitution. Except restrict what it could not protect against: Marxism, communism, socialism, Sharia law and critical race hypothesis.

And allow for defining domestic terrorists as enemies of the state.

Quote:

---

I like the idea of not allowing the government to be involved with any type of welfare, that's something the church or non profits can manage. If that responsibility is removed from the government, does that solve the issue of politicians promising "free stuff" just to gain votes?

---

That just might.

Another aspect related would be to mandate not only dispersal of the departments, but something like the Texas legislature idea of you do not live the capital when it is not in session.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Adopt the US Constitution. Except restrict what it could not protect against: Marxism, communism, socialism, Sharia law and critical race hypothesis.

And allow for defining domestic terrorists as enemies of the state.

---

In short, make the definitions of these a little more coherent and common sense, to better align with perceptions:

For example, make that Treason = Has to involve aiding and abetting enemy. You don't want sedition or rebellion called treason. Keep them distinct.

Sedition, Insurrection would not involve a foreign power's schemes. It would have a domestic catalyst, and so on.

Define clearly the "common good". Government should not be able to dish out welfare that benefits some without all. And the concept that benefiting some benefits all should be clearly and explicitly shot down.

If government is somehow capable of giving welfare, those that accept should lose the ability to vote. This would be exploited through loop holes eventually so I would prefer an interpretation that bans all government welfare and benefits at the federal level.

Let the states do whatever they wish in regards to welfare but there should be a hard constitutional stop on benefiting one state over another at the federal level. How this would be accomplished with Federal money washing around seems impossible to me (military contracts, highways, etc.).

The individual states must be the entity collecting the federal tax burden and releasing it to the government. The State governments must be the ones to select their senate representation to send to the Federal government. The government of the States MUST be represented at the Fed level. How we got away from this is a big mystery to me and this should be explicitly spelled out.

Related: legislature is clean bills. Any pork has to stand on its own, because every bill individual and gets a straight up and down vote at its culmination after leaving whatever committee crafted it.

There wasn't really anything wrong with the old one. The problem is, we allowed our elected representatives to ignore it.

Slicer97 said:

---

There wasn't really anything wrong with the old one. The problem is, we allowed our elected representatives to ignore it.

---

Well the three post Civil War amendments are some of the more poorly written--far more verbose and subject to abuse than the crisp clarity of some of the others. You wouldn't have to fool with all that because the 3.0 would be starting out with the Civil Rights elements stipulated, without the laws that lend themselves to further abuse.

The most ridiculous example being the anchor baby issue.

That's fair.

I was mainly refering to the original + the Bill of Rights.

Problem is, as long as the electorate knows they can buy the dumber/less educated portion of the population with their own money, and enrich themselves in doing so, nothing is going to change. Especially when the electorate controls public education.

Slicer97 said:

---

That's fair.

I was mainly refering to the original + the Bill of Rights.

Problem is, as long as the electorate knows they can buy the dumber/less educated portion of the population with their own money, and enrich themselves in doing so, nothing is going to change. Especially when the electorate controls public education.

---

Oh, but isn't this scenario getting rid of all that?

More than any other, the entire approach to education needs to be scrapped in favor of a shorter and more Three R's focused, (lets add fourth, Research to = leaning independent thinking) with most social issues purged. Emphasis is graduating literate in all respects good citizens. What cause or past thing they want to investigate, they do outside on their own. Also make it shorter--- make high school more effective, and college just for specialized directions rather than expected or required for most employment.

Maybe intelligence and mental tests for voting?

Yes, clean bills couldn't agree more. Also something that I'd like to see, and this really isn't a constitutional thing more a procedural thing, is if a law is to be passed it must receive 3/5ths approval. If it's going to become a new law then there must be more than simple majority support.

How would we get this new Constitution? I'm guessing we all know now would be a terrible time for a Constitutional Convention.

The idea of any Democrat being involved in anything to do with the Constitution - amendments or re-writing the document - is a hard NO.

The New Bill of Rights
1. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
2. The right of the people to practice their religious beliefs shall not be infringed.
3. The right of the people to speak freely shall not be infringed.
4. The right of the people to petition their government through peaceable assembly shall not be infringed.
5. The right of the people to publish, print, broadcast, or express opinion and news shall not be infringed.
6. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, property, wealth, and data against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be infringed.
7. The right of the people to a speedy and public trial by their peers, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to confront the witnesses against them, shall not be infringed.
8. The right of the people to be protected from excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments shall not be infringed
9. No person shall be subject to more than one trial or one punishment for the same offense.
10. No person shall be compelled in any criminal case, to be a witness against them self, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.
11. The powers delegated by the people, through this Constitution, to the government of the United States, shall be exercised as therein appropriated, so that the Legislative shall never exercise the powers vested in the Executive or Judicial; nor the Executive the powers vested in the Legislative or Judicial; nor the Judicial the powers vested in the Legislative or Executive.
12. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
13. Congress shall make no law exempting any class or group of people.
14. Congress shall not spend more than is collected in taxation.
15. Congress shall not delegate law or regulatory making authority to any agency.
16. Personal, inheritance, or corporate federal taxes shall not exceed 10%.

Slicer97 said:

---

There wasn't really anything wrong with the old one. The problem is, we allowed our elected representatives to ignore it.

---

The problem with everything is human nature over time. As a species we will f* anything up. The only reason we as a species moved the dial from A.D. 1500 on was the idea of Rule of Law yes the Greeks and Roman invented it then F* it up. The West rose to never reached heights because Law keep the dog eat dog rom that is built into all of us at bay for hundreds of years, sorta.

The enemy of any 'forward thinking system" is corruption, greed, pride, ENVY, lust for power that good ole fashion thing called SIN. We laugh at that today. You have to manage this aspect of us, the human condition. Do that and the Constitution we have rock and rolls. Thought I think term limits should be added. to all the serve, key word serve, in government.

There was a problem with the old one. However it was the best possible with the technology available. We can do better now.

The issue is, whenever you have people involved in making decisions it will ALWAYS devolve into people voting themselves the spoils of other people's labor. Whether it is done directly, or indirectly through representatives. And any type of supreme court will eventually sign off on it.

I think the answer involves replacing the SCOTUS with a computer. Write the constitution and laws in language that the computer understands using a subset of words carefully defined and let IT decide what is constitutional and what is not. And of course, the new Constitution should be written like the founders intended where government cannot toss money around for benevolence. The interpretation would move down to the local level when a DA and jury decide if a defendant violated the law or not.

Midland CT 05 said:

---

I have seen the idea floated several times in the past about limiting voting rights for those who pay taxes. While I understand the thought behind this, let us not forget the past. Granted this was not here in America, but a major factor of European revolutions of the late 1840's were centered around the limits placed on common people to vote.

I like the idea of not allowing the government to be involved with any type of welfare, that's something the church or non profits can manage. If that responsibility is removed from the government, does that solve the issue of politicians promising "free stuff" just to gain votes?

---

A lot of good ideas on this thread.


You take away social engineering by making the tax code very, very simple.

If it were an income tax, I would suggest exempting the 1st $50,000 (or whatever poverty level amount) and then a flat tax of 5.00% on every $1 after that. No other deductions. I would suggest that taxable income could be reduced by 5% by encouraging citizens to invest up to 5% of their income, tax free, in savings/investment accounts accounts but this would not be mandatory. I would also suggest a national sales tax of 5.00%. Corporate tax rate of 10%, which would be very attractive.

I would also suggest a part-time legislature, meeting biennially for 6 months. This alone will eliminate a lot of the bloat and reduce temptation to "construct" giveaway programs.

Two years military service of military service is mandatory. This commitment can begin after graduation of high school or graduation of college. This will make sure we have a reserve militia and help instill discipline in society.


These components will reduce the size of the federal government and allow for a limited federal government with more power residing in the individual states.

aTmAg said:

---

There was a problem with the old one. However it was the best possible with the technology available. We can do better now.

The issue is, whenever you have people involved in making decisions it will ALWAYS devolve into people voting themselves the spoils of other people's labor. Whether it is done directly, or indirectly through representatives. And any type of supreme court will eventually sign off on it.

I think the answer involves replacing the SCOTUS with a computer. Write the constitution and laws in language that the computer understands using a subset of words carefully defined and let IT decide what is constitutional and what is not. And of course, the new Constitution should be written like the founders intended where government cannot toss money around for benevolence. The interpretation would move down to the local level when a DA and jury decide if a defendant violated the law or not.

---

Wow, I agree with you 99.9 percent of the time. But buddy we cant even get a voting machine we trust and that is like 100 lines of code excluding the IO. And you want an AI to interperate the constitution and render judgements?

Nothing will go wrong there. Not a thing. Hopefully you are being sarcastic

Like the birth of New Hamsterdam here.

ttu_85 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

There was a problem with the old one. However it was the best possible with the technology available. We can do better now.

The issue is, whenever you have people involved in making decisions it will ALWAYS devolve into people voting themselves the spoils of other people's labor. Whether it is done directly, or indirectly through representatives. And any type of supreme court will eventually sign off on it.

I think the answer involves replacing the SCOTUS with a computer. Write the constitution and laws in language that the computer understands using a subset of words carefully defined and let IT decide what is constitutional and what is not. And of course, the new Constitution should be written like the founders intended where government cannot toss money around for benevolence. The interpretation would move down to the local level when a DA and jury decide if a defendant violated the law or not.

---

Wow, I agree with you 99.9 percent of the time. But buddy we cant even get a voting machine we trust and that is like 100 lines of code excluding the IO. And you want an AI to interperate the constitution and render judgements?

Nothing will go wrong there. Not a thing. Hopefully you are being sarcastic

---

This usually takes a lot of explaining. There is NO AI involved in this idea at all. The computer is not deciding what is "just" or "righteous" or anything like that.

All I'm talking about is a computerize logic engine similar to what mathematicians use to do proofs. All it would be used for is finding contradictions in logic. The law and Constitution would be written in a more mathematically consistent language using words derived from a limited set. For example if the Constitution stated the equivalent of "Dogs are not allowed on the couch", and some state tried to pass a law stating "Fido is allowed on the couch", then the computer can be used to determine that law as unconstitutional without knowing what a dog or couch even are. As long as it knew that Fido was in the set of dogs.

The interpretation would be pushed down to the local level when a DA, judge, and jury decide if a defendant satisfies the conditions of the laws.

Anyway.. that's the idea in a nutshell.

One thing I'd like to see is Enforce that every law, policy & regulation on the books expires automatically after a certain time, say 10 or 15 years, unless congress votes to renew it for another period of time.

There can be no perfect constitution. People will always want to take **** from their fellow man, and that urge will eventually win out.

So I would start over with the original constitution with the following changes:

1. Elected officials can only serve one term, and no term can be defined to exceed 8 years.
2. Require a balanced budget.
3. Explicit statements that the constitution is a legal document, not a "living document."
4. Explicit statements that equality is about equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
5. Any wealth acquired because of an elected person's time in office belongs to the taxpayer.