A new nation with no government. What would you suggest?

The United States is somewhat unique in that it is comprised of individual sovereign States and the federal government is a contract entity created by the States to perform roles and responsibilities on behalf of the (currently) 50 States. The federal government was created by the States and could just as easily be disbanded by the States.

In the situation presented we're looking at a single State as opposed to a contracted political entity working on behalf of the States.

Perhaps the best analogy to what is proposed here is a State Constitution that includes the protections afforded by the US Constitution.

Or we could refer to "city-States" and the overall federal government would be a contractual agreement between the city-States.

BTW I actually oppose the popular vote for the president and it is not required per the US Constitution.

 

a. They were experimenting?
b. We know more than they did?

I find these statements buy you to be absurd at best. I doubt the FFs "wing-it" in the hopes that it would work out.

I doubt many people have as broad a range of knowledge or intellect as they did.

 

Good point. The confederation of nations determining the responsibility of the combined states into a single overseeing governing body as is currently used for the U.S.A. model, is unnecessary with a single nation/state.

Would you would advocate for a republican form of government modeled after one of the 50 states then?

 

I'm the first one to admit that I don't. LOL

Most of what I've learned comes from the founders of America. As individuals they were not "perfect" but in the end the results were greater than the sum of the parts.

 

Let me ponder this for awhile because there are arguments for and against it. I would like to be able to at least back up my position. LOL

 

So what? Why could that not be duplicated as well?

The creation of states was completely arbitrary anyway. It was created out of necessity due to the limitations of the time. We continue it today only because it is more trouble than its worth to revamp the system.

The Constitution can be changed if we want to change it.

Why do you support the electoral college? What advantage does it have over a direct vote?

 

They were experimenting.

The system they used had not been attempted before.

Way more. We know everything they did, and have had hundreds of years to build on it.

Then why did they allow for amendments if they were so sure they had a perfect system?

Intellect is irrelevant. They do not have to be stupid to be ignorant. Knowledge and intelligence are not the same thing.

Can you give me a specific example of knowledge that they had that we do not have?

 

I agree with this as well. It was not a haphazard experiment, but a very well researched experiment.

Oh, you mean "we" as a population not as individuals. I can agree with that.

The system was not perfect. Neither was it an abject failure. The Amendment process was a genius move to allow for improvements, but not whimsical changes every month.



Intellect is irrelevant. They do not have to be stupid to be ignorant. Knowledge and intelligence are not the same thing.

I was stating as individuals, not as a people. Few individuals today have the breadth and depth of knowledge they had. Agreed?

 

Actually the division of powers established between the States and federal government made a lot of sense. The States are directly responsible to the People whereas the Federal government is not. There isn't a "referendum" process at the federal level where the People can directly effect the laws of the land but this does exist at the State level. The People cannot change the US Constitution, for example, but the States can.

I seriously doubt that the States would give up their sovereignty through a Constitutional amendment.

Currently presidents are being elected predominately by special interest groups that are willing to dump hundreds of millions of dollars into the campaigns. It has become more of a popularity contest as most people are poorly informed about the real issues, the US Constitution and the structure of government in the United States.

Addressing the election of the president solely based upon the vote of the Electorial College without any popular vote eliminates the circle-jerk political campaigning and special interest group influence that we have today. There are several ways of electing the Electorial College members and I can suggest a couple.

The State Legislature members can appoint the Electorial College member that represent the House members of the State from their districts and the Governor can appoint the two representing the Senate members.

The People can vote for the Electorial College member from their Congressional District for those representing House seats and the Governor can appoint the two "Senate" Electorial College members.

This is, of course, an option today that is left to the States but I believe the selection of the President under such conditions would be far better than the current system of the people voting for the lessor of two evils which is all we really have. The actual nominations by Republicans and Democrats would be highly different than we see today as they would actually have to nominate individuals based upon their political abilities as opposed to simply nominating the person that appears the best on TV or that has the smoothest speech delivery.

As far as I'm concerned the election of the president by popular vote is a complete failure if we want the most qualified individual to be president. We've been getting "bottom of the barrel" politicians for decades.

 

Republics were not new. They were one of numerous options that the founders considered. It wasn't an experiment but instead rational deduction that lead to the selection of a Republic as our form of government.

 

While obviously the best nation would be one where I was the King (LOL) but upon reflection I could support a Constitutional Republic based upon a "State" model if the Constitutional constraints were adequite. Some examples of what needs to be addressed:

California Prop 8 changed the State Constitution with a mere majority vote of the People. It should require a super-majority vote to change a Constitution and I would suggest at least a 75% and would recommend an 80% super-majority for a Constitutional Amendment.

The monetary system would have to be based upon species money comprised of gold and silver coins with the provision that these gold and silver coins could not leave the country. All foreign exchange would be based upon an exchange of goods and services as the monetary system would be for the nation and not for the entire world.

Government promissory notes similiar to United States currency notes could only be produced in times of a declared national emergency and must be redeemed within ten years of issuance in lawful money and would be retired.

Deficit spending, except in times of declared national emergency, would be prohibited and the retirement of government issued promissory notes would be required as established above. Total national debt would be limited to not more than one year of government revenues through taxation.

There would be no income taxes, period. A national consumption tax with prebates to make it progressive would be the only allowable tax. This makes all taxes voluntary based upon the individual's decision to purchase goods and services.

The "counties" would be responsible for providing for the welfare of the People within the county and not the State. This would be funded by local sales (consumption) taxes.

The economic system would be based upon laisse faire and the only regulations would be those that are for the pragmatic protections of the Rights of the People. Of note environmental protections do fall under this category.

I can go on and probably will but work happens to be calling at the moment.

 

Having an informed electorate is preferred to the current system in the USA. IIRC, originally, the vote was reserved exclusively to landowners as it was assumed since they had a stake in the outcome of the election they would cast their vote on the issues important to them rather than an "American Idolish" popularity contest.

I too agree with a consumption tax, but without the pre-bate. I can not justify a pre-bate in my mind for any reason.

Medicine, prosthetics and groceries could be the only acceptable exemption from a national sales tax under such a plan.

Agreed any specie or item used to barter rather than a national fiat currency is necessary for the fiscal stability as well as an inalienable balanced budget rule for government.

 

Yes. There has never been a single individual making our laws. Not even in the beginning.

Who made the claim it was an abject failure? "Inferior" and "worthless' do not mean the same thing. It doesnt have to be worthless to be inferior. Their system was inferior to ours in many ways.

We have already corrected many of the flaws in their system. I would like to add the electoral college to that list. It may have been necessary during their time, but things have changed. The average American is FAR more educated today.

More of those individuals exist now than existed then. I am not arguing that they were not extraordinary, but there are lots of people today who are extraordinary as well. They were not gods.

 

Modified communism, it's the only option.

 

Never??? This was about our individual level of knowledge and wisdom in my mind, not the collective intelligence of 21st Century man as a whole. I can understand your confusion.

WORTHLESS1
a : lacking worth : valueless
b : useless

Doesn't this sound like an inferior condition to you?

Oh yeah? Could you pass this?

P.S. I have some of my grandmother's text books from her primary school that I can guarantee most college students could not pass the quizzes presented.

 

And whose fault is that? You want to design a system to protect the People from their own choices?

Let the PEOPLE decide what is best for them. I disagree that the government should get to second guess their decisions.

Who exactly should get to decide when someone is "informed" enough to vote.

And places the power of electing the President into the hands of people who may very well not have my interests at heart. And may be more vulnerable to corruption since they do not answer directly to the masses.

No one is forcing them to vote for the lesser of two evils. They choose to do that. That is called "compromise".

When I voted for President last election my ballot had more than two parties on it. And I had a space for write ins as well.

People should get the government they deserve. Freedom includes the freedom to make bad decisions. I am far more comfortable with the possibility of the masses making poor decisions than leaving those decisions up to an unelected group of elitists who may not necessarily care about what I want. Because they dont answer to me.

 

Never.

There has never been a time in the history of our government when a single individual was making laws. It has always been a compromise among many individuals.

Inferior can INCLUDE worthless. But does not have to BE worthless. That is why the two words do not mean the same thing.

If I can work 12 hours a day, and you can work 15, that would make me inferior to you in the number of hours I can work. That would not make me worthless. 12 hours a day is still pretty good.

Yeah, in just about every way.

The average American of their time could not pass that test. So why is it relevant either way?

(and yeah, I could pass that)

A - It is possible your grandmother was not the norm for her time.

B - College students are not the norm...not during our time OR during their time. The average American has never been college educated.

C - Your grandmother did not exist during the period of the Founding Fathers, so it is really irrelevant anyway. At best you could argue that her culture was ALSO superior to that of the Founders.

 

Since this discussion is off topic and I will concede some of your semantic arguments, let's move on.

 

While some thread drift is allowable we're seeing this go a little to far. Please return to the topic of the thread and avoid senseless off topic posts and trolling. Those that insist on off topic posts and trolling will be banned from the thread.

Thank you,
Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

I would probably get rid of the senate, but have the staggered terms for the house...... makes sense to me.

 

Inalienable rights are those which are derived from our humanity.
No matter the manner of our creation, we cannot be alienated from our natural rights which are a direct result of "being human", a higher conscientiousness than the lower creatures.

Yes, I think so. Looking back on first drafts of the DoI and the Virginia Constitution, they contained many identical elements.

 

Congrats to Natural Born for the recognition.

I have to say though... more vanilla.

These monthly awards virtually never go to a controversial post. This is exactly opposite of what I would expect from a political forum.

 

Thanks all!

I was hoping to have at least ONE thread on this forum without silly bickering but opposing views discussed maturely, and no one calling another a racist, etc.

Now back yo our regularly scheduled program.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

In regards to the source of the inalienable rights, it would seem to be more important to recognize we have natural rights, whether one believes as I do, they are endowed by our Creator or not.

This prompts another document/section important to this new constitution, a comprehensive glossary of the terms used within the constitution.

 

Before a glossary I would address whether the Constitution is inclusionary or exclusionary and the scope of it's authority.

By inclusionary I mean are the roles and responsibilities of government are expressly delegated thereby limiting what the government can do. Simply stated if the Constitution doesn't delegate a role and responsibility through enumeration the government would be prohibited from assuming that role and responsibility. As an example if the Constitution doesn't enumerate a role for government to build roads and highways then the government could not build roads and highways.

Exclusionary means that the Constitution must specifically prohibit the government assumption of a role and responsibility. Using the example above the government could build roads and highways even though the Constitution does not delegate that role and responsibility to the government.

This addresses the progrerssive movement that swept through the United States starting in the late 19th Century where the position of the progressive was that anything not expressly prohibited by the US Constitution was within the scope and power of the government. The problem I see with having an "exclusionary" Constitution that must specifically prohibit the government from action is the high standard that needs to be imposed to change the Constitution and renders it virtually worthless as we could never hope to ratify enough amendments to stop the government from expanding well beyond the delegate powers. Additionally, after the fact changes are very difficult.

We could use Social Security/Medicare as an example. There is no enumeration in the US Constitution that delegates a role to the US government to provide the benefits of these programs and yet they consume a huge amount of tax revenues and are a major part of government spending. If we were to pass a Constitutional amendment that caused the end of these programs it would cause chaos because they are long established government programs that a large percentage of the population depends upon.

Finally is the scope of the authority of the Constitution. Is the government always required to comply with it's conditions in all of it's actions? We've seen so many today that argue that Constitutional limitations on the actions of the US government only relate to the people within the United States and do not apply if the US government takes actions elsewhere or with other people. I would simply put forward the proposition that the government should always be required to comply with all of the conditions of the Constitution in all of it's actions regardless of where the government might take action.