Ok, so you wake up in the morning and the headline is that all the politicians have vanished and the only thing left behind is a note that names you to replace the gov. What do you do? Many folks talk about the idea of starting over after the gov implodes or over reaches so far they are removed. The thing that most folks never cover though is HOW do you start over? Do you just pick up where things left off and keep going over the cliff? Do you use the same laws and constitution and just hope you have better people applying them? Do you scrap the laws ad start over just with the constitution as it is? If so how do you insure your grandchildren wont be in the same position we are now? Do you use the Constitution as a framework and just clarify and make adjustments? If so what ae they? Do you scrap it all and start from scratch? If so what do you set up?
To me the Constitution is like the Bible. If you take it to mean exactly what it says, you're fine. The problems arise when people start trying to interpret it! The power to interpret the Constittution was never given to, and should be taken from, the SCOTUS. Their function is to ensure that laws passed do not violate the Constitution, not interpret it's clear meanings and mold it into their image.
INteresting question. The problem with scrapping and starting over with laws is pretty clear, there aren't any in the interim, and we are a nation of laws. Better weed and feed than replant, says me, and me only.
Let me get this right; all the politicians are gone? Just disappeared? .....I think I'll have a coke.
Nah, I'm with ya'. Course it depends who's doing the yard work(weeding) give the job to Diane Finestien or Barbara Boxer and you have much different results than if Ron paul wields the scythe. Interpretation leaves alot of room for argument.
Yeah, but they aren't there (Thank you, Lord) they are politicians. Remember the premise, YOU have the reins. (I might give RP some chores to do in the weeding department.)
The constitution was drafted by statesmen, not politicians but now, we have mostly politicians but only a few statesmen.
"politicians"That's my whole beef with the current situation; the supreme law protects the little guy from the king and his henchman; Once that is usurped, the little guy is out digging in the "filth". As in"Monty pythons "ooh there's a lovely bit o filth down 'ere" (screwed).Asa lifelong card carrying plebe that concerns me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xvnsIodU34&search=monty python
I found it kind of interesting how few would do anything with the constitution. If it was me, I tend to think I would scrap all the laws except the most basic ones like no trespassing, no murder, no theft, and such then once had the basic property and violent crimes covered make sure it was MUCH harder to create laws and that the basic laws had much longer and sharper teeth (rape, murder, and repeat offenders are publicly hanged and prisongoes back to being hell instead of summer camp) then while I would keep the constitution I would have to go through the amendments and prune some of the ones past the bill of rights and go through the rest of it and attempt to learn from history and hammer out the language a bit to make sure it is more difficult for the words be twisted. Kind of like on the 2A, seperate it into 2 seperate amendments, one to cover the fact that the people have an individual right to keep and bear arms includeing but not limited to those of the same type that the military of the same day have, then a second amendment that covers the fact that the people have the right to form, organize, train and utilize their own militias includeing for the purpose of opposeing the government if it become tyranical. I just bring that up as an example but we all know there are several portions of the constitution that have been scewed from their intent and I would basicly just attempt to use history as a guide to solidify it into a form which could not be twisted then make certain there were also sections added that would incorperate some of the other ideas of the founders such as strong boarders and keeping out of entangeling aliances like the UN and to make it easier and more clear that the people can remove a politician who ignores the constitution and attempts to put themselves above it and be charged with treason and punished acordingly. Also make sure to clarify immenent domain to prevent its abuse and be sure it could ONLY be used in case of dire need and FORBID property tax on land. Basicly the Constitution was writen as something like a gentlemens agreement to outline the job and limits of the government but we stopped haveing gentlemen running the government and they started looking for chinks in the armor of that agreement. If you start over with the same thing then the same things are likely to happen again, so I would simply attmpt to head off those things before they could recur while maintaining the SPIRIT of all of the portions of the constitution penned by the founders, some of the later amendment would be elimenated however. I have to say I would probably also probably set up in the 'constitution 2.0' a new form of military much like the Swiss. Basicly there would be a small standing military that would be funded by things like import taxes and they would work with the things like monitoring for attack and would be specificly those for positions where the skills must be kept up regularly and no civilian ocupation would do so. Then there would be the primary military....everyone else. Similar to many highschool coarses there would be a required training period for all citizens that would basicly amount to something like basic training where they would be familiarized with weapons and tactics and such. When they graduate they are issued a military weapon and say a case of ammo then say every 3 years or so they are required to requalify with it. I figure with a military like that AND a foriegn policy similar to what the founders had or the Swiss have where you slaughter any who attack you but dont go elsewhere to find others fights then NO ONE would attack us or succeed if they did. Much like the Swiss again where while haveing no fear of the rest of the combined world, Hitlers armies would NOT invade them because they knew they could not succeed and were not forced to try by agression from them.
