Constitutional Convention

[Peter]

After libertarian / Republican or Tea Party wins in 2010 and 2012, the chances for a constitutional convention will be greater. What would you want to be done? Would you hold it in Philadelphia? Or in a warmer climate, like Orlando?

Some thoughts to consider:

Shakespeare wrote:

“I do love my country’s good with a respect more tender, more holy and profound than mine own life. After what I owe to God, nothing should be more sacred than the respect I owe to my country. . .”

end quote

Commodore Stephen Decatur, in the early 1800's (either 1811 or 1816?) was in Norfolk, Virginia. He was in the company of many of his shipmates and friends. He stood up gravely and gave a toast:

"Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong."

end of quote

Decatur is quoted wrongly, more often than not, as saying my country right or wrong.

Now read a different version of those sentiments by Carl Schurz’s:

“Our Country right or wrong - when right to be kept right and when wrong to be put right.”

This is a better stand than Stephen Decatur’s.

Jimbo (Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia) wrote, many years ago, about changing the Constitution.

The first quote is from the constitution:

"No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time."

Then Jimbo writes:

My amendment would read:

Section 1. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary.

The essential idea here is to restrain the size of government by raising the bar. This would not result in overnight perfection, obviously, but it would help a great deal, I think.

--Jimbo

end quote

George H. Smith wrote:

“There is no chance that a vague and elastic document like the Constitution -- which James Madison described as a "bundle of compromises" -- can be judged "objectively," when the natural rights philosophy that animated it is no longer taken seriously. This was dramatically illustrated some years ago during the Robert Bork hearings, when that hero of conservatives described the Ninth Amendment as having no more legal value than an "ink blot," because we supposedly don't know what the rights "retained by the people" are supposed to be.”

end quote

In "Atlas Shrugged" paperback version, page 1073, Ayn prudently wrote of the character Judge Narragansett acting in this way:

“The rectangle of light in the acres of a farm was the window of the library of Judge Narragansett. He sat at a table, and the light of his lamp fell on the copy of an ancient document. He had marked and crossed out the contradictions in its statements that had once been the cause of its destruction. He was now adding a new clause to its pages: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade . . ."

End of quote

Here, Ayn made no other references to changing the Constitution, except for those little dots after "trade . . ."

How would an Objectivist, or a libertarian change our Constitution?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Good questions Peter:

I am unalterably opposed to a Constitutional convention.

I will support amending the Constitution one section at a time via the State system of 75% because we would organize as we go through each state.

The Narragansett amendment would be a great start.

Adam

[anonrobt]

After libertarian / Republican or Tea Party wins in 2010 and 2012, the chances for a constitutional convention will be greater. What would you want to be done? Would you hold it in Philadelphia? Or in a warmer climate, like Orlando?

Some thoughts to consider:

Shakespeare wrote:

“I do love my country’s good with a respect more tender, more holy and profound than mine own life. After what I owe to God, nothing should be more sacred than the respect I owe to my country. . .”

end quote

Commodore Stephen Decatur, in the early 1800's (either 1811 or 1816?) was in Norfolk, Virginia. He was in the company of many of his shipmates and friends. He stood up gravely and gave a toast:

"Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong."

end of quote

Decatur is quoted wrongly, more often than not, as saying my country right or wrong.

Now read a different version of those sentiments by Carl Schurz’s:

“Our Country right or wrong - when right to be kept right and when wrong to be put right.”

This is a better stand than Stephen Decatur’s.

Jimbo (Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia) wrote, many years ago, about changing the Constitution.

The first quote is from the constitution:

"No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time."

Then Jimbo writes:

My amendment would read:

Section 1. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary.

The essential idea here is to restrain the size of government by raising the bar. This would not result in overnight perfection, obviously, but it would help a great deal, I think.

--Jimbo

end quote

George H. Smith wrote:

“There is no chance that a vague and elastic document like the Constitution -- which James Madison described as a "bundle of compromises" -- can be judged "objectively," when the natural rights philosophy that animated it is no longer taken seriously. This was dramatically illustrated some years ago during the Robert Bork hearings, when that hero of conservatives described the Ninth Amendment as having no more legal value than an "ink blot," because we supposedly don't know what the rights "retained by the people" are supposed to be.”

end quote

In "Atlas Shrugged" paperback version, page 1073, Ayn prudently wrote of the character Judge Narragansett acting in this way:

“The rectangle of light in the acres of a farm was the window of the library of Judge Narragansett. He sat at a table, and the light of his lamp fell on the copy of an ancient document. He had marked and crossed out the contradictions in its statements that had once been the cause of its destruction. He was now adding a new clause to its pages: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade . . ."

End of quote

Here, Ayn made no other references to changing the Constitution, except for those little dots after "trade . . ."

How would an Objectivist, or a libertarian change our Constitution?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

I for one would not endorse a constitutional convention - it'd end up being a nightmare with worse consequences than ever anticipated... unlike the original convention, which was actually a coup over what had been merely altering some of the Articles of Confederation, and which was managed in an age where communication took longer and the true nature not exposed until it was a fate accompli, this new convention would open all manner of odds and unprincipled efforts to make it more to the tune of those now in power as never before - to officialize what they now are seeking to instill... and no, do not think there'd be measures of reasoned thoughts as were in the original, with federalists and anti-federalists arguing in coherent thoughts on the merits or not - rather, there'd be violence amok from every manner of powerlusters, a last ditch standing of coercion to achieving what it seems they might not now be able or willing to achieve...

[Roger Bissell]

I agree with Adam and Robert: NO Constitutional convention!

Interestingly, there is talk of have a ~state~ constitutional convention here in California, and that would be just as bad a disaster. The special interests and their liberal allies (or is it vice versa) would run rampant, and one of the first things they'd do is neuter the voters, so they couldn't have propositions cutting, abolishing, limiting taxes. Because "we" don't have enough revenue to run the state government, and something has to be done to make the taxpayers cough up the needed bucks, don't you know.

Give me a frickin' break!

On the federal level, with a new Constitutional convention, you can kiss the Bill of Rights good-bye and say hello to the new wicked step-mom: the Economic Bill of Rights, first floated by FDR, then more recently by Obama a few years back on the radio.

REB

[Peter]

Anonrobt, Roger Bissell, wrote:

I agree with Adam and Robert: NO Constitutional convention!

What if the topic of the convention was to fix a particular flaw in the constitution? Nothing more.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Chris Grieb]

No new Federal Constitutional Convention! The Second Amendment would go and there would be a right to welfare.

[BaalChatzaf]

No new Federal Constitutional Convention! The Second Amendment would go and there would be a right to welfare.

I concur. What is even more troublesome is that three generations after that, everyone would think that is the way it ought to be. Consider - no one in the moder world would give any credence to the proposition that some people can be appointed by God Himself to rule over men. No one believes in the Divine Right of Kings to rule yet, at one time this was accepted. Now it is not accepted. We now believe that the People (as a body politic) should rule and not divinely appointed shepherds. We even consider this position to be axiomatic or nearly so. We hold these truths to be self evident.... . Hardly anything is self evident.

Bob Kolker

[Peter]

Chris Grieb wrote:

No new Federal Constitutional Convention! The Second Amendment would go and there would be a right to welfare.

Bob Kolker wrote:

We hold these truths to be self evident.... . Hardly anything is self evident.

Henry David Thoreau wrote:

Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth.

Literally no one I have spoken to, literally, no one is willing to give other people enough credit to not shoot themselves in the foot. Strange. What the prevailing wisdom was in 1776, has been lost. What a shame. Obviously we will leave well enough alone.

Leave it alone and suffer, waiting for that Randian paradigm shift? Wait until a super majority of polled Americans is for a strict interpretation of the existing Constitution. OK. Perhaps we can reexamine the question after the elections in 2012. Hopefully, the states and individuals will also be going the High Court route, to blunt Obama’s grab for power.

Throw the bums out. Now, Judge Narragansett, can you write us an amendment to . . .

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[BaalChatzaf]

No new Federal Constitutional Convention! The Second Amendment would go and there would be a right to welfare.

The First Amendment would suffer also. PC restrictions would be hard wired into a New Constitution. Only Nice Speech would be free.

Ba'al Chatzaf