The present constitution's flaw of letting the supreme court justices decide its meaning has resulted in their becoming de-facto rulers.
Since they are politically appointed it has led to anarchy in government.
One change needed is that all interpretations must pass some tribunal of the people. That might be requirement that if 10 or more state legislatures disagree with an edict from the supreme court relating to the constitution's meaning then that edict would be void, retroactively.
In quarreling with this concept remember that all states are in the union at their pleasure, regardless of what current despots claim. The concept of perpetual union was part of the replaced articles of confederation that served until this constitution was adopted. It was soundly rejected for this constitution. No state wanted to join something with no way out if it turned out badly. So it ten states don't agree with a fundamental change to the contract they signed onto, they ought have power to stop that change, and if that failed, to use their original absolute right to leave the union if that was their pleasure.
Also the judicial system must be forbidden to control any juries. Today they have ruined them.
In general there must be more veto power by tribunals of the people. A 4th division of power if you will, the people's branch, as distinguished from the legislative, executive, and judicial. Ombudsmen, jurys and their education, and indictment of any ruling or order emanating from the other three branches needs be available in that 4th branch. This branch would also oversee all elections. It would not have any partisan participation. Any election to this branch ought sever all connections to any other branch, or political party.
This branch ought have ability to indict any official whose misconduct appears to it to be beyond the authority or rules governing practice in that person's office.
Today, the attorney generals will not prosecute executive officials who are corrupt. They also protect corrupt court officials. They also protect corrupt legislative officials. They get advantages in return. Thus corruption can go from generation to generation with the same families controlling government and getting more criminal with time.
Our current demise comes directly from those branches violating the constitution and refusing to do anything about it.
The current mechanism of us taking up arms to force compliance with constitutions, or electing people who will has failed. It just didn't work. We need something more available to people, and more workable.
There were fatal flaws in the original constitution, which time has now proven are there.
We cannot pretend that people are more than they are. People were demonstrated to be inadequate to contend with the corruption possible under present constitutions.
Comments?
Here's a thought about letting a government interpret its own limiting document:
Symptoms of Tyranny by Joseph Sobran.
Two thousand years later, mankind is no less deluded by flattering words. The American people still think they live under their Constitution, because the U.S. Government tells them so. Of course that same government also tells them what the Constitution means, and the meaning keeps changing, and with every new meaning the government increases its own power.
And few people see the logical absurdity of letting a government decide the meaning of the very document that is supposed to limit that government’s powers. Could anything be more irrational? If the federal government can change the Constitution, which was allegedly "unalterable by the government," why bother having a written constitution at all?
Why indeed, if written law is but a product of the current faction's fancy, securing nothing for the people but a comfortable delusion?
I have a comment. The best way to avoid corruption in government is to avoid government as we know it--centralized, powerful, remote and completely uncontrollable. If truth is unchanging, then why do we need a "living" government, that can aggrandize itself, and make us all chattels? I say give us something akin to the 10 commandments--simple, few in number, straightforward rules that ANYONE can understand and follow--and then live and let live.
PM:
There really is no permanent solution to the problem you allude to. Hence, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty".
Politicians being what they are, they must be confined to the smallest area of responsibility possible, just like a fire must remain within the fireplace. Good servant, fearful master. This is what our Constitution attempted to do, but again, Eternal Vigilance is required. No document, no matter how finely crafted, can take its place.
The framers attempted to use power against power, using the separation of powers into three branches of government supposed to check and balance one another. Good idea, but today all branches of government work together against the citizens and their remaining liberties.
It is within our power to punish incumbent politicians by voting them out of office, but as a people we consistently choose not to do so. This is the same as telling them we are content with their rule.
Alonzo,
Which of the problems alluded to were you referencing?
I commented on the problem of corrupt or tyrannical government. You suggest that we can somehow "avoid government as we know it - centralized, powerful, remote and completely uncontrollable". We started out 200 years ago with a limited government, but we did not exercise the proper vigilance and we allowed it to get loose. It is doubtful, at this point, whether we as a nation can succeed in putting that genie back in the bottle before we experience the full measure of judgment.
It seems clear to me that liberty consists in each individual retaining the maximum amount of power over his own life and property. But power is strongly linked to responsibility. To retain power, the individual or family must actively take responsibility in all areas of life.
Due to our fallen nature, there is a certain spiritual gravitation toward evil which causes some men seek power over others, and causes other men to be willing to compromise their liberty in return for promised benefits of wealth, ease or safety.
This makes it difficult to "avoid" evil government. It is not something that will go quietly away, but something which must be actively fought in every generation.
Alonzo,
I'm afraid I have a little trouble agreeing that "we" are responsible for the downfall of the American Experiment. I didn't unlock the barn door and let leviathan out–-nor did you, or even your father. I've been as vigilant as I could be-–but have been completely powerless to change the course of events set in motion 50 or more years ago. Leviathan was already beyond the grasp of ordinary citizens in Lincoln's time. I would posit that it is not the common, good, ordinary men such as yourself who don't "do enough" to fight tyranny and oppression who are responsible for its supremacy today. (Do you feel personally responsible for leviathan? Do any of us?) Claiming the collective "we" is responsible is paramount to maintaining that it is the rape victim's fault she was violated, or that the dead man is responsible for his own murder. The victim is not responsible for the crime–-it is the criminal who is at fault. Those evil and conniving men who have always risen to the top of any state--throughout all of history–-are responsible for the evil they wreak, along with those few good men in positions of influence or power who fall to the level of accomplice through inaction. The problem isn't that all good men haven't fought hard enough. The problem is there have been structures in which the evil men can climb to incredible power despite the best efforts of powerful good men--whether those structures be imperialistic, theological, limited, totalitarian, or even capitalistic has made no difference. History has shown, not that good men aren't willing or worthy to maintain their own freedom, but that evil men are willing and capable of perverting any power structure to their own ends. Those who wish to live and let live should be free from the advances of those who can't keep their noses--or their bombs--to themselves.
In a truly free society (note: I say society, not state-–"free" and "state" are mutually exclusive) individuals have complete power over their own lives and property. There is a set of laws to govern conduct--basically he who trespasses against another's property must be held accountable--and punishments set in accordance with those trespasses. It's utterly simple in concept, and almost as simple in execution--double or treble damages in the case of property damage or theft where monetary value can be assigned; and death or exile in those cases where they can't, such as murder, rape, or molestation.
We can "avoid government as we know it - centralized, powerful, remote and completely uncontrollable", if individuals would start thinking beyond their limited experience, and instead search for truth--or at least quit meddling in their neighbors' business. The overriding principle of existence is that man will always choose to do what is in his best interest. That's why a free market works; that's why the US is as prosperous and powerful as it is today, despite the crushing bureaucratic weight. If a simple law is put in place so an individual understands what is acceptable and what isn't, and people are turned loose within those guidelines, simple self-interest will keep most men peaceful. Simple threat of resistance (whether by the prospective victim or a private security company) would go a long way to persuading most of the rest, and consequences would cure or eliminate the remaining fraction.
You said: "It seems clear to me that liberty consists in each individual retaining the maximum amount of power over his own life and property. But power is strongly linked to responsibility. To retain power, the individual or family must actively take responsibility in all areas of life."
The "maximum amount of power over . . . life and property" is all of it. Not most of it, not everything but property taxes or military service--all of it. No other person has any right to coerce you or me to do with their property (including person) other than as they wish. (Unfortunately, the current state maintains a monopoly on force, so their coercion is most difficult to resist. Pain of total ruin or death is very "persuasive".) Yes, power is linked to responsibility–-but the intimation that irresponsibility (a lack of active responsibility in all areas of life, as you defined it) leads to others removing those liberties is only of force when considered within a monopolistic statist system. If there is no structure within which evil men can gain power over your life and mine, then they will have no ability to remove our God-given rights to life and property, should we choose to be irresponsible. Life is such that there are natural consequences in place to guide and educate, and limit or expand future options. Government doesn't need to waste $3 trillion annually to miserably fail in trying to duplicate the system of natural law God has already put in place (i.e. providing consequences for actions).
I agree that man, as an individual and as a whole, has a tendency to slip and slide down into the gravity well of debasement. However, self-interest acts as an effective counter to that tendency in most cases. Seeking coercive power over others is definitely a no-no; however, individuals are free to obey another anytime they wish, or engage in mutually beneficial exchanges, whatever the commodities may be. It's the inability to stop obeying, or to choose to deal with another, that tips the scales into the ultimate evil. (Interesting to note is the fact that the denial of right to secession by the government is, in and of itself, an admission that the state would crumble if left under a system of truly voluntary participation.) Avoiding a government should be as simple and unfettered as choosing to no longer be subject to its rule–-just as God allows us to go our own way should we choose to no longer ally ourselves with His people, or subject ourselves to His rule. Man is free to choose–-and literally unable not to choose. Because of that unique quality, coercion of any stripe is one of the most evil of all acts; and hence one of the few which would be punishable by exile or death.
I think that's an effective way to "actively" fight evil government in every generation–-don't you?
The first thing that should be done is to make sure that Our Christian God and freedom of prayer remains in all public levels, especially at schools. This is imperative and that is why the first amendment(religion,speech) is the FIRST amendment. To fight for the other amendments individually ignoring the first is to fight a losing fight. The next addition is to make sure that education remains in private hands and not in government hands. Private education would make it more competitive which is good. Government control, as we have learned, brings in abominations like OBE. This has to be changed. Welfare state nonsense also has to go. Earlier leaders in this nation refused to sign federal assistance bills knowing that created dependence and also stymied national bounding thru private assistance in help related matters. In other words they knew that the government wasn't a public dole office. Terror by lawsuits HAS to be ended. One of the greatest motors in the lose of freedom today is thru this means. Only the most legitimate suits could be filed and any trumped up or frivolous suits could lead to huge fees for plaintiffs and disbarment for lawyers. Second amendment rights would be completely uninfringeable. That's all I'll say about that. This is just for starters and general at that, but a good beginning until I can get my thoughts on the individual amendments.
How different would the United States be if Senators were, again, chosen by the State Legislatures rather than the people of the States?
What you do as a manner of prudence and temperance, isn't to scrap the Constitution, far from it. How about utilizing impeachment as Raoul Berger has pointed out in his books to remove the magical oracle and its liberal sages from the Supreme Court so they'll stop conjuring up new meanings to "interstate commerce" and every other power graned to the federal government in the Constitution and instead return to original intent.
As we have a method to restrict, and or select individuals who become members of our "community" ie. the United States of America, or for that matter any geo/political entity so should a new defacto country.
I am suggesting a method by which power hungry, athests, criminal types, those who use any type of mind altering drugs, including alcohol, even on a very limited scale be barred from entering, holding citizenship, or holding public office. Individuals who are determined to have a tendency to take advantage of others are also excluded. This then would doubtless meet the criteria God has set up for His Heavenly Kingdom. This is the utopia I look forward to and earnestly urge readers to discover the means of attaining such a reward by considering www.bibleinfo.com as a link worth serious investigation.
I read the first sentence of the first message in this string and had to reply.
The Constitution doesn't give the federal judiciary the power to interpret the Constitution. It gives them power to interpret OTHER laws using the Constitution as the basis of its interpretation.
The Constitution is sacrosanct as far as the judiciary is concerned. It is NOT open to interpretation by anyone in government, even as the scriptures are not open to interpretation. In fact, the Constitution is to government what the scriptures are to humanity, the owner's instruction manual.
The Constitution CREATED the federal government, and limited it to the powers it authorized. The creature is never greater than, and can never interpret the commands of, its creator. All the creature can do in relation to its creator is obey or disobey.
The courts have usurped the supposed 'power' to interpret the constitution because we, the people and states who created the constitution, have allowed it to do so. It is up to the states and the people to remove those Supremes and their inferiors who have usurped that power by whatever means are available to us. Perhaps if we were to actually impeach and remove from office 2 or 3 Supremes and 30-40 inferior court judges they'd take their oaths of office seriously.
Since that would take political fortitude on the part of OUR House and Senate, don't expect it to happen anytime soon, unless there is a complete turnover in THOSE hallowed halls.
The answer seems to me to be to elect some carpenters and electricians and housewives to office instead of all those damned lawyers. The legislative lawyer bastards keep their black-robed colleagues in power because they secretly hope to be one of them someday. It is definitely time for a House and Senate Cleansing.
Wasn't it Shakespeare who said, "The first thing we need to do is kill all the Lawyers?" I don't think we ought to kill them. I just think we ought to make them actually work for a living in the world they've given us. That might teach them a little humility.
NA-A-AHH! Not likely.
Here is my take on it. It was intended that the Supreme Court protect the Constitution as originally intended and written by those who wrote it, and originally understood by those who accepted it. As it is now, “constitutional” or “unconstitutional” means that at least 5 out of 9 of the Supreme Court justices agree on what the law should or should not be, regardless of whether that decision may the be in fact the opposite of the wording of the Constitution and the expressed intent of those who wrote it and those who accepted it.
The vast majority of voters have been and are being persuaded by various subterfuges to think way more in terms of government promotion of prosperity thru control of economic and other activities than they do of their maximum possible freedom of control of private property. And they vote accordingly. I believe it is too late to reverse this trend, if it ever was possible. I think the best we can do is to focus our education efforts on those who might be most willing to study and accept constitutional principles at the future time of the separation of the wheat from the tares.
Don Ludgate wrote:
"I am suggesting a method by which power hungry, athests, criminal types, those who use any type of mind altering drugs, including alcohol, even on a very limited scale be barred from entering, holding citizenship, or holding public office."
I suppose then that Jesus Christ would be banished from such a community? After all, he partook of alchohol. Let us not attempt to establish a theocracy comprised of mere men. Without God Himself truly at the head of such a system, it would divolve into abject tyranny as man begins to assume the role of God.