Whether born here, here legally, here illegally, all are given an avenue to citizenship. Obviously, we need a coherent and timely path to enter the country so that legal entry is preferred. More obvious, the details of identity, time frames for immigrants to either gain citizenship or return to their point of origin, the mess of illegal parents with citizen children, and all the other sticky details would have to be hmmered out. My emphasis was to look at the destination and not so much the map to get there. I just don’t see any way to improve on our constitution until we have an informed and thinking electorate. Could that happen? Probably not. Money courts ignorance to serve it’s special interests, and keeping the electorate ignorant is the political priority today.
As for the rights of non-citizens, they can be granted conditional privileges for set periods of time as they work toward citizenship. Those born here have only those minimal rights protected by their parents. There will always be “non-citizens”, and there will have to be allowances made for those few. What that might be is an open discussion point. But the wide majority needs to take citizenship seriously and participate in their own governance instead of just drifting along and being allowed to vote and select those with the greatest amount of money…
The US Constitution needs merely ONE small change from its original form in order to repair all damages that have taken place as well as rise to far, far greater heights.
That one change is merely to require that the reasoning behind each and every law be recorded for public view and open debate.
That probably sounds too simple or ambiguous to you and that is probably why it was left out. What such a change would accomplish is that it would cause reasoning to come to the forefront of significance. It would dissuade distrust by showing why things were being done as they were as well by allowing public debate to expose any better means to accomplish the reasoning goal being professed. It also provide for extremely fast updating because it would require far, far less need to propagandize and trick the public into doing things for their own good. It allows for the brightest (not merely the most popular) thinkers to present their concepts and thus the nation is guided by the best thoughts, not merely the most persuasive thoughts. It causes the document and thus the society as a whole to be a learning adaptive organism. It also then provides a far more effective example for others to follow.
In effect, merely add, “We are making this new law/amendment by this rationale. Any better suggestions?”
Or if you want to just start all over, consider adapting the following small group constitution as a building block component of higher forms of the same agreement;
[size=150]Constitution of Rational Harmony [/size]
[size=150]Preamble [/size]
We who gather in this union ordain and establish these Articles of Rational Harmony for the purpose of firming the rational pursuit of maximum momentum toward eternal united harmony.
[size=150]Articles [/size] 1) Governing Authority
All governing authority shall be vested in the following four fundamental offices; Representative, Senate, Executive, and Judicial.
i. No action is to be performed by any office or member of any office unless by instigation of proper Constitutional process as documented herein.
ii. It is the obligation of the union to prepare every member for reestablishing this authority in the event of its demise such as to include;
[list]a. Teaching the rationale of this constitution and methods concerning its establishment
b. Providing all materials and tools required to re-initiate the authority of this constitution and its implementation.
c. Training all members in concerns of confidence, anti-cancer, anti-terrorism, decisiveness, faith, and optimal isolation
iii. It is the obligation of the union to provide sufficient preoccupation to offer resistance to corruption of critical harmony of both the union and the members without significantly infringing upon member rights to participate in constitutional decision-making.
[/list:u] 2) Member Representation
The “Representative” office is to be responsible for the observation and documentation of the current situation of the union.
i. Any union member shall be allowed to propose, through the Representative office, recommendations and suggestions concerning any union action as long as such items are accompanied by documented reasoning to support the proposal’s need for consideration.
ii. Any member must be allowed to debate the superiority of any existing or proposed rationale before the Senate and Judicial offices to the extent of rationale concern.
iii. The Representative office is responsible for documenting and reporting on the situation of the members in regards to;
[list]a. Before and after relevant events
b. Surroundings involved in events and member situations
c. Higher and lower states of authority concerning events
d. Higher and lower dependencies of relevant events
[/list:u] 3) Governing Principles
The “Senate” office is to be responsible for receiving and evaluating all action proposals regarding any and all union members and establishing action priorities.
i. Principles of rationale (amendments) are to be formulated, documented, and utilized in determining proposed rational actions.
ii. These principles are to be published sufficiently to allow critical review by the other offices.
iii. Proposals are to be evaluated for superior rationale with existing principles pertaining to the accomplishment of the goal of the maximum momentum toward eternal union harmony.
iv. All alternative options to any proposal are to be rationally considered and documented along with the rationale for being rejected.
v. All evaluations are to be accepted or rejected based on documented rational reasoning. Any rationale found to be superior to existing rationale must be incorporated into relevant executions replacing inferior rationales.
vi. Any delays in processing must provide rationale for the delay. Any rationale for delay must conform to the same rules as any other proposal in being documented and open for public review.
vii. A final execution plan is to be formed from all current rationale, which is then to be documented and presented to the Executive office for execution.
4) Execution of Authority
The “Executive” office is to be responsible for accurately implementing any and all execution plans received from the Senate. As such this office is in charge of all policing and manual efforts.
5) Verification of Governing Rationale
The “Judicial” office is to be responsible for verifying that all duties are being carried out as per Constitutional rationale and for arbitration of irresolvable dispute.
i. All judicial actions are to be documented and remain open for membership rational counter-debate.
6) Qualification for Station (Purity Issue)
All office holders and members are to be qualified only by their ability to perform the associated duties of their position as determined by Judicially verified Senate rationale.
i. The determination of ability to perform shall be made by Judicially verified Senate rationale and shall remain documented for rational membership review and update.
7) Limit of Rational Authority (Extent Issue)
The number of members governed by this constitution shall not exceed the ability of the Representative office to properly represent all members.
That would require that we as a species be unable to lie and call it reasoning. Reason was ascendant and at a historical peak when we wrote the Constitution, but it’s been on the wane since then, its’s how we got into this mess in the first place. And it wouldn’t address the internal problems with the Constitution I’ve mentioned already, the 16th and 17th Amendments, and way above all, the catch-all undefined “Promote the General Welfare” clause. The founders criticized it’s lack of reasoning and potential for abuse, but yet it remains. We corrected our original sin of slavery, but we can’t fix that.
Merely by having that new law in effect, all of the reasoning issues get ironed out as people begin to use reasoning as their political tool rather than emotional persuasion for sake of votes.
The issue that caused the trouble was that all decisions were left up to either individual authority or up to public voting or a combination. Public voting is an issue of pathos persuasion; payoffs, propaganda, deception, extorsion, even murder. Thus what began as a hopeful balance of persuasion became merely a contest for who could most manipulate the masses and by the most devious means.
Obtaining agreement requires not only majority of pathos alignment (emotional voting), but also logos alignment (reasoning). Reality doesn’t really care about political persuasion issues, but it adheres absolutely to reasoning IF, and only if, the reasoning is accurate (the reasoning has to fit the reality). By the open debating stipulation, inaccurate reasoning gets corrected over time as soon a anyone at all detects an error and wants to do anything about it.
If you want the correcting effect to occur even much faster, add the stipulation that superior reasoning must be accepted as law immediately. That causes the effect of getting people to compete for who can come up with the most “superior reasoning” rather than who can be the most manipulative. But it also requires that a logician be appointed (from the Judicial branch) who can discern accurate logic and defend his own reasoning against possible public disagreement. That is like having to have a state mathematician who can prove his discernment of accurate mathematics.
In addition, the effect would be to cause the masses to get better at using reasoning because they would see that it is by reasoning that things are getting done rather than by extortion and hidden collusion. That would have a restored reasoning to trust the people the put into offices again.
Such a Constitution or manner of governing through publicly documented reasoning has never been tried on Earth. The public documenting is what makes it all happen and become impossible to destroy.
Like I said, people got us into this mess spouting lies and demagoguery and calling it reason. Legislation wouldn’t stop that. They’ve been doing it to the Constitution since the 30’s. In fact, nothing will probably stop it until the people are awakened from their apathetic stupor, which may be happening. If they aren’t vigilant, nothing will change.
Perhaps there is something that you can help me out with my wording. I can see that you are not grasping exactly what I am saying.
Currently, the rationale for a law is NOT recorded and often totally unknown to the public. Instead, as you point out, the population hears nothing but manipulative palliatives.
What I am proposing is that for any law to become law, it must include with it, as part of the law, whatever rationale was used to justify the law, “This is to be law so as to accomplish this end state by this scenario.”
But also, such a statement must be open to all public such that open debate of the proposed rationale can be addressed even AFTER the law is in place for sake of improvement. The population can easily compare the rational against reality and refute bad reasoning. Even if there were no debate laws, which I would highly recommend, the simple fact that a law ha been put into place so as to follow a given scenario causes the law to be subject to scrutiny as it is compared to reality scenarios. Science and anyone with any bright idea to better get to a goal state has immediate power to urge in the better direction and if debate procedures are in place, an improvement in law could easily occur overnight by some farmer who just happened to come up with a formerly unseen solution to a complex problem. It empowers the individuals with the clearer minds to make high speed changes in laws. No one has to go stir up votes except on issue that have been rationally allocated to popular vote.
Competition for highest logical solution to state goals has NEVER been enforced throughout the history of Man, certainly not in America. This one alteration would put Logos (mind) back above Pathos (emotion) as the guiding and ruling light.
The end effect would be that global society would stop swaying between enlightened and dark ages. - Problem Solved - forever more.
So what is it that I am not saying that leads you to believe that I am not saying anything significant?
I’m not sure which question you are asking. The population doesn’t have to do anything new that they don’t feel the need to do. The legislators have only the need to expose rationale for their laws and update them when shown to be logically flawed. Now as to why legislators would do that, since obviously they are not altruistic, is why the population must come to insist on it.
The scenario in order to cause such a chain of events can be pretty simple, but that is another topic. What I am curious about right now is whether you (or anyone on this forum) actually understands what I have attempted to relay.
I understand your proposal and I think it is a good idea, but I share PT’s cynicism that it would have much clout in law making. The problems are less about law and/or the content, than the underlying collection of worldviews that create the us-them scenarios we deal with today. At the moment, we call the two main camps liberal and conservative, but it isn’t about the laws proposed and all about the role of government, “free” enterprise, taxes, entitlements, etc. Add the power of special interest money buying legislators, whipping up “grass roots” organizations, and you have a typical political CF.
We could describe a problem, come up with a potential law based on a pragmatic rational explanation, and still be in the middle of gridlock. “Oh my God! You are proposing a law that leads us into dreaded socialism!” Or, “That law would inhibit free speech!” And so you are right back where you started.
Thank you tentative, I think I see the difference in perspective that has kept this an issue.
I was proposing what would have worked if established long ago and what will work as a fix, but what I have not been proposing is how to cause the fix today. If you were to merely change the law immediately today such that everyone had to suddenly adapt to the new concerns of being rationally exposed, no one would have a clue how to handle it. I wasn’t thinking in terms of just jumping into it from here, but rather “if you were to start with a new constitution then make it just as it was with this new concern of having the rationale or reasoning documented and open for debate and future justification added.”
To Bring the Change About
If one starts with a small group with a new constitution and goal status for the group to achieve, each rule or law will have an inherent rationale as to why it is a rule or law. As time passes and new laws are required, there is always a rationale behind the changes. If those rationalities are always documented and reviewed by the members of the group even long after the rules are in place, new improved ideas come from the brightest members of the group and learning occurs very quickly by the organism itself.
If such a small group operates for a while, the members get accustom to how to cause laws and what is required. Such people immediately look at every law, even from other nations, for a rationale as to why the law is still a law and how to improve on it. Such people adhere to the laws very strongly because they understand why they are laws and understand that to change the law will require coming up with a better idea to present. The good is that they do not feel oppressed by not being a majority mover-shaker. They know that all they need to do is to present the reasoning, politics not required at all.
Now from such an operation, other similar operations (small business and churches fit the profile) can mimic the fundamental principle. Each group will have its own set of rules but each forms them in the same manner of open scrutiny of documented rationale that must be the best available.
After a fashion, many such groups function and each person within gains an expectation of seeing and working with the rationale of laws, even from the federal government. Eventually the government itself is filled with people expecting and seeing the good of always documenting the rationale for what it proposes and allowing constant open challenge to such rationale.
By the time that kind of scenario takes place, very many people fully understand how to handle “laws by open rationale”.
So getting it into effect from this point would be a slow process, maybe 2 generations. It takes much longer to change what is than it does to start over. Once in effect, a new law or alteration of laws comes literally over night and remains at very high speed so as to easily adapt to new situations. The details for a federal networked governing of other similar constitutions would be well worked out by that time.
Hmmm, I think I’ll just call you Jim if that’s OK.
It looks like our “solutions” are in the same track, but I’ll claim first chair… I think that having a rational explanation of both the issue and any proposed law is a great idea, but it needs an informed citizenry capable of critical thinking to work properly. That’s why I emphasized personal responsibility and critical thinking as the base of any constitutional changes. Interesting that we both understand that it would take several generations before we would have a strong base from which to work.
I’m not sure that re-writing the Constitution would be a good idea. The forces that would work against any positive ideas makes it seem unlikely that we would end up with anything better than what we already have - and probably worse. It may be that our patchwork “interpretations” are the best we can expect…
When you need something but can’t find it, cause it. Like I said it isn’t that hard, but will be before long. Just start small and don’t let go. The end result is inevitable.
That was my very first thought concerning the OP too. =D>
The current intelligence in power is NOT the one you want to be re-writing anything (especially not “world history”).
And why would the population feel the need if they’re ignorant and wait until it’s way to late? And even then, unless they dig into it, they still don’t understand what’s going wrong (or they do and don’t want to face it, i.e. Greece, the US, etc.).
I guess I don’t, I keep trying to restate but I guess I’m not sinking in either.
Every time a law is made, there is some rationale in mind behind it. Excuses are given to the public so as to gain support, but the actual rationale is not documented such that the law itself must adhere to its purpose. Judges, far down the line eventually attempt to interpret the purpose of the law so as to assess cases. If the purpose was a formal part of the law such that when the purpose failed or was made obsolete through time, the law supporting the now obsolete purpose could be easily removed and replaced.
“THIS law is to serve THIS purpose by THIS means. And if it doesn’t, or there is a better law to better serve, then THIS law must be removed and/or replaced by any superior serving law offered.”
That is all the population needs to want. If the population finds reason to want for that kind of Constitutional law, the rest will automatically get corrected over time… and I suspect it wouldn’t take long at all after that one change. The debating process begins to quickly tighten up the logic used in making all laws and because those laws become responsible to their assigned purposes, laws cannot be willy-nilly altered without automatically having to correct many dependent laws. The entire system starts demanding to be kept clean of irrational laws and hidden agendas.
All the population needs to do is demand that the authorizing rationale for every law be documented and that the law must either serve the purpose for which it was written or be replaced. Game over.
I’ve read this thread and I must say that I wouldn’t know that some people were referring to the United States.
The mere fact that the arguments come down to discusing political parties proves in itself that the Constitution should not be tampered with.
The U.S. Government is influenced and manipulated by special interest. It has always been that way in American history.
When John Dewey was praising the states he was talking about states who had people like him in their legislatures.
Today, many state legislators probably never heard of John Dewey. A recent survey of Arkansas legislators revealed that 45% of them did not know who Tom Paine was.
I live in Florida. Less than half of Florida’s legislators have college degrees. That’s right, less than half. One would think that it would be composed of mostly lawyers, but it isn’t Most are self-made millionaires–used car dealerships, land developers, retail chain stores, etc–or employers of these businessmen. This is why the state legislature in Florida is gutting the public school system. Education is viewed as a waste of time to these guys. And let’s not forget the recent textbook changes in Texas.
States produce Jim Crow laws, shun teaching evolution in the public schools, and in day to day operations are generally in conflict with individual rights. And some of these make it to the Supreme Court. It is only the Federal government, with the Bill of Rights, that ultimately defends individual freedom. States don’t, political parties don’t, and special interests don’t.
Now I know I am geralizing, but if one looks closely at the make up of state legislatures, especially the so-called red states, one would see that many of them would not pass the fifth grade test no matter who designed it.
I recently had a successful Florida business woman who is active in local politics insist that World War II started when Hitler invaded Israel and ended when Kennedy dropped the atomic bomb on Vietnam. And this woman is in her late forties. And yes, she thought that money spent on public education is wasted. (Maybe on her education it was)
With the current state of American politics, a Constitutional convention to rewrite the Constitution would be dominated by special interests who would have vested interests in reducing freedom of speech, civil rights, an individual’s right to privacy, consumer protection laws, and democracy itself.
No thank you. I would rather we continue to stumble from crisis to crisis that to throw away the constitutional safeguards of our individual freedom.
The single most important thing the Constitution provides is the illusion of individual freedom while the reality is much different. The U.S. is almost unique in the world as we disguise social dependency with something called individual “rights”. Right now, the grinding gridlock of left -vs right is the result characterized by the schizoid position of the tea party dupes who want to do away with government - just as long as they have their medicare, social security, and host of other entitlements. The ultra-libertarians attend the rallies while collecting unemployment benefits and cannot see the disconnect. Americans have been raised and function inside of the biggest lie imaginable. We actually believe in individual freedom when the reality is that we gave up those freedoms to social dependency almost from the formation of government. As you have noted, this holds true at all levels of government. I agree that we shouldn’t try to write a new Constitution, but continue to tinker with the bits and pieces in the hope that the checks and balances actually leaves us some wiggle room. I’d hate to see us leave the protective shell of our “socialistic” form of government. Individual freedom would create a sabre-toothed society and most of us wouldn’t survive.
I totally disagree. I cannot be arrested and held with Habeous Corpus (accept for that very dangerous attitude Americans fell for regarding terrorists). If I don’t have a judge the court will appoint one, although probably not the best, but I will still have one. The police cannot beat a confession out of me. I do not have to pay to support a relision I do not adhere to, and I can join and attend any religious service I wish to. I can say what I want, go where I want, do what I want. I do not need permission of anyone to do that. Yes there are consequences to one’s choices; but there is no one saying I can’t make them. Thank God there is social dependence, or this wouldn’t be possible. Even though American don’t realize this is what is keeping the majority of them afloat. But the individual freedoms do exist. and although there are those who use the cry of individual freedom in their attempts to undo the social cohesion that comes with social dependency, the individual freedom is still there. It is not an illusion.
The only change that needs to take place involves the responsibility of laws to meet their assigned purpose. That can be achieved merely by requiring that every law be attached to a purpose and reasoning openly documented. When the law no longer best serves the purpose in contrast to a different proposed law, the former is to be immediately accepted over the latter. Leave the rest to its destiny. EVERYTHING would begin to improve beyond sight.
AJ,
You are living in a fantasy from 60 years ago. You are talking about what America USED to be. You need to wake up to the recent total demise of the US Constitution. (but make sure you don’t have a suicide pill handy)
Fantasy? Total demise of the Constitution?
You mean I don’t have freedom of speech or religion.
You mean that military personel can be quarter in my home without my permission?
You mean women I know don’t have a right to privacy with regards to abortion decisions?
You mean the police do not have to read me my rights if I am arrested?
You mean I don’t have a right to a lawyer?
You mean my Afro-American friends are not allowed to sit with me in a restaurant or are allowed to vote?
You mean the police can search my house without a warrant?
You mean I can be forced to give testimony against myself? You mean that I cannot petition or write my congressman to complain?
You mean I can’t own a gun?
You mean I can have my property or life taken away from me by the govenment without due legal process?
You mean I can’t have a trial by jury?
You mean the government can inflict cruel and unusual punishment on me?
You mean someone can own me as a slave? You mean I don’t have a right to vote?
You mean I am not married to my wife who is from a country where she would not have been allowed to migrate from 30 years ago?
I think you are very much mistaken that there has been a total demise of the Constitution.
I have much more freedom and legal protection than I had 40 years ago or 50 years ago. I was almost drafted and sent to fight in a war I felt was morrally wrong. You mean they can do that to me or others again?
Maybe you are talking about taxes? Maybe you think paying taxes is a breech of freedom. Well taxes are much lower now than they were 30 or 40 or 50 years ago.
I think if you believe that you are in a country called the United States of America and you do not have these freedoms then it is you who are living a fantasy.
Freedom and democracy does not mean a person gets his own way. It means a person can get a way of his own.
I don’t know how old you are, but I can tell you that for myself and everyone I know my age, there is more freedom now and more legal safeguards to rights than every before.
