Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on May 18, 2007, 09:02:10 AM
-
If the politicans we have now were there in 1776 to write it?
on another board furious asked this in passing but I could not help but think it was one of the most politicaly savvy sound bites I have ever heard.
Think about it. What would our bill of rights look like? would it even be a bill of rights for the people?
Would each amendment be so verbose and nebulous that any interpretation could be used?
Like the english right to own firearms... or the mexican one... they both sound good at first glance... lots of words and talk of people needing and being guarenteed the use of firearms but... with that little qualifier... the one that says "so long as the government says you can"
Is that how the amendments would look? look good like a politicians speech but with no real guarentees... How would free speech look? would it have some clause about words deemed harmful exempted?
equal protection under the law? add some stuff about hate crimes an affirmative action?
lazs
-
I think the better question is what would it look like if you let this board write it.
-
I don't think there would be a Bill of Rights, Constitution or Declaration of Independance if the current crop of politicals were to be in charge. We'd still be English subjects.
-
Accepting anything the current crop of losers produce is like trying to pick up a **** by the clean end.
-
It would never get done. The whole process would be stuck in committees.
You'd end up with a Confederation of States... either made up of the populous powerful states and a few little guys hanging onto their coattails (and based on Socialism by this time), or made up of all the low population states, with the populous ones being independent nations (probably socialist nations by this time). Texas would probably remain an independent nation in either case, if it came about at all.
The power would be within the states for the most part. Interstate trade issues and western water rights would be a nightmare. No world leader. You might even expect segregation to still be present, especially among southern states toward minorities and immigrants.
Would be no Hawaii or Alaska additions. Many of the western states would probably not have be developed as they have. Mexico probably would have kept much of it's old territory. Mexico may have been able to keep California.
One combined nation may have come about eventually, in response to an external threat, but it would be smaller and probably a lot weaker than the nation as it exists now.
Things like the Tennessee Valley Authority, Hoover Dam (among others), the Transcontinental Railroads, the Interstate Highway System, and other big projects, either would not have come into being, or would have happened much later.
Socialism, Fascism, Communism, all would have spread much further in their time.
-
great answers all...
For RPM... I would say that if I could write it I would not change a thing.. I would simply hire historians to translate it in as modern a language as possible but keep the original wording. What was meant at the time is good enough for me.
lazs
-
I imagine a new constitution rewritten by todays officials would start something like this:
"We the federal government, in order to maintain a stable Union, establish precedence, protect domestic security, provide for the common defense, promote the general health and welfare, and recognize the concept of Liberty within reason to ourselves and our posterity, do establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Article I would establish the veto power of the president over the legislature, with language establishing the legislature's ability to suggest laws as needed.
Article II would firmly describe the executive branch's role in establishing and maintaining security by all means required, as established by the will of the President. It would also describe the election cycle, with a series of triggers that would activate a term-extension "in times of national distress". This would be colloquially known as the "don't change horses midstream" clause.
Article III would create the Law & Order department, which starts with a Supreme Court like today, establishes the existing court structure we have, and explicitly provides for situations where defendants can be removed from the legal system and tried or judged separately without the constraints our current system have "in the interest of tranquility".
Article IV would clearly establish that the states have an advisory role in setting the direction of funding and internal rule, but that all of their laws would be replaced by a standardized federal legal structure. The funding and running of the courts would, of course, be done locally, but by all appointed federal personnel.
Article V would, like the current constitution, establish the amendment procedure, but with some important differences. An executive veto would be added, as would the means for temporarily suspending parts of the constitution as needed by the determination of the executive branch.
Article VI would re-iterate the federal nature of all national laws, plus allow for special dispensation for churches to be federally funded to establish local arms of the government. The efficiency of simply appointing local priests and such as federal officers to ensure domestic tranquility would be very attractive, as they would already have the public trust.
No need for Article VII, ratification would be taken care of by the appropriate congress, the executive branch would then inherit the above described abilities.
We'd also have a new section:
The bill of privileges
1. Except for obscenity, all speech is free. Obscenity is defined as opinion text or speech that causes discomfort or the potential for discomfort to its readers.
2. Hunting rifles are, under certain circumstances, allowed with the appropriate federal oversight.
3. The military shall not quarter soldiers in your house unless it is deemed necessary.
4. Reasonable searches by local and federal law enforcement are allowed, the boundaries to be defined as needed nationally.
5. In the pursuit of justice and the common good, criminals and uncooperative property owners shall be dealt with quickly and justly.
6. A speedy trial is guaranteed and encouraged, except when doing so would go against the common good.
7. When feasible, a trial by jury shall be allowed, though the jury will preside in an advisory role.
8. In the interests of national defense and tranquility, special means may be authorized in confining or interrogating enemies of the peace.
9. This list of privileges may be suspended or canceled as needed in the interests of national tranquility and security.
10. Finally, this reiterates Article IV of the New Constitution, specifically that the states exist as internal advisory bodies only.
-
It would be short and sweet........................ ...................
"Your *** is grass and we are the lawnmower.
Have a goodun."
-
Originally posted by rpm
I think the better question is what would it look like if you let this board write it.
I'm confident in saying that if people on this board wrote it, majority rule would have a 9mm placed in the hand of every newborn infant right out of the womb. lmao.
Oh yea. "Two Weeks" would also become the formal reply from every WH Press Secretary to any question he (or she....wait...if guys from this board ever wrote the Constitution there never would be a she in that position) didnt wanna take. =):lol
-
Originally posted by cav58d
I'm confident in saying that if people on this board wrote it, majority rule would have a 9mm placed in the hand of every newborn infant right out of the womb. lmao.
Oh yea. "Two Weeks" would also become the formal reply from every WH Press Secretary to any question he (or she....wait...if guys from this board ever wrote the Constitution there never would be a she in that position) didnt wanna take. =):lol
9mm? Sissies worried about their wrist hurting shoot those. :noid
-
Originally posted by lazs2
great answers all...
For RPM... I would say that if I could write it I would not change a thing.. I would simply hire historians to translate it in as modern a language as possible but keep the original wording. What was meant at the time is good enough for me.
lazs
Agreed
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Oh yea. "Two Weeks" would also become the formal reply from every WH Press Secretary to any question he (or she....wait...if guys from this board ever wrote the Constitution there never would be a she in that position) didnt wanna take. =):lol
Yea! And we could call it the "Two Week Commitee"
Oh wait. we already have that under a different name.
We call it "Congress" :lol
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Yea! And we could call it the "Two Week Commitee"
Oh wait. we already have that under a different name.
We call it "Congress" :lol
I'd say that is closer to vaporware than the "2 weeks" situation. I would gather that voss has cloned himself anf gotten elected to the House.
:O :noid :noid
-
If memory serves, the U.S. Constitution is a model of sense and efficiency, comprising little more than 7700 words, making it one of the shortest democratic constitutions in the world.
If it were being rewritten today, that would go out the window, and we would end up with something resembling one of the numerous French constitutions that have been written in the last 200 years, which are ten times as long.
The Bill of Rights would contain every guarantee of individual "rights" that it is possible for the human intellect to conceive. The "embarassing second amendment" would disappear.
Many of the powers "reserved for the states and the people" would be transferred to the federal government, so that the myriad rights claimed by all the sundry could more properly be guarded against the vagaries of policy of the individual states, or of the unwashed, uncultured people of fly-over land.
Presidential authority would be gutted. The vast majority of the governmental power would be vested in the legislature, with the ruling political party electing an official who would be largely a figurehead.
-
You do understand , of course, that the U.N. would need to be consulted, don`t ya? :)
-
I think chair is the closest to what one would look like if they could get something written it 10 years of working on it and then boil down the 4,000 page document they came up with.
I think the gist of the whole thing could be boiled down to what jackal came up with tho..
or... "the US government will in all cases decide what is best for it's citizens and have all power it deems necessary over said citizens lives for the good of the people."
lazs
-
(http://www.lohud.com/blogs/uploaded_images/0217205548_Patriots%20Logo-756409.jpg)
Free America
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I don't think there would be a Bill of Rights, Constitution or Declaration of Independance if the current crop of politicals were to be in charge. We'd still be English subjects.
Disagree. All politicians want power. They want their own power.
-
They might want power but I don't think there are any, or very many that would make the sacrifices necessary to achieve a new nation splitting from the "homeland". They are for the very most part a perfect exaqmple of a "summer soldier" and wouldn't have what it takes to put their fortunes, lives and honor (damn little of that already) up for the effort.