• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Constitutional Convention Preamble[W:425]

PirateMk1 said:
Why cant we have a hybrid? A combination of federal and national aspects?
Click to expand...

by having a federal Constitution, the founders only had to delegate so many powers.....[those being listed], all other powers which are not listed remained the powers of the states.

this makes creating a Constitution easy, and there is fighting of who's power is who's.

with your idea, that means every power which there can possibly can BE must be separated, and put on paper this would make the Constitution huge / cumbersome.

if we had a national Constitution then there is no need for a list of powers because the central government is granted every power.

if the have a federal Constitution then we only need to define what should be the true powers of a federal government, and leave all other powers not mentioned to state governmentswhich are closer to the people, and more responsive to them.
 
Nilly said:
I agree in general, but don't think it's necessarily limited to what you have said (in that sense I'm glad you phrased them as 'a function'). I also take an issue with unalienable rights but that's an argument for another day
Click to expand...

The whole of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that followed it was based on the concept of unalienable aka God given aka natural rights that the Founders (and many before them) saw as the righteous and proper state of humankind. In the simplest definition of this, an unalienable right is that which requires no contribution or participation by any other. If what we desire, need, want, or hope for does require participation or contribution by any other it is not an unalienable right but rather a privilege to be negotiated. There can be no liberty if the government does not see unalienable rights as inviolate and if the government does not receive its authority from the people rather than the government assigning the rights the people will have.

If we cannot agree on that one point from the beginning, then we will agree on virtually nothing in a constitutional rewrite.
 
ernst barkmann said:
by having a federal Constitution, the founders only had to delegate so many powers.....[those being listed], all other powers which are not listed remained the powers of the states.

this makes creating a Constitution easy, and there is fighting of who's power is who's.

with your idea, that means every power which there can possibly can BE must be separated, and put on paper this would make the Constitution huge / cumbersome.

if we had a national Constitution then there is no need for a list of powers because the central government is granted every power.

if the have a federal Constitution then we only need to define what should be the true powers of a federal government, and leave all other powers not mentioned to state governmentswhich are closer to the people, and more responsive to them.
Click to expand...

This is an important point. The Preamble I suggested--for discussion only--was intended to focus on those powers that the people would assign to the federal government. And that was in my personal hope that such assigned powers be limited to that which a central government MUST and properly SHOULD do, and everything else could be left to the states to work out. That goes to the very heart of the unalienable rights included in that suggested Preamble.

If we assume that the government will have the ability to assign us the rights that we will have, then why bother with a Constitution at all? The government will just change it at will much as it has done in the last 100 years. If we assume that the people will assign the powers the federal government will have, then we can make the new constitution a much more effective document toward that end than what we now have. And, as you said, it will keep the Constitution a fairly simple and manageable document.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The whole of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that followed it was based on the concept of unalienable aka God given aka natural rights that the Founders (and many before them) saw as the righteous and proper state of humankind. In the simplest definition of this, an unalienable right is that which requires no contribution or participation by any other. If what we desire, need, want, or hope for does require participation or contribution by any other it is not an unalienable right but rather a privilege to be negotiated. There can be no liberty if the government does not see unalienable rights as inviolate and if the government does not receive its authority from the people rather than the government assigning the rights the people will have.
Click to expand...

Firstly, the US declaration of independence and constitution have zero bearing on the one we will create. Secondly, in your own words, these rights are 'God given' yet (also in your own words) they don't require contribution by another? That's incoherent. Point is, without a belief in god, the foundation of inalienable rights takes a massive beating. Rights can be inviolable without being inalienable. There is a long list of countries that are free without ratifying human rights as inalienable.

AlbqOwl said:
If we assume that the government will have the ability to assign us the rights that we will have, then why bother with a Constitution at all? The government will just change it at will much as it has done in the last 100 years. If we assume that the people will assign the powers the federal government will have, then we can make the new constitution a much more effective document toward that end than what we now have. And, as you said, it will keep the Constitution a fairly simple and manageable document.
Click to expand...

And so it should! A constitution should be a living document, subject to constant scrutiny, review and the will of the people.

AlbqOwl said:
If we cannot agree on that one point from the beginning, then we will agree on virtually nothing in a constitutional rewrite.
Click to expand...

Yep! Isn't this going to be fun!
 
US Conservative said:
Says who?
Click to expand...

Ok I misspoke. The US constitution could certainly influence the decisions we make. So might the Constitution of Bhutan.

Just because the US founding fathers did something or thought something does not mean we should necessarily do the same.

ernst barkmann said:
the Constitution is law, it should never be at the will of the people
Click to expand...

Right and who writes the laws........

All power emanates from the People, who exercise it through elected representatives or directly, under this Constitution.
Click to expand...

Words taken directly from a constitution written in 1988.
 
Last edited:
Nilly said:
Ok I misspoke. The US constitution could certainly influence the decisions we make. So might the Constitution of Bhutan.

Just because the US founding fathers did something or thought something does not mean we should necessarily do the same.



Right and who writes the laws........



Words taken directly from a constitution written in 1988.
Click to expand...

I say it should be considered because the document is that good. So good its influenced many others, to this day.
 
US Conservative said:
I say it should be considered because the document is that good. So good its influenced many others, to this day.
Click to expand...

I agree we should consider it. But it should not be held as any kind of authority.
 
Nilly said:
Firstly, the US declaration of independence and constitution have zero bearing on the one we will create. Secondly, in your own words, these rights are 'God given' yet (also in your own words) they don't require contribution by another? That's incoherent. Point is, without a belief in god, the foundation of inalienable rights takes a massive beating. Rights can be inviolable without being inalienable. There is a long list of countries that are free without ratifying human rights as inalienable.



And so it should! A constitution should be a living document, subject to constant scrutiny, review and the will of the people.



Yep! Isn't this going to be fun!
Click to expand...

You don't need God in the equation to have unalienable rights which is why I specified that unalienable rights are referred to as God given rights or "natural" rights as the non religious have referred to them. And, for those old enough to govern themselves, they require absolutely no contribution or participation by any other. To live, to hope, to dream to aspire, to perfect, to speak, to breathe, to think, to believe, to choose, to aspire, to laugh, to pray, to create et al are all unalienable rights that do not require anything from anybody else. To live one's life as one chooses, so long as nobody else is required to participate, is every person's unalienable right.

As for the constitution being a living document, no. Should the people be able to amend it when important to do so? Yes. But otherwise the content must be inviolate or tyrants and opportunists will surely change it and/or interpret it for their own purposes.
 
ernst barkmann said:
by having a federal Constitution, the founders only had to delegate so many powers.....[those being listed], all other powers which are not listed remained the powers of the states.

this makes creating a Constitution easy, and there is fighting of who's power is who's.

with your idea, that means every power which there can possibly can BE must be separated, and put on paper this would make the Constitution huge / cumbersome.

if we had a national Constitution then there is no need for a list of powers because the central government is granted every power.

if the have a federal Constitution then we only need to define what should be the true powers of a federal government, and leave all other powers not mentioned to state governmentswhich are closer to the people, and more responsive to them.
Click to expand...

I would say that we could lean toward the federal route. My concern is that there should be certain universal or national things that the country has in common no matter were you go, IE the gun laws, the jury and voting laws, and possibly tax laws amongst others.
 
US Conservative said:
I appreciate that but this is still quite amorphous and opens the door for the govt to step into everything. I'd like to see the welfare state ruled out in the preamble, so there aren't generations of Americans citing it as evidence that the govt need take care of them.

Also, though I am anything but against the arts and sciences I dont know that it belongs in the preamble.
Click to expand...

The original preamble itself is amorphous. And there was nothing said about what you term "the welfare state". That is a politically subjective meme. The addition just included "people" as opposed to the amorphous "general welfare". Further, promoting the arts and sciences in the preamble makes it a cause that WE intend to secure, like "provide for the common defense".
 
PirateMk1 said:
I would say that we could lean toward the federal route. My concern is that there should be certain universal or national things that the country has in common no matter were you go, IE the gun laws, the jury and voting laws, and possibly tax laws amongst others.
Click to expand...

For clarification: National is centralized; federal is a system.
 
jet57 said:
For clarification: National is centralized; federal is a system.
Click to expand...

I would say more of a concept than a system. It is my understanding that:

A central or national government in a unitary state does not give significant power to regional divisions.
A federal government in a country gives significant power to regional divisions.

If we go with the concept that the Founders based the original constitution on, however, that document and the one we will create is totally unique in that the government gives power to nobody but rather the people give the government its power.

For me, that is a critical component of process of writing a new Constitution. I wish to strengthen the concept that the federal government is limited in its power and have a process in place to deal with it should it overstep its powers. We will either have a system in which the people govern themselves--i.e. a concept of liberty--or we will just have what we hope is a new and improved quasi-totalitarian system.

The folks who forged the original Constitution had that same debate over how much power the central government will have.
 
asuderatorrent's suggestion:

1...We the People of the United States, in order to form a better society, establish fairness under the law, insure peace among its citizens, provide for the national defense of our nation, promote a good life for all citizens, and secure liberty to ourselves and the future citizens, do establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

2...Bigfoot88's suggestion:
We the citizens of the sovereign States, in order to accomplish together what is more difficult apart, do authorize a consensual union of limited powers, codified by this Constitution of the United States of America.

3....Sangha's suggestion:
We the People of the United States, in order to form a better society, establish equal protection and application for everyone under the law, insure peace among its citizens, provide for the national defense and security of our nation, promote the prosperity, safety and health of its' citizens, and secure liberty to ourselves and the future citizens, do establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


4....AlbqOwl:
We the people, in order to ensure peaceful cooperation and commerce between the various sovereign states, provide the common defense, promote justice and the general welfare without prejudice or favoritism, and secure the unalienable rights and blessings of liberty for every citizen, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

5....jet57
We The People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish equal justice; insure and protect domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote and ensure the general welfare of all of our citizens, promote the arts and sciences and secure the blessings of our equal liberty and freedoms for all our citizens and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States.
Click to expand...


1. national

2. federal

3. national

4. federal

5 national
 
Last edited:
PirateMk1 said:
I would say that we could lean toward the federal route. My concern is that there should be certain universal or national things that the country has in common no matter were you go, IE the gun laws, the jury and voting laws, and possibly tax laws amongst others.
Click to expand...

since the idea of federalism is to separate powers.

would it not seem strange to have 2 entities of power, controlling the same object?
 
PirateMk1 said:
I would say that we could lean toward the federal route. My concern is that there should be certain universal or national things that the country has in common no matter were you go, IE the gun laws, the jury and voting laws, and possibly tax laws amongst others.
Click to expand...

For sure, the central government would need to regulate immigration, establish a fair and equitable means of funding the central government and the responsibilities assigned to it, and the Constitution will need to establish some universal concept for federal elections and whatever the individual states cannot realistically do themselves. But as for how law and order, gun laws, etc. are done throughout the country, I don't want the federal government to have any say about that. What is practical and desirable in New York City may be entirely impractical and ridiculous in Albuquerque NM. Each state and/or local community should organize the society that the people want to have.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The whole of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that followed it was based on the concept of unalienable aka God given aka natural rights that the Founders (and many before them) saw as the righteous and proper state of humankind. In the simplest definition of this, an unalienable right is that which requires no contribution or participation by any other. If what we desire, need, want, or hope for does require participation or contribution by any other it is not an unalienable right but rather a privilege to be negotiated. There can be no liberty if the government does not see unalienable rights as inviolate and if the government does not receive its authority from the people rather than the government assigning the rights the people will have.

If we cannot agree on that one point from the beginning, then we will agree on virtually nothing in a constitutional rewrite.
Click to expand...

Then we're in trouble!

I don't agree with "natural" rights. Civilization determines the rights that people have, there is nothing inherent.
 
AlbqOwl said:
For sure, the central government would need to regulate immigration, establish a fair and equitable means of funding the central government and the responsibilities assigned to it, and the Constitution will need to establish some universal concept for federal elections and whatever the individual states cannot realistically do themselves. But as for how law and order, gun laws, etc. are done throughout the country, I don't want the federal government to have any say about that. What is practical and desirable in New York City may be entirely impractical and ridiculous in Albuquerque NM. Each state and/or local community should organize the society that the people want to have.
Click to expand...

and thus we ended up with segregated schools in the south, guns moving from "loose" states to "tight" states, voter disenfranchisement laws...

I think the central govt needs to establish a baseline of standards; then individual localities can go tighter or looser (depending on the issue) to adapt to local conditions
 
paddymcdougall said:
Then we're in trouble!

I don't agree with "natural" rights. Civilization determines the rights that people have, there is nothing inherent.
Click to expand...

then show me where the government has created a right by law.


rights are negative law......unwritten law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom