13
13
0
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html
Our Constitution, that we swear to support and defend, is over 200 years old. It was, at that time, an entirely different world. There is ample evidence that the Founders did not expect, nor desire the nation to be governed by the same Constitution for as long as it has been. George Washington expected the Constitution to last between 20-25 years. Thomas Jefferson even wrote to Madison, "On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal."
Here, he clearly says that it's not enough to simply be able to repeal laws or amendments, but that every 19 years, the old laws (including the Constitution itself) should be washed clean and rewritten.
What do you all think about that?
Our Constitution, that we swear to support and defend, is over 200 years old. It was, at that time, an entirely different world. There is ample evidence that the Founders did not expect, nor desire the nation to be governed by the same Constitution for as long as it has been. George Washington expected the Constitution to last between 20-25 years. Thomas Jefferson even wrote to Madison, "On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal."
Here, he clearly says that it's not enough to simply be able to repeal laws or amendments, but that every 19 years, the old laws (including the Constitution itself) should be washed clean and rewritten.
What do you all think about that?
Posted in these groups: 
Constitution
Government
Constitution Government
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 55
29
29
0
Nope, it’s the Constitution. That’s why we make amendments. The Constitution is the foundation. Could you imagine with the status of our current government and bureaucracy coming to agreement on a new Constitution. I sure couldn’t. They can’t manage to balance the budget, let alone derive a new Constitution. Our Constitution is the foundation of this country. We the living, as referred to often in the article, can build upon it through Constitutional Amendments. The article referenced is a diatribe of little substance to justify a new constitution, in this guy’s opinion.
(29)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski Say we identify the problem, who is going to make the determination of a solution? The Ds? The Rs? The Ds would never let the Rs come to a conclusion and vice versa. Who in government today do you trust to make that decision?
(4)
(0)
MSgt Alex Taylor
I agree that the our Constitution is a good document and the process to change, amendments, is the way to go about it as you have noted. We've managed quite well under our current Constitution. Also, radically changing it with a new one every so often would raise havoc with our oaths. If a new constitution is something that a service member does not believe in, where does that leave them?
(3)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski - Yes, but each generation decides whether or not they are to continue to be governed by the constitution through whether or not they push for changes.
Just because a group of people feel it needs to change does not mean they are the majority nor are they entitled to force their beliefs on others.
Just because a group of people feel it needs to change does not mean they are the majority nor are they entitled to force their beliefs on others.
(3)
(0)
19
19
0
I don't agree. Changing every 19 years makes the Constitution subject to the whims of temporary passions. I think it is good that the Constitution is changeable, but difficult to change - this ensures that changes have substantive support.
(19)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
I agree that 19 years may be short - how about 50? 50 years seems reasonable to me, in light of progress and advances in life-expectancy. Regardless, 200 years seems a bit too long.
(2)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
MAJ Bryan Zeski, sir, would you rather live under a Constitution written by those we have in power now or the original drafters of our Constitution?
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell don't fill me with much confidence.
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell don't fill me with much confidence.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
Honestly, I'd rather we put together a collective of scientists, philosophers, artists, military leaders, economists, humanitarians, and similar groups and hammer out an up-to-date version. No elected officials would be allowed on the board and no corporations would be able to fund any portion of the proceedings.
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
MAJ Bryan Zeski, sir, I would be afraid that in the toxic environment we live in today it would not be possible to get a rational product completed. Ideology over rationality permeates our people, and our political leaders reflect the people they represent.
Even scientists allow ideology to color their judgment today. I'm afraid that it would be like trying to write a Constitution in Salem when the witch trials were going on.
I would rather trust the rationality and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and the governing stability and the protections for all that they created than the leaders of today that cannot even follow the principles set out in our Constitution as it currently exists and who substitute their own personal whims for the law.
We do not live in the best of times as far as human wisdom is concerned.
Even scientists allow ideology to color their judgment today. I'm afraid that it would be like trying to write a Constitution in Salem when the witch trials were going on.
I would rather trust the rationality and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and the governing stability and the protections for all that they created than the leaders of today that cannot even follow the principles set out in our Constitution as it currently exists and who substitute their own personal whims for the law.
We do not live in the best of times as far as human wisdom is concerned.
(3)
(0)
12
12
0
You think things are crazy now with all the knee-jerk reactions done within the Government, could you just picture how bad it would be to re-write this document?? Let's just use gun control for an example. Do you think, if re-written, we would still have the 2nd Amendment? Let's also look at freedom of speech. With all these things happening like that crazy "F*ck the Flag" blog, do you think we would maintain that right?
The government has a hard enough time trying to balance a budget, it would take them longer than 19 years to even figure out where to even start re-writing this document.
The government has a hard enough time trying to balance a budget, it would take them longer than 19 years to even figure out where to even start re-writing this document.
(12)
(0)
11
11
0
So we should toss out a document because it was written centuries ago by the founders, all by virtue of something a founder stated centuries ago? Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense. I'm good with not fixing what isn't broken. Personally, I like having the freedoms guaranteed to me presently, and I would question you as to who you think would be drafting a new constitution and whose best interests those drafters would be serving.
(11)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
Everything in the Constitution is based on 200+ year old ideas, philosophies technologies, and facts. Since you ask for specifics about what is outdated:
1. There's no requirement for equality under the government for all people in the current Constitution.
2. The Second Amendment seems to essentially give the right to any type of weapon to anyone.
3. Elected office has become a career instead of a temporary duty - leading to vast amounts of corruption (and also, the exact reason we NEED a revamp).
4. Privacy - we have allowed ourselves to give us extreme amounts of privacy to the government for surveillance in the name of security.
5. Basic human rights - As in, let's be clear that torture is wrong and that we don't participate in it.
6. Military appropriations - should the Army still be an annual discussion? Or should have we crossed the threshold to needing a standing Army?
7. Tax structure...
And more... The possibilities for making a better America are endless.
1. There's no requirement for equality under the government for all people in the current Constitution.
2. The Second Amendment seems to essentially give the right to any type of weapon to anyone.
3. Elected office has become a career instead of a temporary duty - leading to vast amounts of corruption (and also, the exact reason we NEED a revamp).
4. Privacy - we have allowed ourselves to give us extreme amounts of privacy to the government for surveillance in the name of security.
5. Basic human rights - As in, let's be clear that torture is wrong and that we don't participate in it.
6. Military appropriations - should the Army still be an annual discussion? Or should have we crossed the threshold to needing a standing Army?
7. Tax structure...
And more... The possibilities for making a better America are endless.
(0)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
Throw out? How about just change and update? I think those are called amendments =o)
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski - To respond to your points in order...
1: Unless I've forgotten something obvious I can't think of a single thing in our constitution that discriminates against any portion of our society, so I don't understand why we need to spell out something that is effectively already the case.
2: For good reason. The second amendment isn't to protect a hunters right to put food on their families table, it's to protect the right for citizens to be able to procure the tools necessary to defend themselves against the state.
3: I'm with you on this. Term limits are desperately needed.
4: With you on this one too, though it remains to be seen (i.e. challenged in court) how much of our governments surveillance is constitutional.
5: To ban something that something must be defined, and therein lies our current problem. Torture is subjective, and it's incredibly difficult to ban a subjective thing. Also, I've never heard of torture being sanctioned against an American citizen, so I'm not sure what the problem is with our current constitution in this regard.
6: I'm not sure if I understand you on this. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have a standing military? Especially in light of how you apparently feel about the second amendment?
7: What about it?
1: Unless I've forgotten something obvious I can't think of a single thing in our constitution that discriminates against any portion of our society, so I don't understand why we need to spell out something that is effectively already the case.
2: For good reason. The second amendment isn't to protect a hunters right to put food on their families table, it's to protect the right for citizens to be able to procure the tools necessary to defend themselves against the state.
3: I'm with you on this. Term limits are desperately needed.
4: With you on this one too, though it remains to be seen (i.e. challenged in court) how much of our governments surveillance is constitutional.
5: To ban something that something must be defined, and therein lies our current problem. Torture is subjective, and it's incredibly difficult to ban a subjective thing. Also, I've never heard of torture being sanctioned against an American citizen, so I'm not sure what the problem is with our current constitution in this regard.
6: I'm not sure if I understand you on this. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have a standing military? Especially in light of how you apparently feel about the second amendment?
7: What about it?
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski - "2. The Second Amendment seems to essentially give the right to any type of weapon to anyone."
Wow, comments like these are why I would be strongly opposed to the constitution getting a rewrite... that amendment isn't for hunting.
Wow, comments like these are why I would be strongly opposed to the constitution getting a rewrite... that amendment isn't for hunting.
(1)
(0)
7
7
0
If you look at the Constitution itself, you will see it is actually designed to be difficult to pass Laws. The system is built to make it hard to give power to the government (Law). Although we have a method to Amend it is even harder to do so that the Legislative process, and it should be.
We've only tweaked it a handful of times in our 200+ history, and a third of those were in the first 20 years. As we go deeper, we find that most of the changes were "mechanical" and foreseen. We either knew they were coming, or they were just bugs.
I agree that we should look at the Constitution often. Constantly. Things do change. The world does change. That doesn't mean we have to change the Constitution... but we should look at it.
I'd almost say we need a Constitutional Convention every so many DECADES... but my fear would be someone wanting to change things just because they had the opportunity.
We've only tweaked it a handful of times in our 200+ history, and a third of those were in the first 20 years. As we go deeper, we find that most of the changes were "mechanical" and foreseen. We either knew they were coming, or they were just bugs.
I agree that we should look at the Constitution often. Constantly. Things do change. The world does change. That doesn't mean we have to change the Constitution... but we should look at it.
I'd almost say we need a Constitutional Convention every so many DECADES... but my fear would be someone wanting to change things just because they had the opportunity.
(7)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
I'm thinking that our politicians should be left completely out of any Constitutional rewrites or amendments at this point. They continually show themselves to be self-serving and outside the intent of "service" envisioned by the Founders. Career politicians were unheard of - and should be again. But right now, the only people that can change that are the politicians themselves - who consistently choose NOT to do that.
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski The last time the people stood up to a tyrannical government the Declaration of Independence was signed, the British government declared the signers rebels, and Revolution ensued. In your words "politicians should be left completely out of any Constitutional rewrites" they would declare anyone trying to alter THEIR form of government, rebels. If the Constitution, which we swear fealty to, needs a rewrite, that document itself provides the means. Personally, I'm glad that the founders made it difficult to change. They knew that with power comes the potential for abuse.
(1)
(0)
7
7
0
6
6
0
MAJ Bryan Zeski . We can amend the Constitution any time we like and have done so many times. So the ability to "change" it is already built into it.
Which rights do you think we should forfeit or create? The idea of God given rights is timeless. The right to speak, assemble, bear arms, practice your religion should not be "negotiable" with the current generation who may not be nearly as smart as previous ones. Can you imagine if we rewrote it during the 60's or 70's?
Jefferson and Madison wrote to each other (and to others) many things. What they ( Constitutional Convention) landed on, agreed to and had ratified was the US Constitution. They left the ability to amend it so that future generations could alter/change but the put a high bar for the change.
You might recall the Jefferson was not a writer or a representative/delegate of any state at the Constitutional Convention.
Which rights do you think we should forfeit or create? The idea of God given rights is timeless. The right to speak, assemble, bear arms, practice your religion should not be "negotiable" with the current generation who may not be nearly as smart as previous ones. Can you imagine if we rewrote it during the 60's or 70's?
Jefferson and Madison wrote to each other (and to others) many things. What they ( Constitutional Convention) landed on, agreed to and had ratified was the US Constitution. They left the ability to amend it so that future generations could alter/change but the put a high bar for the change.
You might recall the Jefferson was not a writer or a representative/delegate of any state at the Constitutional Convention.
(6)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
No, Jefferson was not a writer of the Constitution. But, that doesn't change the fact that he understood that the people should be governed by laws and rights derived according to current issues - not by issues 200 years in the past. Jefferson did say that the amendment process was viable, but not thorough enough.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
MAJ Bryan Zeski . I think if you place yourself in Jefferson's shoes you can understand his thoughts on possible tyranny by a government. He had been the primary writer of the Declaration of Independence and had seen the usurpations of the crown on the people up close and personal. What he may not have been able to see as clearly is the wisdom of the Bill of Rights and how it has stood the test of time.
Jefferson was a believer of unalienable rights (rights from God, not rights you get from men). I don't think he was advocating for allowing some to take away the Bill of Rights as those rights did not come from man so how could the current generation simply take them away? He may have been advocating more for a way to more easily change the way the government operated. I have never read anything he has written that would indicate the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights could or should be up for negotiation by men since the do not come from men.
Jefferson was a believer of unalienable rights (rights from God, not rights you get from men). I don't think he was advocating for allowing some to take away the Bill of Rights as those rights did not come from man so how could the current generation simply take them away? He may have been advocating more for a way to more easily change the way the government operated. I have never read anything he has written that would indicate the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights could or should be up for negotiation by men since the do not come from men.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
Cpl Jeff N. - While I agree that Jefferson would like that the Bill of Rights - or a similar set of rights - be incorporated in the "next" Constitution, I think he also recognized that limit scope of his ability to see into the future. I suspect he knew, instinctively that certain rights were missing from the Bill of Rights (Women's Rights, Black Rights, etc), and would have preferred that the next generations fix those issues in THEIR Constitution.
However, I DO believe that the Bill of Rights was created by man and are, therefore, not complete or perfect.
However, I DO believe that the Bill of Rights was created by man and are, therefore, not complete or perfect.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
MAJ Bryan Zeski . We agree it is not perfect event the preamble recognized that to be the case (form a more perfect union). The real issue for me is unalienable rights. I do not want men thinking they can take away from them as they see fit because of the changing tide of human mores.
The Constitution was written the way it was exactly to address (or allow to be addressed) shortcomings in the document by establishing basic rights all people should have even though, at the time, not all people had them.
When you consider the relative brevity, with the longevity it has had and the ability to change it but not to easily it is actually a pretty brilliant document but not perfect. The writers knew that too.
The Constitution was written the way it was exactly to address (or allow to be addressed) shortcomings in the document by establishing basic rights all people should have even though, at the time, not all people had them.
When you consider the relative brevity, with the longevity it has had and the ability to change it but not to easily it is actually a pretty brilliant document but not perfect. The writers knew that too.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
I don't think it should be touched personally. Who would rewrite it, and the person who would rewrite it who's interest who he have.
I.E. ( would it be some rich person looking out for the rich only, would some liberal write it for liberals to benefit them)
This is why I say it should be left alone. Plus let's not forget our right as civilians being taken away. They have been fight forever to take our rights away to bare arms. Who wants that and we would lose allot of others rights also. Some might be added but again who will they benefit?
I.E. ( would it be some rich person looking out for the rich only, would some liberal write it for liberals to benefit them)
This is why I say it should be left alone. Plus let's not forget our right as civilians being taken away. They have been fight forever to take our rights away to bare arms. Who wants that and we would lose allot of others rights also. Some might be added but again who will they benefit?
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
MAJ Bryan Zeski,
Excellent question Sir. The intent, protections, and liberties assured to the people in the US Constitution have been constantly attacked and usurped by a plethora of special interests (corporations, the banking industry, the intelligence community, faith-based organizations, etc) before the ink on the signatures was even dry.
I believe the US Constitution is near-perfect with its current ratified amendments. It should not be touched unless otherwise properly amended. What we could do away with is every other single law or piece of legislation ever passed by any body of congress after 1776. We should also wipe clean every single Presidential (Executive) Order left standing. If we do this we can rebuild our nation upon the sturdy foundation of the US Constitution. Furthermore, every single piece of legislation which passes Congress and is ratified by the POTUS should then be put to a popular vote by the people. Doing this ensures that special interests can no longer force their agendas down our throats, and that the law that governs us all has been approved by a majority of those which it will govern. The Federal Reserve Bank will be abolished, and Congress will go back to regulating the printing of money, in turn regulating inflation, and the re-reinstatement of the gold reserve. It is time to clean house, but you can be guaranteed a new constitution drawn up by those in power will only further the enslavement of the US citizens.
Those are just a few ideas I've been thinking over the last decade or so as I watch my country follow the path of the Roman Empire.
Excellent question Sir. The intent, protections, and liberties assured to the people in the US Constitution have been constantly attacked and usurped by a plethora of special interests (corporations, the banking industry, the intelligence community, faith-based organizations, etc) before the ink on the signatures was even dry.
I believe the US Constitution is near-perfect with its current ratified amendments. It should not be touched unless otherwise properly amended. What we could do away with is every other single law or piece of legislation ever passed by any body of congress after 1776. We should also wipe clean every single Presidential (Executive) Order left standing. If we do this we can rebuild our nation upon the sturdy foundation of the US Constitution. Furthermore, every single piece of legislation which passes Congress and is ratified by the POTUS should then be put to a popular vote by the people. Doing this ensures that special interests can no longer force their agendas down our throats, and that the law that governs us all has been approved by a majority of those which it will govern. The Federal Reserve Bank will be abolished, and Congress will go back to regulating the printing of money, in turn regulating inflation, and the re-reinstatement of the gold reserve. It is time to clean house, but you can be guaranteed a new constitution drawn up by those in power will only further the enslavement of the US citizens.
Those are just a few ideas I've been thinking over the last decade or so as I watch my country follow the path of the Roman Empire.
(5)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SFC (Join to see) I just can't agree with you on this one. The Constitution when it was written was great for its time - so great that it still works relatively well even today! (And that really is saying something.) However, there are countless advances that have been made that the Founders could never have envisioned - and as such, we run into issues that they couldn't have foreseen and that the Constitution doesn't account for.
Look at the privacy issues we have now... the Founders could have no idea about digital privacy or internet privacy - these are things that would have been magic to them. They did the best with what they had and we've patchworked amendments to fill gaps.
How about human rights? The current Constitution has been patchworked to bring equality to blacks, to women, and others, but still doesn't express that all people must be treated equally under the government.
Guns? The Founders formed a Constitution that sought to provide the average citizen with the same firepower as the government (in order to keep the possibility of revolution plausible). We're long beyond that. There is no way we'd write a similar provision into a new Constitution. We could still protect rights to some firearms, but we'd write it better.
How about the function of government? We've learned over the last 200 years that, if possible, elected officials have so much power that they will do whatever it takes to keep that power. We have elected officials in office over 30 years! That kind of power hoarding is exactly what the Founders feared! If they could see us now, they'd absolutely write the Constitution to prevent that.
We've learned and advanced so much over the last 200 years that it's naive to think that the same document that governed the lives of those people 200 years ago can't be improved upon. Imagine trying to write laws and governance for people 200 years from NOW... we can't even imagine what will be needed or what the issues will be... interstellar travel? Ownership of extraterrestrial bodies? Alien rights?
We CAN make a better governing document. And we should.
Look at the privacy issues we have now... the Founders could have no idea about digital privacy or internet privacy - these are things that would have been magic to them. They did the best with what they had and we've patchworked amendments to fill gaps.
How about human rights? The current Constitution has been patchworked to bring equality to blacks, to women, and others, but still doesn't express that all people must be treated equally under the government.
Guns? The Founders formed a Constitution that sought to provide the average citizen with the same firepower as the government (in order to keep the possibility of revolution plausible). We're long beyond that. There is no way we'd write a similar provision into a new Constitution. We could still protect rights to some firearms, but we'd write it better.
How about the function of government? We've learned over the last 200 years that, if possible, elected officials have so much power that they will do whatever it takes to keep that power. We have elected officials in office over 30 years! That kind of power hoarding is exactly what the Founders feared! If they could see us now, they'd absolutely write the Constitution to prevent that.
We've learned and advanced so much over the last 200 years that it's naive to think that the same document that governed the lives of those people 200 years ago can't be improved upon. Imagine trying to write laws and governance for people 200 years from NOW... we can't even imagine what will be needed or what the issues will be... interstellar travel? Ownership of extraterrestrial bodies? Alien rights?
We CAN make a better governing document. And we should.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
Also, I'd never have a Constitution created by elected officials - it'd be an independent body made up of scientists, philosophers, economists, etc etc etc.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski - Insofar as a new constitution to address changes in the world, everything you mentioned can be addressed in amendments. If those issues are not addressed the citizens should march on the capitol.
Currently our government has no fear of the citizens. IMO they should fear for their jobs, their livelihoods, and their lives. Then and only then will they act on behalf of the people. Everyone talks shit about the French, but they are so much more superior to us in one regard... When the people are angered the politicians act swiftly to rectify their indiscretion.
Currently our government has no fear of the citizens. IMO they should fear for their jobs, their livelihoods, and their lives. Then and only then will they act on behalf of the people. Everyone talks shit about the French, but they are so much more superior to us in one regard... When the people are angered the politicians act swiftly to rectify their indiscretion.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Not overdue at all. What we are overdue for is for us to enforce the Constitution as written and intended (Federalist Papers provide context), instead of what we want it to mean. Further, redefining words and then applying them to the Constitution doesnt change the law. Its not a living document until it is amended. Reinterpretation does not make it a 'living' document.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google