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
1
1
0
The Constitution should be left alone. If anything, we should introduce a few new amendments -- like a limit to the term length and pay for Federal legislators.
For every Citizen who cites a point that needs changing in the Constitution, you can find a dozen that think it should be left alone. Take gun control for example: you believe we are way past the days when the citizenry needs weapons equal in power to the military; I disagree. Vehemently. If we have the right to life and property, then we also have the right to defend our life and property -- even against the government should it come down to it.
I also think and feel that most problems people have with social legislation is due to a belief that the Federal government should be legislating our social lives. I also disagree with that. An example: marriage shouldn't be touched by the government, therefore the government shouldn't care who's getting married -- now we don't have to worry about gay rights being legislated.
The Federal government should be small, but it has become bloated. It's trying to stick its hands into any area of our lives it can. There is a large push to polarize the populace in order to keep us ignorant of the run on our rights. Our States have been federalized into homogeneity and we don't have many choices. The choices we do have, are carefully considered and handed to us by the very oligarchy that is regulating our rights away.
It isn't the Constitution that's the problem. It's the people who continue to get elected and the sleeping populace that keeps electing them. Rewriting the Constitution won't help, but rebuilding D.C. might.
For every Citizen who cites a point that needs changing in the Constitution, you can find a dozen that think it should be left alone. Take gun control for example: you believe we are way past the days when the citizenry needs weapons equal in power to the military; I disagree. Vehemently. If we have the right to life and property, then we also have the right to defend our life and property -- even against the government should it come down to it.
I also think and feel that most problems people have with social legislation is due to a belief that the Federal government should be legislating our social lives. I also disagree with that. An example: marriage shouldn't be touched by the government, therefore the government shouldn't care who's getting married -- now we don't have to worry about gay rights being legislated.
The Federal government should be small, but it has become bloated. It's trying to stick its hands into any area of our lives it can. There is a large push to polarize the populace in order to keep us ignorant of the run on our rights. Our States have been federalized into homogeneity and we don't have many choices. The choices we do have, are carefully considered and handed to us by the very oligarchy that is regulating our rights away.
It isn't the Constitution that's the problem. It's the people who continue to get elected and the sleeping populace that keeps electing them. Rewriting the Constitution won't help, but rebuilding D.C. might.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
Not to get off topic - but, could you clarify your statement regarding the level of weaponry that the citizens should have access to? I'm all for the usual rifles, handguns, pistols, etc - but the government has access to much greater firepower than that (tanks, bombers, atomic weapons, etc etc etc) - should the average citizen be allowed to possess and maintain those types of weapons?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
No possible chance! The constitution is without a doubt the only reason we are the last stand for freedom on this planet. Rewriting it every 19 years would only provide a huge pathway to losing that freedom. Yeahhhhhh….then we could live like everyone else. There have been 27 amendments to the constitution to date. The document is 226 years old. Therefore, (on average) there has been a change every 8.3 years. Is that not enough already?
(1)
(0)
1LT William Westervelt
To be fair, the first ten happened before ratification. So, it's more like an amendment every 13.3 years. Still, I think that's more than reasonable.
(1)
(0)
SPC Paul Rogers
MSgt Steve Miller - You are also the type of person that should never have been promoted to a leadership position. Instead of responding to a discussion calmly you quickly switch to threats when someone contradicts you. If you believe he was mistaken you should have asked for where he came by that information but instead you start personally attacking his character and threatening his person because you are unable to come up with an intelligent response and it irks you to appear stupid. Personally I believe you would have been better off not responding to his reply because all you have accomplished is proving beyond doubt that you lack any intelligence.
I apologize to Major Zeski for placing this comment, however I rarely can put up with someone who likes to make threats to people while hiding behind their keyboard while simultaneously attempting to bring an educated discussion down to the caveman levels that they understand.
I apologize to Major Zeski for placing this comment, however I rarely can put up with someone who likes to make threats to people while hiding behind their keyboard while simultaneously attempting to bring an educated discussion down to the caveman levels that they understand.
(0)
(1)
MSgt Steve Miller
Just to bring a head to how I feel about the constitution of the United States – Don’t Dare Tread On Me. I’m ready and waiting for the likes of those that think I should compromise my position. So help me God!
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
1LT William Westervelt - the First 10 amendments happened before the ratification of the Constitution?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
The constitution has been augmented through new amendments over time. I'm sure it will be augmented again in the future. The founders themselves found their number too split about slavery to do more than make imperfect compromises they themselves didn't like. Time changed enough to allow women voting rights and to remove the requirement of land and property restrictions on voting as well. Adding amendments and removing them when things like prohibition turned out to be a bad idea, keep the constitution from being a dead outdated document. If enough interest is created to get rid of, say, the electoral college, it can be done.
Also, the first writers went to some lengths to write a document that dealt with universal macro issues rather than tiny details. So what was all important to consider 250 years ago, isn't set in stone causing problems now: Such things as, whether a witch should be stoned, burned or imprisoned in a barrel.
Also, the first writers went to some lengths to write a document that dealt with universal macro issues rather than tiny details. So what was all important to consider 250 years ago, isn't set in stone causing problems now: Such things as, whether a witch should be stoned, burned or imprisoned in a barrel.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Jefferson is well-known for several things other than the Declaration of Independence (which was heavily plagiarized) or his presidential actions; mostly Sally Hemmings and knowing next to nothing about the Constitution.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
I find it doubtful that Jefferson wasn't versed in the Constitution. However, regardless, Jefferson and Washington both understood the perils of trying to establish a government for many generations in the future. They believed that the generations themselves should establish how and who governs them. That is still an ideal worth considering.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski, Jefferson did not write the Constitution and frequently relied on Madison to advise him on constitutional principles. A number of Jefferson biographies explain this.
Your evidence that Washington wanted to periodically rewrite the Constitution is that he didn't believe it would survive for more than a few decades. Believing that it would not survive is not the same as wanting it to be reconstituted.
Scrapping the Constitution every 19 or so years would wreck havoc on the legal system because, contrary to CPT Jack Durish's view, the Constitution is the law. Imagine the damage that would be done if we periodically nullified all precedent and common law! Would the new constitution apply retroactively? Would all elected officials be sacked from office upon the ratification of each new constitution? They would if the new constitution provided for different means of election, different terms or powers of office, or an entirely different system of government (e.g. parliamentary).
The ideal you consider worth considering does not need to be considered because it still exists. We don't need to uproot the foundation of our system just to modernize it. The analogy to a house holds true: if you want to remodel your kitchen, you don't rebuild your home.
Your evidence that Washington wanted to periodically rewrite the Constitution is that he didn't believe it would survive for more than a few decades. Believing that it would not survive is not the same as wanting it to be reconstituted.
Scrapping the Constitution every 19 or so years would wreck havoc on the legal system because, contrary to CPT Jack Durish's view, the Constitution is the law. Imagine the damage that would be done if we periodically nullified all precedent and common law! Would the new constitution apply retroactively? Would all elected officials be sacked from office upon the ratification of each new constitution? They would if the new constitution provided for different means of election, different terms or powers of office, or an entirely different system of government (e.g. parliamentary).
The ideal you consider worth considering does not need to be considered because it still exists. We don't need to uproot the foundation of our system just to modernize it. The analogy to a house holds true: if you want to remodel your kitchen, you don't rebuild your home.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
LTC (Join to see) - You're looking for an argument where none is to be found. I am dead set against rewriting the Constitution for two reasons that I mentioned elsewhere in this discussion thread: (1) Who would you trust to craft a new one and (2) Why would anyone expect the Left to honor the new document any more than the one they have already riddled with holes? Now, that being said, the Constitution is not "law" per se. It does not express a single legal mandate or injunction that apply to the people as do laws. It is a blueprint for a government among free individuals. It grants sovereignty with restraints. It defines who will craft laws and how they will be crafted. The bulk of American law was derived from the English Common Law in effect at the time of the American Revolution. Thereafter, American Common Law diverged and followed its own natural course. In time, Congress built a body of statutory law (Civil and Criminal Codes). The Constitution was not so much a law in itself but established guidelines by which laws are judged. Sadly Congress has always tended to stretch the Constitutional limits and passed bad law and the Supreme Court generally reined them in when they went too far afield. However progressive interpretations of portions of the Constitution, especially the Commerce Clause, have allowed many bad laws to stand. The current Supreme Bunch is among the worst violators. Now, it you still see something in this to argue with, have had it. I have no more time for it...
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
The Constitution is not the law. It is a blueprint for a Republic. It is a very idealistic vision of individuals living in harmony, respecting one another's rights, and taking responsibility for their own decisions and actions. It's an ideal that we never fully attained.
Look at how far we came, how well we succeeded as individuals and as a nation under the old one. We didn't begin to backslide (economically, socially, culturally) until we allowed those who preferred centralized control of everything to misinterpret the Constitution and pervert it.
Cultural mandates (such as the dominion of men over women) as well as racial prejudice got in the way. By and large we corrected and moved past those things but never fully attained the true vision of the framers of the Constitution. I think it would be nice to give it a try before we discard it for another, don't you?
Look at how far we came, how well we succeeded as individuals and as a nation under the old one. We didn't begin to backslide (economically, socially, culturally) until we allowed those who preferred centralized control of everything to misinterpret the Constitution and pervert it.
Cultural mandates (such as the dominion of men over women) as well as racial prejudice got in the way. By and large we corrected and moved past those things but never fully attained the true vision of the framers of the Constitution. I think it would be nice to give it a try before we discard it for another, don't you?
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
CPT Jack Durish I agree that we've come a long was under the one we have. And that is absolutely a testament to the wisdom inherent in it. But, from day one of the Constitution, people started to look for ways around it. Lincoln did. Some did for noble reasons, others for not so noble ones - but the point is that before the ink was dry, it was subject to entropy.
I'm not saying that the ideals, values, rights, and responsibilities in the Constitution should be discarded, I'm saying that we can renew/refresh/rewrite the document in way that preserves those values, but also incorporates the countless lessons we've learned growing up in the last 200 years as a nation.
The fact that something continues to work long past it's intended expiration means that it was well built. I still see 1980s Hondas on the road without over 200,000 miles. They were made well. But, that doesn't mean we should stick with that design forever. Advances in every field open doors for progress in automotives as well as politics.
I think that our government has entropied too far from the Constitution as it was intended and that we've lost not only the letter of the law, but also the spirit. We hang on to the words nostalgically and perhaps wistfully dream of a way to bring the country back - but without a significant change, that isn't going to happen. Our greatest power now lies in the opportunity for a Constitutional Convention where we can refresh the Constitution from it's foundations.
I'm not saying that the ideals, values, rights, and responsibilities in the Constitution should be discarded, I'm saying that we can renew/refresh/rewrite the document in way that preserves those values, but also incorporates the countless lessons we've learned growing up in the last 200 years as a nation.
The fact that something continues to work long past it's intended expiration means that it was well built. I still see 1980s Hondas on the road without over 200,000 miles. They were made well. But, that doesn't mean we should stick with that design forever. Advances in every field open doors for progress in automotives as well as politics.
I think that our government has entropied too far from the Constitution as it was intended and that we've lost not only the letter of the law, but also the spirit. We hang on to the words nostalgically and perhaps wistfully dream of a way to bring the country back - but without a significant change, that isn't going to happen. Our greatest power now lies in the opportunity for a Constitutional Convention where we can refresh the Constitution from it's foundations.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
MAJ Bryan Zeski - It is tempting to rewrite the Constitution to plug the holes that the leftists have drilled in its fabric. However, I hesitate for two questions: Who would you trust to rewrite it? The most likely members of a Constitutional Convention would be the very same people who are defiling the one we have. Secondly, even if even plainer language were found and the holes were successfully plugged, why would they adhere to that document any better? The Left has no respect for individual freedom. They won't allow any mere document to stand in their way to tryanny, not even one that they help craft...
(0)
(0)
PO3 Sherry Thornburg
Have to agree and disagree. The Constitution is a blueprint, but it is also the foundation for our laws. It is a document of rules for how the government works and laws. Thus we refer to laws as constitutional that agree with and do not overstep the macro ideals of the Constitution. When a law is found in opposition to those ideals, it is referred to as un-constitutional.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I believe that the stated time frames of 19 to 25 years are too short of a period. For a document such as the constitution I believe it should be written in a manner that will endure at least a hundred years. After the first hundred years it should go under review to determine how accurate and useful it still is and, assuming it is not rewritten then, every twenty year thereafter. With that being said I agree with you that it does largely need to be updated rather than constantly patched with amendments.
To those who believe the Constitution is the end all/be all, I refute that the core beliefs of freedom don't have to be discarded with a rewrite. A rewrite will not necessarily scrap the original ideas, it will just update and reinforce the ones that are still relevant and add relevant amendments into the document itself rather than as a series of add-ons.
To those who believe the Constitution is the end all/be all, I refute that the core beliefs of freedom don't have to be discarded with a rewrite. A rewrite will not necessarily scrap the original ideas, it will just update and reinforce the ones that are still relevant and add relevant amendments into the document itself rather than as a series of add-ons.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
I agree that 19-25 might be too short sighted, but I think 100 is a bit long. I think that Jefferson's point was that the current generation of people should be the one's determining what power their government has or doesn't. He didn't envision that the original laws would be governing people generations into the future - and definitely not 200 years into the future!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The constitution needs to be changed for many reasons. It does not apply to today's world that has changed so much since their time. For Example, freedom of speech has become freedom of destruction within our own country. We have become wimps to politicians defying the constitution, both people and executives.....especially executive policies. I highly doubt if our Four Fathers would have known what we would have become as a result of their constitution, but if they had known I am sure they would have made it adjustable.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
I think they DID know that things would go wrong - which is why Jefferson advocated for a renewal every generation.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I personally believe that the Constitution was written with the intention of transcending time. The core document still holds true and is still practical even to this age. We the people have lost sight of its actual meaning in regards to the balance of power in the government. (I'll end it there because the rest will just get disrespectful).
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google