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
No. No way in hell would I agree to a wholesale rewrite of the Constitution. Too many people in this country would love to see the 13th Amendment repealed. Too many people who will tell you to mind your own business about what they do want to dip in your business.
(1)
(0)
SSG Ray Strenkowski
Thank you. Additionally I believe the 2nd Amendment would be on the chopping block.
(0)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
As would the first. Plenty of people who advocate for the first only want to push their own agendas.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Our constitution was written so that changes can be made. Also its interpretation by the Supreme Court changes.
New is not always good and can also be very bad.
New is not always good and can also be very bad.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
We have a process to amend the USC as we progress as a nation. Follow the rules and it should all be ok. Go around the rules you screw shit up. The founding fathers were very smart about protecting the freedom that had cost them so much. Maybe we need to have a war of independence every few decades to remind the newer citizens of the price to be free!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Interesting interpretation since US Constitution and its immediate predecessor the Articles of Confederation were greatly based upon the document known as the Magna Carta, which was still in effect 562 and 572 years respectively. And its (Magna Carta) first clause to be repealed happened in 1829 (614 years later), where even today there are still three (3) clauses still in effect approximately 800 years after the fact. The majority of the clauses that have been repealed of the Magna Carta, however are still viable in the codified statutes of English law.
Even more interesting is that my (our) parents and grand-parents generation could and do see this better than our peers and our children as evoked in the following statements:
The prominent lawyer Lord Denning described Magna Carta in 1956 as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot".
In many ways still a "sacred text", Magna Carta is generally considered part of the uncodified constitution of the United Kingdom; in a 2005 speech, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Woolf, described it as the "first of a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a special constitutional status".
And now we have a number of people that want to rewrite our Constitution on both sides of the political spectrum? I'm sorry, but I will defend my property and my freedom when you try to encroach upon my personal territory which by the way is inclusive of my property, freedom, rights and my arms to prevent that encroachment. Thinking about that - isn't that what the Barons did to King John, when they forced him to agree to the Magna Carta?
Even more interesting is that my (our) parents and grand-parents generation could and do see this better than our peers and our children as evoked in the following statements:
The prominent lawyer Lord Denning described Magna Carta in 1956 as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot".
In many ways still a "sacred text", Magna Carta is generally considered part of the uncodified constitution of the United Kingdom; in a 2005 speech, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Woolf, described it as the "first of a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a special constitutional status".
And now we have a number of people that want to rewrite our Constitution on both sides of the political spectrum? I'm sorry, but I will defend my property and my freedom when you try to encroach upon my personal territory which by the way is inclusive of my property, freedom, rights and my arms to prevent that encroachment. Thinking about that - isn't that what the Barons did to King John, when they forced him to agree to the Magna Carta?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Oh God, I can only imagine the whacked amendments that would come out. While we have religious freedom, only if believe in my version of (fill in the blank). Hell we can't even agree on what half the amendments actually mean now. Half the SCOTUS wants to use International Law to determine cases, and the other half won't excuse themselves for things they obviously should excuse themselves from (hunting with Oil Barron's, and ruling on while on lower courts or representing issues in front of lower courts comes to mind).
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No, there are plenty of ways to make amendments, last one in 1992. We should start changing some to start giving term limits, and ban politicians retiring to become lobbysts. Why do I get the feeling that most don't even bother to read it?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Yeah, not going to go with the Constitution being re written. Just do not think it's a good idea....can you just imagine all of the fighting/arguing/bickering that will go one...it'll take years and years just to get it re written...
Leave it as it is and amend it along the way, but re write it? No way.
Leave it as it is and amend it along the way, but re write it? No way.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Why is this even a question? To protect the Constitution and our way of life is why I signed up for the Army in the first place. And yes, that is the sole reason. If I wanted money for college I could have taken my JROTC scholarship. I may not be college educated, but I do know, that if our country has lived off the Constitution that was written over 240 years ago, then we don't need to re-write it. To me, if it changed, then there would be no reason to continue serving as the Spirit of Freedom and Liberty would no longer exist. Not to mention, in my own opinion, those that died defending the Constitution would be in vain. We make amendments, as was done in the past. The current form of government may need to be changed, limiting terms for lawmakers and such. But in no way shape or form should the the United States Constitution be re-written. Again, that's why we have amendments. I can go into alot of other detailed way to make changes, but I'm not going to, as all those changes are expressed by a plethora of other service members on this page.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google