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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Our Founding Fathers, the likes of what have never been seen again, wrote the Constitution because they knew the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. They feared and hated the concept of a Deomocracy and attempted to keep future Executives from over-riding the will of the people. The first five Presidents were the greatest minds of the 18th Century. Most people have never studied the Constitution (no High Civics class does not count) nor do they know what The Federalist Papers were or who wrote them. This was the great debate. Governments seek more reach and more power. States and the constitution attempt to limit the over reach of the Executive Branch.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I believe the U.S. Constitution is a living entity just as relevant today as it was two-hundred fifty years ago; therefore, the American society should be redefined. Unfortunately, most of the third-world countries exist without any type of tangible "constitution," which invites unethical practices and non-existing infrastructure. Nation-building is expensive and requires cooperation from other nations, any takers?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
There are several major changes I would make. In my opinion, we don't see enough amending and repealing within that document.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
Specifically I'd change the language of the 2nd Amendment and completely eliminate the electoral college. Those are the first two which come to mind. I'd also make an Amendment to introduce Congressional term limits and outlaw gerrymandering.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Due or not, there is no way that 2/3 of house, senate, president, and 26 states pass it. We are all too individualistic.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No, it's just fine the way it was written...if we can keep idiot courts and Congresses from interpreting it a million different ways. What we need to rewrite is any statute or legislation dealing with or pertaining to the Congress, the SCOTUS, and the Executive Branch. Right now, I'd be very happy if they were eliminated, and we started over from scratch!!!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
For good or bad, the Constitution is virtually impossible to amend. 37 states would have to agree to an amendment.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
"The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. "
Written into the constitution is a method by which future generations can decide as to whether or not they are to continue to be "bound by previous generations". That is the ability to amend the Constitution. The ability to change that Constitution resides in the will of the People to move that process forward. So, if the People wish the Constitution to be changed, they will do so, like they have on 27 occasions. This eliminates this concern of binding a document to future generations. If the People will the change, the change will happen.
Written into the constitution is a method by which future generations can decide as to whether or not they are to continue to be "bound by previous generations". That is the ability to amend the Constitution. The ability to change that Constitution resides in the will of the People to move that process forward. So, if the People wish the Constitution to be changed, they will do so, like they have on 27 occasions. This eliminates this concern of binding a document to future generations. If the People will the change, the change will happen.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google