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
The US Constitution is fine the way it is. It is the people who interpret it in their ways that should do more research into the true meanings behind each section. To change it for the sake of change is insanity. Considering it is the fabric behind our laws, we should tread carefully in any amendments. Over time, we have not had a large number of amendments for a reason. The basic rights granted have been far reaching and withstood the test of time.
Another reason not to screw with it is this, I took an oath to defend our Constitution as it was written when I raised my hand in 1999. If our government chooses to amend it, I will follow said amendments whether I like it or not, because I swore to uphold the entire Constitution. If you throw it out entirely and replace it with something new, then one has to ask, am I obligated now by my oath to defend the old or the new? The ramifications of that question would tear our military to shreds. Tread very lightly through this minefield.
Another reason not to screw with it is this, I took an oath to defend our Constitution as it was written when I raised my hand in 1999. If our government chooses to amend it, I will follow said amendments whether I like it or not, because I swore to uphold the entire Constitution. If you throw it out entirely and replace it with something new, then one has to ask, am I obligated now by my oath to defend the old or the new? The ramifications of that question would tear our military to shreds. Tread very lightly through this minefield.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
MSgt Alex Taylor If there were a Constitutional Convention that opted to rewrite or reword the Constitution, I think the military oath would still stand. That being said, the Army and Air Force were never intended to be "standing" forces. They were intended to be forces that were formed and brought up in times of national emergency and national defense.
I don't fear to tread through minefields - if we are not free to question and poke and prod in an effort to ignite brain cells and make people think (rather than just toe the line for the status quo), then we are fighting for nothing in the first place. You and I both know that the Constitution, as it stands, is not being used by the politicians that send us hither and yon. When was the last "declared" war? Constitutionally, that's how we go fight in different places and against other people. Many of our national leadership has long since abandoned most of the Constitution - and I this point, I don't think there is a way to bring it back around without a Constitutional Convention to rewrite and renew it.
I don't fear to tread through minefields - if we are not free to question and poke and prod in an effort to ignite brain cells and make people think (rather than just toe the line for the status quo), then we are fighting for nothing in the first place. You and I both know that the Constitution, as it stands, is not being used by the politicians that send us hither and yon. When was the last "declared" war? Constitutionally, that's how we go fight in different places and against other people. Many of our national leadership has long since abandoned most of the Constitution - and I this point, I don't think there is a way to bring it back around without a Constitutional Convention to rewrite and renew it.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Alex Taylor
You think the oath would still stand. See, already we have a difference of opinion. And depending on how a new Constitution is written, there in lies the issue. If something I don't believe in is heavily enshrined in a new version, where does my conscience stand in the matter? Where does the individual next to me? That becomes the problem. Anyway, do you believe a modern rewrite would be anything near as fair and just as what was conceived nearly 240 years ago? I know the Founding Fathers had many faults, but they were at least attempting to do good for the masses.
You are free to ask the question, but listen to the responses. Many of the individuals replying here are well educated and not mindless drones. A lot of us understand the meanings behind the Constitution, regardless of the current state of our nation. I have my views on what the articles mean, and that guides me. If others take a different view, then so be it, but I still defend the Constitution.
To answer you other question, we haven't declared war since 8 December 1941. All other actions in some way have been granted tacit approval by Congress. Just because we've created a legal loophole doesn't mean we aren't still using the Constitution. Did we declare war against the Barbary Pirates?
You are free to ask the question, but listen to the responses. Many of the individuals replying here are well educated and not mindless drones. A lot of us understand the meanings behind the Constitution, regardless of the current state of our nation. I have my views on what the articles mean, and that guides me. If others take a different view, then so be it, but I still defend the Constitution.
To answer you other question, we haven't declared war since 8 December 1941. All other actions in some way have been granted tacit approval by Congress. Just because we've created a legal loophole doesn't mean we aren't still using the Constitution. Did we declare war against the Barbary Pirates?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Major, I think that to make such statements while associating yourself with those Oak leaves is a violation of several sections of the UCMJ as well as the Alien and Sedition Act - which I am sure you are familiar with being such a great student of history. It was sponsored by the Federalists and signed by John Adams.
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SSgt (Join to see) - Also you do bring up a good point because normally such public abuse of a major would be unseemly, but in this case my authority derives not from my rank but from the UCMJ itself. As such, I am arguably compelled to make an example where I can.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
MSG (Join to see) - MSG Adams, I've tried to find your official email in the Global Email in order to discuss the issues offline, but I don't see any Army MSG Darren Adams there. Would your official email be under a civilian moniker? Your profile here states that you are active duty, so it shouldn't be that hard to find right? Would you please send me an email at my official email address? I'm the only Bryan Zeski in the address list, so it's pretty easy to find. Thanks.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
While in theory it would be ideal, it would never be practical.
Our politicians can't even balance a budget every year, how would they ever be able to draft, edit and pass a new Constitution? With the current administration we have in place if it were there turn to write a new constitution and new laws we would be a nation in dire need of saving more so than we are now.
Our politicians can't even balance a budget every year, how would they ever be able to draft, edit and pass a new Constitution? With the current administration we have in place if it were there turn to write a new constitution and new laws we would be a nation in dire need of saving more so than we are now.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
I agree that it would be a painful and prolonged process. It would require that we remove politicians from the equation and bring in much outside brain power to do so - businessmen, economists, military leadership, scientists, etc etc etc. The problem is that once we see the need for a change, and can see the system only getting worse as we go along, there is no GOOD time to do it - but there are only worse times down the road. That's why I used the word overdue. It's not about any one administration - it's about man being imperfect.
This country will change, someday - that is inevitable. We can either try and do it ourselves and make it better - or we can leave a tougher problem, with more corruption to our children and grandchildren. THIS is why Jefferson and Washington said 15-25 years - because once it gets 200 years entrenched, you've lost the power/will/fight to change it.
This country will change, someday - that is inevitable. We can either try and do it ourselves and make it better - or we can leave a tougher problem, with more corruption to our children and grandchildren. THIS is why Jefferson and Washington said 15-25 years - because once it gets 200 years entrenched, you've lost the power/will/fight to change it.
(2)
(0)
SPC Luis Mendez
MAJ Bryan Zeski - Removing Career Politicians as well as Political Careerists from a commission or team to revised it is a Great idea. Since it's a Legal Document Judges and Lawyers are a must to be included in your list of the Brain Powers. Also though they may be a pain to some, Labor leaders and representatives of the Middle Class are a Must IMVHO. I'm enjoying these a lot 'cause is something I've personally talked about in private with family, friends and fellow workers. Kudos to you!
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I can not agree with changing the documents created by our Founding Fathers. However, I will support adding/removing laws on top of the Constitution to keep up with the times. The words of the original documents will not be removed, but whatever is added on top of that can be subject for removal.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I have to imagine it would be difficult doing maintenance on an Alienware computer using an old Atari manual... The whole point of amendments is to keep it relevant to the world around it.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SFC Michael Hasbun Would you just tack on changes to the Atari manual to keep it relevant to an Alienware laptop with the Skylake processor?
(0)
(0)
1LT William Westervelt
The problem with this analogy is that it's inconsistent. By your analogy, the government we are running today is NOT a Constitutional Republic -- but something FAR different -- alien, by comparison. In fact, ALL governments have made MASSIVE leaps in governance and architecture from 200 years ago (heck, never mind ten years ago!). This just isn't true. Governments are still basically the same. Technology has changed, but I don't even think people have changed all that much.
I can think of a great deal of inventions for which the manual is well over a thousand years old and still basically applies: wheels, bowls, spoons, pens, shirts, shoes, paper, levers, wedges, screws, hammers, bows and arrows, shields, etc.
Computers don't have the same lifecycle as governments. You can't honestly make that comparison. It's akin to asking if you need to re-chart the DNA of your dog because mayfly researchers retest DNA almost daily (their lifespan is about a day).
I can think of a great deal of inventions for which the manual is well over a thousand years old and still basically applies: wheels, bowls, spoons, pens, shirts, shoes, paper, levers, wedges, screws, hammers, bows and arrows, shields, etc.
Computers don't have the same lifecycle as governments. You can't honestly make that comparison. It's akin to asking if you need to re-chart the DNA of your dog because mayfly researchers retest DNA almost daily (their lifespan is about a day).
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google