I recently allowed myself to be drawn into a pointless discussion about the merits of the Constitution and possible revisions.
I'm not deriding anyone who is taking part in the discussions, or invalidating any of their positions. But for me, at this point, it is all Sparklies, and I allowed myself to be distracted. It is divisive, not cohesive.
I am working toward cohesion.
When 50 guys who visit these blogs get into seriously heated discussions about version X or version Y of a Constitution, what do you think will happen if a cross-section of "average" Americans send their delegates to weigh-in on the topic?
Here is my position: The US Constitution needs to be restored, as ratified, and implemented in the spirit of the DoI and BoR. That is the goal for which I am working.
The primary reason I am working for this goal: No document has ever been written to better set boundaries for governance that respects Liberty. No, it is not perfect, but it is the best ever written by men, and if implemented by Liberty-minded folks, it can only be modestly improved. But the Hologram folks who insist it was a conspiracy from the beginning, I just can't be bothered.
Improvements? As I said, in the spirit of the DoI and BoR. That means that all men are created equal and skin color and genetalia makes no difference.
From a practical perspective, we'll never get anyone in the NRA part of the world to fight for something that is, to their minds, smoke. AoC and any new Constitution is smoke. Our current Founding Documents are a frame of reference they can grasp, even if they do not understand them. It is a rally point that Americans can recognize.
I have one respectful comment here on Dio's piece, and I'll make more at his place as promised: Most of what he offers is already in place in the current Constitution, but ignored. Senators should be beholden to the State, as in the original. One argument he brings up, regarding who should be able to participate, was discussed in the original Convention. Should it be only land owners? Should women be allowed? Should members of the FSA be allowed?
Here is where I say the Constitution, as ratified, handles the FSA as voters: The Constitution as ratified does not PERMIT an FSA. If we Restore the Constitution, as ratified, and implemented in the spirit of the DoI and BoR, the FSA simply will not exist. No more handouts.
To those who say the Constitution lacks teeth and self-enforcement - Treason is in place and handles any attempt to corrupt. As to self-enforcement, no law can ever do it. It takes people to act. We already have laws on the books, as outlined in III to Liberty, against the very abuses we suffer every day, and none are enforced.
The concept of appointing a militia to enforce laws about Constitutional behavior becomes moot because of subjective arguments about "What is Constitutional" and the ability to stack any militia the same way they stack the Supreme Court with Establishment players.
You want to know how the Founders and Framers intended the document to be enforced?
Here's a story about a group of Vets who went to the Dem Headquarters and decided they would remove the above flag that was flying with President Obama's face on it.
That's how you enforce the ideals embodied in any Constitution or law.
You go and you do it.
You do not rely on others to do it for you, or do it to themselves.
You go and do it yourself. And anyone in your way catches some, too.
Restore the Constitution, as ratified, and implemented in the spirit of the DoI and BoR.
Then we can talk about tweeking it.
Here's the link to the story about the vets who live Jefferson's intent.
Kerodin
III
