A New New Bill of Rights

Posted by Eudaimonia 12 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
118 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

The Progressives, since FDR, have been pushing a New Bill of Rights, a document of vague "positive liberties" such as the right of "freedom from fear" which, in practice, would give the government a blank check to do whatever it damned well pleased.

The Libertarian/Republitarian/Conservatarian/Tea Party/Constitutionalist/Originalist/Objectivist/Randian thinkers among us need to respond in kind.

If you were to suggest an actual amendment to a Constitutition (US, State, or Gulch), what would it be?

I will post my suggestions to the thread.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 5.
  • Posted by Ragnars_Crew 12 years, 3 months ago
    All taxes shall be "apportioned" across all tax payers, no more of the top 50% of tax payers covering almost all of the taxes and bottom 50% paying in almost none. Any tax increase on one tax bracket shall be applied to all tax brackets. Tax payers cannot get a "tax refund" that is an amount more than they put in.

    Also, there is a NATURAL right to private property. Local, state and federal governments can not tax more than a combined 25% of your gross income. All "death" and "wealth" taxes are null and void, again "private property".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lmarrott 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I both agree and disagree with some of these. In a way if we were going for ideal then we wouldn't need to worry about some of these because the government wouldn't have any regulation of industries which lead to the high dollar donations for favorable relationships. However as long as the government continues to stick their fingers into the business of everything a restriction on these donations would probably be beneficial.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lmarrott 12 years, 3 months ago
    How about there shall be no laws enacted which prevent the freedom of choice which do not infringe on the rights of others.

    Like that stupid law they are trying to pass in New York banning soda pop.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by tr1138 12 years, 3 months ago
    All laws enacted by a governing body shall expire with that governing body. So, each Congress would have to re-enact any law that they chose to keep from the previous Congress. The only way to make a law permanent would be to amend the Consitution.
    An alternate version would be to set an expiration term, such as 4 years.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -6
    Posted by victoriaz 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    while this is a great idea, the concept of 'original intent' is a slippery slope. many forget or don't realize the founding fathers had to make many concessions on the constitution to get it passed. it's difficult to base things on 'original intent' because the constitution is not a true representation of what the founding fathers wanted. the constitution should be viewed more as a 'living document' that adapts and changes with the times. obviously some ideals from the 18th century don't apply to the 21st and vice versa. e.g., the right to bear arms- in 1776 they had muskets, in 2013 we have AK-47s. HUGE difference.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by brian 12 years, 3 months ago
    I would restructure out election system. Not the electoral college, but mostly the format of campaigning and fundraising. Too often money muddies the water, politicians lie to get your money and then your real goals are never met.

    I like all of the talk of term limits, but I'd like to add:

    1. Limit the amount a single person or entity can donate to a campaign.
    2. Enact a strict set of guidelines of public discourse where each candidate is asked the same set of questions and offers a response in a set amount of time, no more, no less.
    3. Require candidates post on their website their platforms with measurable goals, not generalities.
    4. Make it illegal for politicians to be involved directly or indirectly with the companies that donate to their campaign for several years before and after their term.
    5. Remove the lifelong post-term pay for everyone except the president, and even that office would only receive enough to provide a security team and contract pay for consulting with future Presidents. All Presidents from now on will make millions post-term, no matter who they are because of the office they held.

    I believe that if we had such a system it would go a long way to end crony capitalism and get us back to pure capitalism. Plus it would put the idea back into our society that government is a short term donation of your time and effort to better your country, not line your pockets and power.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nilstopp1964 12 years, 3 months ago
    No law effecting the constitution, or the rights of the citizens of the United States of America, can be enacted, or amended, without a plebiscite vote (a vote of all the citizens), with a written form, sent to every household in America, released well in advance of the vote.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by UncommonSense 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    After lowering myself to "thinking" like a scum-sucking politician, I realized I needed to amend my 2nd one:

    2, section 1. No one can run for Congressional Office in either chamber until after a 4-year period expires after their last day of employment by a lobbying firm.

    Doing this ensures morons wouldn't be a lifetime lobbyist, whose little scheme build-up would culminate when they leave the firm to become a Senator or Representative.

    Now I need to go shower. To think like todays' slimeball politician...so gross.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 12 years, 3 months ago
    No federal or state law shall be enacted or enforced until its constitutionality according to original intent shall be established.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ kathywiso 12 years, 3 months ago
    Congressional members of both House and Senate and Presidential executive orders MUST adhere to every law they have enacted for the citizens of the United States, including healthcare and the bearing of arms.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by UncommonSense 12 years, 3 months ago
    1) Congressional members of both House and Senate will be limited to serving no more than 3 terms, be it consecutively or non-consecutively.

    2). Congressional members are barred from joining any lobbying group for a period of 4 years after last day of holding office in either chamber. (This prohibits lobbying firms from becoming an unofficial congress)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 12 years, 3 months ago
    That an executive order shall not be enacted for the purpose of mandating the infringement of choice, or otherwise taking away the free will of the citizens of the United States.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 12 years, 3 months ago
    As languages are living and breathing, and contracts are not, this Constitution shall be interpreted with its original intent, and not with any passing trend or use of language or rhetoric.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 12 years, 3 months ago
    Congress shall make no law establishing or incorporating a theocracy, whether it be Judean, Christian, Muslim, Marxist, Eco, or any other; nor shall it make any law restricting the non-theocratic practice of any religion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And the government shall keep no records, nor require registration, licensing or any other form of record keeping of personal property, including arms.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 12 years, 3 months ago
    The right to protect, even from one's own government should it turn oppressive, one's own liberty, self, family, friend, or property with lethal force and the keeping and bearing of arms shall not be infringed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 12 years, 3 months ago
    No property shall be taken for the purpose of an expanded tax base; nor shall any assets be taken for the purpose of wealth redistribution.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 12 years, 3 months ago
    Congress shall not levy any tax on income or assets; nor shall it levy any other tax which is progressive in collection or redistributive in purpose.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo