George Washington was a perfect example. He served because he felt it his duty - not because he desired the resulting power. He was pressed by many to accept a third term and politely declined, noting that the duties wearied him and he wanted to get back to his home and plantation. Ronald Reagan was a similar example. He was approached by others to run - first for Governor and then for President.

Counter to this was FDR, who had to be prevented from a third (elected) term by Constitutional Amendment. I would also note that one can be sure that both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama would have loved third terms...

Perhaps the only solution is to populate the Congress exclusively with men like Lee and Cruz. The difficulty is; a) find men like them, and b) convincing them to join up.
A task not unlike mucking the Agean stables.

yes. these are the things that should be taught in american history. I learned practically none of this in my high school mandatory american history classes

Agreed. I think if you look at the history, you'll find that those who were pushing for abrogation of others' rights weren't staunch defenders of natural rights in the first place (see Andrew Jackson). Thus I differentiate between the actions of individuals (or even groups) with the principles of action. Justification is not derived from who performed the action, but whether or not the principles in play are sound.

I would think it reasonable that if as a country we respect human rights, that we would respect all human rights anywhere as a matter of principle. That doesnt mean, in my view, that we PROTECT the rights of others who are not citizens of our country. That is up to them. Just because Mexico is not part of the USA, it wouldnt seem reasonable for me to wander across the border and pillage a mexican person's property just because I COULD (assuming of course I respect human rights as a matter of principle) . All bets are off of course if they dont respect my human rights. Setting up freedom and democracy in other lands is a pretty stupid thing to do actually- gets us in trouble, costs us money, and doesnt even work.

Show me any human being who is 100% consistent and I'll be happy to vote for him/her! (Definitionally, this excludes progressives...)

I wish that we had such a system in which consistency was an output of our citizenry, but I think that the only way to guarantee such is to install totalitarianism (which kind of defeats the purpose). Variety is one of the hallmarks of a free society. That means that there are bound to be mistakes made. It is not an excuse for any such, only a realization and caution for those wise enough to heed the warning.

Really what your question centers on, however, is one of jurisdiction. Do we as Americans have the right to dictate or impose our values on those of other nations? I would argue that carte blanche we do not because they are subjects of another nation. That certainly applies when they physically are located outside our borders. While they are inside our borders their status as a visitor (tourist, businessperson, etc.) says that they are guests subject to certain allowances but also immune from many legal stipulations (execution, etc.). But a guest is not the same as a Citizen.

I think that one of the overreaches that has gotten us into trouble, however, is our zeal for the protection of natural rights which has resulted in us using the means of coercion to institute these laws on others regardless of their willingness to accept them (Iraq, Afghanistan). It is an instance of the ends being laudable but the means violating the very principles the ends are predicated on!

Wouldnt it seem that if we have a constitution that preserves freedom for our citizens, that it should also regulate the behavior of our government relative to other people also? Apparently it was clear that it did NOT during our history, but isnt that inconsistent on our part?

Point of interest: we can not "confer" rights upon others. Rights exist because we are sentient. ;)

The Constitution protects the Citizens of the United States against encroachment upon their natural rights by the Federal Government. But it can not protect foreign nationals against similar encroachment: that is solely the purview of those foreign nations or treaties. (To encroach upon this is to deny foreign sovereignty and to engage in war.) This is one of the flaws in many of the Supreme Court cases dealing with the Fourteenth Amendment: they authorize the extension of protectionary measures to non-Citizens despite the lack of jurisdiction to do so.

Yes, Jefferson did own slaves and you would not be the first to point out the hypocrisy of that situation. George Washington also owned slaves, but emancipated them. Some argue that the reason Jefferson did not free his slaves (despite his morals) was due to his poor fiscal management. Whatever the case it does undermine Jefferson's zeal toward the very principles he asserted, no question. But does the Declaration make Jefferson an authority, or does Jefferson make the Declaration authoritative? Is it the man or the principle which matters most?

Interesting discussion. I never thought that the indians werent citizens. I just assumed that if our constitution respected human rights, that we would have automatically granted those rights to our neighbors unless they didnt grant them to us. Interesting point. Jefferson, the bastion of liberty, had several hundred slaves (presumably because he needed them for his plantation).

I don't disagree that there were instances where the actions of some threatened the rights of others. But the flaw in your argument was that these were Constitutionally actionable items in the first place.

With respect to the native American Indians, there is no question in my mind that there were treaties abrogated on the part of the United States. Andrew Jackson was particularly criminal in his treatment of them (the indigenous peoples). But let us not forget: they were not citizens of the United States. One can make all the arguments (with certain justification no doubt) that the US encroached upon their territories. But these are disputes between two sovereign nations - not a dispute within the United States about the protections provided by the Constitution against Legislative overreach. Were these failures to abide by principles of natural rights? That is certainly up for debate because the natives didn't believe in natural rights either... (It is still a major Constitutional question whether they are actually citizens of the United States or not given that everything that deals with them is treaty-based...)

With regards to the Southern States, Abraham Lincoln properly framed the question thus: is the compact which formed the United States by a supermajority of members subject to dissolution by a minority? It is a question which was never resolved Constitutionally. Ultimately, the division between the North and the South came down to which States were going to be able to perpetuate slavery. As the South was clearly in favor of slavery and thus rejected Natural Rights and the Declaration of Independence as intended by Thomas Jefferson, I find it hard to sympathize with their argument. What was really happening was that the 3/5 Compromise gave the South undue political power up until the mid-1850's when the populations of the West began to explode, threatening the stranglehold upon politics that emphasized a pro-slavery bent in Legislative practice. The changing demographics saw a power struggle emerge centering on both Legislative actions such as the Kansas Nebraska Act and the Fugitive Slave laws as well as the Dredd Scott case.

Certain actions I do see as defects in the Constitution:

Amendment 12. This creates party-line votes for President + Vice President and practically ensconces political parties. I should like to see it repealed.

Amendment 14. This one has been misconstrued to imply that illegals hold the same rights as citizens.

Amendment 17. This one wasn't as much a defect as a huge mistake, as it altered the election of Senators and revoked the constraints upon the Federal Government afforded by the States.

Amendment 18. Establishes an income tax. Enough said.

Could and should there be an Amendment ensconcing property rights? I would wholeheartedly agree with such.

I would disagree a bit with the "termendous respect for property rights", however. What about property rights of indians? What about during the civil war, where all the south wanted was to secede? I think the constitution was just imperfect from the start and over the years its defects were used to widen and deepen the swamp. Unfortunately.

Actually, there was tremendous respect for property rights up until 1913 when the Amendment was passed allowing for personal income taxes. That was a tremendous infringement on private property rights.

Right Term2; don't think the swamp will ever be
drained.....

Good legislation. Federal agencies (executive branch) should never be legislating.

I would tie the scope of the limit for rulings to the GDP rather than $100M, so we don't end up with silly numbers like $20 in the Seventh Amendment. $100M is a pretty low number (which I like), just imagine the effect of a simple gas tax or speed limit.

It is not a good start toward limiting government but gives it more control on what it would consider limiting government. Use the original constitution, it already limits the use of government is strictly adhered to by the government. The constitution restricts the government not the people.

I had a good teacher for 'Problems of Democracy', a class that I suspect is no longer taught, so long ago in twelft grade ( that's 50 + years). In that vein I became a strict constructionist, the words committed to paper were absolute. Certain tweaking was necessary in light of slavery (an omition calculated to insure passage) but taken up later as the founders expected. Other tinkering resulted in disaster, prohibition. The Constitution was to control the reach of government not the lives of the citizens. Unfortunately, the courts have ignored their mission and legislated from the bench contrary to their purpose by imposing regulations and financial stipulations outside of the the elected bodies assigned that task.

Look what happened as a result. Now we don't have property rights

Correct. The original text of the Constitution lays this out explicitly.

If you read many of the notes of the Founders, I think you'll change your argument. The original text of the Declaration of Independence contained explicit references to a right to property, but because of the prevalence of slaves and the Founders' recognition of it as an evil (Jefferson was not perfect), it was excluded on this basis alone.

The intent, I think, was that Senators were like state cabinet appointees, the governor proposes a candidate and the legislature, either bicameral or unicameral advises and consents. In this way each representative is on the same page as the state they represent. This, to a certain degree, takes the selection out of the realm of popular politics.

+1 To move forward you have to take a step, any effort to reduce or limit govt. intrusion. if passed with positivity it would be a big stride.

I agree, State Senators, like corporate managers, should be appointed by Governors and hold office at their discretion. Only then does POS's like mccain get reined in and thrown out.

This is a good start but does not go far enough. One step more would be repealing the Amendment for the direct election of Senators. With its passing the states lost their direct input into Congress because they were superfluous. The separate states lost their identity. The concept of state's rights, not the Civil War ideology, was trashed meaing the states actually had no influence over those who represented them. This 'progressive' notion was actually a regression into mob rule!

Proud to have him as my Senator and resident in my town (as is also Jason Chaffetz).

Nothing more than a Tobacco Enema or in layman's terms, Blowing smoke up our asses. What is that definition of Insanity again? Expecting these knit wits to fix what they themselves have broken is ludicrous. Johnathan Gruber made a very real point when he said we are simply too gullible or was it stupid? The only real way to fix this crap is by bringing back the Gallows to the public squares.