Should a new U.S. constitution be written?

[GiveMeFreedom]

Poll question: Should a new U.S. constitution be written?

I believe that the original intent of our founding father's constitution has been lost, in all the laws that favor corporations over individual rights. The idea that a corporation is a person, should be overturned and put into its correct prospective. Only by changing the constitution, can we reverse the corporate takeover that has plagued our society. An individual average citizen of the U.S. has no voice in government and less of a voice in our current judicial system of law. When corporations start litigation against an average U.S. citizen, the balance of justice is on the side of those corporations that have vast wealth and lawyers galore, not to mention that corporations can live forever, (as a person), while individuals cannot.

To quote Thomas Jefferson, 3rd president of the U.S. (1743 - 1826):

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

Please, explain your choices for the sake of helping me and others understand what "WE THE PEOPLE" can do to restore our U.S. Constitution to its original intent.

[Jack Bone]

1. The Constitution's fine...we should amend it, as we see fit...nt

[Warpy]

4. We do need to reset it

by trying the former executive branch for their crimes against it. We need to reassert the power of Congress as an equal power and a check on executive power.

The constitution, as written, is an amazing document. Amended, it is even more amazing.

We just need to insist on enforcing it.

[GiveMeFreedom]

2. No voters, please explain your choice,

[AndyTiedye]

20. It is a Fine Constitution

Far better than the Ferenghi Rules of Acquisition that we have been ruled by the past 8 years.

[GiveMeFreedom]

22. Oh Gawd.....

"Ferenghi Rules of Acquisition" Oh Shit, in that light...:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[dflprincess]

55. I voted no because I don't think there is anyway we would get

the Bill of Rights added to a new constitution. It's far too radical for today's America.

Despite the abuses of the last 8 years, we still have the document that among other things, guarantees free speech and due process. We should be talking about retoring it, not rewriting it

[anonymous171]

3. Why would we need to amend/rewrite the Constitution? New laws would work just fine.

Unless we were to say, strip Corporations of any Constitutional rights, or at least 1st Amendment rights (so they couldn't lobby the Government.)

[madokie]

5. NO

[rosesaylavee]

6. I voted no.

It is an imperfect document. But I don't believe there ever would be a more perfect document. The core principles remain revolutionary to this day. Opening it up to a rewrite runs the the very likely chance that the neo-cons and others who crave power and money would have more of negative influence in the process than I would personally like. I think amendments to the Constitution is now and always has been the way to go.

[BlooInBloo]

7. Probably. But the proper layout of a set of rights, responsibilities, and prohibitions...

for a country the size of the US, with so many moving parts, is highly nontrivial.

I studied this a few years back - there was some dude at Stanford who had a fair bit of useful work already done on the notion.


EDIT: hahahah! "porbably".

[bottomtheweaver]

8. I voted fine, because if we rewrote it

in the current environment we'd get the current "of the MIC, by the MIC, for the MIC" de facto constitution written into law.

My analysis is that we need to abolish the shadow intel operations that are a) NOT constitutional, b) engaged in depraved and disgraceful criminal activities -- murder, torture, blackmail, and apparently drugs, to name a few, and c) enabling corporate plutocrats to control the national discourse by infiltrating and manipulating media and organizations and stifling opponents -- usually by murdering them.

The CIA has got to go or we'll never climb out of this hole we're in.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Why bother? The politicians rewrite it all the time to avoid having to live by it.

I give you the "War Powers Act" as a primary example which enables the Executive instead of the Legislative branch to start and conduct wars.

Below is from the constitution.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war, in the following wording:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

[GiveMeFreedom]

10. So, what amendments should we suggest?

I am not for throwing the baby out with bathwater. What amendments should we discuss? I for one would like to see person hood taken from corporations. period!!

[rockymountaindem]

11. Absolutely not

Ask yourself: do we trust our current generation of leadership to undertake such an important task? I don't.

[GiveMeFreedom]

12. I agree with you!

But I am not suggesting that they rewrite it. But rather we do, here on D.U.

[Dollface]

16. A"greed". It would be farmed out to lobbyists.

[dysfunctional press]

13. yes, but AFTER the revolution.

nt

[zagging]

14. It's fine

But it needs some corrective measures. I would start by repealing the 17th amendment. Secondly, I would turn the capitol dome into a national museum and build a modern office building to house congress where there would be one representative per 30,000 people as originally set forth.

These two reversions would remedy poor decisions that have corrupted the balance of power, and go quite a long way in returning to the states and people respectively their voices in the republic that the founders created.

[MADem]

15. If you had a "Not only no, but FUCK NO!!!" choice, that would have worked for me.

The Constitution has an amendment process.

We can't even get an EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT passed after eighty five years of trying. You think a "new" Constitution is going to solve all our problems, and everyone will leap through their own butts to sign on to it?

We can't ratify an ERA, but we're gonna ratify a new Constitution?

Let's see some pigs fly, first!

[GiveMeFreedom]

18. Check here.....

____ Not only no, but FUCK NO!

LOL, should have included that, next time....

[MADem]

19. Hee hee!!!

:thumbsup:

[Still Sensible]

17. The troublesome line in your post to me is

"Please, explain your choices for the sake of helping me and others understand what "WE THE PEOPLE" can do to restore our U.S. Constitution to its original intent."

That is basically the same line that republicans have been using for decades to back up many of the wrongheaded policies they promote. That's what they say when they rail against "activist judges," which is nothing more than saying judges that make decisions they don't agree with. That's what they say when they fall back on a "states rights" stance, which is most often used to argue for the establishment of policies that are intolerant. That's what they say when they trumpet "strict constructionist" when they're nominating closed-minded right wing SC justices.

This is only to point out that the Constitution's "original intent" is a very subjective proposition. The way the most polarized members of our two parties see that intent is incredibly different.

I suggest that the Constitution is just fine in that it contains the mechanism to change it. I don't mind initiatives to improve it, but I don't want to see us try to throw it out and start over.

[GiveMeFreedom]

21. Being new here at D.U.

I find myself with a new voice, untried and willing to be corrected by others. I am a long time democrat and union member. I will make mistakes here and might have asked a more important question of "What amendments, if any, should be looked at, to our current laws governing corporations and banks?

[Still Sensible]

27. Welcome to DU. And I in no way want you to see

what I wrote as trying to "correct" you or stifle your opinion. I was just offering mine. Don't get me wrong, there will be plenty of times as you continue to post where you might find yourself "flamed" by people that disagree with you.

Certain issues just seem to bring out some of the most vengeful responses. There also tends to be a purity brigade that questions one's "progressive" bona fides if you don't toe the line on certain things. But DU has a very broad participation--from the farthest left to the most Blue Dog center-right. From time to time you'll even get right wingers, or "freepers" (Free Republic types) that throw flame bait into the mix.

That said, I certainly agree with how you have suggested re-framing the question. I'll give that some thought and get back to you.

Once again, welcome!

[H2O Man]

23. Change Your Head

"You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head"
--Lennon

[stevedeshazer]

24. If we just followed the one we already have, we'd be just fine.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say we agreed to a new Constitutional Convention.

Who do you think would show up to write it?

A bunch of ordinary citizens who supported the Revolution, or a mob of Gucci-shoed corporate lobbyists?

We both know the answer to that question.

[AndyTiedye]

25. And the Fundie Nutbars

would show up to try to replace the Bill of Rights with the Ten Commandments,
and ban abortion, birth control, and gay people while they are at it.
:scared:

If we couldn't even stop them from writing discrimination into the Constitution in California,
what chance do we have at a Constitutional convention?
:scared: :scared: :scared:

[ThomWV]

26. I'm all ears for this new alternative structure of Government - let's hear it

What you have in mind to replace our current structure of Government and by the way, would you mind point out the passage(s) that favor corporations over born people?

[GiveMeFreedom]

31. I am just starting a discussion on the subject matter

and really do not know if our current government needs to be replaced. Some representatives voted out of office for sure. There is no passage in the constitution that favors corps. over peeps, but it's the interpretation of the constitution by the supreme court, (14th amendment),that gave birth to the idea of person hood to corporations. I am in this fight, with everyone else, who suffers at the hands of the republican agenda and wish to see those in that party brought to court and punished for their crimes. I do digress and apologize. Here is some quick reading for you on corporate person hood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html
Unequal Protection. Rodale Books. ISBN 1-57954-955-1. Author Thom Hartman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
http://www.nancho.net/corperson/cpnader.html
http://www.iiipublishing.com/afd/Coperson.htm

[scarletwoman]

35. You might be interested in these links, too:

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/ -- especially read the piece: Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

It explains how the original system of state legislatures having charter power over corporations was gradually eroded.

http://www.poclad.org/ -- some useful reading

http://www.davidkorten.org/ -- great author of several books that address the corporation issue

I voted "no" because I think it would extremely dangerous to attempt to write a new Constitution as things stand now. As another DUer said above, "After the Revolution".

sw

[GiveMeFreedom]

38. Yes, I agree with after the Revoution

things will change. I would like to volunteer and any links you might have in that vain... please post so I can become more active. Thanks

[scarletwoman]

41. Volunteer for what? I'm not clear on what sort of links you're looking for. (nt)

[GiveMeFreedom]

44. The new revolutionary army in America n/t

[scarletwoman]

49. There's no such thing.

"After the Revolution" is a metaphor. Everyone who pays attention to politics, who writes letters to the editor, who calls their congress members, who helps educate others, community organizers, labor activists, environmental activists -- all of these are part of the "revolution". Anyone who speaks out against corporatism and corruption is part of the "revolution".

Power to the People is an ongoing struggle -- you join it by doing something that raises the consciousness of the people around you. Organize and agitate.

sw

[timtom]

28. I voted "No"

I'm still interested in trying out the old one.

[onethatcares]

29. I like the Constitution just the way it is.

I'll keep the Bill of Rights too, if there were to be changes, the process is already in place to amend.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

30. FUCK NO!

If we allowed the Republicans to have anything to do with rewriting the constitution it would look like SHIT. Are you insane?????????

[GiveMeFreedom]

33. I was not planning on including

repuglicans to have a voice in anything that resembles a constitution. Or an amendment for that matter. I might be insane, for trying to start a discussion on the subject. However, I was thinking that we are not comfortable where we are now and our founding fathers were certainly considered "insane" by the overlords in England in their time. Sometimes, to shake the tree of liberty is a good thing, less it's roots grow weak and limbs wither from lack of attention. I am sure we think the same, just asking the question to get out of my comfort zone and maybe yours too! :)

[Posteritatis]

42. Let's deny them the franchise too!

(Stuff like this is why I voted no. Ugh.)

[WilliamPitt]

32. Hell no.

[L0oniX]

34. Nationalize the banks!

[gollygee]

36. If the Constitution were written today, it would be written by corporations and lobbyists

Not a good idea.

[Posteritatis]

37. Don't trust the current public - Democratic, Republican or third party - to handle that well. No. nt

[GiveMeFreedom]

40. I agree

We the people should rewrite or amend it ourselves. I favor adding an amendment to changing corporate involvement in politics and banking. Person hood status should be written in to define real persons are entitled to the Constitution and corporations governed by states, with federal oversight and restrictions. Fractional banking needs to be outlawed.

[Occam Bandage]

39. No. And the original intent of the Constitution would be a terrible form of

government, with virtually no Federal regulatory power nor civil-rights guarantees.

[Greyhound]

43. Two points; The first quote is not from Jefferson, it is from a magazine article in the 1930s.

Second, Corporate personhood is, and never was, in the Constitution. Please see Thom Hartmann's website for the full story. What has been perpetrated on his is a scam of epic proportion by the banking industry. The corporate personhood myth comes from head notes written by the clerk and specifically excluded by the Justice after the fact. Unfortunately, "business friendly" courts have created dozens of precedents erroneously based on this lie.

An update to the Constitution might be desirable, but is impossible until far more Americans educate themselves and realize how badly we've been misused, and that seems unlikely in the extreme.

[GiveMeFreedom]

45. I know this, that a Supreme Court Clerk

in his head notes, made corporations what they are today. An update is desirable and I feel We the People have been silenced by corporate moguls to long, with endless wealth and power. As far as the quote goes, I have seen it on several websites that claim Jefferson made it, but I guess the web is not to be taken literally and DU is not for me....

[Greyhound]

50. We strive to be as accurate as possible. It differentiates us from most other sites.

Jefferson was very concerned about the possibility of what we've seen happen, it's just that he did not say this. Check out snopes.com for the full story.

Don't give up so easily, there are a bunch of us here that work toward substantive change and for The People to take back our power.

DU is an excellent source for news and factual analysis, additionally there are more than a couple of political and media "people that matter" that hang out here, so what you write is more likely to be effective.

[saltpoint]

46. I would only favor a Constitutional convention if I could choose the delegates.

[951-Riverside]

47. HELL NO!

The problem is not the Constitution itself its the people who refuse to follow it.

[annabanana]

48. Not until we have VASTLY improved public education and the

national understanding of civics. . And even then it doesn't nead a tear-down.. just a few updates.

[GiveMeFreedom]

51. FUCK IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am sorry I said anything and if there is one thing I have learned is to be silent. I will become a lemming and not post to or respond here on DU. I made a mistake. I have been a Democrat my entire life, even my folks. I am a veteran of the U.S. Navy 75-79 with an honorable discharge and was not honored for my service because being a military person was not cool back then, no parades back then. I also just have a high school education and to think that I could banter with the intellectual elite was a bad move on my part. I wish I had not donated the $35.00 bucks to get that gold star so I could post here, because I am an unemployed construction worker at the front lines of the housing bubble and really need that money, my bad. I am also losing my home, anytime now, and will experience foreclosure for the first time, wow, how exciting that will be!? I have shook more dirt out of my pant pockets than most people have moved in their entire lives and yet here I dig myself into a hole that I feel I cannot get out of. I made myself uncomfortable here and sorry that anyone else was made that way too. FUCK IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! When you need someone to die for the cause everyone here speaks of with silence, give me a call, for I am too old now to care about my life and want a better country for my children and I am willing to shed my blood for it, as much as I was back in 75.

[Muttocracy]

53. you asked a question in a poll with various answers - some are disagreeing

maybe you haven't watched DU for long enough, but people here disagree A LOT. Don't take it too personally. If you watch for a while, you'll also see there is good reason for people to be a bit skeptical of newcomers - they may be here just to stir up trouble. In your case, sounds like you're mad people aren't reacting as you want them to, and calling DUers intolerant.

There's a lot to be learned here, but you have to have a thicker skin (I had to learn that too). Screaming Fuck It! at us is not particularly endearing.

[MiniMe]

52. Do you really think that they can agree on anything that Congress and

2/3 of the states would agree to? I would be afraid of what it would look like. It may not be perfect, but amendments and actually enforcing the constitution would be a start.

[Retired AF Dem]

54. Why bother?

No one abides by it anyway.