In a moment of sleep deprivation induced insanity, a thought hit me. Could something like the US Constitution be written today? The constitution is when you think about it, quite an impressive document, taking all of the ideas, beliefs and compromises of our founding fathers and meshing them into the framework for our government which has been more or less successful for over 200 years. Of course, it had it's failings, and has been amended or in some cases ignored over the years and it's vague in places we would like more clarity at times. It has been argued that it was both meant as an ever expanding living document and that it was mean to be taken quite literaly as is.

So the question becomes, knowing what we know of how the last few centuries have turned out, both in relation to our laws as well as advances in society and technology that could very well have been unimagineable, would it be possible to do something like that again? Could a group of people with widely differing views on politics compromise enough to create a new constitution and a new framework for a government? What would it look like? What errors would we correct? What oversights would be filled in? What details would be added? What would be taken out?

Lastly, would you like to find out? I propose as a bit of a mental exercise that we here in the soapbox try our hands at making a constitution. We have plenty of varying views here, from hardcore communists to softcore anarchists, and we certainly have our share of outliers as well. There's plenty of intelligent opinions to be had here and unlike most threads, the purpose here would be to reach a compromise, not to convince the other side to convert. We have two years until the next major election, which should be plenty long enough to create a fleshed out constitution, the only thing needed are people willing to try.

Anyone up for a little mental exercising?

11/8/2006 1:22:06 AM

I'm game, though considering the fiasco that the EU created, I wonder if a document like the US Constitution could be recreated in this era.

I think we can keep the basic first amendment rights in there. Those would be key if our goal is to create a secular democratic society. I'd also like to keep the IV, V, VI, VIII, and IX amendments as well to bolster whatever future legal system we create. Need to chew on the others for a bit.

11/8/2006 1:46:10 AM

It could be created again but probably only by an Anglo-Saxon culture with its "Tradition of Compromise" which some people find so rare.

That said, I would have done it quite differently. It turns out the Federal Government was granted more power than it needed to defend the nation. For example, as it was kinda inevitable that the 17th Amendment would pass eventually, it would behoove the authors to put in a second line of defense for Federalism. Something simple, such as "any law regulating interstate trade is subject to elimination by the passage of annulment acts by a majority of states."

Of course, we could just cut out the middlemen. As both the Senate and House are now democratic bodies, one is redundant. Eliminate one and empower the other with full law making powers, subject to Presidential veto, and subject to annulment by the various state legislatures (a mere majority).

11/8/2006 2:02:30 AM

Is the North/South divide, or any other divide between states for that matter, large enough and drastic enough to hinder ratification of a document that is as binding as the constitution? I would think you'd at least have a confederation of smaller federations. New England would be one federation, most of the south would be one (maybe Florida on its own for cultural reasons, like Quebec), the midwest, california, the northwest, texas, etc.

11/8/2006 2:03:07 AM

Why? According to polls, ideologically New Yorkers have more in common with Texans than with most anyone else.

If you think there is a divide in this country today you should check it out around the Civil War. Westerners felt embittered against Easterners for trying to control their destiny, Southerners felt Northerners were using Federal tariffs and other taxes to impoverish the South, Northerners felt they had achieved a new type of American through industrial capitalism which was threatened by the uneducated and paranoid Southerners and Westerners; and they were all 100% correct.

Raleigh and New York City have never had more in common than they do today.

[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 2:12 AM. Reason : .,.]

11/8/2006 2:10:48 AM

no kidding

don't let trivial wedge issues manufactured by same-coin politicians distract you from our homogenity

11/8/2006 7:42:33 AM

Ok, so for the sake of arguement, let us say that we have a starting point similar to the US, seperate states to unite under one umbrella government for mutual bennefit. Unless anyone wants to try this from a single state perspective and consider state boundries regions rather than states.

I suppose the first question that should be tackled would be whether the government derrives it's power from the people, or do the people derrive their rights from the government? Is there another alternative? If not, which is the appropriate choice?

11/8/2006 8:18:57 AM

Quote :

"I suppose the first question that should be tackled would be whether the government derives it's power from the people, or do the people derive their rights from the government?"

An odd question, not sure how it matters. But I think the founders put it something like: To secure our rights we are creating a Government. Or, Both. The Government was created by us, thus, it has derived its power from us; But the purpose of that government is to secure our rights, which it will do, so the people are deriving their rights from the government.

11/8/2006 10:34:07 AM

I think to a degree it does matter. It's a matter of how the rights for society are structured. Should the government be required to provide justification for restricting one's freedom, or should one be required to justify why something should be their right to do and not restricted by the government? Do we believe that society functions best when people are free to do as they please within limits or that it functions best when there are set and defined limits that define how people may act? Do you have a right to speak your mind freely, or are you allowed to speak because the government deems it appropriate?

11/8/2006 11:22:26 AM

I think the answer I gave, "Both" was appropriate.

11/8/2006 1:00:38 PM