Yes, it is possible to design a constitution to perfection, immune from loopholes and in tune with the needs and morality of all future generations. In all humility :), I am probably the only one who can do it. I see the problems in the system and I know how to politically catalyze the good of the people as the free market mechanisms do economically to produce the mighty American economy; which even in the height of our current depression holds tremendous influence in the world economy. My constitution re-engineering project has already begun, but it is far from complete, though the foundation and framework are in place already. Interestingly, many of my initiatives can be enacted to some degree through creating Presidential departments.
Did God create a document which brought upon us the Civil War by proving unable to resolve the state-slavery issue or to establish the proper conditions and procedures for states to adapt government to meet their needs without a civil war? Original intent assumes the old document is better than the new, which is simply not true. The constitution is constantly adapting to our needs and accumulated wisdom.
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.6
2 comments:
I'd be interested to hear what you consider to be the loopholes of which people are taking advantage.
I've reached the opinion that the constitution has become an irrelevance to most of the people, and certainly to our leaders. Yes, we still follow it in form. We have representatives, senators, the supreme court, the president. We even choose the president based on the constitution's rules, much to everyone's consternation.
But that is just the administrivia of the U.S. government. The real question is: Why IS there a U.S. government? What is it supposed to do? What MAY it do?
To ask such questions nowadays is considered old fashioned. What did FDR call the constitution? A "horse and buggy" document. So the constitution has "evolved" to the extent that we have freed ourselves from the obligation to follow its terms. What we don't like, we simply ignore.
So, getting back to Ricco's reengineering idea, I have two thoughts. First, I'd be perfectly happy to simply use the constitution as it stands. I see no need to reengineer it, just to adhere to its terms.
My second thought is that the exercise is ultimately pointless. If we can start with the current constitution, which limits the scope of federal responsibilities to about a dozen and a half specific jobs, and end up with our current leviathan, then there doesn't really seem to be much point in designing a new one. Obviously, they're just going to do what they want anyway, constitution or no constitution.
We cannot separate ourselves from the fact that if something does not work perfectly, that 1) it does work somewhat well, and 2) it does have room for improvement. We cannot continue insisting both that the document does not work and that it must be followed more exactly, because both are simultaneously incorrect. It does work already, yet it can work better. It is being followed, and yet it can be enforced better.
You have an interesting perspective shared by many of my friends and family which states both that the constitution is being ignored and that the current document is good enough if it were just followed. What they fail to understand is that it is being followed as much as it enforces adherence, and that all shortcomings are rooted directly in the imperfections left by imperfect authors using imperfect manners of thought and communication.
People ignore the constitution when clauses within the document allow them to do what they want, as in the infamous "for the common good" clause. I say we fix stuff like that, but naysayers claim such is not fixable. They hold the inability to fix the constitution both in its being divinely "inspired" and in men corrupting it. They are wrong in assuming that the constitution is in any kind of perfect form and that men should be expected to adhere to the "perfect" interpretation of it. It can be improved and it must be made so that ANY reasonable interpretation, even by evil men, yields only one, correct meaning.
I say we make it easier for the people to enforce representation and other constitutional directives, but naysayers claim that the original document has no provision for such enforcement. It is insane to hold both that something doesn't work and that it should. The only thing that should happens is the thing that does happen, and any other expectation must be the result of idealistic circumstances or assumptions.
Personally, I reject the idealism which holds that we should expect anything different than what we currently see happening. Every point where things are not perfect reveals an element of the system which can be improved. The fact that evil men can corrupt the systems which have and do exist does not in any way imply that there cannot exist a system which is in corruptible. The goal is to limit the corruption. While we have already seen systems do this to varying degrees throughout history, we have never seen a system improve its own ability through time in resisting corruption. So as a system degrades and becomes increasingly more corrupt over time, there is no force to counter the increasing power of evil controlling the system. At this point, you should already be anticipating my purpose in creating a constitution. My goal is to create a system which increases the power of good people faster than it allows power to evil people (corruption). Our current constitution includes breaks but it does not self-repair or strengthen the power of good people over time, but mine will do both.
Post a Comment