Explore Group
- Topics
- Members
-
-
-
Twitter
-
Digg
-
From a libertarian standpoint, what changes should be made to the U.S. Constitution?
- Created by Eric Mao
- Go to Most Recent
Recommend a comment by clicking 
-
I'm a little late to the discussion so maybe this has been covered. State that judges (supreme court and lower) must rule on the laws by citing the constitution and no other. Yes common law has its place but it often gets stretched as to what is common. Also how about limmiting the size (length) of bills and that admendments to bills must be germain to the bill (no adding duck huntng rules to highway appropriations...)
Recommend
-
The American Experiment, the idea that a centralized government restrained by a "god-damned" piece of paper, could give us more liberty, is an abject failure. Except of course to statists and "more equal" elites who benefit from corporate welfare and political favors, and to bureaucrats and anyone on the dole. The only way to "fix" it is to get rid of it. Concentration of power always leads to corruption and restriction of freedom. When Americans finnaly demand their freedom back en mass, the 50 states will secede from the union and finally pull the plug on the grossly distended central government. It happened in the USSR and it will happen in America. The only question is whether it can be done peacefully. Lincoln set the precedent and buchered millions of his countrymen rather than give up power, so that is likely to repeat. Conditions in america will get much worse before anyone will have the courage to support secession, however.
Recommend
-
Item 2.
1 Recommendation
The second Amendment shall include the right for Non-felon citizens to carry a loaded concealed weapon on their person. Or in their Method of Transportation. There will NO restrictions as to where the weapon can be carried.
This right is extended to all States, Territories and other such holding of the United States of America. No Foreign entity Shall be allowed to overrule this Amendment ever.
-
"The second Amendment shall include the right for Non-felon citizens to carry a loaded concealed weapon on their person. Or in their Method of Transportation."
Recommend
Your specificity may cause problems when brought into the real world. So you can only carry one, but you have no right to unconceal and use it?
"There will NO restrictions as to where the weapon can be carried."
So even in a courthouse, the White House, or private property? That seems a bit much.
"No Foreign entity Shall be allowed to overrule this Amendment ever."
That line seems pointless. What scenario do you envision where the clause would be both needed and enforceable?
-
Randy,
3 Recommendations
I have a pistol in my car, and often carry another on my person.
We have the Constitutional right to do that as fairly recently decided by the Supreme Court.
In other words, the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals not some ephemeral "militia".
-
The current Administration wants to turn this country over to the UN. Well I don't think I for one can let that happen. Can you?? There are NO restrictions in the Second Amendment.
1 Recommendation
-
-
-
"The current Administration wants to turn this country over to the UN."
Recommend
Put down the tinfoil hat. You're making us look bad.
"Well I don't think I for one can let that happen. Can you??"
There are many things that I can't let happen. But I focus my energy on trying to prevent things that are plausible.
"There are NO restrictions in the Second Amendment."
Your version of it contained several restrictions, one explicit and some implicit. I noted why you might want to reconsider your wording, but instead of relecting on what I said, you reacted as if I was driving Obama over to your house right now to personally take your guns.
-
-
I as a retired Brig General am the MILITIA. If the liberals want to be the way they are then we shall stand up to them. I believe that the Left wing of this country wants to have the first real Civil war. What is called the Civil was WAS NOT> IT was a war of Separation. The south wanted to keep slaves and therefore departed the Union. A war resulted in the most Americans killed that all other wars combined. I believe that is what they want. SO But yourself a good Pistol, Rifle 40 cal or bigger and a 12 gauge shotgun with slug ammo.
1 Recommendation
-
A balanced budget amendment, except in times of war and national disaster, that limits the deficits the country can run to a certain fraction of GDP.
2 Recommendations
-
I'm just dropping 2 the bottom since we r getting into the thread deptth problem.
Recommend
Rob,
To be painfully explicit, I believe eric is correct that our national leaders have, historically, been predominantly christian.
I will leave it to eric. To answer the rest of your questions concerning what he believes.
I believe that, as you say, we are in substantial agreementa bout what the constitution says and how it should be interpreted.
My primary interest in the subject is primarily a forensic analysis of why it has not been interpreted that way in the past, and whether there is any liklyhood that it will be interpreted that way in the future.
-
PS:
1 Recommendation
Now that I am on a real computer, instead of a cell phone (yuck), I will elaborate in my reply to Rob.
As I have stated previously, the Constitution was a manifest failure at preventing the growth of the leviathan state. The growth of the leviathan state may have been inevitable, or it may not have been inevitable. As Dan has asserted, perhaps the changing moral and religious beliefs of the population made such failure inevitable. I think he has a point. At the same time, my view is that the problem is at least partially structural.
I am well aware of what the Constitution says, and how it was "intended" to be enforced. That is not the question or the problem. But "real" politics is rather like a game of "real" basketball in more ways than one. For example, throwing elbows is against the rules. And yet, virtually every girls basketball team in the nation is taught how to throw elbows on the "down low" (to use a bit of youthful vernacular). And, of course, we all know that having the referrees friendly to the "home team" can make a substantial difference in the outcome in any basketball game.
Similarly, the Constitution says what it says, but what it says is, in many important respects, secondary to the powers that it grants. It doesn't even matter whether the Constitution was deliberately designed to be ineffectual, or whether it is ineffectual because of innefective design. The fact remains, it is demonstrably and incontrovertably ineffectual.
The reason that Eric's point is important is that Dan asserts the problem lies in the changing character of the people and the quality of their ideas (especially towards religion). I certainly don't discount this as a matter of significant importance. However, the fact remains that self-professed Christians have been mostly in charge, and that self-professed Chistians have allowed (or even encouraged) this to happen. I say this as a Christian. Obviously, human nature is what it is, and Christians are suceptable to the corrupting influences of money and power, just like everyone else.
-
-
-
Yes. Obviously, the Constitution, like any agreement, should be interpreted strictly. But it isn't. Why not? What could have been done differently (if anything) to insure the federal government stayed within the bounds deliniated by the framers and the States that are the actual parties to the agreement.
1 Recommendation
Is putting a group of politicians in the same room as the taxing power equivilant to putting a pedophile in the same room with Dakota Fanning? Will any amount of rule-making and admonishment change the outcome once your back is turned?
-
-
-
@ Rob Katsky,
2 Recommendations
Thanks for asking.
I am interested in the Founders’ intents from a historical perspective and also for my interest in political and philosophical thoughts; rather than to use them as golden rules. While leaning toward the Anti-Federalists’ views, I see the constitutional debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists as largely a fight over whether the overreaching government should be the federal government or the state governments. As an Ayn Rand Libertarian, I believe that a government whose role covers more than defense, peace, law and justice is overreaching and intrusive. This is the core of my political belief. Therefore, in my opinion, a lot of the powers that governments have actually should not be vested in either the federal government or the states. Nevertheless, it is less harmful to have some state government trampling on liberty than have the federal government doing so, because people can vote with their feet and move to another state. In principle, however, a state government should not infringe on people’s freedom, as the federal government should not.
I am expressing my ideas using the Constitution as a reference point. Some of my opinions are consistent with the Constitution, some aren’t. Yet, my primary focus is on how I think things should be. Furthermore, it is not realistic to expect to see my opinions written in Constitutional amendments, nor would it do any good, given the way people in power misinterpret the Constitution.
I am an atheist because, for some reason, I don’t believe in supernatural beings. I can see some religions, such as Christianity, can benefit the believers tremendously; however, I cannot make myself believe in something just for the benefit. To be sure, I am not against religion per se. Not believing and opposing are two different things. Besides, I don’t think I know enough about religion to oppose it. Nonetheless, I do believe in the separation of church and state, in all levels of government. A government is the only entity in civil society that can legitimately use physical force, so I don’t want it to favor one religion or another. The idea is that governments of all levels should be non-religion. What Founders think or what the Constitution is intended to mean are interesting and consequential, but I also wanted to point out what I think.
In the course of these debates, on the other hand, I sensed that some Protestant Christians believe that it is righteous to make the governments Protestant Christian forever. And these governments should do “God’s work” on earth. I cherish the country’s founding principles and the Judeo-Christian values on which these principles are based. However, those values are rooted in the culture and thus influence people’s lives, which should remain private and free of interference from the government. Vesting in the government with powers or influence over people’s religious lives defeats the principles of freedom embodied by the founding of this country.
Since (I think) the hope for constitution amendment is unrealistic and the Constitution is not strictly interpreted. What do I do with my thoughts? I believe, to change a society, one would need to change the intellectual climate first. How can one go about influencing the intellectual climate with libertarianism, which is not even compatible with some core aspects of the human nature? I am open to suggestions.
-
"rather than to use them as golden rules."
Recommend
This is quite telling of your philosophy or is it? One doesn't have to agree with the Constitution in every aspect yet can agree to follow it. For instance, you might buy a car where you negotiated and received only part of what you wanted. The contract may have said 6 month warranty and you wanted 12 months. None the less you agreed because the deal made you better off. Unless you renegotiate the contract (amend the Constitution) there is nothing you can do to extend the warranty period. Would you approach the Constitution in the same manner?
I understand what your desires are and some are my desires as well. On a personal level we can do many things, but what are we willing to do as a group politically? That is where I think the confusion over what you said arose.
-
Rob,
1 Recommendation
By “rather than to use them as golden rules” I really meant “rather than to use the Founders’ ideas as golden rules in my reasoning and logic.” I did not mean I refuse to follow the parts of the Constitution that I disagree with.
-
-
-
-
Rob,
1 Recommendation
I’m not familiar with Thomas’s opinions.
I consider my libertarian ideas as my ideals. Realistically speaking, if we could follow the Constitution as it is, we would be in much better shape.
-
If you interpret the constitution through the lens of Libertarianism, things tend to be clear. It matches well with the Federalist Papers as well as intent as of when it was agreed to.
Recommend
However, if you look at it with a Conservative or Liberal (more-so) slant, tiny phrases like "public good" and "interstate commerce" become all important. They are used as justification to stretch, distort, and deny whole clauses elsewhere.
While it is true that some inductive reasoning is required to interpret and implement the Constitution, the mantra of "living document" should not be used to distort it outside of the very words that are written.
For example, the first amendment is made to ensure a newspaper or citizen can criticize the government, and the government can't write a law prevent this. Although it is essentially unlimited, there are practical limits. You do not have the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (unless it really is on fire). That is not an idea, it is deliberate endangerment. Likewise, you are prohibited from inciting a riot. Even though these restrictions are not explicitly stated, they are logical (inductive reasoning) extensions of the main text. They are not "ideas" nor a discussion, nor a criticism. They are dangerous in the way walking around with a bottle of nitro-glycerin would be. The first amendment gives us free speech - not free action.
As an aside, I don't really think there should even be a law prohibiting any of my examples. The proper way to handle someone shouting "Fire!" is to hold that person responsible for the outcome. If someone died in the stampede, that person could still be held responsible for their murder. If there was no stampede, and it was merely that people's viewing of the movie were interrupted, the theater owners could charge the shouter for having to rescreen the movie to an entire audience.
On the other hand, the Supreme court created out of thin air that no state could outlaw abortion based on the "right to privacy".
As member Byron White said" "I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. "
I don't have a dog in that hunt. I understand both sides of the issue, but there is no "logical extension" of thought that can allow the "penumbra" of "right to privacy" to allow the SCOTUS to determine that they CAN make a decision to determine that states CAN"T pass a law to outlaw a medical procedure.
I'm not asking for "strict interpretation", but there should be a limit to the number of leaps used to justify an opinion that was formed independent of the document upon which they are supposedly based. Sorry. In other words, they had already made up their minds. They just came up with that convoluted reasoning to justify what they believed.
The constitution was written in fairly plain language. I have a hard time believing the average citizen could logic their way from that document to many of the decisions the SCOTUS has made.
-
@Davie
Recommend
"On the other hand, the Supreme court created out of thin air that no state could outlaw abortion based on the 'right to privacy'...I understand both sides of the issue, but there is no 'logical extension' of thought that can allow the 'penumbra' of 'right to privacy' to allow the SCOTUS to determine that they CAN make a decision to determine that states CAN'T pass a law to outlaw a medical procedure. "
The Ninth Amendment seems to me to dispute your reasoning there. If the Constitution doesn't allow for a right to privacy, then what good is it? The government should have to have a valid, articulate and rational reason to outlaw any type of behavior. A right to privacy, or in other words, a right to do things on and with my own property that infringe on the rights of no one else, must be a basic right in any society that purports to stand for liberty.
Now as for the specific case of Roe v Wade, I disagree with the ruling on the grounds it was decided. Had they ruled that the state had no business meddling in medical matters (and they applied this consistently) then I could buy that. But even still, there has to be some objective legal line in the sand that determines when a person is a person. In such matters, I would prefer that the court give the Congress some reasonable amount of time to determine the matter on their own, before some default judgment is issued. If Congress (or the state legislatures) decided that a person has full rights at the moment of conception then I would disagree, but at least there would be a more Constitutional basis for the line.
@rob
"Eric, pay no attention to Randy. Thomas is a strict constructionist as is Scalia. The left all too frequently view things in a back assed fashion and focus on a few complex decisions that they argue, but have little understanding of."
So while I understand that you have a compulsion to call anyone who disagrees with you on any subject "The Left," and I know that noting this in such a way as to hopefully make you feel somewhat embarrassed over it is not likely to make you change your ways, I still feel the need to point and laugh.
@Eric
Go read up on Safford Unified School District v. Redding and tell me if you think the lone dissenter can claim to uphold the Constitution as rob claims.
-
-
I think, of all the political philosophies, Libertarian philosophy best accepts and embraces human nature. At its heart, it says "Let me do what I want - up until the point where it interferes with your doing whatever you want." What is more natural than pursuing your own self-interest?
1 Recommendation
Call it selfishness or greed if you like, but it is inherent in our nature for people to want things. It might be material goods, or it might be a better opportunity for your kids. Whatever it is, it is undeniable that people "want" things beyond their needs.
Libertarianism (via capitalism) utilizes this instinct. By allowing people to specialize in labor of their choice, they can create a surplus. This can be traded for things they are unable to create themselves. The result is that everyone benefits because surpluses make things cheaper, and more available. Adam Smith described the process as an "invisible hand" that guided people into helping each other, even though they were really looking out for themselves.
Contrast this with state-isms such as Marxism. Rather than embrace human nature, they ignore or deny it. The "enlightened" Communist has been "educated" to subvert his natural instinct. The idealism of "From each according to his ability - to each according to his need." is a nice idea, but it is also criminally naive.
Any indoctrination, err, I mean education, is continuously undermined by nature. It doesn't take long for people to realize that greater effort does not result in any greater reward. Self-interest rears its head, and work (and consequently surplus) suffers. Thus, instead of an invisible hand, there is a corrosive acid that eats away at productivity. In an effort to conserve resources, the state takes actions that further reduce freedom. Production focuses on satisfying needs rather than wants, and workers are selected for jobs based on ability more than desire.
--
Liberalism is very accepting of human nature, but does not recognize that for a society to operate, there must be constraints. Their embrace of "do what you want" combined with relativism leads to an "It's not my fault" mindset. If they had their way, Liberals would quickly shoot past freedom into the life and death constraints of anarchy - which then gives rise to tyranny.
Neither would I trade any of these for Conservatism. While it shares many traits with Libertarianism, it is all too often bounded by religious or moral restrictions. What philosophy has spent more time trying to codify personal behavior? Sleeping with a girl is okay - only if you are married, and only if you are not a girl. The mind-altering drug known as alcohol is okay, in some places, some days, but no other substance is permitted. Heck, they even want to legislate what is and isn't art.
I agree with 99% of the rest of what you said - especially about leaving the power to the states so people can vote with their feet. I think the Constitution, given the circumstance of its creation, is nearly perfect. As I mentioned in my earlier posts, it is not so much that the Constitution needs to be changed, but that that some of the decisions (such as Wickard v. Filburn) that have abused it need to be overturned.
-
Eric, Justice Thomas might be more of a strict constructionist than Justice Scalia.
Recommend
I think we got to the nitty gritty. In an earlier discourse Harry Binswanger said that Rothbard was anti-American. I don't know if he was or not and that is why I asked Harry for more proof. It is true that some of Rothbard's statements don't agree with our Constitution, but what I wanted to know was whether those ideas were simply personal to Rothbard or actually anti-American in that he would have had to state or otherwise demonstrate that he didn't support the Constitution and the country.
You on the other hand have revealed your personal preferences, but openly state "I consider my libertarian ideas as my ideals. Realistically speaking, if we could follow the Constitution as it is, we would be in much better shape. ". That in my opinion is not anti-American at all.
-
Recommend
Randy writes: "So while I understand that you have a compulsion to call anyone who disagrees with you on any subject "The Left," and I know that noting this in such a way as to hopefully make you feel somewhat embarrassed over it is not likely to make you change your ways, I still feel the need to point and laugh."
I have already experienced arguments with you where you twist the words of others and when the original words are quoted over and over again instead of explaining yourself you turn and run. You have proven yourself to be unreliable and one that paraphrases other people's statements out of context. That is a waste of time for anyone involved.
-
-
Batman is real? - 'Phoenix Jones' Patrols Streets, Fights Crime
Recommend
http://newsallaroundus.blogspot.com/2011/01/seattle-superhero-phoenix-jones-patrols.html
Add a Comment
We welcome your thoughtful comments. Please comply with our Community rules. All comments will display your real name.
Your Profile Here…
Set up your profile to connect with members of Journal Community.
Your profile gives you access to personal messages, connections, and Group invitations.
Your Groups Here…
Participate in engaging dialogue on topics that matter to you and other members of your group.
When you join groups you'll find them for easy access here. Learn new perspectives and educate each other.....
Top Groups
-
WSJ Editor Cheapskate
Tied to the Journal's Cheapskate column, this is a place for readers to gather and share their tales of living on the cheap.
-
Mutual Fund Investing
Share your own investing savvy and learn from experts and other investors about how mutual funds work, which funds are best for various portfolios, new types of mutual funds and other facets of fund investing.
-
WSJ Editor Tax Talk
This group is for anyone interested in taxes and how current laws and market conditions can change your yearly bill.
- back to top
-
WSJ.com Account:
Create an Account:
Help & Information Center:
-
About:
-
WSJ.com:
-
Tools & Formats:
-
Digital Network- WSJ.com
- Marketwatch.com
- Barrons.com
- SmartMoney.com
- AllThingsD.com
- FINS: Finance, IT jobs, Sales jobs
- BigCharts.com
- Virtual Stock Exchange
- WSJ Radio
- ProfessorJournal.com
- WSJ U.S. Edition
- WSJ Asia Edition
- WSJ Europe Edition
- WSJ India Page
Foreign language editions:
- WSJ Chinese
- WSJ Japanese
- WSJ Portuguese
- WSJ Spanish
ACAP Enabled
Copyright ©2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
»