• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Things from the Constitution we don't need

A

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
We don't need 3 branches of government. All you need is a legislative branch. You don't need a government that can coin or print money or one that can regulate interstate commerce. You don't need the national government to set naturalization requirements or patents.

You don't need a standing army during peace time, you don't need a bill of rights (other than the 10th Amendment). You don't need compulsory taxation, as the military and congress are civil servants, and people can pay them voluntarily since not everyone will consent to what they're doing.

Not only do you not need any of those things, they're actually detrimental to the market and the general welfare of society. I hereby propose a 3rd Supreme Law of the U.S.A. (making D.C. the 51st State):


Each State legislature shall elect a member to represent the State. The body of those U.S. Representatives shall be called the Congress.
Congress shall convene, in an agreed upon place, for a total of at least 24 hours a week.
Congress shall have the power, by majority vote, to:
Declare War, Raise a military, set rules relating to war and military, appoint a commander-in-chief during declared war time (the Military shall not occupy civilian property without consent of the owner and the Military shall not invade foreign nations)
End a War.
Secure diplomacy with foreign nations and appoint ambassadors; however Congress shall make no treaty or join into any binding international agreement.
Borrow (but not loan) gold and/or silver on the credit of the United States (Congress shall not charter any bank(s)
Guarantee each State a republican form of government and protect them from foreign invasion and domestic violence.
Approve the divergence of one state into a number of States that will leave an odd number of States.
Provide for the return of fugitives from justice to the State(s) in which the crime was committed.
Elect an officer who shall Preside over Congress.
All powers not delegated to Congress, are reserved to the States.
No state or the Federal government shall allow involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime.
No state or the Federal government shall have a standing army during peacetime.
No State shall enter into any agreement, treaty, alliance, or confederation.
States may contribute gold, silver, platinum, or property to the Federal government during wartime (to be used only for military expenses) or to pay off the Federal Government’s debts.
No state legislature shall allow popular election of U.S. Representatives.


Is there anything wrong with it? If so, what? Do you think the government is too small under it?
 
Last edited:
I think everything just mentioned in your proposal is wrong. I don't even know where to start. It's just bad.
 
Can legitimately intelligent people make a serious u-turn like this, or is this really just the result of congenital stupidity?

Discuss.

- wolf
 
There is a possibility that the United States will break up into several smaller countries someday. When or if this happens the new countries will use the present constitution as a blueprint for their new governments. They will keep the most important rights but will eliminate bureaucratic overlaps. Unfortunately, they will still put the military into a category of its own for defense of the borders.

The points that the OP bring up will be experimented with and hopefully refined.

The creator of the Babylon 5 tv series is currently involved in a movie exploring these scenarios with the breakup of the US.
 
The People's Republic of China launches an invasion of the United States, with multiple troop landings on the west coast following air strikes on several major cities west of the Rockies.
The United States, having no standing army, starts to recruit and train a force to try to repel this invasion. Contracts are let to several corporations who begin to design the aircraft and armored vehicles required. Sturm Ruger and Smith and Wesson are requested to submit small arms designs so that the newly constituted Department of Defense can let contracts for small arms manufacture...
 
I think the framers designed the best government they could envision to ensure liberty, it is only in the last 80 years that Pols finally figured out that if they could get the courts to ignore the Constitution like the other 2 branches do then they could pretty much do whatever they like.
 
CallMeJoe said:
The People's Republic of China launches an invasion of the United States, with multiple troop landings on the west coast following air strikes on several major cities west of the Rockies.
The United States, having no standing army, starts to recruit and train a force to try to repel this invasion. Contracts are let to several corporations who begin to design the aircraft and armored vehicles required. Sturm Ruger and Smith and Wesson are requested to submit small arms designs so that the newly constituted Department of Defense can let contracts for small arms manufacture...
Click to expand...
Some people will already be armed anyway. There will be militias.
 
This whole argument requires some bullshit altruistic ideal society where everyone works for the common good. Regardless of risk or reward.
 
Linflas said:
I think the framers designed the best government they could envision to ensure liberty, it is only in the last 80 years that Pols finally figured out that if they could get the courts to ignore the Constitution like the other 2 branches do then they could pretty much do whatever they like.
Click to expand...


typical republican blather, the judges uphold the constitution all the time. they are doing some crazy liberal consipracy "activists" when they rule against the interests of the fundi christain right, who IMHO should be shot as enemys of the state.

Like the recent gay marriage debate. Given the equal protection cluase of the constitution, the court made the proper ruling.
 
Anarchist420 said:
Is there anything wrong with it? If so, what? Do you think the government is too small under it?
Click to expand...

Everything? It isn't the 19th century anymore, there's this things called carriers, ICBM's, submarines, and on, and on. CallmeJoe hit the nail on the head. Having a standing military is an aversion to invasion, not to mention it's industrial and economic benefits.
 
The ignorance of this poster..whoah.
Why would we need any branch of government if you were an Anarchist? govt would be worker councils elected at local levels or somesuch. /facepalm
 
Linflas said:
The true colors of the "liberal".
Click to expand...

Hm, he's not a liberal and supports shooting them. As a liberal, I'm against shooting them. Guess that makes you about completely wrong about liberals. Big surprise.

As I've said, 95% of the attacks on liberals are lies or wrong from ignorance, and the other 5% I can't remember.
 
My gripe with this thread is the OP used the word WE don't need in thread title.

But using the word WE implies everyone is in agreement with the OP, and as this thread shows, just about everyone disagrees with the OP.

But even then, there are procedures to amend the constitution, and if Anarchrist420 wants only his changes in "our" constitution, he should follow those procedures instead of posting idle threads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top