What shoud've been in the Constitution to prevent modern day's leftish spread?
It must stand the test of time, aka no "Women are prohibited to vote", etc... since it'll get repealed.
- Limit Federal power to only defense, foreign, etc... while leaving the rest to State?
- Prohibit Anti-Family propaganda?
>Men will not become Nu-males
>>79013667
nothing, the constitution is a leftist document from the get go, maybe you dont truly understand what leftism is or what classical liberalism is. You should do more research on the subject.
Now analyze your statement, youre literally asking for a ban on the first amendment, if that isnt totalitarian to you then youre just as stupid as the "left" you despise
>>79013998
>leftish == classical liberalism
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
explicitly prohibit the establishment of any kind of welfare state whatsoever.
that really is the key to nearly all of the problems that have arisen since the 50s.
the welfare state
>enables single mothers
>enables niggerdom
>attracts the worst and shittiest immigrants to the country
without the welfare state
>divorce is much less feasible
>single motherhood is nigh impossible
>nigger culture is impossible
>the country is not attractive to the filthy leech kind of immigrant
>>79013667
That the government is forbidden to designate artificial persons.
The corporate world would be a hell of a lot different if people were actually responsible for what the company does.
>>79014091
youre asking for a fucking ban on freedom of speech while claiming to be for muh consititution. how fucking unaware of yourself can you fucking be
classical liberalism has always been on the left and its about the individual not the nation,race,group etc
>>79014336
I've never said anything about keeping the constitution as is. That's the point of "different" constitution.
The reality of freedom is that the bad and degenerate ideas too get spread around.
>>79014091
No, Juanito is completely in the right here. It's you who have no idea what you're talking about. Enlightenment era thought of universal, god-given rights has set the course of progressivism that we see today. We are simply seeing the logical conclusion of "All men are created equal". If all men are equal then we must fight to correct imbalances. You saw this first through colonization (white man's burden) and then through anti-imperialism and mass immigration you see today.
The constitution must should have specified in stark terms what an American is. Preferable right after We the people. Instead it goes for some vague "man". There needed to be a federal branch above the will of the people that is immune to shitshow that is representative government and protects the interest of those people exclusively. A hereditary role would probably work best.
>Limit Federal power
It had extremely limited federal power, government will expand if you let people vote on it. Empower individual states instead and let them keep a singular person in check.
>Prohibit Anti-Family propaganda
The death of the family is expressly due to marxism. No document could protect against that. Only a strong man.
>>79014841
be real with your self, ban the first amendment because thats what you really want, you want a national socialist country where only your ideas are allowed to be expressed and practiced. Dont call it the constitution call it whatever hitler called his garbage and never again try to label yourself as an individual that stands by the constitution or classically liberal
the insanity of your ultra leftists you have today could not be predicted at the time your constitution was written
If only the founding fathers of the country knew that you had a muslim nigger for a president.
>>79013667
Remove the interstate commerce clause
It is the justification that the executive branch has used literally every time they have grabbed more regulatory power
>>79013998
God damn. OP got shut down by a Mexican
>>79015190
A bonafide mexican intellectual.
Good on ya, Jose.
>>79014336
"left" and "right" as they pertain to modern day politics did not exist when the constitution was drafted
>>79013667
no dynasties, no father and son presidents within 50 years of each other (Bush and Bush Jr.), no husband and wife (Clinton and Clinton)
>>79014996
its not vague at all, im sure that those in the enlightened era knew what all those ideas would imply but had to design a system that would slowly erode backwards collectivism and allow for the free fruition of all individuals. You see it as vague because you wish it strictly said white men but the founding fathers were much smarter than that, they knew to leave room for future classical liberal individuals to further expand those rights to all men
>>79013667
limit 2 terms only for president, this was not originally in there, it only became law when some asshat presidents were testing the waters trying to see if they could become a dictator
>>79015511
Don't be a pedant. You know what he meant. It was and is a document that encourages progressivism.
>>79015571
The problem isn't in elected officials but the power structures that a democracy creates.
>>79015579
Yeah, that's what I was saying. It's inherently progressive and should have been made exclusively for white man. When I said vague man I meant it doesn't specify any particular existing group of people. It is an abstract document that could be applied universally. It is a thought experiment and not written for realities of the world and had too much faith in the people to adapt it towards those ends.
>>79013667
during the 2nd term of the president, a democratic vote by all citizens can be held at anytime to impeach the president.
the 2nd term of the president seems to be the problem, it is where they do all there radical shit.
Bush did wire tapes, email access, expanded patriot act, eminent domain, and enhanced interrogations (torture) in his second term
Obama has gone mad in his second term, gun control, bath room transgender rights, and actively trying to raise a minority army against us.
Could have put an end to all this tyranny if there was an easy way to remove them from office their 2nd term.
>>79013667
many of the problems in the US are caused by not following what's already in the constitution
>>79013667
require each household to have a gun and know how to use it
>>79015767
dont you see it as ironic to make it for white men? in a time where only white men ruled other white men? where white kings,queens and nobles abused their on "kind"? the only salvation for humanity and the white man was to flee those european empires and revolt against them. It wasnt about being white it was about being equal in the eyes of the natural god.
>>79013667
Take out the Equality faggotry that Christianity contributed.
>>79013667
They shouldn'thave written it at all. Is that what you bunch of mommys little fascists want to hear? Freedom is having to hear those you disagree with. Fucking deal with it. You are not the end all, be all of public opinion. Get the fuck over yourselves.
>>79013667
No amendments
>>79016295
>>79016295
>dont you see it as ironic to make it for white men
No not really. You can want freedom for your own people and everyone else to fuck off. In fact letting in large foreign groups with vastly different value sets and voting preferences actively restricts my freedoms. It turns the federal government into a fight over which group gets to oppress the other. Population is the key to controlling democracy.
>>79013667
No career politicians, one term and you're back to the private sector.
Rent seeking is what has allowed the state and the left to grow as powerful as they are today in the west.
Term Limits
There's a bunch of stuff I'd like to include on Federal expenditures and taxation, but it was all in the Constitution originally, and got replaced or "interpreted" to oblivion by the Supreme Court
OP here,
I've never said anything about tailoring the constitution to benefit white man exclusively. I myself am an Asian living in America. To judge man based on their race alone is just plain wrong.
>>79016602
>No not really. You can want freedom for your own people and everyone else to fuck off.
But when the US was created, white only constituted 90% of the population. There were Blacks, Natives, etc...
I see your point though.
>>79016602
I'd love to carry on this conversation Paco but I have work in 5 hours and need to hit they hay.
>>79016602
now do you know who has been the biggest promoter of socialism? white people and even in its nationalist form its still socialism at its core. The constitution was designed to stop all forms of oppressive government no matter the color or creed. Im glad the founding fathers had the foresight to not add white in front of men
>>79016444
Trips of truth means he's right.
But seriously he is right. If you aren't strong enough to deal with dissenting opinions, you're no better than the left which squashes all unique thinking.
>>79013667
>One must have participated in a mandatory two year military draft in order to vote.
Women and betas will just follow their natural habits, which is to be protected/useless. They will erase themselves from the voting pool.
The leftists though, are a different matter altogether.
>>79016904
Thank you
>>79016733
Careful.
That kinda talk will get you bracketed, drugged, and false-flagged in America, nowadays.
Be wary of shifty-eyed people that come into you life after you posted this.
>>79016969
I'm not opposed to this.
>>79017030
Would welcome desu
>>79015190
>>79015190
>be real with your self, ban the first amendment because thats what you really want,
Adding excepting doesn't mean banning it entirely. Nothing in the universe is absolute. Even the 2nd amendment is being selectively ignored as the SCOTUS see fits.
>Dont call it the constitution
No, it'd still be the constitution.
And no, I'm not white and I don't believe in classical liberalism anymore.
>>79014996
I agree, The entire idea behind the enlightenment and liberalism is protect the individual (minority) over the society (majority). Wanting a gender neutral cabinet or importing millions of immigrants to fix racial imbalance is the natural conclusion of liberalism. Liberalism is all about destroying your culture in the name of progress and that progress ends up destroying everything.
>>79013998
The constitution was the document that legally allowed there to be a federal government to rule over the union. It was to be a framework that the entire country and all of its states to model off of and not violate it. It's basically the most basic fundamental ideologies that shouldn't be changed for the country as a whole. It's essentially pretty limited, and they did that on purpose.
The amendments were basically put in to close loopholes and grant power to the citizens to check and balance the powers of the federal government outlined in the constitution. They were put in exclusively to arm the citizens with rights in the event that the federal government gained immense power and federal politicians began imposing tyrannical rule over the people.
We can argue over the definition of "liberalism" because the meaning has changed over the past 350 years but I think it's pretty clear that OP was talking about moderns liberals and democratic values when he said "leftist". These are the people lobbying for a bigger government and actively trying to shut down free speech, limiting or outright taking away gun ownership, infringing on protection from unlawful search and seizure, reducing or eliminating due process, and lobbying for more taxation for causes that are unwanted or unfair for its citizens. Why are they doing all of this? Because modern "liberals" don't trust the average citizen, yet they go far out of their way to infringe upon the majority of citizens' rights in order to protect small minorities of people because they're afraid the majority would punish them, for what they see as unfair reasons, if the majority were allowed to govern themselves like the founders intended.
To answer OP's question: I think that it's hard to say what would stop the brainwashing of the masses by leftist media propaganda because they're using the tools that are explicitly outlined in the constitution and the amendments as tools to control the masses.
>>79016444
YOU KNOW WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE SAID BOY
*spits in his dirty canteen*
YOU GOTTA PULL YOURSELF UP FROM YOUR OWN BOOT STRAPS
*nigger in the back picking cotton*
AINT NO FREE HAND OUTS HERE
*swipes his dads credit card*
NO MEXICAN EITHER
*mom hands Juanita her weekly 500 dollars for house keeping*
WOMEN GOTTA STAY HOME AND COOK
*finishes masturbating before his mom gets home from work*
GOTTA HAVE A 120 IQ MIN
*forced to sign up for community college by his dad because he wants him out the house*
AND YOU GOTTA BE WHITE LIKE ME
*saves every blacked pic ever posted on /pol/
>>79016904
>But seriously he is right. If you aren't strong enough to deal with dissenting opinions, you're no better than the left which squashes all unique thinking.
OP here.
I agree with you, in theory. But in practice, people rarely care. Look at the world today. You can't even say negative things about Gays/Muslims IN PRIVATE without fearing that your conversation being published publicly, thus losing your jobs.
The reality is that, DOMINANT ideal always win in the end, simply because it is have more "will" behind it.
If there was no 1st and 2nd amendments, there would have already been on hate speech and gun control. The reason almost half of population are against such laws is because the constitution gives them the moral authority to support it.
>>79013667
>What shoud've been in the Constitution to prevent modern day's leftish spread?
Outlawing central banking.
Their most powerful tool is monetary power, which they use to make us poor and consolidate resources, so it's harder for us to resist them.
remove 7 words:
"regulate interstate commerce" ; "promote the general welfare"
>>79016969
>>One must have participated in a mandatory two year military draft in order to vote.
That'll only get repealed.
So far I have:
-Mandatory anti-welfare
>>79017745
As much as I feel you here, you have to leave regulating interstate commerce. It was vital to keeping the states a cohesive union, rather than a bunch of conflicting pseudo-countries.
>>79017779
It hasn't been in Switzerland. If you've got a tradition of it, it seems unlikely to be repealed.
>>79017650
what does your social circle shaming you for being racist have to do with the fucking constitution? youre literally bitching because most people in irl dont agree with you. you want to know what true "leftist" government oppression looks like? ask a north korean or a cuban, o wait you cant because they dont have a constitution that is modeled like Americas
Btw, This is how Switzerland federation works.
The State/Fed power are clearly stated in constitution.
>>79018015
This is effectively what we're supposed to be, and I wish we gave the 10th Amendment more deference.
>>79017548
I don't recommend huffington post but this is a good read.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dani-rodrik/illiberal-democracies-on-the-rise_b_7302374.html
liberalism = protecting the rights of the individuals to stop persecuting or discrimination,
democracy = the will of the people. In other words majority rule.
The founding fathers realized these 2 beliefs were contradictory and tried to reconcile them. But the fundamentals of these 2 beliefs have not changed.
The liberals fighting for mass immigration and welcoming Islam today are doing the exact same thing as the people in the North fighting to end Slavery or Segregation. They want liberalism even if it violated democracy.
>>79017842
true -- the problem is not the intent of the phrase but semantics. we use "regulate" today to mean control/manage, but the original intent was more along the lines of "to make regular", which is a proper function of a federal government (and indeed a primary animus of the constitutional convention).
>>79017548
>To answer OP's question: I think that it's hard to say what would stop the brainwashing of the masses by leftist media propaganda because they're using the tools that are explicitly outlined in the constitution and the amendments as tools to control the masses.
I agree but you could always give the right "ideology" more moral authority for it to "stick". Look at the 1st and 2nd amendments. Owing gun and hate speech would have been made illegal a long time ago if we didn't have these "values" written in the constitution. Look at European countries.
Constitution do play significant role in shaping our cultural identity.
>>79018250
Wickard v. Filburn is the most egregious offender, and I would not be sad to see it stricken from history.
there doesn't need to be anything. People today are just aren't assertive enough to see through peoples bullshit. This PC culture walks and shits all over itself and they're fine with it. Something will eventually happen.. eventually.
>>79017733
Pray tell what's the alternative? Gold standard? lol, say hello to deflation.
>>79018145
10th Amendment ended with Lincoln and the Civil War. In fact that is the justification for the South leaving the Union, the 10th not being respected. Again this all makes sense because we chose liberalism > democracy in the name protection and progress (progressive).
>>79018457
That sounds like a case of choosing democracy over liberalism, by your definitions. The many wanted to get rid of slavery, and the individuals' rights were not protected
>>79018393
They should have gotten rid of Common Law and stuck with Civil Law,
>>79014149
This
China gets the recent niggers while Europe gets the shittiest leechers
>>79018406
>People today are just aren't assertive
That's the problem. The majority of people would rather submit to the loudest voice just to keep themselves out of trouble hence the need to make the constitution differently.
>>79018555
Again 10th, States rights gives the South the ability to have salves. The North trying to force the South to get rid of slavery is violation of the 10th and the democracy of the South in the name of liberalism.
>>79018737
People can't do shit when someone calls them a racist or sexist and they get fired from their job before the company gets sued under the Civil Rights Act.
>>79013667
Giving States the ability to directly override Supreme Court decisions by 2/3 or 3/5 majority vote with no amendment necessary, within some time limit. For example, if the federal government decided to limit our right to bear arms by allowing rifles or handguns to be banned, States shouldn't need to pass the Second Amendment again. What purpose would that serve when it was already passed the first time? The Supreme Court would just ignore it again and States would have no recourse every time the SCOTUS does so.
The federal government was only able to properly centralize power beginning in 1937 when the Supreme Court folded to FDR when he threatened to pack the court. It's been impotent against centralization of power ever since.
Giving States the final say in what is constitutional reverses the flow of power. It is, after all, the States who wrote the Constitution and the States who decided what would be in it. All amendments to the Constitution go through the States and I can't imagine them ever surrendering that power.
>>79013667
Simple
>thou shall not be a fuckin faggot
>thou shall not promote degeneracy
>>79018803
You're pretty obviously twisting things a bit to make sure that liberalism is the bad guy here. The nation democratically elected a president that a minority feared would violate their rights. If their motive was liberalism, than it was both democracy and liberalism that did it in.
>this nation is a white nation, and we will not let non-europeans make up more than 1% of the population
done
>>79016904
>if you x you're no better than n
But anon, the piece of paper you worship says we're all equal, so where's the problem in that?
>>79013998
The Constitution represented liberal thinking by 18th century terms, i.e. classical liberalism, but it is not analogous to the modern Left. It does no good to mix terminology the meaning of which has drastically changed as it confuses the issue.
Anyone who thinks limiting free speech is a good idea is a fool though, yes.
>>79017779
I don't understand your rationale for what will get repealed or not. In reality anything is fair game to be repealed as we can see the libcucks trying to do in present day.
Are you asking for the smallest change to the constitution that would prevent degeneracy? Because no matter how small it will always be something that degenerates will try to repeal.
>>79018923
Agreed, this gives the country a direct outlet for fighting back against federal corruption that it doesn't currently have.
I also think that we should force the major branches of government to be physically located in separate parts of the country. I recognize that this wouldn't work in the early days of the country, with communication the way it is, but I think you have to do something to avoid the centralization of money that we've seen in DC. When 7 of your 10 wealthiest counties are all located around the same metro area, without producing real value, you've got a problem.
>>79018953
1. We have no polls to say what percentage of the population wanted to get rid of slavery.
2. Under the 10th, only the people of the South would get to make that choice
3. Lincoln only won with 40% of the vote in a 4 way split.
4. I doubt most people would have voted for Lincoln if they knew his election would cause a damn war.
5 The issue of slavery is no different then the issue with gay marriage or gun control or immigration today. The moral arguments are the same just with different issues.
>>79018923
I agree. SCOTUS is way too powerful these days.
>>79019046
I think limiting non white population to between 10-20% of the population would stop the inevitable racial conflict such as in Yugoslavia and that would seriously weaken the regressive's identity politics game.
>>79019117
The founding fathers definition of liberalism was destined to become what it is today. This was the natural progression and we are seeing the end result today.
>>79019128
>Because no matter how small it will always be something that degenerates will try to repeal.
The 1st and 2nd amen haven't been repealed yet so far despite the attempts.
>>79019242
None of those issues are tied to classical liberalism. Progressivism is different from liberalism.
>>79017650
But you see what just happened, we have different opinions. We have expressed those opinions, and I don't hate you for it or anything! It's this magical thing called tolerance. Not the perverted version that liberals spew where you can only be tolerant by fighting wholeheartedly for a cause, but actual tolerance. The kind where I can fundamentally disagree and debate with you on important subjects, but then when lunch time rolls around we can go out together and get a few drinks and a sandwich despite our differing opinions.
Listening to and really thinking about other stances is what makes the best decisions possible. For example, I, on a fundamental level, disagree with abortion (with the exception of a few caveats like the woman herself being in danger carrying or delivering a baby) on the principle and belief that it is essentially murder. You are taking away a life from the world. However, I will gladly and seriously listen to a viewpoint contradictory to mine. We can talk about it, fight about it, whatever. But in the end, unless you get all pissy with me just for having a different opinion, I won't despise you or reject you just for having one of many viewpoints.
>>79018567
>>79019289
Like I said, We need to get rid of Common Law. Civil Law would weak the SCOTUS and make Congressman more important because they'd be drafting far more laws. Biggest problem today is a President + Executive Orders + SCOTUS can completely bypass the Congress.
>>79019403
THEY ARE THE SAME. Progressive is the natural end result of liberalism. You put people on a path of always protecting the individual library and you get the argument that no person is illegal. The progressives are simply taking liberalism to it's natural conclusion.
>>79019399
Technically the 2nd has been infringed on e.g. RPGs, full autos, etc.
1st as well because of Political Correctness which was caused the Civil Rights Act.
10th is gone with slavery, segregation, gay marriage, etc.
4th as well with all the NSA stuff
5th too with police asset forfeitures.
>>79019526
Civil Law doesn't alleviate the problem of unelected bureaucrats writing 99% of our laws. The same thing happens in Continental Europe today, the home of Civil Law. The SCOTUS today serves, in large part, to affirm decisions of unelected federal bureaucracies. Congress writes a general law on a subject granting large authority to one agency or another to make and alter law on that particular subject and the bureaucrats take permanent control of the issue. Removing the Supreme Court from the equation doesn't solve the problem of unelected bureaucrats writing 99% of our laws. This was made possible because the SCOTUS allowed FDR and the Congress to create these bureaucracies they have no legitimate authority to create, which the SCOTUS had been rejecting for years prior to threats against their own power.
>>79020151
I was thinking more in terms of terrible presidents and being able to bypass the Congress to create law as the justification of getting rid of Common Law.
I agree with administrative agencies are a huge issues because as you said we have unelected officials running them and creating decisions.I'm not sure of practical solution.
>>79013667
Too many amendments.
>>79020369
>I'm not sure of practical solution.
The practical solution is to let States say "no". Not as nullification by one or a small group of states, but as the ability to overturn Supreme Court decisions and costly regulations without being forced to amend the Constitution. States by 2/3 or 3/5 majority should simply be able to say "no, federal government, you do not have the power to do this. We did not grant it to you."
>>79013998
kys taco bell
We should have had a 4th branch, an enforcement branch, that was empowered to guard the constitution and the states at all costs.
Just because you write laws, doesn't mean rogue presidents and bought politicians are going to abide by them. On the other hand, if a branch of our government is able to pluck out those individuals that backtrack on their constitutional pledge and try them as traitors, with the death penalty as the only penalty offered,.... then we wouldn't be seeing a president ignoring laws at will, nor a congress trying to write laws that supersede the constitution,.. or even a supreme court that tries to instill laws against it themselves.
Mark Levin currently has a good book out called the liberty amendments. He goes into detail about some of the things going on currently, how they came about, and what can be done through an article 5 convention to fix things.
In case anyone was interested.
