![us-constitution[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/7DnANU8.jpg "us-constitution[1].jpg")
Alright /pol/; you've just been given the opportunity to rewrite the U.S. Constitution, but within reason.
The original constitution has been deemed immutable in its general structure and function for logistical reasons, so you can't go changing or getting rid of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches (such as saying that congress can't collect taxes). Everything else is fair game, however, including all amendments to the constitution (including the bill of rights)
Assuming that you can mind control every state legislature and thus ensure ratification, what do you change? More specifically, what do you change in regards to:
Freedom of speech, the press, religion, etc..., and limits thereof.
Right to bear arms, what "Arms" actually means, limits to the resctrion thereof, etc...
Eligibility of voting in federal elections, for both representatives and presidents.
Ability of congress to make laws not expressly detailed in the constitution.
And whatever else you find interesting or that needs attention.
>>55780265
Article 1: Gas the kikes race war now
Done
1. End the Fed.
2. Build Wall.
3. Kill NAFTA.
4. There is no 4.
>>55780400
3/10
>>55780482
>End the Fed.
Why? Anti-Jew memeposting aside, the Fed is instrumental in ensuring the superiority of the dollar.
>Build Wall
Good idea, but it sounds more like a policy than an integral part of the constitution.
>Kill NAFTA
Why? It's basically the exact opposite of the EU, in that it's effective, serves its purpose, and is beneficial to all members.
>>55780265
If you wanted a anime thread you should of just asked -_-
>>55780631
Australia, please; this is a serious thread.
>>55780708
no it's not
>>55780708
Your a serious thread -_-
1. Make it illegal for the US to maintain a military and declare war
2. Make taxes illegal
3. Eliminate all restrictions against immigration and free trade
4. Legalize drugs
5. Make it illegal for federal expenditures to exceed .01% of the US GDP
>>55780265
Include clause limiting SCOTUS terms and making them drawn from elections rather than appointments. Strike out any ambiguous amendments that grant additional authority to the federal government and strengthen the focus on state governments running themselves. Include rights of cessation for states.
>>55780858
>USA conquered the next day
>>55781031
Conquered by who?
>>55781078
literally anyone.
>>55781078
Literally any country with a military? It's not like the USA isn't sitting on a treasure trove of natural resources.
1. Keep it exactly the same bc its perfectly reasonable
2. Expand upon 14th amendment to disallow anchor babies
3. Expand upon the 2nd amendment to include all types of arms past, future, present and their related ammunition types.
4. Expand upon 1st amendment to make it illegal to threaten someone's freedom of speech
>>55781410
Any military that stepped into America would fall in love with the freedom and throw down their guns.
>>55780628
>Why? It's basically the exact opposite of the EU, in that it's effective, serves its purpose, and is beneficial to all members.
>>55780265
>you've just been given the opportunity to rewrite the U.S. Constitution, but within reason.
Fuck off.
Shall Not Be Infringed.
>Rewrite the constitution
Burn it and install a monarchy
>>55781512
Oh forgot to add:
5. Illegal immigrants do not receive state benefits, do not count toward popular or electoral votes, and do not have the ability to participate in elections as they are not citizens of the US
>>55781535
>seems like obvious trollbait
>but this is what liberals actually believe
What a horror to be alive in this time.
>>55780265
We should just return to the original Bill of Rights; chop off everything after Amendment 10. Our Founding Fathers had the right idea and we've just gone on to screw things up.
>>55781627
Oh, liberals are for free trade and against taxation?
>>55780858
And it is, at this point in time, that the US military succeeded in a coup and formed the Imperial States.
>>55780967
Have you learned nothing from the Articles of Confederation?
>>55781512
>3.
What do "arms" mean?
>>55781686
But anon, the founding fathers weren't some monolithic entity of political thinkers, and were heavily divided amongst many factions (the most prominent being the Federalists and Anti-Federalists). In fact, the Bill of Rights was more of a political olive branch from the Federalists to the Anti-Federalists.
>>55781627
But that anon is very obviously a libertarian.
>>55781755
I meant Libertarian, but in the end it's the same country-destroying idiocy. And let's not pretend that dismantling the military, isolationism, opened borders and 420blazeitfaget aren't all liberal shit too.
>>55781936
>Have you learned nothing from the Articles of Confederation?
The people that opposed their abolishment were afraid of the federal government turning into what it ended up turning into.
>>55781936
arms, short for armament, meaning military weapons, ammunition, and equipment. Whatever the military uses, we have the right to use as well.
>>55782203
True, but more for better than for worse in my eyes. Should the articles have remained, the US would likely be nothing more than an agrarian backwater scarcely stretching to the Mississippi; Should they be reinstated in part or in full, the US would not be able to maintain its dominant position on the world stage.
>>55781512
>all types of arms
Even nuclear weaponry?
other than that I agree with this dude
>>55781686
>just get rid of the seventeenth amendment
terrible idea
>>55782483
Well, personally, I wouldn't go that far. I would define it to be "civilian arms", which include all firearms as well as vehicles used to mount crew served weapons or the like.
Stuff like nukes, chemical weapons, large ships, armed tanks, and so forth? No dice.
>>55782500
Which is why I didn't say we should abolish the Constitution entirely, but to take strides to limit the damage that the federal government has done that the anti-federalists feared.
A standing military, taxation, federal currency, etc.
>>55783134
>A standing military
>taxation
>federal currency
I fail to see how any of these are bad.
>>55780265
Don't change much. Just make sure every thing is clear and up to date on wording while trimming things that are unnecessary. People have the right to own guns, but I'm a bit unsure about the relevancy of a militia in the modern world. Especially considering how war is waged these days.
>>55783189
I meant the opposite. That limiting the federal government except in cases like those listed.
Sorry for being unclear, it's late and I'm tired.
I'm borderline on whether there should be federal courts too. That feels unnecessary and a slippery slope.
I'd ban non whites and I'd prevent any military protection for non all white countries (that should hopefully keep Europe white). I would also specifically state that Jews are non white.
>>55783506
What about Jewish people that renounce their religion?
>>55783536
Nice try you shifty kike. Still not white.
>>55783536
>implying Jews wouldn't just falsely claim that they did
>>55782695
Faggot
>>55783472
>That feels unnecessary and a slippery slope.
I don't know, they're pretty necessary if you want to enforce federal laws without having to resort to marching a federal army into a state capitol every time their governor does X, Y, or Z.
>>55783680
Let the state impeach him if he's pissed his constituents off. If not, it doesn't matter how corrupt or reprehensible his actions are, if he has the approval of the people he's doing his job as an elected official.
>>55782599
'Real' nuclear weaponry is infeasibly difficult and expensive to build and maintain.
Any cunt can make a dirty bomb but that's true whether it's legal or not.
>>55780265
>Right to bear arms, what "Arms" actually means, limits to the resctrion thereof, etc...
I change the wording of the second ammendment to the
"The right of the people to keep and bear any method of defending one's own life, the life of others, or their property shall not be infringed upon in any way."
>>55783629
Wow rude.
>>55783805
He may have the people of his State's approval, but he is still subordinate to the federal government's laws. If you are implying that the States should be sovereign in its literal meaning, I must say that it's an absolutely idiotic notion.
>>55783899
Would you extend this right "to any method" to include indiscriminate weapons such as nuclear devices, ballistic artillery, high yield explosives, and so forth?
>>55783981
Hell yeah motherfucker.
Freedom is all about superior firepower.
>>55783920
Not entirely sovereign, but self-governing, yes. Especially in the context of determining laws within their borders.
Why is that so horrible in your eyes?
>>55783981
It's far more cost-effective and convenient to build your own nigger-rig explosives from materials that can be bought legally today than it is to purchase an artillery piece.
Cowadootie 4 wasn't kidding with those 'cost of an x' death messages.
>>55780265
Define within reason.
>>55784114
>Why is that so horrible in your eyes?
It's not, at first glance, but it does set a bad precedent.
There is a very big difference between being "self-governing" (which is just a matter of good administration of a nation), and "being subject to their own laws".
Having multiple sets of laws is perfectly fine, so long as one is subservient to the other, but allowing them to conflict is the quickest way to invite disorder.
>>55784075
But is ballistic artillery truly going to help you effectively meet your own criteria?
>>55784150
Fair enough, but we can't really stop people from doing that anyways.
>>55784345
>Fair enough, but we can't really stop people from doing that anyways.
Exactly.
>>55784250
>Define within reason.
As I said in the OP; you can change whatever you want, so long as doing so does not affect the three branches in a fundamental manner (such as congress being unable to collect taxes, or the executive branch being unable to administer the military)
>>55784345
>But is ballistic artillery truly going to help you effectively meet your own criteria?
You should be able to defend your property from any circumstance.
>>55784404
That doesn't mean we should allow citizens to own Abrams or cruise missiles, however. There's a point where you're just playing with fire, and it's just not worth it.
>>55784561
Even when doing so would likely incur damage on others property, or just wanton collateral damage in general?
>>55784614
Citizens won't own that kind of hardware regardless of its legality because it's expensive and useless for any kind of crime 'ordinary' people commit.
>>55784614
Additionally, I think this argument boils down to whether you believe the state should have a monopoly on violence. Do you consider the state to be more moral than its citizens?
>>55784780
Then what's the problem with prohibiting it just for the sake of formality?
>>55784345
>Having multiple sets of laws is perfectly fine, so long as one is subservient to the other, but allowing them to conflict is the quickest way to invite disorder.
Give me a for instance.
>>55780265
* Repeal 16th amendment (no more federal income tax)
* Repeal 17th amendment (senators elected by state legislatures instead of popular vote)
* Repeal 19th amendment (states not required to allow women to vote)
* Repeal 24th amendment (voting rights can be revoked if poll taxes or other taxes aren't paid)
* Repeal 26th amendment (states not required to allow 18 year olds to vote)
* Pass amendment stating that taxes on real property are not considered to be direct taxes (to provide a source of revenue to replace revenue from income taxes since direct taxes are illegal)
* Pass amendment repealing the necessary and proper clause
>>55784864
I consider the state having a monopoly on violence to be the basis of civil society, and the citizen's "right to arms" to be nothing more than the informal deputization and implied conscription into an irregular militia of the entire citizenry.
>>55784614
Why the fuck shouldn't they be allowed to own an Abrams?
Owning tanks is 100% legal as is. I cold buy a tank with a functioning cannon at any time.
And cruise missiles are prohibitively expensive for anyone to actually own, and like the whole "wuld u alow nuclear weapons?" bullshit. It requires
1. Someone willing to sell those to civilians, just because the government doesn't stop you from owning something doesn't force people to sell it to you
2. Someone having the money to afford it and the space to put it
3. The technical knowhow to actually operate it
And you're acting like people would use these for crimes or anything, anyone who went through the trouble to get a hold of something that expensive would never consider using it for anything illegal, see supressors and machine guns in real life.
>>55784760
Your rights end where my rights begin.
As long as you aren't hurting any law abiding citizen feel free to bear the arms you want if you're defending yourself against threats, but then when somebody else's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness is endangered you are overstepping the definition of defense and moving into the territory of offense on another person.
>>55780265
1. be cool
2. be chill
3. smoke weed
4. keep lurkin'
:D
>>55780858
>Eliminate all restrictions against immigration and free trade
You realize this would allow muslims, which would invalidate everything else
>>55784924
State A is within the nation.
State A has its own laws (X) , and the nation has its own (Y)
X is legal so long as it is a subset of Y, and does not conflict.
For instance; the national government rules that no citizen can possess more than 10 pounds of handwavium; the state government can rule that its citizens can have anywhere between 0 and 10 pounds of handwavium, but no more than 10 because of national laws.
>>55784909
Good question, I've not really formulated cogent philosophy on the matter. I'm torn between the prospect of a slippery slope (if it's moral to ban things not in demand as a 'formality' the argument could be made that many other things are not 'in demand' vis. automatic rifles, large magazines, heavy goods vehicles etc.) but I do agree that it would be safer on the off-chance that an extremely wealthy psychopath decides to buy an artillery piece and shell the nearest city. Though I imagine the legality of the matter would not stop someone with those kinds of resources and capabilities.
>>55785079
Why would the federal government need laws in the first place, I guess is my point. The states are more than equal to the task of creating their own.
>>55785041
Nah, assuming he's as libertarian as he looks there would be no incentive for idiotic and skillless durqua durkah mohemmet jihadis to immigrate to the US.
>>55784955
I'll add what another person said:
* Add amendment clarifying that anchor babies aren't considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are not U.S. Citizens
>>55784993
Perhaps, but I believe in, at the very least a modicum of, proactive justice.
>>55785196
Because the state's interests do not necessarily align, and allowing the federal government to enforce its own laws allows it to forcibly align state's interests for the benefit of the nation as a whole.
>>55785134
It would, at the very least, allow for security agencies some jurisdiction in preemptively stopping this rich psychopath from acquiring military hardware in the first place. I don't know about you, but PMC's that are on par with the actual military don't sit well with me.
>>55785393
Why is forcing the state to act against its interests a good thing? Give me an example here because the only thing I can imagine is the kind of abuse we currently have.
State A wants abortion / gay marriage / interracial marriage / incest / etc. illegal. State B is triggered that people could want that and whines to the Federal government who forces State A.
>>55780265
I believe that we need to reduce the humanity of the black race from 3/5 of a person down to 3/10ths.
They have taught us that they cannot exist in civilization outside of being enslaved.
>>55785393
>It would, at the very least, allow for security agencies some jurisdiction in preemptively stopping this rich psychopath from acquiring military hardware in the first place.
Indeed, however I'm not sure I would be willing to trade that for my right to bear arms, to free expression or any other myriad fundamental liberties that would likely be infringed as a consequence of this 'preventative measure' against a minuscule threat. We've seen the consequences of a constitution worded in less-than-absolute terms and I do not like them.
>I don't know about you, but PMC's that are on par with the actual military don't sit well with me.
Agreed, but a citizenry incapable of defending itself against said military sits equally poorly with me. Besides, I don't believe PMCs will be able to afford cruise missiles any time soon; I think by the time that that becomes a possibility we will have far greater technological challenges on our hands when it comes to weaponry.
As an aside, how would you propose to restrict access to 'indiscriminate' weapons while maintaining a timeless and succinct wording to your constitution?
>>55785562
Of course, it depends on the law in question. Would allowing or forbidding fag marriage affect the nation as a whole in a good or bad way? Would one state allowing it or forbidding it affection the nation as a whole in a good or bad way?
In short, I believe that the federal government should take charge when X affects the nation as a whole, and that the states should submit to the federal government when their actions affect the nation as a whole in a meaningful way. Otherwise, the federal government should stay out of the state's business.
>>55785845
Except the Federal Government when given that authority now HAS opted to assert its authority every single time. And all it would take is for the Feds to just say "this affects the country" to make whatever ruling they want.
That's exactly what the anti-federalists were afraid of and what I'd aim to stop with my revisions. The fact of the matter is that there's not really a good reason for federal laws at all. It's not like Colorado was going to legalize rape or Montana was okay with arson. The federal government just intercedes to throw its weight around with social matters where that's the singlemost place it never should.
>>55785802
>Indeed, however I'm not sure I would be willing to trade that for my right to bear arms
You don't have to, you need only trade your right to bear arms that fall under the description of "artillery pieces".
>fundamental... them
I know you are alluding to Franklin, but that's not how the quote goes. Franklin actually said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
>Agreed... with me.
Fair enough, but by definition the citizen is not sovereign, and is subject to the authority of the state (for better or worse).
>As an aside
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm sure this is will be full of loopholes and ambiguities, but:
"All citizens shall have the right to keep and bear weaponry able to be carried by an average man within reason, as well as discriminate crew-served weaponry able to be carried by between two and six average men within reason; indiscriminate weaponry and explosives shall be regulated or prohibited as is necessary"
So, in short, if you and or your buddies can carry it for a good long while, and it DOESN'T make stuff go boom, it's fair game.
>>55786268
>I know you are alluding to Franklin
Didn't even notice that; entirely unintentional.
>Fair enough, but by definition the citizen is not sovereign, and is subject to the authority of the state (for better or worse).
Yes, but I consider the citizen's right to defend himself against the state, in a 'gloves off' scenario, to be a necessary and moral concession on the part of the state. The state should understand that it is sovereign only through the power of the people and that the people should have the ultimate, or at least an equal, bargaining chip in the event of a dispute.
>I'm not a lawyer... necessary
Interesting, I suppose you would have to define the terms 'indiscriminate' and 'explosive' but that seems easy enough at first glance.
>>55786268
I just realized that my definition doesn't include ammunition, but whatever. Considering how this would be a modern legal document, there'd better be a glossary of terms in the back.
>>55786699
>The state ... dispute.
But if the people have higher authority than the state, how can the state be reasonably expected to maintain rule of law?
>Interesting... glance.
Thank you, and again, I'm not a lawyer. There's probably some pre-law undergrad in this thread right now, gleefully rubbing his hands together, thinking of all the ways he could manipulate these suggestions.
>>55786927
>But if the people have higher authority than the state, how can the state be reasonably expected to maintain rule of law?
I think people should have equal authority to the state, since the state is supposed to be the collective will of the people. My use of the term 'ultimate' was probably disproportionate but in a condition of tyranny I believe the individual should be able to defend themselves against the state which, necessarily, requires that they have access to the same tools of enforcement as the state. In my society I would hope that the laws would be moral and just to the vast majority such that in the case of criminal activity the majority of citizens would be on the side of the law enforcement.
>There's probably some pre-law undergrad in this thread right now, gleefully rubbing his hands together, thinking of all the ways he could manipulate these suggestions.
I hope it makes him happy.
>>55787165
If the citizen has decided to defend themselves against the state, then they are, by definition, a hostile foreign element and be treated as such. Then again, if a state loses enough of its citizenry to a brand new hostile foreign entity right on its doorstep in the span of a few years, it deserves to fall.
>>55787315
Absolutely, and I believe the most likely reason for such an occurrence would be that the state had become tyrannical and the citizens were in a state of righteous revolt.
>>55787397
Perhaps, but the citizens would not be "lawful" in doing so. A state cannot condone those who would defy it if it is to maintain its authority, and more importantly, rule of law.
As a general rule of thumb, politicians and policies are temporal, the state ought to be timeless. Anything else shows a severe deficiency in the structure of the nation, its culture, and the state itself.
>>55787471
>Perhaps, but the citizens would not be "lawful" in doing so.
I think this strengthens the system - if the revolt is unpopular or a small group attempts to start a junta then the state would have the full backing of the judicial system in dismantling the attempt, on the other hand if the revolt is popular and the people once again seize power then the tables would be turned and the former (tyrannical) state would be in the position of minority.
>A state cannot condone those who would defy it if it is to maintain its authority, and more importantly, rule of law.
Indeed not, which would make it think very carefully when enacting laws which go against the will of the people.
What do you mean by 'the state ought to be timeless'? Are you suggesting it should maintain absolute authority under (over?) all governments?
>>55787760
>I ... minority.
Of course, after all, a state is a dynamic facet of human nature. A group of 5 friends kicking out the 6th after he refuses to pay his part of the bill is a state, for all practical purposes.
It is implicit that all states derive the entirety of their power from the people which form them (pic related), but it is important for the state to explicitly act AGAINST its people in order to maintain rule of law if need be.
>Are ... governments?
Preferably, yes. It's better to enact change in the government gradually, through peaceable and lawful means, than through violent revolution.
>>55780628
>the Fed is instrumental in ensuring the superiority of the dollar.
M8, I love this country but our dollar is strong because of bombs and oil, not the fed.
As for the thread, it would read exactly as it did in 1776, except for
>11th ship the darkies back
>12th kill all lefties for treason
>>55788047
>M8, I love this country but our dollar is strong because of bombs and oil, not the fed.
It's strong because of bombs, oil, and the fed. Pillaging sand people can only get you so far, and money is a science into itself.
>>55787949
>it is important for the state to explicitly act AGAINST its people in order to maintain rule of law if need be.
Sure, if its laws are just. I believe that the people should, ultimately, hold equal means to force production in the event that the state enacts laws that are unjust. We are seeing such injustices all around the world today, in my own country the government is, as we speak, designing legislation that will ensure its unlimited right to surveil my online activities; this is a government that has been complicit in the detention and torture of its own citizens (albeit by your government) without trial and there's not a damn thing I or anyone else here can do about it because, at the end of the day, when you, unarmed and untrained, have an SA80 pointed at you you will comply. Always. This is perhaps not the case in your country right now and I admire that concession on the part of your government no matter how grudging.
>Preferably, yes. It's better to enact change in the government gradually, through peaceable and lawful means, than through violent revolution.
I completely agree but I also believe that the thread of those 'violent means' will keep the ever-corruptible houses of power in check without the need for a single shot to be fired.
>>55780858
This is why I stopped being a lolbertarian 100%.
>>55788504
>Sure, if its laws are just
And who can determine if its laws are just or not? I have yet to see a satisfactory objective answer, as well as the fact that the populace can be fooled into believe just laws are unjust, and unjust ones just.
>the rest of your post
Sorry, I forgot that you weren't American. My condolences to your situation, anon. I hope Britain can come out of it.
>I completely... be fired
The powers that be already fear revolution, anon.
>>55783457
>relevancy of a militia in the modern world. Especially considering how war is waged these days.
You misunderstand.
Look up the Battle of Athens,USA
>>55788741
>And who can determine if its laws are just or not?
The people, having settled in this liberty-loving country and naturally consider there to be no higher pleasure than to be free from tyranny.
>that the populace can be fooled into believe just laws are unjust, and unjust ones just.
This is indeed a problem. Though I would hope that in a society in which one needs to be politically aware to survive the average credulity of the individual would be lower than it is in the American populace today (a man can dream, right?)
>The powers that be already fear revolution, anon.
And I would have them shrink in fear at the prospect that a misstep in justice could topple their power games overnight.
Remember, we're drafting a constitution here; those in power will inevitably attempt to manipulate it to their own ends. It must be made very clear to governments down the line (hopefully many centuries down) that the people of this country are not to be toyed with. Power corrupts and all that.
>>55785134
> the off-chance that an extremely wealthy psychopath decides to buy an artillery piece and shell the nearest city.
You can, today, 100% legally, buy a tank and do the same.
Same with cannons , automatic weapons with proper liscencing and on private property, and explosive substances.
Hell I can legally buy up all the gas in a case station, fill up my own tanker and ram it it into the White House before anyone has time to respond.
Why doesn't anyone do that? Simple. It's expensive, and the reprucusions are too great.
Pay tellie license Tommy.
>>55789226
Which is precisely why I'm arguing against making it illegal for the sake of it.
See >>55785134 where I pre-empt your truck-in-whitehouse scenario.
>>55781627
>liberals
kek!
Conservatives are the one who gush over AMURICA m8
>>55789177
>The people
Why are the people any more qualified?
>And... that
But of course; regardless, the people must also learn to obey authority. It is a balancing act, the state must be trusted to be just, and the people must be trusted to be lawful; without either, there can be neither.
>>55789226
Oh and I can legally buy a jumbo jet, get my pilots license, and kamikaze capital hill.
Just because people can do illegal things with objects doesn't mean the objects have to be banned.
>>55789312
Am drunk. Misread. Disregard.
>>55789453
>Why are the people any more qualified?
They're not. It's not really an answerable question (completely stumped Socrates). What they are is the people living in the country - they are the ones that must abide by the laws (the state will almost invariably write itself out of them like Obama and the NDAA 2014) so I consider it their moral right to be the ones who decide.
>It is a balancing act
Indeed, and I think it should be balanced more in favour of the people. The state houses men of power who can weather many storms and evade injustice but the common man, when unarmed, is at the mercy of the gendarmes.
If the people trust the state to be just it will inevitably do the opposite because the state is man and man craves power. The common man should and must be 'eternally vigilant'.
