Is the US Constitution flawed?

except that it does.

give me an example

 

The constitution does use the word "appoint". But the point is that I see no reason (and I think it's counterproductive) for all justices to be attorneys. I think there should always be three or four justices who are not attorneys. Maybe even more than that.

 

As I explained above to another poster, I argue that the Preamble is the Constitution. It's not the mission statement.

If we were to compare it to starting a business, the so called "Preamble" is equivalent to the "Articles of Incorporation", and the laws would be similar to a company's bylaws.

Dell's Articles of Incorporation indicate the name of the company, and what they do: build computers (just an example, I don't know what they actually say) and the bylaws indicate the internal structure of the company, how the board of directors is established, how they select a CEO, what the CEO can and cannot do, etc.

Just like the so called "Preamble" indicates the name (United States of America) and the purpose of the organization (form a more perfect union, ensure... this and that...)

Saying that the Preamble is an "ideal" is like saying that Dell's "ideal" is to build computers. I don't think so. If Dell doesn't build computer, the reason for Dell to exist is gone. So Dell can disband. Same goes for "United States of America".

 

Sort of.

Some of the founders didn't want a bill of rights at all, because they felt that rights given by God were the default, and writing some of them down could some day lead to the government deciding what a right was, and that they had the ability to define what were and were not rights.

 

I don't disagree with that, though there is no way to enforce such and I would oppose any effort to make it enforceable. Only by gentleman's civil agreement would that happen. I think there are way too many lawyers in congress, too.

 

Any amendment, any law, any action... that does not uphold that is objectively unconstitutional.

But the problem is that the Supreme Court is composed exclusively of Judges. They are there to "uphold" the bylaws, not the Constitution.

It's as if Dell decided that the board of directors should analyze if an employee not washing his hands after going to the bathroom was a violation, and not on how to invest on building more computers to meet the demand.. Or that American Airlines decided that debating the functions of a CEO was more important than flying passengers.

 

Others felt that if we enumerated just 10 people would come on saying that's all we have. (And some do) The ninth specifically addresses just that concern by the way.

The Founding Fathers at NO point said that rights were granted by God, being careful to use the term Providence.

 

[QUOTE="Aleksander Ulyanov, post: 1071692421, member: 62017"...... The Founding Fathers at NO point said that rights were granted by God, being careful to use the term Providence.[/QUOTE]Same same. What do you think the meaning of "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," means?

 

Touchy about the god thing eh?

 

Is the US Constitution flawed?

Absolutely. And that's why I created this thread almost 3 years ago:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/proposed-constitutional-amendments.507699/

And proposed these 9 Amendments to try to correct it that will never be part of the Constitution:

1. We need a legitimate process to enforce the Constitution on government. That would mean among other things, taking away qualified and absolute immunity for government servants.

2. We need to repeal the Federal Reserve Act and enforce Article I Section 8 Paragraph 5 (To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;).

3. We need to remove the seized power of the judiciary to "interpret" the Constitution. With that, we need a system that reviews all proposed legislation for constitutional compliance and return all non-compliant bills to the legislature for correction. This should be controlled similarly to a jury system (in the hands of The People). Judicial review would be limited to interpreting laws for constitutional compliance, not the Constitution itself. Judges should be also be elected and serve no more than 2 terms of no more than 6 years each.

4. We need to make corporate lobbying illegal. Only people lobbies would be legal.

5. We need to make corporate campaign contributions illegal (overturning SEC vs Citizens United and along with it protected corporate "rights"). Only contributions by ordinary people would be legal and limited to a maximum per person per candidate per office.

6. We need to repeal the 16th Amendment and end the income tax permanently. Along with that disband the IRS.

7. We need to enforce Article I Section 8 Paragraph 11 (To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;) and remove all such decisions from the Executive.

8. All candidates for public office should be required to pass a rigorous test on the Constitution and be barred from running for office if they cannot answer at least 90% of the questions correctly.

9. A petition to Amend the Constitution (or repeal an Amendment*) can be submitted by any verified American citizen at any time. And any petition to Amend must be supported by a minimum of 50,000 signatures (this number can be modified to what may be considered reasonable) by verified American citizens to be achieved no later than 90 days prior to Election Day (the time period can also be modified to what is appropriate). Once enough signatures are obtained, the proposed Amendment is voted on within the originating state on Election Day (just Yes or No). If a vote achieves a 60% Yes vote or more, the proposed Amendment is then placed on the ballot in every state the following Election Day and is deemed ratified when passed by 60% or more of the states by 60% or more Yes votes per state.

 

It seems self-evident to me that the US Constitution was at best an outline and was effectively just a draft. Flawed is simply insufficient to describe its deficiencies. Portions of it read, to me anyway, almost like passages from Gulliver's Travels. Regarding its inferiority to others, I will have to rely on my poli sci prof's assertion that Switzerland is the best democracy on Earth. Here is a link to their Constitution, albeit an English translation, https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19995395/index.html

I have not sufficiently read the history of this document, but what little I have read is certainly indicative of its half-hearted attempt to establish a bedrock foundation legal document. According to this link, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/founding-fathers, there were 70 delegates invited, 55 who showed up, and only 39 who actually signed the document. I have attended a few somewhat politicized meetings in my career and have only once refused to sign a document and that was because I didn't agree with it on a very minor technicality. In this case, we have 55 folks show up and only 39 apparently concur with the document produced, out of an original 70 planned delegates. Therefore, we have a document spelling out the 2/3 requirement for things like impeachment conviction by the Senate, when the signatories of the document do not themselves represent 2/3 of the originally planned attendance.

Thanks to the current Traitor in Chief, we have a concrete example readily at hand to boldly demonstrate but one of its fundamental flaws. The House has the sole power to impeach and yet we have seen that it lacks any enforcement mechanism to achieve its authority to conduct such a proceeding. Furthermore, the document doesn't specify that the House shall have to vote either as a simple majority on such a matter, or as a 2/3 majority, as the document does describe for the requirement of the Senate to convict.

Someone, anyone, please provide the portion of it that establishes, "executive priviledge"....

Here's an interesting bit of it,

Apparently we are supposed to be re-appropriating funding for the Army every two years, or disbanding it every two years and in the meanwhile the Navy is intentionally unrestricted?

Let me go ahead and post this much of my opinion on this subject for the moment, my little man needs to go for a walk.....

 

Obviously there is no such thing in the Constitution for the same reason as the Constitution does not grant the Judiciary (Article III) the power to "interpret" the Constitution at whim. The Executive's powers are LIMITED to Article II and any other powers (such as the imaginary power of "executive privilege") are prohibited by the 10th Amendment. Such seized powers are extra-constitutional, illegal and dangerous, designed to subvert the Constitution.

 

Your first point is nonsense and devoid of any rationale or history. The framers worked, discussed, and debated diligently to write a final constitution, one that would be timeless which means it did not include tons of minutia and specifics. Other than the succinct preamble, it is devoid of flowery purposes and goals and confines itself to how the government should function and operate, which is of utmost importance in establishing a government for the first time that is beholden to the people. The assemblies of the 13 colonies certainly did not hold special conventions to ratify a draft other than the promise they got from the framers to add the Bill of Rights.

I am looking forward to reading the 86-page Swiss Constitution. But at first blush I am not constitutionally impressed. Constitution are supposed to be the timeless bedrock law of the land; by definition that means short and succinct. The current Swiss Constitution was written and ratified just 21 years ago and has undergone 33 versions since then. That is far less permanent than the average high school motto. I'll reserve final judgement though I am not optimistic.

The House has the sole power to impeach and it is axiomatic that impeachment is based on information they receive. They have no authority to go nosing around to see if they can find something to impeach over. In all previous impeachments the House relied on outside investigations done according to law and due process or on common unassailable public knowledge (Johnson.)

Executive Privilege is an inherent and preserving part of the separation of powers, the axiomatic and fundamental concept that is the linchpin of the Constitution. Just like the president can't nose around congress, subpoenaing 10 years of tax records of every congressperson for example, congress cannot nose around the executive branch just to see what they might find. Like Congress does not have to disclose its internal negotiations and private data to the president, the president does not have to do the same for Congress. Though maybe you believe the president should be able to nose around congress ........????

 

Nonsense. Executive Privilege stems from the separation of powers. The "separation of powers" is not mentioned in the Constitution either but it is the linchpin of the Constitution and axiomatic.

 

The US Constitution is older than any Swiss one. Switzerland, depending on the metrics you use, may in fact be the best democracy, but that's due to the Swiss, not the paper products it generated.

 

By your logic anything authority invents, despite that it’s not in Constitution is ok as long as it’s described as “the linchpin of the Constitution and axiomatic”.

By your logic “Executive Privilege” should extend to Legislative Privilege and Judicial Privilege. Why not? And why just the Executive and not just the Legislative or Judicial? And all that means is the anointed branch has the somehow-granted-out-of-thin-air privilege to exercise any power not granted by the Constitution and call it “Privilege”. So what’s the difference between that and authoritarianism?

“Executive Privilege” is the same as “The Divine Right of Kings”. But I understand your bend the knee mentality, millions agree with you because authority said so regardless that the Constitution didn't. The founders revolted violently because in their day they objected to “Executive Privilege”, so I’m guessing they failed to add that power in Article II for good reason.

And we are currently witnessing “Executive Privilege” taken to absurdity.

 

Nonsense again. It is the SEPARATION OF POWERS concept that is the linchpin of the Constitution, and it is axiomatic. That by any rudimentary logic does not include anything the various branches want it to include. It does include confidential and private deliberations and information essential to the three branches of government. In case it slipped your mind it does include all three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial, and executive privilege does extend to Legislative and Judicial as well as Executive. I infer that you believe it extends to Legislative and Judicial but not Executive: very convenient and self-serving.

Executive privilege is not the equivalent of the divine right of kings. Kings with divine right could not be criticized, scrutinized, and certainly not impeached. The founders did not object to executive privilege -- you are just making that up. They did not explicitly include it in the Constitution because it was axiomatic and commonly understood for what it actually was.

We are currently witnessing "executive privilege" exactly as it was intended by the framers. The framers thought the use of impeachment for political faction purposes and congress having access to any and all executive information to carry it out was abhorrent; they just couldn't figure out how to contain it.

 

Agreed "Executive Privilege" is the dangerous "nonsense" that knee benders accept as "law" despite that it isn't. It has zero to do with separation of powers, it is an undefined and unbridled power unto itself. The powers separating the 3 branches are well defined by the Constitution, "Executive Privilege" isn't one of them, for very good reason, it isn't even a defined power, it's whatever the Executive deems privileged at whim.

Yeah I'm sure the founders envisioned an out of control demented President exercising powers never granted by the Constitution as "intended". But you believe it so it works for you.

 

And how are we a dictatorship?

 

The constitution is fine, the problem is we constantly ignore it to please leftists.

 

By this Senate giving Trump power with no limits.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...years-to-build-is-destroyed-in-7-days.567526/

 

Please give an example.

What laws has the Senate passed that gives him dictatorial powe? Then how had Trump used that law to become a dictator???

Or are you just spouting fake news fueled by hate?

 

The one described here

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...years-to-build-is-destroyed-in-7-days.567526/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-can-the-next-democratic-president-do.568497/

 

Posts on this bulletin board of you spouting your opinions is not an example of the Senate passing laws that give Trump dictatorship status and not examples of Trump acting like a dictator..

You just hate Trump and are spouting hyperbole.

 

That was Trump's defense: that a President can abuse power.

Look... I'm not going to go through the whole impeachment process with you again. Those links show how the whole thing played out. If you want to know what happened during the impeachment.... the best thing would have been to sit through large enough parts of the proceedings (which I did). Second best: read the threads I posted. I'm even willing to answer any specific question you might have that is not addressed there. But asking me to explain the whole impeachment trial to you at this point is not an option.