Here’s the way I look at it. Let’s say I get stranded on a deserted Island with Mary Ann, Ginger, and the professor. Would I believe I had the right to free speech? Yes. Would I believe I had the right to bear arms, and use them to protect myself and the others from bad guys? Yes. Note that I would believe I had these rights despite the fact that there’s no government. I would also believe I had these rights regardless of the opinions & beliefs of the other castaways.
you can believe it all you want, but if Mary Ann and Ginger decide to take away your spear and put a ball gag in your mouth, then your belief doesn’t help you very much.
What you seem to be arguing, though, is that certain of your own opinions and beliefs are privileged, without extending the same principle to others (except presumably when their own opinions and beliefs coincide with your own).
It’s all very well and good to assert that such-and-such is a natural right, but that’s no basis for a democracy unless you can obtain widespread agreement (or at least widespread acquiescence) for your point of view.
I have the belief that private individuals should not have firearms. Why is your alleged “right” (i.e. belief) of superior worth to my own belief? The only rational conclusion is that it is not, in exactly the same way that mine cannot be inherently of superior worth to yours; it’s a matter for society as a whole, or those representing them, to assess whether in this instance, one or other point of view is to prevail. That is the very essence of democracy!
It isn’t. So when we are writing a constitution, either I win (and include a statement to prohibit the government from infringing on this right), or you win.
Keep in mind that, in a (pure) democracy, there is no need for a constitution.
I don’t think so. The very foundation of drawing up a new constitution would be determining the structure of the new government. It’s possible to have a constitution that doesn’t talk about rights of the people at all, but I don’t think it’s really possible to have one that doesn’t lay out some kind of framework for how the government itself operates.
If Mary Ann and Ginger wanted to do that to me, I’d probably look forward to the experience. Although I hope I could keep my “spear.”
Interesting to read people’s thoughts, as I am currently involved in the South Sudan constitutional drafting process. The U.S. constitution is nearly irrelevant to modern constitution writing in a direct sense (other constitutions inspired by it are far more relevant).
What part(s) do you find irrelevant?
What on earth is a “pure” democracy? One with three people? Of course you have to have a constitution, in any sort of democracy, if only to set up the institutional rules about things like Congress or Parliament, how many houses it will have, how its powers do or don’t cut across the powers of states (if there are any), courts and their powers, etc. They don’t have to be written in the one document (the UK’s is not) but it has to exist in some accessible form. A democracy does not spring into existence without some historical precursor whose historical reality must be dealt with.
And if a constitution is to include a statement about rights (and they don’t actually have to) such a constitution has to protect against the tyranny of the majority. Any democracy needs such protections, even it is only the common law and courts which provides them. But courts have to derive their authority from something. What you mean by a “pure” democracy not needing a constitution is - somewhat opaque.
I like this one.
First priority has got to be clarifying that the government is there to protect the common welfare & resource base. That includes maintaining the technological knowledge for our material culture, conserving our natural resources, & keeping a healthful environment. So no strict constructionist can say those “aren’t constitutional.” Let’s throw in preserving biodiversity too, just in case.
OK, then, I’d put some kind of wealth-sharing arrangement in place, so as the country’s economy waxes and wanes, everyone gets some dividend by virtue of citizenship, & the rich have to “give back.” I’m not sure what the number should be, though.
I would still eliminate all religion.
You’re not born with a religion, you develop it like any belief.
And if I were born stupid enough to be suckered into a religion, I would want to force myself not to be able to practice it in the first place
On the serious side, I’d probably start with a European-style proportional representation parliament system. The current winner-take-all local representation with primaries (and the de facto two-party system) in the U.S. tends to reward obstructionism and two parties swinging from lowest-common denominator pandering to courting the most zealous activists.
The Bill of Rights is a great thing, and I’d strengthen it. Not sure exactly where I’d stop including rights, probably somewhere right before the right to an education, but I’m open to persuasion on the particulars.
If we’re talking a constitution for the U.S., I would drive a stake through the heart of ‘states rights’. The federal government would be the original and supreme legal authority, with states only having such power as given to them by the federal government (if I couldn’t scrap states completely as anything other than historical designations).
I’d probably have a French-style elected President who does nothing but look good in public and tell stupid people that they’re the salt of the earth, while a professional gets on with running the government.
And, apropos of the ‘natural rights’ discussion, I find it interesting that the U.S. Declaration of Independence claims ‘inalienable rights’, but the U.S. Constitution only refers to ‘the common welfare’ (if I remember the words correctly). This makes perfect sense to me: the Declaration was essentially a moral argument, explaining why the colonies were morally justified in withdrawing from the British government (and I think the moral argument is sound). On the other hand, the Constitution was a very legal document, setting out the basic legal operations of the government; there’s no place for undefined ‘natural rights’ in the law, because there’s no agreement on exactly what they are.
Bad example: the French president is not a figurehead! 
All human beings from the moment of conception shall have the right to life unless that forfeit that right by taking another’s life.
I would decree that complete and utter dictatorial power for life would be given to the first person to show up at a secret location and speak a secret phrase, known only to myself.
I’m presuming that I’m reborn with memories intact.
You support executing soldiers?
All matters of state and federal importance (as defined below) shall be subject to an official public vote. This vote shall be on record as “The will of the people”. Congress shall strive to reflect the will of the people in all matters where prudent, and legal to do so. The public may petition any matter to be subject to vote, but must meet the minimum threshold number of petitions (10,0000) in matters not meeting the defined term below. Public will votes are held quarterly, and a law may be up for such a vote only once before going to congress for congressional debate. Bills before congress that have had the public vote recorded may be debated for a maximum of thirty days, at the end of which a vote must be taken.
Definition of Matters of state and federal importance: Those laws, acts, or motions which by their institution will affect all, a majority of, or a specific protected class of citizens by their implementation.
All voting shall be conducted on single items, laws, acts, bills, etc. The creation of multiple law acts voted on as a single item is prohibited.
All bills Defeated by congress shall not be subject to review for a minimum of three years with the exception of those results where the will of the people and congress are at odds.
All bills approved by congress shall be subject to review each year with the exception of those bills where the will of the people and congress are agreed. Such bills are likewise not subject to review for a minimum of three years.
Congress shall make no law restricting the rights of any citizen based upon race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religion or political affiliation as laid out in this constitution.
This constitution acknowledges the UN Declaration of Human Rights as its basis for formation of rights of a citizen. Unless otherwise noted, it should be assumed to be the basis of law in regard to a citizen’s rights.
Religion: Congress shall make no law promoting or restricting the practice of any faith, except those that by their practices infringe upon the rights of other citizens. Congress may then, only in accordance with the will of the people, but not subject to it, revoke the privilege of any organization of faith to purchase land, construct structures used exclusively for religious purposes, or assemble for such purposes in public grounds.
Marriage: This document defines marriage as being a special legal agreement between two people of any sex, gender, orientation, race, ethnicity, or religion. Polyamory is legally recognized, but tax benefits of the marriage contract only extend to the original pairing.
Age of majority: The age of majority shall be 18. Congress shall make no law restricting the freedoms, rights, or privileges of any law-abiding citizen of the age of majority.
Age of consent: The age of consent to sexual activity shall be 15. The law shall reflect and respect a citizen’s right to choice and privacy in this regard.
Congress shall make no law infringing upon a woman’s right to privacy and choice in regard to her body.
More later…
Just to put some framework around this, we’re talking about the classic “Veil of Ignorance” thought experiment, which is part of the Original Position discussion that Rawls started.
Alright, I didn’t word it right, but it’ll be clear even from that I mean murderers not soldiers, police officers, or people defending themselves or their property.
This is about writing a perfect constitution. I suggest you take the time to create a statement that does not leave room for interpretation. That is what has gotten us into a lot of trouble over the years here in the US.