A group of progressives had a little exercise in which they wrote a new Constitution. An article on the subject is here, while the full text of the document is here.
It is not without good ideas. In total it is sort of an impractical liberal dream plan, one that would be impossible to sell as written.
Still, an amusing read.
Read the text, and I like most of it. But a lot of it is vaguely worded and, I think, would be exploited as loopholes in a nanosecond.
Did you notice the lack of a right to bear arms? Also, I am not clear on what that third chamber of Congress is supposed to do and how it is elected.
All in all, it looks like they went home early.
I saw that earlier in the week. To paraphrase one of my Twitter follows: “They went to all that trouble and still came up with a Senate and executive branch?”
I think it’s a good start. Having more than 2 Senators from larger states and a limit of how many people can be served by a House member are worthy ideas. I like the ban on censorship and the lack of mention of firearms. It hasn’t a prayer of going anywhere, we’re far more likely to become a fascist state than to adopt this constitution.
I stopped at a “right to dignified labor”
Yeah, dignity to the labor class? What a joke!
define “dignified labor” for me
I stopped here,
Article I – Bill of Rights
All humans are social and political beings who can flourish only under conditions of advanced democracy.
More so because I have somewhere to be, but I do disagree with that.
~Max
That’s what legislation is for. Define “a well regulated militia”…
i asked first. Define “dignified labor”
i’m sure you will enjoy my post on Judicial activism
You’re having a hard time because you stopped reading when you ran into a phrase you didn’t understand. Had you read through the document, you’d have gotten to the part where they elaborate.
I feel like any future constitutions for any country can and should address that one maddeningly vague line in detail. By all means include the structure of the regular military, reserves, conscription, who can issue declarations of war, sources of funding for war, limits on emergency powers, etc. But also get specific about who can own a gun (or anything in the future that functions in a manner similar to a gun despite being named a 1920’s style death ray or etc) and who cannot. I don’t think the Founding Fathers could have fathomed what guns could do in this day and age and if they had any idea they would have either been more specific or they would have left the 2nd Amendment out altogether. In this case, if they left it out it means every state gets to decide for themselves (unless there is a part in there that gets rid of states’ rights) so gun owners theoretically still have maximum freedom provided they live in a gun-happy state.
Please define “dignified labor”
You don’t want my definition - it’s not my phrase, and I don’t know that I’d include it in my own fantasy constitution. You want their definition, which you’d have easily gotten an understanding of if you read the article instead of retreating back into your ideological shell the moment a phrase that didn’t match your preexisting worldview cropped up. Maybe you’d end up agreeing with it, maybe you wouldn’t, but at least you’d be arguing from a position of knowledge, not ignorance.
why are you defending “dignified labor”? if you don’t think it is a valid concept
I’m not defending it - I just find your out of hand dismissal-from-ignorance to be illuminating.
Yet you can’t defend it. Very illuminating to me as well
What does it mean that art should be free? Huh? Artists can’t get paid?