PostHeaderIcon AR: Overall Structure

[Note: Posts with titles that begin with AR: are stubs for the project described atAmerica Reborn,” which probably should be read first…]

What should a reborn America look like? How much of the original structure should be kept versus how could it be improved? And why (what are the trade-offs)?

7 Responses to “AR: Overall Structure”

  • Chris says:

    This would be the most difficult part. Second guessing the founders when it comes to limited government and checks and balances is even 200 years later a difficult task. It’s easiest for me to just propose a complete and utter reset to 1780 saving a couple amendments that secure liberty and equality for all. Of course that wouldn’t be fun at all so there may be a few tweaks I could come up with. I’m a big 10th amendment sort so I threw this together in an attempt to bring the newly limited levers of federal power closer to home. This was the best way I could come up with to do it. Tear it apart as best you can.

    • Chris says:

      You will notice some real potential for gridlock in my little exercise. That’s not by accident. The biggest feature is that now there is a deliberative body that’s forced to reconcile federal law with their respective state laws and vice versa. That should keep them busy enough to not bother with the petty garbage they seem to be inclined to. Of course with a properly limited federal government that wouldn’t be that much of a problem.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      I edited your link, Chris, so that it opened in a new tab/window. That way, it will be easier to reference it, while replying to your comment. ◄Dave►

  • Troy says:

    Second guessing the founders when it comes to limited government and checks and balances is even 200 years later a difficult task.

    Chris, this assumes we desire to keep the Constitution as originally written. I do not.

    While I do wish to preserve much of the original intent, the rather flowery early-American language in which the Constitution was written has proven to provide far too much wriggle room for those who would pervert it for narrow ends.

    I prefer a much more rigid document, lacking the so-called “clauses”, which I interpret to be statements of intent rather than grants of unlimited authority to the federal level of our government. I believe such can be accomplished using common, unambiguous words and terms and without any hint of “lawyer speak”.

    As to the actual physical structure of a new government, I suggest regional autonomous units made of with several former States which are compatible politically, socially and culturally (the actual States in each unit to be decided by the residents of those States). These autonomous units should be complete enough to exist as Nations, should the need arise. The current Federal government would remain but be stripped of all powers except those of common value to all of the autonomous units (such as defense). The federal government should also be stripped of the power to tax, getting its funding from a bill for services rendered and presented to the autonomous units in direct proportion to their populations.

    Whether the former States keep their historical attributes (or not) should be determined by the people directly involved.

    This is only the basis of a line of thought that can be vastly expanded if there is interest in doing so.

    Troy

    • Chris says:

      I agree Troy. When I spoke of the original constitution I was thinking in an overall general way. The actual text terminology and structure of the actual document is unimportant. What they tried to accomplish and we failed to keep is. I think we do have to recognize that the actual document they wrote was to them quite clear and unambiguous to the common man of the time. One of similar clarity could be written today. It may require a few “F bombs” to be understandable but such are the times.

    • Chris says:

      As to the actual physical structure of a new government, I suggest regional autonomous units made of with several former States which are compatible politically, socially and culturally (the actual States in each unit to be decided by the residents of those States).

      I see value in this with reservation. What this proposes is actually completely splitting the country into multiple “new nations” or simply adding a level of government between states and federal. It would depend on the scope of the federal system. If the federal system were just for mutual defense why bother? Each “new nation” would be free to raise their own army and commit to the common defense. If the federal level were more I see no benefit in adding another layer of government between states and federal. That further dilutes state and individual sovereignty.

      The federal government should also be stripped of the power to tax, getting its funding from a bill for services rendered and presented to the autonomous units in direct proportion to their populations.

      This would fold nicely into the discussion on the “fair tax” and points I tried to raise on states funding the federal government based on a formula of enumeration and territory. When states tax citizens that tax is calculated to include their “bill” from the federal government. It’s part of the states budget every year.

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links
Other Sandboxes
T-Speak

Please also join us here. ◄Dave►