13
13
0
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html
Our Constitution, that we swear to support and defend, is over 200 years old. It was, at that time, an entirely different world. There is ample evidence that the Founders did not expect, nor desire the nation to be governed by the same Constitution for as long as it has been. George Washington expected the Constitution to last between 20-25 years. Thomas Jefferson even wrote to Madison, "On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal."
Here, he clearly says that it's not enough to simply be able to repeal laws or amendments, but that every 19 years, the old laws (including the Constitution itself) should be washed clean and rewritten.
What do you all think about that?
Our Constitution, that we swear to support and defend, is over 200 years old. It was, at that time, an entirely different world. There is ample evidence that the Founders did not expect, nor desire the nation to be governed by the same Constitution for as long as it has been. George Washington expected the Constitution to last between 20-25 years. Thomas Jefferson even wrote to Madison, "On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal."
Here, he clearly says that it's not enough to simply be able to repeal laws or amendments, but that every 19 years, the old laws (including the Constitution itself) should be washed clean and rewritten.
What do you all think about that?
Posted in these groups: 
Constitution
Government
Constitution Government
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 55
29
29
0
Nope, it’s the Constitution. That’s why we make amendments. The Constitution is the foundation. Could you imagine with the status of our current government and bureaucracy coming to agreement on a new Constitution. I sure couldn’t. They can’t manage to balance the budget, let alone derive a new Constitution. Our Constitution is the foundation of this country. We the living, as referred to often in the article, can build upon it through Constitutional Amendments. The article referenced is a diatribe of little substance to justify a new constitution, in this guy’s opinion.
(29)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski Say we identify the problem, who is going to make the determination of a solution? The Ds? The Rs? The Ds would never let the Rs come to a conclusion and vice versa. Who in government today do you trust to make that decision?
(4)
(0)
MSgt Alex Taylor
I agree that the our Constitution is a good document and the process to change, amendments, is the way to go about it as you have noted. We've managed quite well under our current Constitution. Also, radically changing it with a new one every so often would raise havoc with our oaths. If a new constitution is something that a service member does not believe in, where does that leave them?
(3)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski - Yes, but each generation decides whether or not they are to continue to be governed by the constitution through whether or not they push for changes.
Just because a group of people feel it needs to change does not mean they are the majority nor are they entitled to force their beliefs on others.
Just because a group of people feel it needs to change does not mean they are the majority nor are they entitled to force their beliefs on others.
(3)
(0)
19
19
0
I don't agree. Changing every 19 years makes the Constitution subject to the whims of temporary passions. I think it is good that the Constitution is changeable, but difficult to change - this ensures that changes have substantive support.
(19)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
I agree that 19 years may be short - how about 50? 50 years seems reasonable to me, in light of progress and advances in life-expectancy. Regardless, 200 years seems a bit too long.
(2)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
MAJ Bryan Zeski, sir, would you rather live under a Constitution written by those we have in power now or the original drafters of our Constitution?
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell don't fill me with much confidence.
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell don't fill me with much confidence.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
Honestly, I'd rather we put together a collective of scientists, philosophers, artists, military leaders, economists, humanitarians, and similar groups and hammer out an up-to-date version. No elected officials would be allowed on the board and no corporations would be able to fund any portion of the proceedings.
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
MAJ Bryan Zeski, sir, I would be afraid that in the toxic environment we live in today it would not be possible to get a rational product completed. Ideology over rationality permeates our people, and our political leaders reflect the people they represent.
Even scientists allow ideology to color their judgment today. I'm afraid that it would be like trying to write a Constitution in Salem when the witch trials were going on.
I would rather trust the rationality and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and the governing stability and the protections for all that they created than the leaders of today that cannot even follow the principles set out in our Constitution as it currently exists and who substitute their own personal whims for the law.
We do not live in the best of times as far as human wisdom is concerned.
Even scientists allow ideology to color their judgment today. I'm afraid that it would be like trying to write a Constitution in Salem when the witch trials were going on.
I would rather trust the rationality and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and the governing stability and the protections for all that they created than the leaders of today that cannot even follow the principles set out in our Constitution as it currently exists and who substitute their own personal whims for the law.
We do not live in the best of times as far as human wisdom is concerned.
(3)
(0)
12
12
0
You think things are crazy now with all the knee-jerk reactions done within the Government, could you just picture how bad it would be to re-write this document?? Let's just use gun control for an example. Do you think, if re-written, we would still have the 2nd Amendment? Let's also look at freedom of speech. With all these things happening like that crazy "F*ck the Flag" blog, do you think we would maintain that right?
The government has a hard enough time trying to balance a budget, it would take them longer than 19 years to even figure out where to even start re-writing this document.
The government has a hard enough time trying to balance a budget, it would take them longer than 19 years to even figure out where to even start re-writing this document.
(12)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google