Quote:The National Constitution Center recently conducted a fascinating exercise in which it brought together three groups to produce their own revised versions of the Constitution: a conservative team, a libertarian team, and a progressive one. Each team included prominent scholars and legal commentators affiliated with their respective camps. The results revealed substantially more convergence on key issues than might have been expected in our highly polarized times.

There are important and often unsurprising differences between the three groups. But there are also several notable points of agreement that could potentially serve as the basis for a program of constitutional reform that might have a real chance of being enacted.

---

Each team produced a rewritten version of the Constitution, and an introduction explaining the changes they made from the status quo. The Progressive Constitution and Introduction are available here, the conservative versions are here, and the libertarian ones here.

NCC President Jeffrey Rosen summarized some of the key similarities between the three drafts in an Atlantic article on the project. As he recognized, agreement on preserving the basic framework of the 1787 Constitution, with its federalism and separation of powers, is significant. Critics of the Constitution have long argued that the US would be better off with a parliamentary system, a unitary state, or some combination of both. It is notable that all three groups rejected such ideas. Another noteworthy point of convergence in favor of the status quo is that none of the three teams would introduce any significant new “positive” rights to various kinds of government benefits, of the sort common in many European constitutions. Interestingly, the progressive drafters deliberately chose not to follow the example of left-liberal constitutional drafters in many other countries on this point (a decision I commend, though some of their ideological allies might not agree).

Even more notable is agreement on several key reforms, most notably the need to limit presidential power. Recent history, including dubious power grabs by presidents of both parties, have persuaded most constitutional experts across the political spectrum that the current system concentrates too much power in the hands of a single person.

All three proposals would allow Congress impeach and remove the president for abuses of power that fall short of being federal crimes, thereby resolving a longstanding ambiguity in the current Constitution. The progressive and conservative constitutions make it easier to convict presidents, by reducing the supermajority needed to convict in the Senate from two-thirds (67 of 100 votes) to three-fifths (60); though both also impose a similar requirement for impeachment in the House.

All three drafts also strengthen congressional oversight of the executive branch and reduce presidential control over federal spending and regulation. The three teams pursue these goals by different means. The conservatives propose a variety of measures for directly strengthening congressional oversight of spending and tying it more closely to taxation. The libertarians would impose tight limits on the purposes for which funds can be spent, allow “taxpayer standing” for lawsuits challenging misuses of public funds. Both conservatives and libertarians include provisions imposing tight constraints on presidential power to make law by executive order. For their part, the progressive team explicitly allows Congress to set up independent agencies (an idea directly at odds with parts of the conservative draft), and enhances Congress’ power to demand information and testimony from the executive for oversight purposes. Both the conservative and progressive drafts give Congress a “legislative veto” over various executive branch policies, thereby enabling them to pass legislation rescinding such actions without facing the prospect of a veto from the president. The conservatives would limit the president to a single six-year term, forbidding reelection.

(link)

(March 5, 2021 at 11:39 am)onlinebiker Wrote:

(March 5, 2021 at 11:01 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Madison seemed to be under the impression that he had written it into the Constitution (italics mine):

"Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitution or Codes, any aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to Caesar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder, hasten to revise & purify your systems, and make the example of your Country as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects of political & civil institutions. Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt. in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."--James Madison; "Detached Memoranda," date of authorship unknown, estimated between 1817 and 1832

Not hip to quotes huh?


Something like,  sorta the same or almost are not quotes.

The exact words in the exact order is a quote.


Capice?

To clarify -
"Separation of Church and State"  is NOT in the Constitution.

Separation of Church and State is.

So if it said 'wall between religion and government' in the Constitution; you'd still be going on about how it doesn't actually say 'separation of church and state'?

If so, why should I care about such petty semantics?

We still on this? It means what it means.

(March 5, 2021 at 12:34 pm)Ferrocyanide Wrote:

(March 5, 2021 at 11:01 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Madison seemed to be under the impression that he had written it into the Constitution (italics mine):

"Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitution or Codes, any aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to Caesar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder, hasten to revise & purify your systems, and make the example of your Country as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects of political & civil institutions. Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt. in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."--James Madison; "Detached Memoranda," date of authorship unknown, estimated between 1817 and 1832

Is Thomas Jefferson important in 20/21 th century USA?
I always see united statians quoting these oldies.
Thomas Jefferson time is over. He died. His family and friends died as well a long time ago.

Decide for yourself what kind of a world you want to live in. Decide for yourself if you want a separation of church and state. Discuss the benefits and losses instead of quoting what some guy from another century has said.

PS: I'm in Canada. I've never seen anyone quote some canadian politician from long ago when it comes to deciding on important questions of today.

--Ferrocyanide

The process of changing the US Constitution is complex and difficult. The Supreme Court has long turned to the writings of the founders, particularly Madison and Jefferson who were the chief architects of the Constitution, to determine their intent when composing and ratifying the Constitution. If they explained what they meant by a particular portion of the Constitution, the SC has set precedents for using those explanations to interpret those portions rather than relying on naïve literalism. If the result is compatible with how Americans really want the country to be run; no need to go through the process of amending the Constitution (which might still fail even if a majority of Americans favor the change) over matters of semantics. Quoting Jefferson and Madison is certainly relevant when questions come up about the intent of our Constitution, the document which, at least in theory, governs all of our laws.

(March 9, 2021 at 10:44 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(March 5, 2021 at 11:39 am)onlinebiker Wrote: Not hip to quotes huh?


Something like,  sorta the same or almost are not quotes.

The exact words in the exact order is a quote.


Capice?

To clarify -
"Separation of Church and State"  is NOT in the Constitution.

Separation of Church and State is.

So if it said 'wall between religion and government' in the Constitution; you'd still be going on about how it doesn't actually say 'separation of church and state'?

If so, why should I care about such petty semantics?

If someone says there is a "separation between The United States and Mexico" is that the same as "There is a wall between the United States and Mexico"?


....

Quotes is quotes.

Similar sentances are not quotes.


Got a problem with that?

Consult your high school English teacher.

I don' t get paid for your education...