We have need of a new constitution at this point, one that restores the original intent of the founders and plugs the holes in the current constitution that allowed for the problems we currently have. We need a New Constitution that properly accounts for the demographic composition we currently have and not the one we wish we had.
Those holes in the American Constitution are:
- Strategic Foundations: Failing to articulate the european strategy clearly, and natural law as its consequence. It’s unclear whether they could have at the time. But they could have done better than ‘the rights of Englishmen.’ And they could have explicitly stated more clearly than they did, that unlike England, the american people are sovereign individually, in their states, and collectively in their federation, and that the government is specifically not sovereign, is not extant to lead but to execute the demands of the peoples of the states.
- Logical Foundations: They assumed but failed to articulate the empiricism of the common law, and the common law’s dependence upon the natural law of sovereignty, demonstrated interest, trespass(tort), equity, and the natural rights that arise from their necessity, and they only specified the organization of government under those constraints, and as an afterthought, some number of those rights they thought governments would readily impose upon. The use of commonality in courts and concurrency in voting and legislation to specifically prevent majority democracy from usurping the rights of individuals, small states, and factions.
- Accountancy of Law: They assumed but did not articulate Transactional law as accounting of transactions against the constitution: The debate over originalism results from a failure of the constitution to state the obvious: (a) that words are weights and measures like any other weight and measure, of time and place. (b) Any question of jurisprudence that is sufficiently undecidable by the court under originalism requires legislative innovation – it does not convey the power of lawmaking upon the court. (c) without this limitation, legislation from the bench, judicial activism, and lawfare are (and have been) possible. (d) legislative ‘laziness and imprecision’ transfers responsibility for incompetency to the court. (e) thus circumventing the sovereignty of the people and the duty of the legislators as representatives of the sovereignty of the people.
- Limiting Conflict to The Empirical: Creating markets in everything by competition in all walks of live, and Limiting Conflict to markets of Duel, Church, Court, and Legislature: While the common (empirical) law did include prohibitions on the defamations of libel, slander, and fraud, they had no concept of the industrialization of the use of social construction by other than the government of the church, and with – they had no concept that the common law that limited us all to resolution of disputes by duel in matters of honor, church in matters of morality, or court in matters of life and property, could be used to create a circumvention of those institution – as such they left the door open to enslavement by the false promises of the marxist sequence just as the ancients left the door open for the false promises of enslavement by the abrahamic sequence (Categorically these are crimes of ‘baiting into hazard’.)
- Open Ascent of Legislation: They also failed to require judicial review prior to ascent of legislation, and failed to provide the return of legislative undecidability to the congress, thereby putting the court in the position of legislating from the bench — which is how the postwar left undermined the constitution, and brought about the crisis of today -by circumventing the sovereignty of the people, the market between regions and classes of the legislatures, and the foundations of the common, natural law. (Which, despite public disapproval, the current supreme court is reversing.)
- Market for the Classes: The founders failed to explain the British, Germanic, and Early European systems, as corporations, under which the monarchy(executive) was required to gain approval from the shareholders (investors, jury). And that the purpose of multi-house government (multiple juries), was to require agreement between, and to create a market for trades between the classes, preventing any class from usurping the others, and thereby preserving sovereignty by creating “markets in everything”. So when Americans expanded the franchise to non-property owners and women, without creating additional houses for them, they indirectly destroyed the entire purpose of participatory government: the power to deny power that had forced a market between the classes. The direct election of the senate only amplified this problem.
- Presidency over Monarchy: They failed perhaps most subtly, by not ‘persuading’ (even blackmailing) Washington (or one of the others) into taking the role of monarch — who, like recently deceased Elizabeth – is a judge of last resort, and limits the fashions of the government the way the senate was designed to limit the fashions of the population. This is the hardest ‘pill’ of truth to swallow: that of prime ministers, presidents and monarchies, the optimum is monarchy, cabinet and parliament – and the presidency is the worst of all possible models. Same for Nobility (status) vs Governor (material).
- Free Truthful and Reciprocal Speech: Additionally, while they understood the problem of free speech, they could not both perpetuate the christianity that served as the moral education of the masses, and outlaw false promises, baiting into hazard, or untruthful speech, and relied on the market for debate – costly to enter at the time, and practiced largely by the educated or literate – to control the population. An optimism that was very christian and english in origin.
- Freedom of Religion: They also used freedom of religion rather than freedom of Christian religion, because they could not envision a world in which Darwin and the physical sciences had eviscerated the church’s ability to use false promise to bait people into the religion. And even if they did they had no conception of mindfulness and how to use stoicism in stead to replace it. Worse, they held the still common but false view that religions are of equal merit and consequence, when religions consist of a group strategy, to advance the group at the expense of others and especially host governments.
- Separation of Caretaking vs Deciding: When the Darwinian revolution undermined the church and her traditional role of insurer of last resort, and the false promise of marxism and socialism was spread, the state failed to maintain separation of powers and separation of revenues between the coercion of the state, and the care of the church, exacerbating class conflict and effectively denying both sided minimum power distance in pursuit of their interests, setting up a conflict that had to take place in propaganda and deceit, rather than in political markets specifically designed to provide those with dissimilar interests to cooperate.
Even so, Americans have had five constitutions already:
- Articles of confederation,
- First constitution,
- Post civil war southern conquest,
- Depression experiment with socialism,
- 1960’s experimentation with cosmopolitanism,