Free Republic

[i]The existance and constant maintenance of our standing Armies today is not what the FF wanted or authorized.[/i]

One of the main arguments made for this new constitutional nation was that it would allow for the nation to live without a large stading army. This was favorable for the purpose of avoiding tyrrany. However, it was also clear that a small army would be needed to protect the northern and southern borders and maybe even the western (since the states did not control the entire continent. I agree with you that the way things work now is on some level contrary to their vision (not entirely, since our army may not operate domestically- I believe- while the national guard -a modern sort of militia in my limited understanding- may... at least that is my understanding of something I know very little about). However, I disagree with you when you say that they did not authorize it. Congress has the authority to "raise and support Armies". As long as "Appropriations of Money to that use" are not for longer than two years, Congress may continually fund the military (by simply reappropriating funds).

Prohibition was not only a disaster as a law; including it in the Constitution was an outrageous offence to everything else in the Constitution. The framers were probably rolling over in their graves.

The Constitution is a legal expression of the most basic ideology of the people of the United States. It is not a place for making trendy laws about things of minimal importance. It is a place to set forward the method by which the country will be run. While I want very much to make some changes to the Constitution, they are all on subjects already covered to some degree in its text.

Funny that I chose the name "Ammender" when I can't even spell "Amender".

I must agree that I see that the Constitution is hailed vigorously at the same time as it is trampled. This is most likely occurring because people just don't know what the Constitution says. To tell you the truth, I am pretty sure that the Constitution makes it clear that federal laws which were made in agreement with the Constitution are on equal footing with subsequent constitutional amendments with which they disagree (the other option from the given wording is that the amendment makes it so that the federal law was never legal in the first place- which is absurd and opens up way too many problems). Federal laws and the Constitution are both "the supreme Law of the Land." (IV.4) There is no statement anywhere setting the Constitution above US laws. Maybe you could say that such a concept was inherently included in the definition of the word "constitution", but I don't know. To follow that argument, it does not say "the supremer LAWS of the land". The Constitution, US laws, and treaties form the supreme law, so I guess any given law might not be considered supreme in itself. But this ignores the fact that it would still be included regardless of the definition of "constitution" and whether or not it itself is supreme, because that law was "MADE in pursuance" (IV.4, capitals added) of the Constitution regardless of later changes to the constitution.

No matter what the writers intended with the words "provide for the... general welfare" (I.8), what they actually wrote was that Congress had authority to raise funds for this purpose, not that Congress had the authority to make laws or this purpose. If you keep reading in this section, it spells out exactly which kinds of laws Congress could make. This line about the "general welfare" does not provide at all for any laws other than those for collecting federal funding.

My personal political opinion is that a majority of the people in the US now think of themselves more as "Americans" than as Oregonians or Pennsylvanians (although there are definitely some places where this is not the case, mostly in the southeast and south central). Contrasting this with the ideals of 1787 and 1788 (and later for Rhode Island, North Carolina, Texas, and maybe even Utah), we see how much this country's view of itself has changed. By July of 1788, 11 individual countries had decided to relinquish their individual sovereignty in order to form one continental nation. Obviously, the people of the nation of Maryland (or any other state) were not very keen on losing that identity and all of their local power to a government led mostly by those from other nations (non-Marylanders), so the Constitution that was developed was extremely state-heavy. They had just fought for their independence. They did not want to loose it that quickly. However, today most of us are not as concerned with our New Mexican fealty as with that to the United States. With this in mind, I think it is reasonable to amend the constitution to reflect that shift. I think that it is possible that the US Congress should be given authority to govern on all matters of national importance (such as the illegalization of cocaine, etc.), with certain areas of governance secured to states. I also think that the federal constitution should be more specific about what states must do (rather than simply guaranteeing each a "Republican Form of Government". I think that the manner of electing representatives within states needs to be more clear. They are national representatives of the people of the United States, and yet they are treated like they are representatives of the states. It needs to be written that each representative must have a particular geographic region by the people of which he/she is elected and each region must be of equal population (approximately) and of limited demographic and geographic conditions (urban, rural, etc) and area. Every area must also be represented and no area may be without representation. It is okay (probably best) to have the "Representatives apportioned among the States according to their respective numbers" (Amendment XIV, Sec. 2) (see also Art. 1, Sec. 2, third paragraph), but the representatives must be apportioned within the states according to population as I stated. Otherwise, the entire state could vote on every representative (what would be the point of having so many?), or worse, state legislatures could allow constituencies of unequal sizes to elect representatives. In theory, a single person could choose all but one of the representatives (because the rest of the people who meet the "Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature must be included in the vote) from that state. The state legislatures should probably be allowed to divide the state into the constituent districts with the above parameters (And maybe some more I haven't thought of) with Congress maintaining the right to veto any unsatisfactory state divisions (which is currently within their rights).

As concerning the Air Force, it is true that the Constitution mentions only armies, the navy and the militia. However, I am not certain that the argument that the air force is an army is unfounded. I doubt that we could get away with including it with the navy (since that has a much more specific meaning). Politically, I think that the air force should be a national matter. I think military efforts in general would be more efficient but mostly more effective at the national level. I also think that military consolidation and a demilitarized interior were some of the main reasons for the original formation of this nation, and I think that that was genius foresight (I am so glad we did not end up divided like Europe). I could say more about that, but I am getting tired of writing at the moment.

I have so much to say about the Constitution, so I will stop for now. Hopefully someday you will all live in the exact same state as I and will all vote for Randy Cragun (me) for US representative and Senator (unlike other candidates, I actually have separate reasons for wanting each position, rather than just viewing the Senate as the Continuation of a political career that had the House of Reps as a stepping stone). I want to be a representative to work on some fiscal policies (among a few other considerations) and a Senator to change to Constitution) before becoming a Supreme Court Justice to make sure the government actually follows the Constitution for once. Reaching these goals might be difficult, since people don't seem to like the idea of enforcing the Constitution. So, look for me.

By the way, I am working on the wordings for amendments I think are needed (as well as a pet project of just rewriting the whole thing), and I will hopefully be making these online sometime soon. I will let you know.

Randy