The spirit of this contest is definitely to get people to think about political philosophy more deeply. The idea is to get people thinking about how to build new institutions in peer-to-peer fashion, a la Balaji Srinivasan's (@balajis) network state. If you can get a critical mass of people committed to a different constitution--one that people join as an actual social contract--you can move the Overton Window. Such a movement could re-animate the Constitution we have. We are under no illusions, but getting people thinking of law as being more like a social operating system can at least get people wondering whether it's possible to replace imposed law with chosen law.
I appreciate the spirit of this but I don't think writing a Constitution addresses the core of the problem, which is: how to get people to engage political philosophy rationally. If you can somehow get people to do that, you don't even need a new Constitution; the status quo will self-correct. And if you can't get people to do that, not even the most perfect Constitution can be followed or really even agreed on.
The US Constitution succeeded because of the people who existed at the time.
It's clear by the existence of the federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers, that they knew it to be an imperfect document, but the people themselves were good enough, and agreed on enough to keep it going for a long time.
The Constitution died in stages. The stage which is giving us the most trouble now is the creation of the Civil Service System. We do not have an elected chief executive.
Respectfully, the Constitution isn't "Dead," it has merely been increasingly ignored, by working within its unrealized exception.
Realize that even the exception to the rule is one of the listed rules.
98% of the Constitution deals with the enumerated powers, that may be exercised directly throughout the Union of States. This is where "Little Powers" may be exercised in a "Big Area."
1% (Art. I, Sect. 8, Cl. 17) deals with the District Seat. This is where "Big Powers" may be exercised in a "Little Area."
All that we face is scoundrels trying to exercise their “Big Powers” over a “Big Area,” which they cannot do directly, for nowhere does the U.S. Constitution allow it. They may only do it indirectly, by deception, as they deviously twist the spirit of the Constitution, using its strictest letter.
Realize that ratification of the U.S. Constitution DIVIDED governing powers in the United States into enumerated federal powers and reserved State powers.
However, in D.C., all governing powers became UNITED in members of Congress and the executive and judicial branches, when "particular States" (Maryland, and, for a time, Virginia) "ceded" parcels of land to become the District Seat, where members could exercise "exclusive" legislative powers "in all Cases whatsoever." In D.C., no State ever exercises any governing power (thus, the Tenth Amendment has no powers here [the Tenth Amendment doesn't foreclose the States giving more powers to Congress under the Article V amendment process, and neither does it prevent a State from giving up the ability to govern individual parcels of land the State cedes to Congress for exclusive legislative purposes under Article I]).
The remaining 1% of the Constitution, that works in both the 98% of the cases above and the first-discussed 1%, is Article VI, Clause 2, that says “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land” that binds the judges in every State, regardless of what a State Constitution or State laws may declare otherwise.
All the scoundrels are doing, following Alexander Hamilton’s devious tactics first implemented in 1791 with Hamilton’s bank, and then implemented into Supreme Court lore by Chief Justice John Marshall, is exploiting the inherent contradiction in the U.S. Constitution. They merely attempt to use their Big Powers in a Big Area—an allowed power, beyond that power’s true borders.
While the spirit of the Constitution would hold Clause 17 exclusive legislation jurisdiction to the District of Columbia (and “like Authority” exclusive legislation forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings), the strictest letter of the Constitution appears to declare otherwise. Indeed, the 17th clause of the 8th section of the 1st article is yet *part* of “This Constitution,” thus Hamilton and Marshall held that even laws enacted in pursuance of Clause 17 therefore necessarily consist of part of that “supreme Law of the Land” that may bind the States.
At least when the States haven’t figured out what is going on, to argue the correct point (not that the excessive federal action is “facially” unconstitutional [in every case], but that it cannot be done “as applied” beyond the District Seat]).
We may pull back the curtain on their fraud—we don’t need a new Constitution—we simply need to expose the devious work-around process, when those using it falsely assert that the oath to support the Constitution isn’t binding.
But, the oath is binding, and those who redefine and reinterpret words and phrase found in the Constitution may only give those words and phrases new meaning *where* they are empowered to do so, which is in the District of Columbia.
Indeed, no State, State-like or District Constitution exists in D.C. to guide and direct members of Congress in the exercise of their exclusive legislation powers, like State constitutions do, in the various States.
Don’t you think if no State Constitution existed in a State, that State legislators, governors, and State judges would over time increasingly act like tyrants? Well, that is precisely the condition in D.C., for members of Congress and federal officials.
In D.C., legislative representation does not exist, even as it’s the fundamental building block of the Union. Without it, then there is no problem for judges to there legislate from the bench or executive agency bureaucrats to promulgate regulations held as law. Since there is no prohibition prohibiting the delegation of exclusive legislation powers to executive or judicial officers, then it may here be done. Evidently, this includes even extending the exclusive legislation powers to the U.N. Security Council, of being able to call out the U.S. military (the States may not engage in war or enter into foreign agreements like they used to, only because of Article I, Section 10, but the “District” Seat is not a “State”).
Since the “District” Seat is not a “State,” then even express constitutional prohibitions the U.S. Constitution prohibits “States” do NOT apply to Congress or the District Seat.
Thus, while “States” are prohibited from emitting bills of credit or making things a legal tender in payment of debts, these prohibitions do not apply to Congress.
Therefore, in the exercise of their exclusive legislation powers, independent and apart from their enumerated powers for the whole Union, members of Congress have the separate power, to emit bills of credit and call them a tender, in the District of Columbia.
We don’t need a new Constitution, but we do need to expose the fraud involved in bypassing the old one.
Incidentally, we may get rid of the inherent contradiction in the current one, simply by proposing and ratifying a new amendment that prevents misconstruction of Article VI, and says that “the seventeenth clause of the eighth section of the first article shall not be construed to be any part of the supreme Law of the Land under Article VI.”
No laws of Oregon ever affect Idaho, nor laws of Texas affect New York; well, the exclusive legislation laws of Congress should never be able to affect the 50 sovereign States of the Union, either, even indirectly.
Exposing fraud is irrelevant to a degenerate populace that doesn't care about reason and the rule of law. Therein lies the root of the problem: no document, however perfect, can escape the clutches of a corrupt culture. (Not that the Constitution is perfect; far from it.)
The "populace" doesn't particularly come into it (i.e., into a court case, for example), but the "clutches of a corrupt culture" (good description!) still must "ignore" the Constitution in some manner. If no one calls them out on their mechanism to bypass or ignore the Constitution, then one's opponents aren't the only ones ignoring the Constitution (the people who don't call them out properly but who still want the Constitution enforced) are the ones that are.
In other words, exposing their devious mechanism of constitutional bypass is still paramount to restoring limited government. If no one cares, then I'd agree with you. But, if at least one person cares, then that one person may still "pull back the curtain" and expose the fraud.
We have a way to fix it. A Network State - a new decentralized 4th branch of government that isn't part of the government at all, but rather 100% built and run by the people. It's main purpose? To fix our biggest problem: the corruption of our systems. Consider this: https://joshketry.substack.com/p/lets-build-a-4th-branch-of-government
The spirit of this contest is definitely to get people to think about political philosophy more deeply. The idea is to get people thinking about how to build new institutions in peer-to-peer fashion, a la Balaji Srinivasan's (@balajis) network state. If you can get a critical mass of people committed to a different constitution--one that people join as an actual social contract--you can move the Overton Window. Such a movement could re-animate the Constitution we have. We are under no illusions, but getting people thinking of law as being more like a social operating system can at least get people wondering whether it's possible to replace imposed law with chosen law.
I appreciate the spirit of this but I don't think writing a Constitution addresses the core of the problem, which is: how to get people to engage political philosophy rationally. If you can somehow get people to do that, you don't even need a new Constitution; the status quo will self-correct. And if you can't get people to do that, not even the most perfect Constitution can be followed or really even agreed on.
True.
The US Constitution succeeded because of the people who existed at the time.
It's clear by the existence of the federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers, that they knew it to be an imperfect document, but the people themselves were good enough, and agreed on enough to keep it going for a long time.
Max,
I like this project and would like to contribute. Is there some way I can contact you privately?
Yes of course: max AT social-evolution.com
The Constitution died in stages. The stage which is giving us the most trouble now is the creation of the Civil Service System. We do not have an elected chief executive.
This constitution will be opt-in.
Respectfully, the Constitution isn't "Dead," it has merely been increasingly ignored, by working within its unrealized exception.
Realize that even the exception to the rule is one of the listed rules.
98% of the Constitution deals with the enumerated powers, that may be exercised directly throughout the Union of States. This is where "Little Powers" may be exercised in a "Big Area."
1% (Art. I, Sect. 8, Cl. 17) deals with the District Seat. This is where "Big Powers" may be exercised in a "Little Area."
All that we face is scoundrels trying to exercise their “Big Powers” over a “Big Area,” which they cannot do directly, for nowhere does the U.S. Constitution allow it. They may only do it indirectly, by deception, as they deviously twist the spirit of the Constitution, using its strictest letter.
Realize that ratification of the U.S. Constitution DIVIDED governing powers in the United States into enumerated federal powers and reserved State powers.
However, in D.C., all governing powers became UNITED in members of Congress and the executive and judicial branches, when "particular States" (Maryland, and, for a time, Virginia) "ceded" parcels of land to become the District Seat, where members could exercise "exclusive" legislative powers "in all Cases whatsoever." In D.C., no State ever exercises any governing power (thus, the Tenth Amendment has no powers here [the Tenth Amendment doesn't foreclose the States giving more powers to Congress under the Article V amendment process, and neither does it prevent a State from giving up the ability to govern individual parcels of land the State cedes to Congress for exclusive legislative purposes under Article I]).
The remaining 1% of the Constitution, that works in both the 98% of the cases above and the first-discussed 1%, is Article VI, Clause 2, that says “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land” that binds the judges in every State, regardless of what a State Constitution or State laws may declare otherwise.
All the scoundrels are doing, following Alexander Hamilton’s devious tactics first implemented in 1791 with Hamilton’s bank, and then implemented into Supreme Court lore by Chief Justice John Marshall, is exploiting the inherent contradiction in the U.S. Constitution. They merely attempt to use their Big Powers in a Big Area—an allowed power, beyond that power’s true borders.
While the spirit of the Constitution would hold Clause 17 exclusive legislation jurisdiction to the District of Columbia (and “like Authority” exclusive legislation forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings), the strictest letter of the Constitution appears to declare otherwise. Indeed, the 17th clause of the 8th section of the 1st article is yet *part* of “This Constitution,” thus Hamilton and Marshall held that even laws enacted in pursuance of Clause 17 therefore necessarily consist of part of that “supreme Law of the Land” that may bind the States.
At least when the States haven’t figured out what is going on, to argue the correct point (not that the excessive federal action is “facially” unconstitutional [in every case], but that it cannot be done “as applied” beyond the District Seat]).
We may pull back the curtain on their fraud—we don’t need a new Constitution—we simply need to expose the devious work-around process, when those using it falsely assert that the oath to support the Constitution isn’t binding.
But, the oath is binding, and those who redefine and reinterpret words and phrase found in the Constitution may only give those words and phrases new meaning *where* they are empowered to do so, which is in the District of Columbia.
Indeed, no State, State-like or District Constitution exists in D.C. to guide and direct members of Congress in the exercise of their exclusive legislation powers, like State constitutions do, in the various States.
Don’t you think if no State Constitution existed in a State, that State legislators, governors, and State judges would over time increasingly act like tyrants? Well, that is precisely the condition in D.C., for members of Congress and federal officials.
In D.C., legislative representation does not exist, even as it’s the fundamental building block of the Union. Without it, then there is no problem for judges to there legislate from the bench or executive agency bureaucrats to promulgate regulations held as law. Since there is no prohibition prohibiting the delegation of exclusive legislation powers to executive or judicial officers, then it may here be done. Evidently, this includes even extending the exclusive legislation powers to the U.N. Security Council, of being able to call out the U.S. military (the States may not engage in war or enter into foreign agreements like they used to, only because of Article I, Section 10, but the “District” Seat is not a “State”).
Since the “District” Seat is not a “State,” then even express constitutional prohibitions the U.S. Constitution prohibits “States” do NOT apply to Congress or the District Seat.
Thus, while “States” are prohibited from emitting bills of credit or making things a legal tender in payment of debts, these prohibitions do not apply to Congress.
Therefore, in the exercise of their exclusive legislation powers, independent and apart from their enumerated powers for the whole Union, members of Congress have the separate power, to emit bills of credit and call them a tender, in the District of Columbia.
We don’t need a new Constitution, but we do need to expose the fraud involved in bypassing the old one.
Incidentally, we may get rid of the inherent contradiction in the current one, simply by proposing and ratifying a new amendment that prevents misconstruction of Article VI, and says that “the seventeenth clause of the eighth section of the first article shall not be construed to be any part of the supreme Law of the Land under Article VI.”
No laws of Oregon ever affect Idaho, nor laws of Texas affect New York; well, the exclusive legislation laws of Congress should never be able to affect the 50 sovereign States of the Union, either, even indirectly.
Exposing fraud is irrelevant to a degenerate populace that doesn't care about reason and the rule of law. Therein lies the root of the problem: no document, however perfect, can escape the clutches of a corrupt culture. (Not that the Constitution is perfect; far from it.)
The "populace" doesn't particularly come into it (i.e., into a court case, for example), but the "clutches of a corrupt culture" (good description!) still must "ignore" the Constitution in some manner. If no one calls them out on their mechanism to bypass or ignore the Constitution, then one's opponents aren't the only ones ignoring the Constitution (the people who don't call them out properly but who still want the Constitution enforced) are the ones that are.
In other words, exposing their devious mechanism of constitutional bypass is still paramount to restoring limited government. If no one cares, then I'd agree with you. But, if at least one person cares, then that one person may still "pull back the curtain" and expose the fraud.
Exposing? Seems to be quite out in the open already.
The concept of a constitution at all was world changing.
Keep it going.
We have a way to fix it. A Network State - a new decentralized 4th branch of government that isn't part of the government at all, but rather 100% built and run by the people. It's main purpose? To fix our biggest problem: the corruption of our systems. Consider this: https://joshketry.substack.com/p/lets-build-a-4th-branch-of-government
We're on similar wavelengths to be sure.