The USA Constitution Needs Fixing: IMHO:

[Atwood]

No doubt few realize how much the USA was started in a sense officially Christian.

Few have read the founding document of the USA, Treaty of Paris of 1783, which starts out by recognizing the Trinity,

"in the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity."

And it ends, like the Constitution acknowledging that Jesus Christ is Lord by saying, "in the year of our Lord," apparently not a common way of dating at the time. (I did some checking in to this to see if it were just a perfunctory formula & got negative results in other contemporary documents.)

By so doing, both the Trinity and recognition of Jesus as Lord, were official. The latter was repeated in the Constitution.

But our Constitution had a few fatal flaws, and I suggest the following cures, new articles, substitute articles & wording:

1) The government of the USA recognizes that Jesus (second person of the Trinity, God and man) is Lord and that the Bible of 66 books is the Word of God. Yet there shall be freedom of religion for all religions except those that advocate conquering the world by the sword, like Islam. There shall be no establishment of religion, and there shall be a separation of religious organizations from the state. Neither shall be able to tax the other. Public prayer in the name of Jesus shall not be prohibited in private or in governmental institutions. Simple recognition of Christian holidays shall be permitted by all. Posting of Bible passages shall be legal for all. Notwithstanding the above, Bible reading and prayer shall not be considered "establishment of religion," so long as the content of prayer is not determined by government.

2) The provisions of this article apply only to persons whose wealth is less that $1,000,000 (adjusted upward for inflation if necessary): The only tax levied on citizens shall be an income tax, which shall not exceed 10 percent of each citizen's income for non-military spending. This limit shall apply to the total of all taxes by whatever agency of government or for whatever purpose. The 10 percent limit includes the total of local, state, and federal taxation. Upon said persons, property tax shall be illegal as a claim by a tyrannical government to own all property;sales tax shall be illegal an impediment to commerce; there shall be no death or inheritance tax.

3) Notwithstanding the foregoing, import taxes shall be permitted to the federal government.

4) Judges shall be appointed only for 10 years.

5) Legislation from the Bench shall not be permitted. If either of the two houses (Senate and House of Representatives) shall individually vote by majority vote that a judge has legislated from the bench in a case, then
the judges who allegedly legislated shall immediately suspended and put up for a recall election in one month, then removed from office or returned to office by majority vote of the voters of the USA. In case of removal, no retirement money may be paid to the removed judge.

If both houses shall concur that legislation from the bench has occurred, then
a) the ruling shall be immediately vacated and returned to the judiciary for immediate revision; and
b) the judge who allegedly legislated from the bench, shall be put up for recall election and removed from office or retained by majority vote of the voters of the USA. Any such removed judge shall lose his retirement money.

6) Congress may not delegate legislative powers to any other agency. No governmental agency besides Congress shall make regulations binding on citizens outside that agency.


7) The final interpretation of the Constitution shall be determined as follows: If both houses of Congress have passed a law, signed by the president, that means it is presumptively constitutional. However, for criminal trials, an accused person may be declared not guilty and freed if the Supreme Court determines a law unconstitutional. No double jeopardy shall accrue to such a freed person. If such occurs, Congress shall vote on the law again within one week. If the law is again duly passed (in the manner of normal laws) the Supreme Court shall never again declare it unconstitutional.

In all other cases, if the Supreme should declare a law unconstitutional, that law must be voted on by Congress alone again in one week. If Congress alone passes the law again, the decision is vacated, and the Supreme Court shall never again declare it unconstitutional.

And none of the procedure under this article shall render judges immune to a separate charge of legislating from the bench.

8) No person shall be tried twice for the same crime; no double jeopardy. If a man is acquitted of a crime, the same alleged misconduct may not be tried again in any court by giving the alleged misconduct a different title. For example, a man acquitted of murder may not subsequently be tried for violating someone's civil rights for the killing.

9) The government shall not impose a philosophy of life on children in government run schools, aside from permitted Bible reading. Government operated schools shall not teach values or evolution. Government money shall be spent in education teaching only objective knowledge.

10) Government owned or operated restrooms shall be individual only (not to exclude a parent and child). Group restrooms and group showers shall not be permitted.

11) All human beings from conception shall be considered persons. The murder of unborn babies shall be a crime the same as all murder.

12) Sodomy (sexual acts between same sexes) shall not be encouraged by any government agency; and legislative bodies shall have the power to declare such acts to be crime and assign punishment.

 

[Atwood]

But our Constitution had a few fatal flaws, and I suggest the following cures, new articles, substitute articles & wording

Above I forgot to include 13:

13) The President shall have no power to make Executive Orders except for the internal operation of the Executive Branch, as for example, who is to make the coffee, and who parks where in the parking lot.

 

[tinynascarfan]

NO! This country was founded on religious freedom. We cannot deny that freedom to anyone. We cannot force Jesus on people. They must either accept Him as Lord or deny Him. But, it must be their choice.

There must be a separation of church and state, if we do not have that, then what will happen when a devout atheist gets control of the country? And don't be fooled, atheism is as much a religion as Christianity is.

 

[JesusChica1991]

But separation of church and state was not part of the constitution xD I would know. I've read it.

 

[tinynascarfan]

The changes that the OP was suggesting is what I was referring to. In his post there would be little if any separation of church and state.

 

[GaryA]

It does not need fixing...

What it needs is --- for the Federal Government to OBEY IT and UPHOLD IT !!!

That is what it needs...

 

[Atwood]

NO! This country was founded on religious freedom. We cannot deny that freedom to anyone. We cannot force Jesus on people. They must either accept Him as Lord or deny Him. But, it must be their choice.

There must be a separation of church and state, if we do not have that, then what will happen when a devout atheist gets control of the country? And don't be fooled, atheism is as much a religion as Christianity is.

Look again,
"Yet there shall be freedom of religion for all religions except those that advocate conquering the world by the sword, like Islam. There shall be no establishment of religion, and there shall be a separation of religious organizations from the state."

Do you want a religion that advocates conquest by the sword, beheading infidels, to have the freedom to do that?

Actually our current constitution allows establishment of religion by states, as some had established religions at the time the constitution was drafted. It forbids congress (federal) from making any law on the subject of religious establishment. For me, I think that states as well should be prohibited from establishing religions. So my redraft is stricter than our existing constitution (if we ignore amendments made by the SCOTUS).

Originally what the founders had in mind was that the feds could not forbid states from establishing religions. Also I think that they had in mind that the feds could not establish one of the Christian denominations as the official religion. I am sure that they did not intend to forbid nominal recognition of the Lord Jesus (as indeed the Constitution does at its end), prayers generated by public officials, nor general respect for the Bible, as in swearing in the president with his hand on a Bible. Do you really think that constitutes an establishment of a religion?

My theoretical constitution does not force any individual to acknowledge the Lord Jesus. But in fact He does force the universe at his will, whenever and wherever He wishes.

But all peoples and nations have a responsibility to acknowledge that Jesus Christ is king of kings & Lord of lords and to recognize His Word as such. Whether or not you want to call it "establishment of religion," IMHO the Constitution should endorse that much (as it already endorses that Jesus is Lord), but not let it go beyond the few simple and in fact traditional things listed in my draft.

But have no fear. My theoretical constitution has little chance of enactment. Of course when the Lord returns, He will rule with a rod of iron, not a wet noodle.

 

[Atwood]

The changes that the OP was suggesting is what I was referring to. In his post there would be little if any separation of church and state.

IMHO, the Constitution is defective in not delineating who gets the final say on its interpretation. Right now the Supreme Court is essentially the constitution, not the document. It means whatever the SCOTUS says it means.

 

[Atwood]

Above I forgot to include 13:

13) The President shall have no power to make Executive Orders except for the internal operation of the Executive Branch, as for example, who is to make the coffee, and who parks where in the parking lot.

[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

And I forgot 14)

No war may be waged without a Congressional Declaration of War, aside from a necessary presidential response to an imminent threat or attack, which response by the president must be within 24 hours affirmed by Congress.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Most of the founding fathers were Protestants. The largest number were raised in the three largest Christian traditions of colonial America:

1. Anglicanism (as in the cases of John Jay, George Washington, and Edward Rutledge).

2. Presbyterianism (as in the cases of Richard Stockton and the Rev. John Witherspoon).

3. Congregationalism (as in the cases of John Adams and Samuel Adams).

Other Protestant groups included the Society of Friends (Quakers), the Lutherans, and the Dutch Reformed.

Minority positions included three Roman Catholics (Charles Carroll, Daniel Carroll of Maryland, and Thomas Fitzsimmons of Pennsylvania) and a few deists with Thomas Paine being the most prominent.

More than religion; however, influenced their thinking... the American enlightenment, for example.

According to the founding fathers, the United States should be a country where peoples of all faiths could live in peace and mutual benefit. James Madison summed up this ideal in 1792 saying, "Conscience is the most sacred of all property."

(Which makes me wonder why the U.S. government has strayed so very far that they are attempting to imprison and bankrupt Christian bakers for refusing to violate their conscience and bake for homosexual activities when they are ordered to do so by homosexuals [with the understanding the bakers are certainly willing to offer ALL of their goods and services to homosexuals for any moral purpose whatsoever]... but I digress).

Additionally there was a limited involvement with Freemasonry of the antique kind (not like today) that had a relatively small influence on America's foundations. If you're interested in this subject, I recommend 'The Question of Freemasonry and the Founding Fathers' by David Barton.

The war over whether Christian was intended to be a secular or Christian nation is not black or white; one or the other. As Bill Flax notes:

"All thought the Bible essential for just and harmonious society. The Founders disagreed on much, but were nearly unanimous concerning biblical morality. They understood the relationship between state and society differently than progressive thinkers today: government cannot mold man. Righteous men must mold government which requires the inculcation of virtue through vibrant churches and the transmittal of values generationally via a social structure based on families.

Usurping the First Amendment to obstruct public expressions of faith would leave the Founders aghast. Not only did the Constitution leave extant the official religions authorized in most of the states, as historian Thomas Woods explains, prohibiting prayer in public schools “runs exactly contrary to the Framers’ intent … a stupefying departure from traditional American principles and an intolerable encroachment on communities’ rights to self-government.” Jefferson ’s “wall of separation” guarded faith, or lack thereof, against political interference.

Far from uprooting our cultural moorings, the Forefathers embraced heritage. Historian Larry Schweikart notes, “The founding documents of every one of the original thirteen colonies reveal them to be awash in the concepts of Christianity and God.” Youth learned to read using Scripture. Universities were chartered to teach doctrine. Students could not even enter Harvard, Yale or Princeton without assenting to the Westminster Confession.

John Adams noted, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity.”

Per Paul Johnson, “The Declaration of Independence was, to those who signed it, a religious as well as a secular act, and the Revolutionary War has the approbation of divine providence.” The Declaration contains four clear references to God. Independence was predicated on the “laws of nature and nature’s God” because men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” The Continental Congress thought success dependent on “the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions” to whom they relied on for “the protection of divine Providence.”

Secularists claim designations like “laws of nature” evidences Deism, not Christianity. Many Founders might agree. But that phrase also appears in the quintessential statement of Protestant faith, the Westminster Confession,where “light of nature,” meaning the same, appears repeatedly.

John Locke, whose influence was indisputable, clarified that natural rights need to “be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God.” And that legislation must be “without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.”

Blackstone’s Commentaries, a pivotal support for America’s common law system, rests upon both sources for truth in Christian thinking. There is “special revelation” in the Holy Scriptures and “general revelation” of a complex, yet sublime world working according to an ordered design subject to discoverable natural laws."

So while the United States was not founded as a Christian nation, it was largely comprised of Christians who never meant for the U.S. to be theocratic or homogenous religiously but did intend for the Christian worldview to be indelible to our social fabric and the founders, even the few non-Believers before the rise of rabid New Atheism, considered that a blessing.

The founding fathers were interested in a cooperation between church and state not state over church or church over state. U.S. historians refer to this as Jeffersonianism.

In secularism the moral basis for government is reduced to situationalism, a secular humanist perspective that eschews all God-given moral absolutes. According to this system of thought, there is no objective moral basis for government.

Unlike Jeffersonianism, secularism has no God-given moral basis for civil rights; inalienable rights from the Creator are shed for the alienable rights of the creature. With secularism, rather than being based in moral law, civil law replaces moral law: What is morally right is what the constantly changing body politic decides is right, wherever it may be on the political spectrum-from monarchy to anarchy. There are numerous moral problems with the secularist viewpoint which diametrically contrast to the natural-law view of early America and that's why they chose not to draft a secular state. The early American system the chose allowed for a fruitful Jeffersonianism in contrast with secularism and reconstructionism.

There is nothing in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution that forbids the government from encouraging religion in general while not favoring one religion in partcular; nor is there a constitutional issue with establishing a national morality founded upon timeless moral principles, such as those expressed in the Ten Commandments. Indeed, this is what America did until it was forbidden by Supreme Court decision in 1980 with the case of Stone v. Graham. Maybe you're not good at math so I'll point out that 1776 and 1980 are a considerable distance from each other.

Against secularism, Jeffersonianism denies that there is no divinely given moral (natural) law as a basis for government; against reconstructionism, Jeffersonianism denies that any special revelation from God is the divinely prescribed basis for civil government. It also denies that any national church should be the established religion of the land, thus allowing religious freedom of belief for all groups.

By basing civil government in "Nature's Law," which comes from "God," American morality was established without establishing any religion, except a broad belief in the Creator God, who gave these "unalienable rights," a belief that, according to God, is part of the general (or natural) revelation to all humankind (Rom. 1:19-20).

Thus, by basing government in natural, universal, moral law, Jeffersonianism avoids antinomianism (secularism) on the one hand and state-mandated religion (reconstructionism) on the other.

But what you young atheists need to understand is that the difference between early America and America since the Supreme Court ruled in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) that neither the federal government nor a state may have an established religion is that in early America (as represented by the intent of the First Amendment, which says that "Congress [i.e., the national (federal) government] shall make no Law respecting an Establishment of Religion"), a state could (and many did) have established religions, states DID have established religions.

Subsequent to Everson, states were no longer permitted to establish religion as the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment were applied to the First Amendment, and the intent of the First Amendment (to forbid only a national religion and allow state religions) was overturned; however, five of the thirteen colonies that ratified this amendment had state religions.

As for the disestablishment statute, you can thank JEFFERSONIANISM NOT SECULARISM for that. The statute clearly adheres to the Jeffersonianism of the era.

 

[wisebeardman]

Constitution don't need changed.. what needs changed is the Idiots in DC who refuse to read and uphold it.

 

[njihiafrancis]

Notwithstanding the
foregoing??? What does that mean???

 

[Drett]

NO! This country was founded on religious freedom. We cannot deny that freedom to anyone. We cannot force Jesus on people. They must either accept Him as Lord or deny Him. But, it must be their choice.

There must be a separation of church and state, if we do not have that, then what will happen when a devout atheist gets control of the country? And don't be fooled, atheism is as much a religion as Christianity is.

George Washington (highest rank of Mason), Thomas Jefferson and others were free masons and the constitution was built on the ideals of the Mason.

"Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Law of the First Amendment to the constitution of the United States.

So if you were looking to fix it you would probably need to look at putting God back in.

 

[G4JC]

The documents we have are actually good enough, they do ensure religious freedom. If we were going to re-invent the USA constitution you can be sure that they would only make it worse, which is why it's very important to NOT change it. There are too many who would love changing it to the UN Charter right now; and opening up that can of worms will put us on quite a fast path to destruction.

That being said, some of our nation's leaders were Christian. Not all. The ironic part is, without a Godly nation nothing works.

Some quotes from the past which remind us of this fact...

[h=1]“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” - Alexis de Tocqueville[/h]

[h=1]“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams[/h]

 

[BillyTheKid]

Perhaps you have never read the Treaty of Tripoli. Allow me to post Article 11 of the treaty......
[h=3]ARTICLE 11.[/h]As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

The translation of the Treaty of Tripoli has been found faulty. In 1931 Hunter Miller completed a commission by the United States government to analyze United States' treaties and to explain how they function and what they mean in terms of the United States' legal position in relationship with the rest of the world. According to Hunter Miller's notes:

"The Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic" and "Article 11... does not exist at all." After comparing the United States' version by Barlow with the Arabic and even the Italian version, Miller continues by claiming that, "The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli.

How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.

From this, Miller concludes: "A further and perhaps equal mystery is the fact that since 1797 the Barlow translation has been trustfully and universally accepted as the just equivalent of the Arabic... yet evidence of the erroneous character of the Barlow translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since perhaps 1800 or thereabouts..."

I wouldn't put much credence in a treaty with far flung Muslim pirates the integrity of which isn't sound. See Yale's law library for more information: Avalon Project - The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816 - Treaty with Tripoli 1796 : Hunter Miller's Notes

That said, there is no doubt that the driving religious epistemology behind the founding of the United States was Christianity. It is indisputable.

 

[Cee]

There is also an apathy that has swept the nation in thinking they can't make change, so they blame problems on the Constitution and the leaders instead of themselves for not doing something about it. Further, there is such disunity that even when viable candidates do get into positions to make positive change too few support them.

I agree the Constitution is fine how it is, if we changed it now it would be a serious botch. What we need is people to uphold it and follow it. Being ever diligent to what other agendas are being promoted. The shadow government (government behind the government) can be traced back as far as the bankers in Andrew Jacksons days.

We have been been lured to think freedom is our right instead of our privilege as a result lost our vigilance to uphold what so many died for us to have.

I am not any better, I'm slightly apathetic myself because when I have tried to make a difference politically I had very little support from people who wanted to complain instead supporting those who wanted to do something about it.

Finally there is a thought process that I think is very important to consider: The same problems that created our current government will recreate another similar government, if ended, unless the problematic thought process that created them is changed.

So we really have an education process or even further a responseability problem.

Government programs come in like Big Mama basically saying we will take care of this problem for you, but later turn into Big Brother, it's the same pattern over and over. People expect government to take care of problems and then later it grows into a monster.

In fact the definition of government back in the day, was self control, to govern one's self. Now government is a body, organization that controls others. This is one of the systemic thought processes that must be rooted out.

C.

 

[Atwood]

The translation of the Treaty of Tripoli has been found faulty. In 1931 Hunter Miller completed a commission by the United States government to analyze United States' treaties and to explain how they function and what they mean in terms of the United States' legal position in relationship with the rest of the world. According to Hunter Miller's notes:

"The Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic" and "Article 11... does not exist at all." After comparing the United States' version by Barlow with the Arabic and even the Italian version, Miller continues by claiming that, "The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli.

How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.

From this, Miller concludes: "A further and perhaps equal mystery is the fact that since 1797 the Barlow translation has been trustfully and universally accepted as the just equivalent of the Arabic... yet evidence of the erroneous character of the Barlow translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since perhaps 1800 or thereabouts..."

I wouldn't put much credence in a treaty with far flung Muslim pirates the integrity of which isn't sound. See Yale's law library for more information: Avalon Project - The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816 - Treaty with Tripoli 1796 : Hunter Miller's Notes

That said, there is no doubt that the driving religious epistemology behind the founding of the United States was Christianity. It is indisputable.

Somehow you remind me that one of the Amendments to the Constitution was lost -- ROFL

 

[Atwood]

The changes that the OP was suggesting is what I was referring to. In his post there would be little if any separation of church and state.

Nonsense. I call for putting separation of religious organizations and state in the constitution, though it is not in our present one.

 

[Atwood]

It does not need fixing...

What it needs is --- for the Federal Government to OBEY IT and UPHOLD IT !!!

That is what it needs...

But the constitution is defective in that it does not spell out who is the final authority on defining the meaning of the Constitution. The SCOTUS has mades itself that authority, which means we have a liberal oligarchy. Is that OK by you?