"Divinely Inspired Document" and "God's Chosen Nation"

Well, here we are on the first day of March. The big news, of course, is the opening of "Passion" starring Mel Gibson about the final hours of Jesus' life. I haven't seen it, but probably will soon enough.

On the radio today, on the first week of K-Talk Radio's (http://www.k-talk.com) new "lineup" of hosts, Jim Sumpter - now on from 9:00am to noon - talked about the "divine inspiration" behind the Constitution and the fact that our land is "chosen" by God.

Now, to give you a little background on Sumpter as I see him, he is a bit of a religious idealogue (being LDS in faith) and, in my opinion, something of a Republican apologist/statist.

That said, he held his tongue remarkably during the calls regarding the Constitution and God's "chosen land."

I, myself, believe that God did have a hand in inspiring the founders on the path towards freedom and the drafting of the U.S. Constitution (read it in the documents section, button to left). However, by the same token that the hand of man was involved in writing the Bible, so was it in the Constitution. Therefore, it is not word-for-word the word of God. I think God pointed the founding fathers in the right direction and the rest is history.

If you understand the background of the drafting of this document, you know that James Madison was the author of the original constitution. That document was very democratic and people-oriented. In today's society, many believe that "democracy" is the best thing since sliced bread. Well...it ain't. Madison's original draft was almost a pure democracy (read: mob rule) and many of the founders, most popularly Jefferson and Franklin, had nothing but bad things to say about the idea of mob rule.

Regardless, Madison's constitution was debated for a long time at that convention. There were pure mob rule types in attendance, almost pure anarchists, and pure statist/monarchical types there - as well as everything in between. In the end, the Constitution we gained in 1789 was a compromise between control freaks and anarchists.

The U.S. Constitution is a great document and the basis of easily the best form of government ever created on earth. However, it is flawed. Any creation of man is imperfect. That's just how it is: we aren't God. The Constitution has a few idiosyncracies that allowed our nation to evolve into what it is today.

Now that it has been tried and fettered for a couple hundred years or so, it's time, I believe, that some reconsiderations were made. They probably won't happen until we've had another revolution to throw off our current regime of tyrants, but you never know. So here's my thoughts.

The specific portions I believe need some refinement (or be completely stricken):

Article I, Section 6 reads:
"...They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

I believe this should be changed to enumerate that priviledge from arrest does not necessarily mean they will never be tried for said crime. Ted Kennedy would no doubt be in prison were it not for this. I believe that once the session is officially over for the year, trial may commence and, if needed, be suspended during another session of Congress, or withheld until the congressional term is finished. In any case, the person is and never should be IMMUNE from prosecution just because he or she is an elected representative.

Article I, Section 8 reads:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..."

Of all the sections, this is the one paragraph I have the most problems with. First, it should be amended to enumerate that the Congress can lay and collect taxes FROM THE STATES, not from the People. Otherwise, justification for our IRS would never have been made and our current gestapo would not be happening. Second, the states, since they are representated equally in the Senate and by populace in the House, would have it in their best interest to NOT allow raising of taxes without just cause. This means we'd probably still be at a personal tax rate of around 3% or less rather than our current 40-50%...

I also hate the "...and general Welfare of the United States;" bit. This is the opening the socialists have used to institute their New Deals, welfare, entitlements, and other crap on us. For instance, I pay into Social Security yearly at an almost exhorbitant level. Yet it's very doubtful I will see it when I "need" it - especially considering fed Chairman Greenspan's remarks a couple of days ago. Since Social Security is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme and has become nothing more than welfare for the aged...why not privatize it in such a way that government no longer has a hand in the thing at all?? Read Harry Browne's "Why Government Doesn't Work" as a good illustration of how this could realistically be done WITHOUT screwing those who are depending or soon to be dependent on it...

Also in this section, you will see no authority for the Congress to hand over the U.S. monetary system to any other body nor to a private or foreign-owned institution...the Federal Reserve is owned by the World Bank, which is owned mainly by foreign interests... You figure out where that puts us...

Article III, Section 1 reads:
"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

These are lifetime appointments. I think that's wrong. They should be ten or fifteen year appointments, at maximum, and should never be given to the same person more than once. Yes, judicial appointments are a bioootch to get through from the President and through the Congress. However, that's because most Congress people know that these judges will be there forever. Take that away, and they may be a little more lenient on it. Besides...the longer their debate over judicial appointments, the less time they'll have to come up with new and "screw us" laws to pass...

Article VI reads:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

I don't disagree with this section, per say, I just think that it needs to be highlighted and sent to every judge, state representative, etc. around the nation for emphasis. Especially to Colorado and Rick Stanley's persecutors.

Article the Second (Amendment XVII) reads:
"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."

This is nice, but is completely ignored as our current elected jackasses enjoy an automatic pay raise every year which completely ignores this provision...

Article the Fourth (aka "Second Amendment"):
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The original version was better, as it would waylay most all of the bullshit arguments that leftists like to claim (such as only the "militia" can have weapons and the "militia" is the National Guard). Even today, the dictionary defines "militia" as "able bodied men between the ages of 14 and 45." Besides, it clearly says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"... I did a study once in which I replaced "The People" with "The STates" and later "The National Guard" throughout the Constitution. Guess what happened? Only the States or the National Guard could vote...only the States or the National Guard could peaceably assemble... You get the idea.

Article XIII reads:
"Section. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

While I really like this one (it's also a firm argument against the draft), I don't think that Section 2 is really required. Although this is probably just a technical matter that makes no real difference in the end. It was done originally as justification for using National Guardsmen and military troops to enforce desegregation. Probably needed at the time, I guess, but doubtful it's really needed now.

Article XVI:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Obviously, like to see this one thrown out completely.

Article XVII reads:
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures...."

Toss the whole shebang.

There you have it. Aaron's new and improved U.S. Constitution! Print this out for use after the revolution to come, as I once again say that I doubt anything better will come of government until revolution has happened...

As for this being God's "chosen land," I think that's incorrect and a bit ego-centric on our part. I believe that we are supposed to be an example of all that is great regarding free agency, true charity (not government-mandated), etc., etc., etc. Obviously we don't do that, so we've failed in that regard.

-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!