A Constitutional Convention

[Tom Rexton 0]

I think this would be a fun activity. I had always wanted to write up an "ideal" constitution, but I immediately realized how difficult the task was and thought that a convention of the members of this forum would be far more productive! (Remember, this is recreational, so please don't object and say we're not qualified philosopher-statesmen to write up a constitution. )

----------------TO BEGIN,

I call upon all willing forum members to form a convention (in this thread) for the purpose of writing a new constitution for the United States of America. Any forum member may join at any time during the convention.

Our first task is to develop an outline of the general form of the constitution; second is to develop each individual section, determing the philosophy, the structures, the offices, the powers, method of interpretation, etc.; and then finally have the outline written out as a complete, integrated constitution.

Here's my proposal for the general form:

I recommend that the constitution be divided into three broad chapters thus:

Chapter 1 -Philosophy of Government -defines the purpose of government, the concepts of individual rights, force (all forms), property, etc...

Chapter 2 - Structure of Government - defines the specific structures, such as legislature, executive, judicial; defines specific offices, terms of office, powers of office, limits, division of power, etc.

Chatper 3 - Operation of Constitution - defines the method/processs of Ratification, Application, Interpretation, and Modification; states the supremacy of the constitution over all statutes, acts, treaties, etc.

~

Please enter your comments, questions, suggestions, objections, alternative proposals, etc.

I've yet to figure out how we'll ultimately set the form of the constitution and then move on to the details such as the structure of the government (we'll have a vote perhaps?).

[piz 0]

I think this would be a fun activity.

←

You stole my idea! PBTHPBTHPBTH!!!!

Chapter 1 -Philosophy of Government  -defines the purpose of government, the concepts of individual rights, force (all forms), property, etc...

Chapter 2 - Structure of Government - defines the specific structures, such as legislature, executive, judicial; defines specific offices, terms of office, powers of office, limits, division of power, etc.

Chatper 3 - Operation of Constitution - defines the  method/processs of Ratification, Application, Interpretation, and Modification; states the supremacy of the constitution over all statutes, acts, treaties, etc.

←

I'll have to think a while on whether the three you propose are the best organization. But I'm all for separating principles from structure/operation. Consider how much confusion and trouble would have been saved had the "rationale portion" been left out of the second amendment, limiting it to "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." My personal constitution project (the "Universal Constitution" - UC - I mentioned in another thread) intentionally separates principle from "implementation," and may even go so far as to make the principles unamendable.

I've yet to figure out how we'll ultimately set the form of the constitution and then move on to the details such as the structure of the government (we'll have a vote perhaps?).

←

I imagine that the form will change throughout the process, and there's nothing wrong with that for a work in progress. It would probably even be counterproductive to declare some form "finished" and prohibit additional changes.

One thing I'd like to suggest from the outset is "no assumptions." For example, any relationship between the new constitution and English common law must be explicitly stated, any exceptions explicitly noted, and the relative precedence of the two explicitly established. The same for any other pre-existing body of law. Even the simplest and most fundamental principles must be written into the constitution - like the non-initiation of force principle, which should be the very base upon which everything else is built (in my UC it has its own one-sentence article entitled "The Fundamental Law"). And terms must be defined, and the methods for interpreting them specified, wherever necessary. For example, the UC gives an explicit definition of "force" for the non-initiation principle, and it defines "person" so that it can state precisely what entities are subject to the UC as well as explicitly stating that non-persons have no standing.

[piz 0]

For an interesting perspective on exercises such as this one, take a look at Nomic, a game by one Peter Suber, professor in the philosophy department of Earlham College. The purpose of the game is to modify the rules of the game. I find it fascinating.

[Rational_One 0]

Let's make it explicit up front: NO WELLFARE CLAUSE! Alright, just had to get that out of my system.

[Tom Rexton 0]

You stole my idea! PBTHPBTHPBTH!!!!

I've had an ideal constitution in mind for a long time, but I've only come up with the idea of gathering the forum members to form a convention today. So I'm not sure which idea you're talking about.

I'll have to think a while on whether the three you propose are the best organization. But I'm all for separating principles from structure/operation. Consider how much confusion and trouble would have been saved had the "rationale portion" been left out of the second amendment, limiting it to "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." My personal constitution project (the "Universal Constitution" - UC - I mentioned in another thread) intentionally separates principle from "implementation," and may even go so far as to make the principles unamendable.

That's what I've been thinking, too! I figured, have chapter 1 lay down the philosophy (basic principles) explicity, let chapter 2 be the part that defines the intricate machinery of government, and let chapter 3 explicate how the constitution is to be applied, interpreted and modified, which must be according to and consistent with the philosophy expounded in chapter 1. Only chapter 2, however, will be amendable.

I imagine that the form will change throughout the process, and there's nothing wrong with that for a work in progress. It would probably even be counterproductive to declare some form "finished" and prohibit additional changes.

I thought it'd be a good idea to finalize the general form and then other things later because we may not be able to move on to other subjects, like the legislature, the courts, etc. Debate over a little detail could go on forever, and we would never get to a complete constitution, which is my aim. Of course, I don't intend this activity to be done in days or weeks. I expect it to take many months or even a year (perhaps longer). But I really would like a complete constitution some day.

One thing I'd like to suggest from the outset is "no assumptions." For example, any relationship between the new constitution and English common law must be explicitly stated, any exceptions explicitly noted, and the relative precedence of the two explicitly established. The same for any other pre-existing body of law. Even the simplest and most fundamental principles must be written into the constitution - like the non-initiation of force principle, which should be the very base upon which everything else is built (in my UC it has its own one-sentence article entitled "The Fundamental Law"). And terms must be defined, and the methods for interpreting them specified, wherever necessary. For example, the UC gives an explicit definition of "force" for the non-initiation principle, and it defines "person" so that it can state precisely what entities are subject to the UC as well as explicitly stating that non-persons have no standing.

←

All of chapter one should contain that. In fact, I tried writing chapter one with nearly all of that in mind a long time ago, but then I gave up when I couldn't figure out a way to avoid circular definitions of "force".

The first clause of the first article of the first chapter of my Constitution was:

"The sole purpose the government is to protect all the rights of every individual under its jurisdiction."

I then tried to define "individual rights" in the second clause, and in the third clause I explained what "force" is, and three different forms of force (initiatory, defensive, retaliatory). Then I stated that the first form is strictly forbidden to all, the second may be used by both the individual and the government, while the third is exclusively the government's prerogative.

But this is getting too far ahead. We haven't yet decided on a general form.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

In fact, I tried writing chapter one with nearly all of that in mind a long time ago, but then I gave up when I couldn't figure out a way to avoid circular definitions of "force".

Betsy had some nice discussions on her definition of force. I think it was recently on THE FORUM. Try searching.

The first clause of the first article of the first chapter of my Constitution was:

"The sole purpose the government is to protect all the rights of every individual under its jurisdiction."

←

Aside from some grammatical changes due to the different forum, I cannot imagine a better first clause laying out the basic theme of what follows in the constitution, than this one from Galt's speech.

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

[piz 0]

I've had an ideal constitution in mind for a long time, but I've only come up with the idea of gathering the forum members to form a convention today.  So I'm not sure which idea you're talking about. 

←

Just that when I mentioned the UC the other day I started thinking that a thread on this topic would be good. You started it first, that's all.

That's what I've been thinking, too!    I figured, have chapter 1 lay down the philosophy (basic principles) explicity, let chapter 2 be the part that defines the intricate machinery of government, and let chapter 3 explicate how the constitution is to be applied, interpreted and modified, which must be according to and consistent with the philosophy expounded in chapter 1.  Only chapter 2, however, will be amendable.

←

I'm not completely sold on making something non-amendable, but I'm pretty close. As far as I'm concerned, we now have, thanks to AR, all the principles for a proper government. Allowing them to be amended opens the door for all kinds of future mischief, if not outright evil. I think that the only reason for permitting their amendment would be difficulties in interpretation, but if the procedure for doing that is spelled out then amendments shouldn't be necessary. Lots of other things ought to be amendable, but not the principles that everything else is intended to implement.

I thought it'd be a good idea to finalize the general form and then other things later because we may not be able to move on to other subjects, like the legislature, the courts, etc.  Debate over a little detail could go on forever, and we would never get to a complete constitution, which is my aim.  Of course, I don't intend this activity to be done in days or weeks.  I expect it to take many months or even a year (perhaps longer).  But I really would like a complete constitution some day. 

←

I'm sure the general form won't change much once it's set, but I've done enough software design to know that sometimes you reach a point where you throw everything out and start again, incorporating the good pieces of the original design into a new overall structure. It may happen here, too, though probably not more than once if it does.

I mention software design also because of the notion that the workings of government should be as machine-like as possible. The UC starts down that road with this:

Any person may perform any action unless explicitly prohibited by law, except that any person acting in any governmental capacity whatsoever shall perform no action unless explicitly permitted by law.

We need to determine whether gummint officials will be allowed even to breathe.

All of chapter one should contain that.  In fact, I tried writing chapter one with nearly all of that in mind a long time ago, but then I gave up when I couldn't figure out a way to avoid circular definitions of "force".

The first clause of the first article of the first chapter of my Constitution was:

"The sole purpose the government is to protect all the rights of every individual under its jurisdiction."

I then tried to define "individual rights" in the second clause, and in the third clause I explained what "force" is, and three different forms of force (initiatory, defensive, retaliatory).  Then I stated that the first form is strictly forbidden to all, the second may be used by both the individual and the government, while the third is exclusively the government's prerogative. 

But this is getting too far ahead.  We haven't yet decided on a general form. 

←

Yeah. I'm so tempted just to post the whole UC as it stands so far, but that would be counterproductive at this point.

[Tom Rexton 0]

...

I'm not completely sold on making something non-amendable, but I'm pretty close. As far as I'm concerned, we now have, thanks to AR, all the principles for a proper government. Allowing them to be amended opens the door for all kinds of future mischief, if not outright evil. I think that the only reason for permitting their amendment would be difficulties in interpretation, but if the procedure for doing that is spelled out then amendments shouldn't be necessary. Lots of other things ought to be amendable, but not the principles that everything else is intended to implement.

...

←

On second thougths, perhaps even the basic principles should be amendable, given that language changes over time, more so given more time. In a few hundred years, the constitution will be as incomprehensible as an Old English poem is to us!

We ought to consider, then, how long we intend this constitution to be in effect. A thousand years, at most? Surely not forever, because language changes dramatically in just a thousand years. Then again, I'm wary of giving the constitution an expiration date. But it seems unavoidable, given the nature of written and spoken languages.

[piz 0]

On second thougths, perhaps even the basic principles should be amendable, given that language changes over time, more so given more time.  In a few hundred years, the constitution will be as incomprehensible as an Old English poem is to us!

←

I don't think so. With the internet, mass communication, increased mobility, and whatever revolutionary developments the future brings, language is likely to become ever more standardized. I suspect that eventually (a long eventually, to be sure) dialects and even accents will disappear.

We ought to consider, then, how long we intend this constitution to be in effect.  A thousand years, at most?  Surely not forever, because language changes dramatically in just a thousand years.  Then again, I'm wary of giving the constitution an expiration date.  But it seems unavoidable, given the nature of written and spoken languages.

←

Not an expiration date, but an objective means of ensuring the proper interpretation as language does change (which it will continue to do for a long time to come, my above comments notwithstanding). Surely we have enough experience with constitutional interpretation problems over the past 200+ years to invent a solution that will hold up indefinitely.

It should be possible to retain the original principles unamended, yet put in place a system for interpreting them that accounts for changing usage (including adapting the interpretation system itself) such that the meaning of the principles as applied in any given era remains unchanged. The interpretation system accomplishes what would otherwise require amendment, while at the same time instructing, say, future judges on how to apply the principles in terms which carry the same meaning for them as the original language did for us in our time.

Finally, if my prediction about language uniformity comes true, this interpretation system would eventually become unnecessary (though it should be designed as if it will be used forever, of course).

[Aurelia 0]

We ought to consider, then, how long we intend this constitution to be in effect.  A thousand years, at most?  Surely not forever, because language changes dramatically in just a thousand years.  Then again, I'm wary of giving the constitution an expiration date.  But it seems unavoidable, given the nature of written and spoken languages.

←

I don't think it wise to make any section of it un-amendable. If we do then we are denying successive generations the right to choose. I don't want to imply that objectively moral principles are impossible to reach, they aren't. But it is the right of individuals, by extension of their chosen government representatives, to choose whether to be moral or not. If the theoretical people our nation wish to persuade their representatives to enact change which would amend the constitution to be socialist in theme, then by the famous saying "they deserve the government they shall get". (I forget where that was said originally, but I'm sure it was by Ayn Rand).

Along this point, by making any part of it un-amendable, we are holding successive generations under our governance without their consent. Thomas Paine makes an excellent argument against this in his address against a Mr. Burke in his Rights of Man. I agree with him entirely, one generation has no more right to govern another without its consent, than an individual has the right to govern another individual without his consent.

Also, how could you enforce such a rule?

As far as an "expiration date", I think that is unnecessary. The point of amending is to ensure that the constitution does evolve with society. If the constitution reaches a point of being unusable, then it should be scrapped and redone, but there is no way for us to accurately predict such a date. It would be up to the judgment of it's constituents whether or not it is usable.

~Aurelia

[Tom Rexton 0]

I don't think it wise to make any section of it un-amendable. If we do then we are denying successive generations the right to choose. I don't want to imply that objectively moral principles are impossible to reach, they aren't. But it is the right of individuals, by extension of their chosen government representatives, to choose whether to be moral or not.

The purpose of a constitution is to protect individual rights, to ensure that men are free to act on their own judgements, to provide the condition that makes morality possible (i.e., freedom). Individuals under a free government (as established by our constitution) are always free to act morally or not, but they are not free from the consequences of their immorality. However, morality is impossible under the rule of force. So if the government becomes a dictatorship (by majority vote or otherwise), men can no longer make any free choices, i.e., moral choices. So I don't understand how instituting a rights-respecting government somehow violates the rights of individuals to choose. (The right to choose what? A form of dictatorship? There is no such right.)

If the theoretical people our nation wish to persuade their representatives to enact change which would amend the constitution to be socialist in theme, then by the famous saying "they deserve the government they shall get". (I forget where that was said originally, but I'm sure it was by Ayn Rand).

There is no right to enslave--to violate rights of others. If a majority of the public wants to institute socialism (and therefore loot and cannibalize the productive minority), they shouldn't be allowed to do so through a valid mechanism laid in the constitution. Let them take control of the government by more honest means, a means proper for the end they seek: a brutal, bloody coup or revolution to institute universal slavery. Then they will really get what they deserve.

It would be morally repugnant to let a constitution whose purpose is protect individual rights expound a valid process by which it shall be transformed into an instrument of tyranny and slavery.

...

As far as an "expiration date", I think that is unnecessary. The point of amending is to ensure that the constitution does evolve with society. If the constitution reaches a point of being unusable, then it should be scrapped and redone, but there is no way for us to accurately predict such a date. It would be up to the judgment of it's constituents whether or not it is usable.

...

←

We'll address the issue of "evolving constitution" later. But let me say that I think it's a pernicious political idea.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Surely we have enough experience with constitutional interpretation problems over the past 200+ years...

Is 200 years all we have?

[DavidOdden 0]

Not an expiration date, but an objective means of ensuring the proper interpretation as language does change (which it will continue to do for a long time to come, my above comments notwithstanding). Surely we have enough experience with constitutional interpretation problems over the past 200+ years to invent a solution that will hold up indefinitely.

Who is this Shirley person you're invoking? IMOO, the problem has only gotten worse, not better, with people writing worse laws. These problems of interpretation have almost nothing to do with language per se, and everything to do with (1) badly written laws and constitutions and (2) intellectual dishonesty by those who can't just say "That's a bad rule" or "We need to tighten up that loophole". A better wording of the 9th Amendment would have saved us a whole world of hurt (though I don't believe that The Founding Fathers would have wanted to grant individuals a whole lot more rights than are explicitly given in the Constitution, since if they did, they would not have granted the power to pass arbitrary laws to Congress).

I hereby propose a concrete solution to a real problem: any law enacted which is shown to not have one definite meaning becomes invalid 60 days after this fact is announced. (This is, of course, in addition to the requirement that it be consistent with the proper function of government). The 60 days allows the law-making body to get its act together and repair the mistake, and keeping it to no more than 60 days emphasizes the importance of coherent and meaningful sets of laws.

[piz 0]

Surely we have enough experience with constitutional interpretation problems over the past 200+ years...

Is 200 years all we have?

←

Well, approximately 218 years of interpretation of the U.S. constitution. So, yes. But if you want to drag in other constitutions and their interpretational problems, go for it.

[piz 0]

Who is this Shirley person you're invoking? IMOO, the problem has only gotten worse, not better, with people writing worse laws. These problems of interpretation have almost nothing to do with language per se, and everything to do with (1) badly written laws and constitutions and (2) intellectual dishonesty by those who can't just say "That's a bad rule" or "We need to tighten up that loophole". A better wording of the 9th Amendment would have saved us a whole world of hurt (though I don't believe that The Founding Fathers would have wanted to grant individuals a whole lot more rights than are explicitly given in the Constitution, since if they did, they would not have granted the power to pass arbitrary laws to Congress).

←

OK, but I'm assuming we'll do as much as possible to prevent badly written laws (see below). Intellectual dishonesty is best managed by safeguards, as in checks and balances (also see below). Some means of guiding interpretation is still going to be necessary. Not necessarily all about language and definitions, but still necessary.

I hereby propose a concrete solution to a real problem: any law enacted which is shown to not have one definite meaning becomes invalid 60 days after this fact is announced. (This is, of course, in addition to the requirement that it be consistent with the proper function of government). The 60 days allows the law-making body to get its act together and repair the mistake, and keeping it to no more than 60 days emphasizes the importance of coherent and meaningful sets of laws.

←

There are also other ways of handling this (I have some ideas that are quite different than yours), and I'm sure we'll examine all of them.

But, per Tom's agenda, we'd be jumping the gun to get into this issue now.

[piz 0]

We need to take care of some administrative things. Such as:

1. Where are we going to keep "official" records, such as the current working version of the constitution?
   
2. Who's going to be responsible for keeping those records current?
   
3. Are we going to vote on things, and by what rules and mechanism?
   
4. It's been fun discussion so far, but when and where do we really start?
   
5. Who will keep tabs on Rhode Island's rum ration?
   

Regarding that last one: I've always liked the movie 1776.

By the way: mentioning the movie jogs an important point in my mind. I'm no constitutional lawyer, or even a serious constitutional scholar. "I'm just a simple cobbler from Connecticut." (OK, "businessman from Pennsylvania," but it's not alliterative and it doesn't scan. ) One of the requirements I have for the UC is that it, and all the ancillary writing I'm doing around it (justifications, explanations, and such - my own Federalist Papers, so to speak), must all be understandable by any reasonably intelligent person. That needs to be a requirement here as well. If an "average" man can't read the law and know before he takes any given action whether or not that action is legal, then something's very wrong.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I'm not completely sold on making something non-amendable, but I'm pretty close. As far as I'm concerned, we now have, thanks to AR, all the principles for a proper government. Allowing them to be amended opens the door for all kinds of future mischief, if not outright evil

←

The purpose of a constitution is not to define principles -- documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers does that. The purpose of a constitution is the implementation of principles. A consitution states who the personnel will be, their functions and duties, how they will be selected, their terms of office, and other procedural details.

As with most particular implementations of broad principles, there are options. A Vice President can work for the protection of rights whether his term is four years or six, whether he is elected or appointed by the President, etc. It may also be necessary to amend the stated procedures as experience requires. There have been changes in the way Senators are selected, the limiting of a President to two terms, rules for what happens when a President is alive but incapacitated (prompted by Eisenhower's heart attack), etc.

[Tom Rexton 0]

The purpose of a constitution is not to define principles -- documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers does that.  The purpose of a constitution is the implementation of principles.  A consitution states who the personnel will be, their functions and duties, how they will be selected, their terms of office, and other procedural details.

...

←

But if the constitution doesn't expound the fundamentals of its philosophy, then how are the government agents and agencies, particularly the legislature and the courts, to know whether their acts are consistent with the basic purpose of the constitution?

For instance, if it is not explicitly stated that the protection of individual rights is the sole purpose of government, what is to stop the legislature from making laws contrary to that purpose but still consistent with its given powers? How are courts to interpret laws that were passed through valid procedures and with valid powers but contrary to the purpose of the constitution, if the principles defining individual rights are not made explicit?

It's unavoidable, either the constitution expounds a few basic principles about individual rights, which when applied will encompass all individual rights, or it will merely enumrate a few essential rights. The mere enumeration takes the rights out of the context of the basic principles from which they arise and have meaning, and therefore would be ambiguous to the courts and other government entities. Just look at how the Bill of Rights have been treated over the centuries to see what I mean.

At least these principles are necessary:

• purpose of government
  
• definition of individual rights
  
• force and its three different forms, and how they relate to the protection and violation of individual rights
  

[Free Capitalist 0]

Tom, if you want to include those principles within the Constitution, and only those principles, you're risking a Libertarian approach, where the top level principles are espoused and 'adhered' to, but no mention of the lower and more fundamental principles is made. You might as well include the entire OPAR in the Constitution then, to avoid that problem. And maybe the entire corpus of AR's non-fiction, as a basis for comparison with OPAR as well as its origin. And you also might as well throw in some Aristotle, as a basis of comparison with AR as well as its origin. So how far are you willing to go with this?

[DavidOdden 0]

The purpose of a constitution is not to define principles -- documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers does that.  The purpose of a constitution is the implementation of principles.  A consitution states who the personnel will be, their functions and duties, how they will be selected, their terms of office, and other procedural details.

That's certainly one way of looking at a constitution, but given the experience we've had with the decay of liberty in the US, either the constitution should include principles defining proper law and function or government, or there needs to be an identifiable separate document which states those principles, and which is understood to be authoritative and dispositive. The courts do not decide cases based on what is in the Declaration of Independence, they appeal to the Constitution. Without a well-crafted and definitive foundational document that states the nature of the government that is formed, implementation is meaningless. There is no reason to state limits on terms for presidents in a constitution: that can be done by statute.

[piz 0]

The purpose of a constitution is not to define principles -- documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers does that.  The purpose of a constitution is the implementation of principles.  A consitution states who the personnel will be, their functions and duties, how they will be selected, their terms of office, and other procedural details.

←

What does the implementation matter if those in office can violate rights as long as doing so is consistent with the implementation? Unless the right principles are given force of law, there's nothing to stop the government from trampling on its citizens, without violating on iota of procedure.

Perhaps it's a matter of how the principles are incorporated. In politics, the fundamental is the non-initiation of force principle. That can relatively easily be coded as [deep-echoing-voice] The Fundamental Law [/deep-echoing-voice], with the requirement that everything else be consistent with that. That's exactly what my UC does - there is no statement of principle per se, but every proper political principle is represented in that most fundamental of laws. UC Article 1 defines a number of key terms, UC Article 2 states the non-initiation of force principle as law, and other sections set the requirement that nothing may contradict it.

[Tom Rexton 0]

Tom, if you want to include those principles within the Constitution, and only those principles, you're risking a Libertarian approach, where the top level principles are espoused and 'adhered' to, but no mention of the lower and more fundamental principles is made. You might as well include the entire OPAR in the Constitution then, to avoid that problem. And maybe the entire corpus of AR's non-fiction, as a basis for comparison with OPAR as well as its origin. And you also might as well throw in some Aristotle, as a basis of comparison with AR as well as its origin. So how far are you willing to go with this?

←

That's a difficult question: if we don't include those principles, we leave the application and interpretation of the constitution to the personal philosophy of each government agent. But we cannot, of course, incorporate the entire theory of individual rights into the constitution.

So we have two basic choices:

1. State basic political principles into the constitution or a separate document.

2. Don't state political principles in any authoritative document (the constitution, or otherwise).

I'll have to give the two options more thoughts, but at this moment I believe the second option is far more dangerous than the first, simply from examining the history of the US constitution over the last 200 years. At least basic philosophical statements would make explicit and authoritative the original meaning and intent (purpose), and would thereby make the process of interpretation and application far less troublesome (and ambiguous).

[piz 0]

At least basic philosophical statements would make explicit and authoritative the original meaning and intent (purpose), and would thereby make the process of interpretation and application far less troublesome (and ambiguous).

←

What's wrong with simply beginning with the non-initiation of force principle (I'm going to refer to this as the NIFP from now on, just to save typing) and basing everything else on that? If force is banned, it doesn't matter what irrational ideas people might hold, they're prohibited from acting on them to anyone's detriment but their own. They can jump up and down and yell and scream all they want that we must help the poor, but they'll never be able to tax anyone to do it, and those of us who know better can ignore them without further concern, as they will be free to ignore us and give away their money until they're living on the street.

The NIFP solves a vast array of potential problems without having to state the entire philosophy behind it as part of the constitution. Perhaps a little to set a basic context, but it doesn't have to be much - maybe a good Preamble would be enough.

(I know this may sound like a reversal of my original position that principles should be included, but if the NIFP sufficiently bridges the gap, by acting as both a statement of principle and a legal basis, then it's not really a reversal but a refinement.)

[Betsy Speicher 0]

At least these principles are necessary:

• purpose of government
  
• definition of individual rights
  
• force and its three different forms, and how they relate to the protection and violation of individual rights
  

←

A nice, succinct statment about that, similar to some already mentioned here, should be included to replace the current Preamble in the Consitution. That, and a philosophically savvy populace, is all you need.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Without a well-crafted and definitive foundational document that states the nature of the government that is formed, implementation is meaningless.

←

That can be stated in the Preamble which might reference other philosophically foundational documents. How about AR's "Man's Rights?"