ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

A proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution

Gawain_VIII

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 191

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 7:11 am

1. As the right of each person to live in accordance with its normal cultural morés is considered sacred, no government agency or employee may interfere with the normal and healthy development of foreign life and culture.


2. Congress shall make no law authorizing the United States of America to intervene in matters which are essentially the domestic jurisdiction of any foreign social system, but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Article I, Section 8.


3. This principle takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.


Basically, it says the US government can't interfere with other nations, even if we don't like what they're doing, no matter how much we hate it. If its not our country, it's not our business, end of subject. The only exception are those outlined in Article I, section 8: DECLARED warfare, international commerce, and treaties.


Yes, it is adapted from the Prime Directive.  What do you think, would you support this?


ROBERT CHARLES GRAHAM, Vice Admiral
U.S.S Gawain NCC-91980
Commanding Officer, Frontier Fleet
sto-frontier-fleet.proboards.com

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 9:23 am

Being a Libertarian, I fully endorse the Prime Directive, because it is a restatement of the non-aggression principle, the core of Libertarian philosphy. I would argue that the Prime Directive is already embedded in the Constitution, as the Constitution protects private property and does not grant the government the power to create a central bank, the means by which to intervene and control an economy. I would back the Prime Directive, as a Constitutional Amendment, for purposes of making the non-aggression principle explicit. 

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 9:39 am

Sounds like you're suggesting we make foreign aid unConstitutional.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46296

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 9:46 am

Sadly, while most of us would probably agree with it (and as Lone Palm stated, is really already in the Constitution,) our government has long ignored the principles of the Constitution and did what it wanted.


Does anyone really think that something, even written as an amendment, would have stopped Obama from interfering with Kenya's new Constitution?  (Which violated the existing Siljander Amendment.)


 


 


As Rep. Clyburn quite arrogantly stated, "There's nothing in the Constitution that says the Federal Government has got anything to do with most of the stuff that we do."


 


Even when things are explicitly stated in the Constitution, the government continues to attack it (or ignore it, depending on the circumstance.)

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46296

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 10:43 am

What I wrote in another thread makes a point for here.  Take a look at many of the things the government does nowadays to the states, even though the 10th Amendment is quite obvious.


The UFP is very much like the USA.  In the UFP, each world was sovereign.  That's the same with the individual states in the USA - they are sovereign.  The UFP could not interfere with the internal workings of their member worlds (or non-members.)  This also applies here to the USA with regard to member states or non-member countries.

Gawain_VIII

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 191

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 11:00 am

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Feb. 27 2013, 9:39 am

>Sounds like you're suggesting we make foreign aid unConstitutional.


It will effectively do that... The federal government could no longer provide financial or military assistance to foriegn nations.  It does not restrict, however, private citizens, corporations, or extra-governmental agencies from doing so on their own, if they so desire.


Consider: the amount of benefit recieved in Haiti from the US government vs. private US charities. Haiti's recovery would have been aided more swiftly if they did not have to deal with the regulating strings attached with every foriegn aid package our government carries.  We (the government) provided only 12% of total aid, private US charities gave 75%+... the remainder were from other nations.


ROBERT CHARLES GRAHAM, Vice Admiral
U.S.S Gawain NCC-91980
Commanding Officer, Frontier Fleet
sto-frontier-fleet.proboards.com

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46296

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 11:40 am

Quote: Gawain_VIII @ Feb. 27 2013, 11:00 am

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Feb. 27 2013, 9:39 am

>

>Sounds like you're suggesting we make foreign aid unConstitutional.

It will effectively do that... The federal government could no longer provide financial or military assistance to foriegn nations.  It does not restrict, however, private citizens, corporations, or extra-governmental agencies from doing so on their own, if they so desire.

Consider: the amount of benefit recieved in Haiti from the US government vs. private US charities. Haiti's recovery would have been aided more swiftly if they did not have to deal with the regulating strings attached with every foriegn aid package our government carries.  We (the government) provided only 12% of total aid, private US charities gave 75%+... the remainder were from other nations.

Which is why the USA is known as the most charitable nation in the world.  In most cases, we give more than every nation combined, yet when bad things happen to the USA, how many others are charitable to us?  This is the mindset of the individuals of the USA - help others out of choice.

Sehlat123

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 496

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 2:04 pm

Quote: Gawain_VIII @ Feb. 27 2013, 11:00 am

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Feb. 27 2013, 9:39 am

>

>Sounds like you're suggesting we make foreign aid unConstitutional.

It will effectively do that... The federal government could no longer provide financial or military assistance to foriegn nations.  It does not restrict, however, private citizens, corporations, or extra-governmental agencies from doing so on their own, if they so desire.

Consider: the amount of benefit recieved in Haiti from the US government vs. private US charities. Haiti's recovery would have been aided more swiftly if they did not have to deal with the regulating strings attached with every foriegn aid package our government carries.  We (the government) provided only 12% of total aid, private US charities gave 75%+... the remainder were from other nations.


I see where you're going with that, but I must say that I dissagree. I do think it is wrong to go into another country's civil war, and take over, as we did in a few places, unless we are direct allies, or one side is threatening our national security. Getting involved with Egypt's or Libya's or anyone's own civil war isn't really worth it. We should just let them settle their own problems, unless they threaten us and our allies.


But foriegn aid, that is a good thing. Why should we be isolationists? If someone is in danger, would you help him/her/it, or would you just say "not my problem, I'll let someone else deal with it?" I think you really should help countries in need. Not to take them over, just to help them recover.


The one thing I really dissagree with Ron Paul in is his foriegn policy. We have allies throughout the world- Isreal, to name one. And Iran is developing nuclear weapons to wipe them out. Should we not work with Isreal to keep their enemy from doing that? It's not only foolish, it's short-sided. Iran doesn't like us either. Do you think they will stop with one country? No, they'll start wiping out all their enemies. And since we aren't a muslim nation, we are their enemy.


So basically, no. We need to help those in need.


"Borg. Sounds Swedish."

Gawain_VIII

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 191

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 2:36 pm

Quote: Sehlat123 @ Feb. 27 2013, 2:04 pm

>I see where you're going with that, but I must say that I dissagree. I do think it is wrong to go into another country's civil war, and take over, as we did in a few places, unless we are direct allies, or one side is threatening our national security. Getting involved with Egypt's or Libya's or anyone's own civil war isn't really worth it. We should just let them settle their own problems, unless they threaten us and our allies.

>But foriegn aid, that is a good thing. Why should we be isolationists? If someone is in danger, would you help him/her/it, or would you just say "not my problem, I'll let someone else deal with it?" I think you really should help countries in need. Not to take them over, just to help them recover.

>The one thing I really dissagree with Ron Paul in is his foriegn policy. We have allies throughout the world- Isreal, to name one. And Iran is developing nuclear weapons to wipe them out. Should we not work with Isreal to keep their enemy from doing that? It's not only foolish, it's short-sided. Iran doesn't like us either. Do you think they will stop with one country? No, they'll start wiping out all their enemies. And since we aren't a muslim nation, we are their enemy.

>So basically, no. We need to help those in need.


Concerning military interventionism--agreed.


With respect to financial aid--we are agreed in that we should help those in need.  Where we disagree is that we (individuals) should choose to do so of our own accord but not be forced to via taxes and government giving those taxes away, in our name, without our concent.


As far as allies go... yes, I agree in principal, however I counter that we have been allies to many, many nations... they, on the other hand, have not been our allies in return.


As far as Iran goes--that was a direct result of our interference in an internal domestic issue.  The moderate, democratically elected, secular (non-Islamist, non-extremist) government of Iran (who, at the time, was a trading partner with the west) instituted a domestic policy which our ally, the UK, opposed.  We then initiated a coup-de-tat to install the Shah in order to nullify that policy.  The Shah was so unpopular that the people of Iran revolted, deposed the Shah, and formed the current Islamist government led by the Ayatollah.  NONE of that would have happend if something like this were in place.  Which, as the dominos fall, logically follows that the Iran/Iraq war would never have started which led to the Iran-Contra affair, which caused Iran to strike trade deals with the USSR, leading to their close relationship with Afghanistan, and later the Taliban resulting in the current, immediate threats to Israel, Turkey, and the NATO nations.


Non-interventionism is NOT the same as, in fact, is directly oposed to, isolationism.


ROBERT CHARLES GRAHAM, Vice Admiral
U.S.S Gawain NCC-91980
Commanding Officer, Frontier Fleet
sto-frontier-fleet.proboards.com

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46296

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 2:50 pm

Quote: Sehlat123 @ Feb. 27 2013, 2:04 pm

>But foriegn aid, that is a good thing. Why should we be isolationists? If someone is in danger, would you help him/her/it, or would you just say "not my problem, I'll let someone else deal with it?" I think you really should help countries in need. Not to take them over, just to help them recover.
Not getting involved isn't isolation - it's just not intervening from a government perspective.  It doesn't mean that individuals can't help.


There are many countries around the world that don't like the USA just because our government funded something in different countries.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 3:41 pm

Does anyone really think that something, even written as an amendment, would have stopped Obama from interfering with Kenya's new Constitution?  (Which violated the existing Siljander Amendment.) 


 


Even when things are explicitly stated in the Constitution, the government continues to attack it (or ignore it, depending on the circumstance.)


Sadly, you are correct, and I do not believe that any Amendment would stop those eager to violate it. Same holds true for a balanced budget amendment, which is arguably listed in Article I, Section 8.


 

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 4:15 pm

But foriegn aid, that is a good thing.


 


Why is foreign aid, or rather paying for another's government, a good thing? The government can really on offer money, which can be converted into any number of undesirable outcomes based on who receives that money. But private organizations can donate their time and resources in a manner that best helps foreign individuals, as opposed to foreign governments that dilute or withhold the aid for political gain. 


 


Why should we be isolationists? If someone is in danger, would you help him/her/it, or would you just say "not my problem, I'll let someone else deal with it?" I think you really should help countries in need. Not to take them over, just to help them recover.


 


As Gawain and BamBam already said, the term "isolationist" is a misnomer. Government can only intervene at a cost to its citizenry. For example, the U.S. Gov issues economic sanctions against a foreign country. A sanction is a restriction upon free trade and voluntary associations. It is an imposition for both the occupants of the foreign country and for U.S. citizens, as sanctions impose upon their right to voluntary assocations. The government is excluding private interation in order to monopolize interaction for itself. Any limitation placed upon free trade is a form of isolationism. 


 


Foreign aid cannot be considered a form of free-trade, because foreign aid, when from government, is derived from taxes. Taxation is mandated by government and is therefore an involuntary act. 


 


The one thing I really dissagree with Ron Paul in is his foriegn policy. We have allies throughout the world- Isreal, to name one. And Iran is developing nuclear weapons to wipe them out. Should we not work with Isreal to keep their enemy from doing that? It's not only foolish, it's short-sided. Iran doesn't like us either. Do you think they will stop with one country? No, they'll start wiping out all their enemies. And since we aren't a muslim nation, we are their enemy.


As far as Israel is concerned, Israel was founded on the principle of Zionism, which stresses sovereignty. But foreign aid undermines Israel's sovereignty, because foreign aid comes with strings attached. Israel has to come to the U.S. for permission to do this or that... It's in Israel's best interest to reject foreign aid and stand on its own. Otherwise, Israel will always be perceived as being weak for being propt up by a foreign government.


Ron Paul's foreign policy is a "policy of peace, friendship, and trade, and no intervention..." (Paul, R. Liberty Defined, 2011). What is to disagree with that?


Iran is not going to go wiping out their enemies, because their enemies are capable of retaliation. Iran wants nukes, because of the bargaining power that will follow. The U.S. negotiates with armed countries, but pushes around unarmed countries. It's logically for Iran to want to have a nuclear weapon under those circumstances. I don't advocate or condone Iran having a nuclear weapon, but I understand them wanting one. 


 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46296

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 6:00 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 27 2013, 4:15 pm

>Iran is not going to go wiping out their enemies, because their enemies are capable of retaliation. Iran wants nukes, because of the bargaining power that will follow. The U.S. negotiates with armed countries, but pushes around unarmed countries. It's logically for Iran to want to have a nuclear weapon under those circumstances. I don't advocate or condone Iran having a nuclear weapon, but I understand them wanting one. 
I'm not so sure that Iran wouldn't preemptively strike, especially if some religious leader called for it.  It may only be rhetoric right now, but does anyone think that Hitler wouldn't have used them if he had one?


And remember that Israel has been their enemy for thousands of years.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 7:18 pm

The U.S. has a safety net of two oceans and mulitple countries, so any direct threat to the U.S. itself is minimized. And perhaps I'm desensitized from all the times the government has falsely cried wolf to aggrandize its power, but that's a risk the government takes when it lies repeatedly to its citizenry. 


As to Hitler, he was a gambler and that is a significant factor when accounting for his likelihood to use a nuclear weapon. 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46296

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 7:28 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 27 2013, 7:18 pm

>

>The U.S. has a safety net of two oceans and mulitple countries, so any direct threat to the U.S. itself is minimized. And perhaps I'm desensitized from all the times the government has falsely cried wolf to aggrandize its power, but that's a risk the government takes when it lies repeatedly to its citizenry.
With our open border.....


al Qaeda has been using Mexico to enter the USA for quite a while.  And think about the amount of other items (drugs) that is being smuggled.  With technology the way it is, a device the size of a backpack can kill a lot of people.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum