A Modern Constitutional Convention - Global or Local?

[doG]

Regulation and law is a bit separate from constitutional framework in my mind.

In the U.S. THE Constitution is the root of all law. Are you using 'constitution' with some other definition in the context of this thread? I thought the idea of a Global Constitutional Convention was aimed at creating a global body of law for all.

[JustinW]

You mean giving countries money to get them to join? That sounds weak and unsustainable to me. And if you give one country money they'll all want money. When you stop do they drop out?

No that isn't what I meant. (there i go again) I meant trade agreements and such. Incentives to strengthen their economies. I believe if a new convention were proposed, it would be with incentives to make money that would get most to listen. And I should bold the world listen. Just because the incentive is given doesn't mean that a country will agree. Another question I have is once this new constitution is in place, who'll will police it? Who will make sure that it is abided by?

 

 

My larger point (read: I'm giving you an out here, consider taking it) is that there is drastically more overlap and commonality in our rules and values with the rules and values of others than there is irresolvable differences... Like more than 90% if I were to guess.

I'm going to have to think about the percentage you've given. It seems awfully high. Just of the top of my head things like womens rights, governing ideology( as per religion), laws that go against a lot of Americans morals such as mandatory population control, child labor, freedom of speech and assembly, and there are some more I'm sure I could think of given some time and thought. It seems like redoing our constitution using such general outlines that wouldn't cover the irresolvable differences would be pointless and harmful. The rights given in our constitution do not have a global consensus, and to comprimise on such things is to go against our founding principles.

 

And as to doG's reply, I tend to agree. You would also have to look at environmental aspects, along with equal rights to everyone no matter what race, religion, or ethnicity. Some of these things, as Americans, we cannot comprimise with. There is no inbetween.

Edited January 2, 2012 by JustinW

[iNow]

In the U.S. THE Constitution is the root of all law. Are you using 'constitution' with some other definition in the context of this thread? I thought the idea of a Global Constitutional Convention was aimed at creating a global body of law for all.

The idea is that ... as you yourself allude... a constitution serves as the "root of all law." Although highly related, this is slightly different than laws and regulations themselves, IMO.

[JustinW]

The idea is that ... as you yourself allude... a constitution serves as the "root of all law." Although highly related, this is slightly different than laws and regulations themselves, IMO.

Although different, it is still the foundation and basis for those laws. Do you think the world would bend to our way of thinking when it comes to equal rights or the freedoms provided in our constitution... such as free speech, freedom of assembly, the right to bare arms, freedom of religion, etc...Would other countries institute their laws that follow those values? Edited January 2, 2012 by JustinW

[iNow]

Just of the top of my head things like womens rights, governing ideology( as per religion), laws that go against a lot of Americans morals such as mandatory population control, child labor, freedom of speech and assembly, and there are some more I'm sure I could think of given some time and thought. It seems like redoing our constitution using such general outlines that wouldn't cover the irresolvable differences would be pointless and harmful. The rights given in our constitution do not have a global consensus, and to comprimise on such things is to go against our founding principles.

One of the sticking points here seems to be that you are thinking of mapping the past constitution to the past rules of these other countries, while in parallel failing to take account the deeply grassroots democratic shifts taking place in these other countries right now. I'm not looking to map to their existing rules from the past into our existing framework. I'm looking to include them in the rules which reinforce freedoms the most... like freedom of speech, press, and religion, coupled with a balance of power and system of checks and balances. These are demands right now being made by vast swaths of people whom you seem to be readily dismissing in your calculations.

 

We're talking about building a world of the future, not the world of the past. I apologize for not being more clear, but at no point have I intended to suggest that some of our most important principles be compromised or reversed. I've intended to suggest that they be broadened and made more inclusive.

 

Do you think the world would bend to our way of thinking when it comes to equal rights or the freedoms provided in our constitution... such as free speech, freedom of assembly, the right to bare arms, freedom of religion, etc...

I think they've already been bending this way without any help from me.

[JustinW]

One of the sticking points here seems to be that you are thinking of mapping the past constitution to the past rules of these other countries, while in parallel failing to take account the deeply grassroots democratic shifts taking place in these other countries right now. I'm not looking to map to their existing rules from the past into our existing framework. I'm looking to include them in the rules which reinforce freedoms the most... like freedom of speech, press, and religion, coupled with a balance of power and system of checks and balances. These are demands right now being made by vast swaths of people whom you seem to be readily dismissing in your calculations.

 

We're talking about building a world of the future, not the world of the past. I apologize for not being more clear, but at no point have I intended to suggest that some of our most important principles be compromised or reversed. I've intended to suggest that they be broadened and made more inclusive.

Sorry I must have been typing while you responded here or I would have waited with my last post. With a new convention it would either mean other countries would have to change their fundamentals , we would have to change some of ours, or both. I don't see the US changing ours and even bbroadening our would be a matter of foreign policy not constitution change. Plus I don't see where other countries would adopt our fundamental principles. Yes I can take into concideration the movements that have risen up lately. Is Egypt a shining example of a non fundamentalist group taking power of government?The last I heard the brotherhood was on a rampage.

 

 

 

I still haven't heard anyone come up with a reason why we need to broaden our constitution rather than change our foreign policy. Maybe the question to this thread should be 'Do we need to change our foreign policy"

Edited January 2, 2012 by JustinW

[Phi for All]

I still haven't heard anyone come up with a reason why we need to broaden our constitution rather than change our foreign policy. Maybe the question to this thread should be 'Do we need to change our foreign policy"

I don't see it as broadening our Constitution so much as hammering out something that could act as a framework for a beginning global accord. There ARE some things that are universally meaningful to everyone on the planet and it's time we started moving in a concerted direction with regards to those things. We all need access to food, drinking water, energy, medicines and clean air. In a world with our abundance, I'm always horrified to think about the millions who starve to death every time we raise the price of corn in the US so we can make ethanol for our cars.

[doG]

The idea is that ... as you yourself allude... a constitution serves as the "root of all law." Although highly related, this is slightly different than laws and regulations themselves, IMO.

I tend to disagree with that point of view since any other laws and/or regulations would themselves need to be 'Constitutional'. Equal protection, for instance, is one aspect of our own Constitution that would need to ab applied equally to all nations and the citizens of those nations. Laws that give economic advantage to one nation as opposed to another would thus be unconstitutional.

[iNow]

I still haven't heard anyone come up with a reason why we need to broaden our constitution rather than change our foreign policy.

Have you ever clicked the links in my signature?

 

You can read it by clicking my username. You can watch/listen by clicking the centered text between the lines.

 

Laws that give economic advantage to one nation as opposed to another would thus be unconstitutional.

The idea of nations itself might be a bit outdated. Given the context of the discussion, would not countries be more akin to states (if we did do this globally)? Trading between the US and Singapore or India and Taiwan more akin to trading between New Mexico and Michigan?

[JustinW]

I don't see it as broadening our Constitution so much as hammering out something that could act as a framework for a beginning global accord. There ARE some things that are universally meaningful to everyone on the planet and it's time we started moving in a concerted direction with regards to those things. We all need access to food, drinking water, energy, medicines and clean air. In a world with our abundance, I'm always horrified to think about the millions who starve to death every time we raise the price of corn in the US so we can make ethanol for our cars.

 

Yes, I see what you're saying Phi, but I still don't see where that applies to our constitution. There is a need for the things you've mentioned and things do seem lop sided when you look at our waste compared to others needs. But the fact remains that the provisions necessary to help the growth and unity of the world don't need to come froma constitutional change. They can just as easily come from a change in foreign policy and the way that we deal with the world.

 

 

Have you ever clicked the links in my signature?

 

Sorry, when I went to it, it said there was a problem with the site's security certificate. Probably just a safe gaurd on my end though.

 

 

The idea of nations itself might be a bit outdated. Given the context of the discussion, would not countries be more akin to states (if we did do this globally)? Trading between the US and Singapore or India and Taiwan more akin to trading between New Mexico and Michigan?

 

This also brought another thing to mind. How would this affect the global market? I could see it helping the poorer nations that have something to trade, but I could also the market in general crashing hard over something like this.

[doG]

The idea of nations itself might be a bit outdated. Given the context of the discussion, would not countries be more akin to states (if we did do this globally)? Trading between the US and Singapore or India and Taiwan more akin to trading between New Mexico and Michigan?

Even if that were the case any favoritism to one state over another at the federal level is unconstitutional under the current U.S. Constitution's interstate commerce clause. Why then would it be OK to do that at a global level?

[iNow]

This also brought another thing to mind. How would this affect the global market? I could see it helping the poorer nations that have something to trade, but I could also the market in general crashing hard over something like this.

It is not my argument that things would remain unchanged if we did this. It is not my argument that things won't be bumpy. I don't know the answer to your question right now. The entire concept of trade would alter. The entire concept of markets might change. The entire concept of poor and rich might become outdated. We won't really be able to address questions as specific as those until we've at least agreed upon a basic framework.

 

In this discussion... In my mind, we're still talking about this from the 50,000 foot high level... a tree-top view at best... and your question is about blades of grass or what color paint to put on the 2nd floor guest bathroom towel warmer. We're still talking about surveying the land for placement options and determining what type of foundation to pour.

 

I've not spent enough time thinking deeply about this yet. It was a question which occurred to me that I thought would generate interesting discussion and aid in understanding... for me and for others... and that it has. I bet there are people out there who truly CAN answer your questions accurately, authentically, and ably right now, but I'm not one of them. However, I'm certain that nothing in those challenges you and doG cite is fatal to the idea itself. If we can precisely define the problem, then we can find a solution (or several). I have zero doubt about that.

 

People in other parts of the world are FAR more like us than different. I've worked with multinational colleagues and traveled for enough years to know this beyond a shadow of a doubt. The internet has flattened the world, and we can connect with each other in ways never before possible, and we can see just how much overlap there is in the human experience and in the deep yearning for similar freedoms and ideals. Of course there are outliers and counter examples, but the margins are tightening and the core we share with one another is more robust than ever before. Events of just the past few years have shown that the thirst for democracy is so strong that people are again willing to die for it, willing to put their families in harms way to overcome the dictators and despots that have for decades prevented them from being free, educated, and prosperous.

 

My thinking on this is that now is as good a time as any to seize on that momentum and take rational, reasonable, and visionary steps to bring humanity across the planet together using a system of shared values, ideals, and protections. Now is the time to find a way to maximize this existence for the maximum number of people... and to share the freedoms that so many of us have come to take for granted with the vast majority of homosapiens who have for far too long yearned for them and been beaten down for doing so.

 

Think bigger... This is about more than "better foreign policy."

 

 

 

 

Sorry, when I went to it, it said there was a problem with the site's security certificate. Probably just a safe gaurd on my end though.

Let me help, then.

 

 

 

https://planetary.org/bluedot_poster.html

 

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there-on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

 

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

 

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

 

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

 

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

 

.

 

 

 

 

Even if that were the case any favoritism to one state over another at the federal level is unconstitutional under the current U.S. Constitution's interstate commerce clause. Why then would it be OK to do that at a global level?

I don't recall arguing for favoritism of any kind. Unsure how to respond to this.

[doG]

My larger point (read: I'm giving you an out here, consider taking it) is that there is drastically more overlap and commonality in our rules and values with the rules and values of others than there is irresolvable differences... Like more than 90% if I were to guess.

 

So, as a small stepping stone, it should be relatively easy to get everyone to sign a global anti-pollution treaty like Kyoto without any exemptions for any countries?

 

That is an economic question, not one of shared values. Regulation and law is a bit separate from constitutional framework in my mind.

 

In the U.S. THE Constitution is the root of all law. Are you using 'constitution' with some other definition in the context of this thread? I thought the idea of a Global Constitutional Convention was aimed at creating a global body of law for all.

 

The idea is that ... as you yourself allude... a constitution serves as the "root of all law." Although highly related, this is slightly different than laws and regulations themselves, IMO.

 

I tend to disagree with that point of view since any other laws and/or regulations would themselves need to be 'Constitutional'. Equal protection, for instance, is one aspect of our own Constitution that would need to ab applied equally to all nations and the citizens of those nations. Laws that give economic advantage to one nation as opposed to another would thus be unconstitutional.

 

Given the context of the discussion, would not countries be more akin to states (if we did do this globally)? Trading between the US and Singapore or India and Taiwan more akin to trading between New Mexico and Michigan?

 

Even if that were the case any favoritism to one state over another at the federal level is unconstitutional under the current U.S. Constitution's interstate commerce clause. Why then would it be OK to do that at a global level?

 

I don't recall arguing for favoritism of any kind. Unsure how to respond to this.

Considering the discussion leading up to this...

 

Again, as a small stepping stone, it should be relatively easy to get everyone to sign a global anti-pollution treaty like Kyoto without any exemptions for any countries? That you see this question as economic does not render it impertinent.

[iNow]

Again, as a small stepping stone, it should be relatively easy to get everyone to sign a global anti-pollution treaty like Kyoto without any exemptions for any countries? That you see this question as economic does not render it impertinent.

Maybe I'm being daft, but how is the signing of a treaty like Kyoto equivalent to implementing global protections for freedom of speech, religion, etc? If we truly operated under a single global government... following a global constitution... there would be a body in charge of implementing and enforcing these rules. There would be jurisdictions, and most likely some sort of supremacy clause much like we have today in Article 6 of the US constitution which establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law.

 

Would everybody like it? No, but South Carolina didn't like it when we tried to end slavery, either. We still did so successfully, precisely because there was a system of hierarchical powers, checks, and balances in place.

 

Again... I'm not here claiming it would be easy, just possible.

[doG]

Maybe I'm being daft, but how is the signing of a treaty like Kyoto equivalent to implementing global protections for freedom of speech, religion, etc? If we truly operated under a single global government... following a global constitution... there would be a body in charge of implementing and enforcing these rules. There would be jurisdictions, and most likely some sort of supremacy clause much like we have today in Article 6 of the US constitution which establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law.

 

Would everybody like it? No, but South Carolina didn't like it when we tried to end slavery, either. We still did so successfully, precisely because there was a system of hierarchical powers, checks, and balances in place.

The point is that we can't currently get global agreement on that one issue with equal protection for all nations. If the global community can't agree on that one issue it should be obvious that the multitude of other issues that would need to be agreed upon by all would just compound the problem. The U.S. would likely be insistent that an international Constitution would bar cruel and unusual punishment, grant equal rights to women, grant equal protection to all world citizens, etc. It seems to me an unachievable goal in our lifetime.

[JustinW]

Maybe I'm being daft, but how is the signing of a treaty like Kyoto equivalent to implementing global protections for freedom of speech, religion, etc? If we truly operated under a single global government... following a global constitution... there would be a body in charge of implementing and enforcing these rules. There would be jurisdictions, and most likely some sort of supremacy clause much like we have today in Article 6 of the US constitution which establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law.

There is also another problem to look at that are not blades of grass. If the global government laws take precedent over laws of nations then any conflict incited by a nation against the global government could result in world war. What are nations to do once they feel that a global government is getting too corrupt. Once you impliment a global government there is no going back. I don't want to seem like a glass half empty sort of person, but you can't look at the positive without looking at the possibility of the negative.

[Phi for All]

There is also another problem to look at that are not blades of grass. If the global government laws take precedent over laws of nations then any conflict incited by a nation against the global government could result in world war. What are nations to do once they feel that a global government is getting too corrupt. Once you impliment a global government there is no going back. I don't want to seem like a glass half empty sort of person, but you can't look at the positive without looking at the possibility of the negative.

If a nation had agreed to a certain global law and to be governed by them all, why would that nation break the law and risk global reprisal? Your argument sounds more like the laws were imposed upon the country in question, rather than ratified by them.

 

What would a state in the US do if they felt the federal government had become corrupt? Do you think they would leap to waging war?

 

Again, if the benefits are large enough, why would any country want to jeopardize a global accord?

[JustinW]

A government that is given enough power will always have it's corruption. And once a world government is instituted who's to say what they will do in the future once given the power. Maybe they will start to impose on countries for the sake of profit as you've mentioned before. Once a form of global government is accepted by a majority of the world the rest would have no choice but to follow suit. That I consider an imposition even though indirect.

 

 

 

What would a state in the US do if they felt the federal government had become corrupt? Do you think they would leap to waging war?

It happened with slavery. Not to say that slavery was right, it is merely an example of states going to war over government instituting laws that they felt weren't right. And I feel that if the corruption got bad enough to infringe on the liberty of that state, that yes they would. Here in Texas secession was talked about, here and there, over the last several years. Although it was a stupid thing to even suggest, it shows how strong people believe in their liberties.

 

 

Again, if the benefits are large enough, why would any country want to jeopardize a global accord?

The risk of opening pandora's box. If a global government ever got out of hand, it would be devistating for the globe. If they did who could oppose without global conflict. It would be up to that global government to play nice and be diplomatic. As it stands now, if my country got to a point where I could no longer live in it, I have the option (however hard) to move to another that is more acceptable. With a global government you have nowhere to go. Edited January 3, 2012 by JustinW

[Phi for All]

A government that is given enough power will always have it's corruption. And once a world government is instituted who's to say what they will do in the future once given the power. Maybe they will start to impose on countries for the sake of profit as you've mentioned before. Once a form of global government is accepted by a majority of the world the rest would have no choice but to follow suit. That I consider an imposition even though indirect.

I think you're imposing today's conditions on a constitution that is probably many years distant. I know you're playing devil's advocate, but now you're simply saying it won't work rather than considering how it might work.

 

It happened with slavery. Not to say that slavery was right, it is merely an example of states going to war over government instituting laws that they felt weren't right. And I feel that if the corruption got bad enough to infringe on the liberty of that state, that yes they would. Here in Texas secession was talked about, here and there, over the last several years. Although it was a stupid thing to even suggest, it shows how strong people believe in their liberties.

Rather a special case though, one that resulted from a reinterpretation of what constituted being a man (human) with equal rights. The lesson was learned when the reinterpretation pertained to women several decades later.

 

The risk of opening pandora's box. If a global government ever got out of hand, it would be devistating for the globe. If they did who could oppose without global conflict. It would be up to that global government to play nice and be diplomatic. As it stands now, if my country got to a point where I could no longer live in it, I have the option (however hard) to move to another that is more acceptable. With a global government you have nowhere to go.

I feel the US government has gotten out of hand. I hope it can be corrected peacefully, but I think correction needs to be a viable option the people must ALWAYS have whether a government is national or global. Correction was devastating to Gaddafi, but not to Libya. Why would correcting a world government have to be devastating for the world?

[iNow]

I know you're playing devil's advocate, but now you're simply saying it won't work rather than considering how it might work.

This has been my problem with Justin and doG's position from the start. Instead of exploring possible ways to make it work, they seem content to simply assert that it cannot.

[JustinW]

I think you're imposing today's conditions on a constitution that is probably many years distant. I know you're playing devil's advocate, but now you're simply saying it won't work rather than considering how it might work.

 

I see your point. I just thought it might be valid to look at some of the ramifications if things did go south with such a government.

 

 

Rather a special case though, one that resulted from a reinterpretation of what constituted being a man (human) with equal rights. The lesson was learned when the reinterpretation pertained to women several decades later.

Agreed. It was just an example of how badly things can be handled when political feelings get hurt.

 

 

I feel the US government has gotten out of hand. I hope it can be corrected peacefully, but I think correction needs to be a viable option the people must ALWAYS have whether a government is national or global. Correction was devastating to Gaddafi, but not to Libya. Why would correcting a world government have to be devastating for the world?

Correction for Lybia is the best thing for Lybia in the long run. But was devestating to the people that suffered along the way. It couldn't be done without violent conflict. That is what I was saying about a global government. Creating a possibility for a correction of such a magnitude would lead to global conflict which would cause people to suffer around the world. The bigger the problem, the bigger the conflict in most cases.

 

This has been my problem with Justin and doG's position from the start. Instead of exploring possible ways to make it work, they seem content to simply assert that it cannot.

I believe I have. Though probably not enough. I guess I am just a pessimist. I'll try to be less of one in the future. The OP was "convention, local or global" and I origionally thought, why at all? The problems I've heard presented aren't constitutional problems from an American's stand point. The only things that I've heard that applied to constitutionallity would be for other countries to adopt one that is closer to ours. So you can see where I could be pessimistic about change in the US constitution when it is unecessary when not hearing any problems that fall under constitutionallity as it applies to America's problems.

 

No that isn't what I meant. (there i go again) I meant trade agreements and such. Incentives to strengthen their economies. I believe if a new convention were proposed, it would be with incentives to make money that would get most to listen. And I should bold the world listen. Just because the incentive is given doesn't mean that a country will agree.

 

This is where I gave one way to start with.

Edited January 3, 2012 by JustinW

[Phi for All]

This has been my problem with Justin and doG's position from the start. Instead of exploring possible ways to make it work, they seem content to simply assert that it cannot.

I think many people who are relatively content with their lifestyles might interpret a global government as a great deal of change for the worse. Or perhaps some in more economically advantaged countries view any kind of globalization as necessarily downgrading them to equalize the world's occupants.

 

I don't see globalization as making everyone the same. A global Constitution should simply be a framework for allowing countries to accept the fact that there are some things that affect humanity as a whole, to prepare for global eventualities on an equal basis and to devote a certain portion of their national resources towards humans as a species.

[JustinW]

The reason I haven't given as many reasons for this thing to work is that no one has convinced me that it can or needs to in a way such as global government. I have suggested a change in foreign policy for this precise reason.

 

A global Constitution should simply be a framework for allowing countries to accept the fact that there are some things that affect humanity as a whole

 

And what is it that our constitution doesn't provide that would allow for this? I don't see the need to change our constitution to fit this frame work. Like I've said before, I think these are good intentions that we need to apply to our future goals. We could fix these things through foreign policies rather than constitutional redrafting. The fact that I am opposed to a global government is due to the fact that it could turn as bad just as quickly as it could be good. To consider the possibility of success you also have to consider the possibility of failure. Why risk such a big possibility of failure when you could accomplish all of these objectives through other means. Also it sounds that the frame work you want for the world would intail those already provided by our own.

[iNow]

The fact that I am opposed to a global government is due to the fact that it could turn as bad just as quickly as it could be good. To consider the possibility of success you also have to consider the possibility of failure. Why risk such a big possibility of failure when you could accomplish all of these objectives through other means.

Exactly. Why risk being cut off from England when we could accomplish these same things under colonial rule? It sounds like the framework you want for us is already provided by George III. What is it in his rule that doesn't provide for this already? Nobody has convinced me it's a good idea to split from England, and I propose instead that we work with the lords and governors to alter the existing policies instead.

 

 

Now that I've removed my tongue from my cheek, I wonder what our non-US members think about this prospect...

[JustinW]

Exactly. Why risk being cut off from England when we could accomplish these same things under colonial rule?

Freedom. And at the time it could never be accomplished under English rule. I don't believe I've heard anything that couldn't be solved through other methods, or how you think our current framework stifles the objectives that were layed out. You just state that we need an updated frame work without explaining WHY. If our current framework stifles the objects you have set forth through this change, please, by all means share. Untill that time I can't agree that we need this sort of change or that the objectives can't be reached under our current framework.