The constitution is open to exploitation. That is how we got where we are today. It doesn't clearly express citizen sovereignty. It is implied, but not stated. In fact, I think "pursuit of happiness" in the DoI in place of the original "Property" from John Locke on his treatise of Social Contract theory was put in purposefully by banker interests (Hamilton e.g.) as a potential exploitation.
By common law (precedence) only sovereigns can own land (own, as in can't be taken away whenever the government wants, like when you don't pay your lease payment (aka property tax), etc.). By not explicitly stating property ownership as an inalienable right in the spiritual predecessor to the constitution (DoI) it left open the opportunity for the government to be the sovereign to a vassal citizenry, even though that goes directly against the intention (or what I believe to be the intention) of the founding fathers.
This was further exacerbated in the Bill of Rights (end of fifth amendment) where it allowed for eminent domain. Eminent domain is an explicit statement of the government as a sovereign of a vassal citizenry. It is this precedence, set by the constitution that allows for all of the fuckery that has happened since. If the government is soveriegn, and the people are not, the Government can do whatever the fuck it wants. It is no longer a government of We The People (all individuals equal in legal status to the government (a group of individuals)), but a Government over We The People.
The Constitution has flaws. Its close, but it needs a little help to get to a government Of We The People.
Common law, and a derivative in Constitutional Law is fine, it just has to be a constitution that explicitly states that all citizens are the equal of the government. All sovereign, all equal.
There is no reason that a group of individuals (any group of individuals) should be legally higher than a single individual. That leads to mob rule and an inevitable loss of all freedoms (coercion of forfeiture of inalienable rights) for the individual.
Common law gets a bit bulky with all the precedents. Codification is useful as it provides a workable framework that can be applied across the board, but easily abused. The flaws to the constitution which you pointed out are manmade, human interference. Why not work with the original document and remove the options for human interference?
Why not work with the original document and remove the options for human interference?
That's a reasonable topic for debate. I was more spitballing than suggesting. My research has been more focused on the problem than the solution. At some point I will think about that more.
As for codification, if it is extremely simple it might be a good idea. For example, we really only need one law with regards to restrictions on a person (if one choses to be a party in the Social Contract):
If you directly infringe upon the rights of another there will be consequences.
It would require a little bit of elaboration for specific infringements, but I think this is essentially all you really need in code.
For example, for some infringements the penalty would have to be death (a forfeiture of the right to live). For others it could be community service or some other restitution for the aggrieved party. All the other laws just don't need to be there at all. Like, do we need speeding laws (which are a racket, even if they don't need to be), or should we rather inform people of the real hazards of speeding that aren't an obvious infringement on another's rights (like, for a school zone, the danger to others is difficult to deny, but for the freeway it isn't as clear, i.e. look at the autobahn) and let them choose?
I don't know. It's something that requires a fair bit of thinking and debate.
The constitution is open to exploitation. That is how we got where we are today. It doesn't clearly express citizen sovereignty. It is implied, but not stated. In fact, I think "pursuit of happiness" in the DoI in place of the original "Property" from John Locke on his treatise of Social Contract theory was put in purposefully by banker interests (Hamilton e.g.) as a potential exploitation.
By common law (precedence) only sovereigns can own land (own, as in can't be taken away whenever the government wants, like when you don't pay your lease payment (aka property tax), etc.). By not explicitly stating property ownership as an inalienable right in the spiritual predecessor to the constitution (DoI) it left open the opportunity for the government to be the sovereign to a vassal citizenry, even though that goes directly against the intention (or what I believe to be the intention) of the founding fathers.
This was further exacerbated in the Bill of Rights (end of fifth amendment) where it allowed for eminent domain. Eminent domain is an explicit statement of the government as a sovereign of a vassal citizenry. It is this precedence, set by the constitution that allows for all of the fuckery that has happened since. If the government is soveriegn, and the people are not, the Government can do whatever the fuck it wants. It is no longer a government of We The People (all individuals equal in legal status to the government (a group of individuals)), but a Government over We The People.
The Constitution has flaws. Its close, but it needs a little help to get to a government Of We The People.
What form of law would you support?
Common law, and a derivative in Constitutional Law is fine, it just has to be a constitution that explicitly states that all citizens are the equal of the government. All sovereign, all equal.
There is no reason that a group of individuals (any group of individuals) should be legally higher than a single individual. That leads to mob rule and an inevitable loss of all freedoms (coercion of forfeiture of inalienable rights) for the individual.
Common law gets a bit bulky with all the precedents. Codification is useful as it provides a workable framework that can be applied across the board, but easily abused. The flaws to the constitution which you pointed out are manmade, human interference. Why not work with the original document and remove the options for human interference?
That's a reasonable topic for debate. I was more spitballing than suggesting. My research has been more focused on the problem than the solution. At some point I will think about that more.
As for codification, if it is extremely simple it might be a good idea. For example, we really only need one law with regards to restrictions on a person (if one choses to be a party in the Social Contract):
It would require a little bit of elaboration for specific infringements, but I think this is essentially all you really need in code.
For example, for some infringements the penalty would have to be death (a forfeiture of the right to live). For others it could be community service or some other restitution for the aggrieved party. All the other laws just don't need to be there at all. Like, do we need speeding laws (which are a racket, even if they don't need to be), or should we rather inform people of the real hazards of speeding that aren't an obvious infringement on another's rights (like, for a school zone, the danger to others is difficult to deny, but for the freeway it isn't as clear, i.e. look at the autobahn) and let them choose?
I don't know. It's something that requires a fair bit of thinking and debate.