Then just produce an environment where people will cry out for it. In doing so, they will restore it for you. It's that simple.
However, I'm not here solely to restore that document to it's full power. That's "one" goal, but if pressed hard enough, I see it as having a few flaws in it as well. Take, for example, the fact that it 'allowed' the chain of events to occur that eventually corrupted it's use in the first place. There are more but here are a few ways it could have prevented some of those.
It could have delineated a rock solid difference between free speech and bribery. Had it done that, or should it still be possible, it would settle a lot once and for all.
It could have enshrined more popular power in the legislative branch as coming straight from the people. Perhaps this means the power to quickly or easily recall representatives or to better gather the will of the people in fir making the laws (a feat much easier today than two centuries ago). Maybe this just means a better way to hold the SCOTUS to their oaths. I don't know but the point is that 'the people' do and a technical, non-emotional debate should be part of that decision.
It could have simply clarified better the two most misinterpreted phrases present in it: Those being the general welfare clause and monetary stance. Just think if those were kept pristine in meaning.
My point is that we should focus on the intent of this law of our land and not get distracted in arguing the derivative meanings that can be taken away from it. Personally, I think technology has advanced to the point where we could better benefit from a technological representation, rather than a human proxy. That's not to say we should tamper with it being operated on a rule of law system, but rather tweak the 'how' of how laws are created. If it is given that people do prosper with less government (as proven by our examples above) then that is what the people will ultimately call for.
Of course, to grasp that potential fully, one must envision another free market change. That being that we offered and adopted a genuine alternative media which became well known and trusted as providing us with unbiased news. That too, I believe is in existence in part. We just need to sort out some details and coalesce behind one.
It is this kind of direction by an enlightened few that get it which I feel should be the new focus for this site. I know of no other group (and I belong to a ton of 'em) with the broad and detailed understanding necessary to take it on.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site ma