Clayton
Well, I’ve actually thought about this. I wrote a somewhat lengthy article on the subject of law here… I am as averse to wishful thinking as you are but YMMV.
I apologize for my lack of tech savvy and mastery of net/law lingo; but I couldn’t access the webpage via that link, and I don’t know what YMMV stands for. (I also apologize for the tardy reply; but my workdays start at 4 a.m.)
The obvious answer to progress is simple political disaggregation, that is, secession. And something like your proposed constitution could be of use in this, providing a framework for ever-smaller political units to look to as they face the problem of how to build their own local government that is consistent with the laws and norms to which they have long been accustomed.
Thank you for your integrity. I gratefully accept your ringing endorsement?
Under the territorial monopolistic system of national statutory law we have today, there is no to each his own, there’s to each whatever the Powers That Be say there will be
This forces our discussion back toward the question of whether it is safe and settled enough in the modern world, vis a vis, control of resources and respect for existing property claims, that the national state/military apparatus could be freely dismantled, perhaps dividing its components between the States, as a preliminary. Most would argue that divided control is decreased control; divided ownership is weakened ownership. I’m afraid I’m still in that camp, with respect to a modern military/nuclear arsenal; and I gather that you never were, and never will be. But clearly I would not have re-written the Constitution in such a way as to establish local legal determinism if I opposed the dismantling of Congress, or the body of federal statutory law that it has imposed. And, furthermore, if the natural result of granting people the right to rewrite their laws led to that very dismantling of the national military/statutory apparatus, so be it. I’ll stand or die with their democratic choice.