Author Topic: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?  (Read 3735 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Taxcontrol

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 651
  • Gender: Male
  • "Stupid should hurt" - Dad's wisdom
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #25 on: September 15, 2019, 02:05:21 am »
Any article you'd like to edit?

Amendment you'd like to add?

Repeal the 16th and replace with representative apportionment of taxes.  Prior years SPENDING is apportioned to each state according to the number of Senators and Representaties.  States are then free to tax their citizens as best fits their state.

This would in turn, be aided if accompanied by a repeal of the 17th as well

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,815
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #26 on: September 15, 2019, 02:22:34 am »
Repeal everything after word 5 of Amendment I.  Or in lieu of that, repeal Amendment XVII.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,397
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #27 on: September 15, 2019, 03:24:07 am »
Repeal everything after word 5 of Amendment I.  Or in lieu of that, repeal Amendment XVII.
I see what you did there.... :silly:

Actually, that would be a good start.

How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline The_Reader_David

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,275
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #28 on: September 15, 2019, 12:41:18 pm »
Repeal the popular election of senators and restore appointment by the states respectively.

I'm with you -- repeal the 17th!.

Though is we actually want to tinker, repealing the 16th and replacing it with an authorization for Congress to level a value added tax, and term limits on the House of Representatives. 
And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know what this was all about.

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,327
  • Gender: Male
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #29 on: September 15, 2019, 01:21:39 pm »
1. Eliminate the small amount of ambiguity in the 2nd amendment.
2. Strengthen the 4th amendment, in particular as it concerns property rights.
3. Strengthen the 10th amendment.
4. Eliminate the 16th amendment and all subsequent amendments.

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #30 on: September 15, 2019, 01:57:09 pm »
I'm with you -- repeal the 17th!.

Though is we actually want to tinker, repealing the 16th and replacing it with an authorization for Congress to level a value added tax, and term limits on the House of Representatives.

@The_Reader_David

"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,289
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #31 on: September 15, 2019, 02:17:20 pm »
I'm with you -- repeal the 17th!.

Though is we actually want to tinker, repealing the 16th and replacing it with an authorization for Congress to level a value added tax, and term limits on the House of Representatives.

I am all for a retail only VAT (less food and medical) - ONE point of taxation, one type of taxation, and no others.

But The 17th is the only amendment that structurally changed the board. I think returning the appointment of senators back to the states would go a very long way toward restoring state sovereignty  and federalism, which would in and of itself tend to inherently throttle the federal beast.

I think no other thing would be as beneficial.

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #32 on: September 15, 2019, 02:32:08 pm »
I am all for a retail only VAT (less food and medical) - ONE point of taxation, one type of taxation, and no others.

Which is EXACTLY what the FairTax is except we don't call it a VAT. It is a point of retail sale only sales tax and there are no exemptions.  The second you put an exemption in the door opens for the lobbyist to come back.

Quote
But The 17th is the only amendment that structurally changed the board. I think returning the appointment of senators back to the states would go a very long way toward restoring state sovereignty and federalism, which would in and of itself tend to inherently throttle the federal beast.


100% agree with that!  The founder's design was like a three-legged stool with the states being represented in the Senate, the people directly in the House, and the Executive running the day to day affairs of government.  Now the stool only has two legs and we've seen clearly how well that works.
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Elderberry

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,274
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #33 on: September 15, 2019, 02:40:18 pm »
I wouldn't touch it with a "Ten Foot Pole". Cause if I could change anything then there would be multi-millions lined up to make their changes.

Nothankyou.

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,289
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #34 on: September 15, 2019, 02:48:55 pm »
Which is EXACTLY what the FairTax is except we don't call it a VAT. It is a point of retail sale only sales tax and there are no exemptions.  The second you put an exemption in the door opens for the lobbyist to come back.

Right - You know you and I are pretty much in lockstep agreement on this issue. And I am a big proponent of Fair Tax ala Duncan Hunter Sr. I DO have reservations about taxing food and medical. Keeping those things out of the tax loop tends to keep basic living costs cheap, and better enforces the idea of being able to control your own contribution to taxes.

It also takes the weight off the poor wrt food and med - which I admit, is a mercy. But if one can do away with federal welfare programs, I think it an appropriate mercy, and I would rather that than the government programs creating that offset. Noting of course that with food and med off the books, that mercy is also extended to the rich and middle class...

And, if the 17th is repealed, the lobby is gone anyway, replaced with 50 lobbies, which is a whole lot harder to do. :)

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,916
  • Gender: Male
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #35 on: September 15, 2019, 03:39:08 pm »
I would lengthen and update the constitution’s name to: “The Dead White-Guys Traveling Road Show,” —in honor of the Millennium of Madness.

Name change sponsored by the AOC Charitable Brain Foundation.

Offline OfTheCross

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 739
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #36 on: September 15, 2019, 11:16:02 pm »
A lot of you are saying that you would like the Senators to be appointed by out State legislatures as opposed to being voted in by the people, but I don't see what difference it would make  :shrug:
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #37 on: September 15, 2019, 11:18:05 pm »
A lot of you are saying that you would like the Senators to be appointed by out State legislatures as opposed to being voted in by the people, but I don't see what difference it would make  :shrug:

And that is the problem! 
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,815
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #38 on: September 16, 2019, 12:26:06 am »
A lot of you are saying that you would like the Senators to be appointed by out State legislatures as opposed to being voted in by the people, but I don't see what difference it would make  :shrug:

Federalist 62 - James Madison:

It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation. But it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but “of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.” A common government, with powers equal to its objects, is called for by the voice, and still more loudly by the political situation, of America. A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.


In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.

Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger.
But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/federalist-paper-62-the-senate




After Amendment XVII was ratified, the States lost their voice in Congress.  Senators no longer represent their States.  Now they vote on a national and party scale and are put in power by campaign dollars provided by deep pockets in high population States that already enjoy disproportionate power in the House.  That is how you end up with a Senator from Colorado heading a subcommittee on Oceans.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline OfTheCross

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 739
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #39 on: September 16, 2019, 01:41:55 am »
And that is the problem!

If our State Houses appoint a Senator that we don't like, how do we hold the Senator accountable?

If the Senators are appointed by the State legislature's there's no reason for them to ever leave the State capital. Us citizens wouldn't have access to him/her and if we did he/she wouldn't care what we thought anyway because we're not his/her boss.


Federalist 62 - James Madison:

It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation. But it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but “of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.” A common government, with powers equal to its objects, is called for by the voice, and still more loudly by the political situation, of America. A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.


In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.

Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger.
But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/federalist-paper-62-the-senate




After Amendment XVII was ratified, the States lost their voice in Congress.  Senators no longer represent their States.  Now they vote on a national and party scale and are put in power by campaign dollars provided by deep pockets in high population States that already enjoy disproportionate power in the House. That is how you end up with a Senator from Colorado heading a subcommittee on Oceans.

Before this change, would that scenario, or something similar not happen? If so, it's not the Amendment, it's the Rules of the Senate Subcommittee Appointments that has to be changed.
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,815
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #40 on: September 16, 2019, 02:31:30 am »
If our State Houses appoint a Senator that we don't like, how do we hold the Senator accountable?

We elect new State House members since they - not the Senator - are the ones accountable.


If the Senators are appointed by the State legislature's there's no reason for them to ever leave the State capital. Us citizens wouldn't have access to him/her and if we did he/she wouldn't care what we thought anyway because we're not his/her boss.

I would have a lot better access to someone in my State Capital than I do someone who spends all their time in Washington, DC.  As for my current Senator, not only does he not care what I think now, he doesn't care what my State Legislators think either since his re-election is being bought and paid for by special interests outside my State.


Before this change, would that scenario, or something similar not happen? If so, it's not the Amendment, it's the Rules of the Senate Subcommittee Appointments that has to be changed.

Before this change, my Senator would be accountable to my State.  They would direct him/her towards committees that would benefit the State instead of benefiting his re-election.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline OfTheCross

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 739
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #41 on: September 16, 2019, 02:54:44 am »
We elect new State House members since they - not the Senator - are the ones accountable.


I would have a lot better access to someone in my State Capital than I do someone who spends all their time in Washington, DC.  As for my current Senator, not only does he not care what I think now, he doesn't care what my State Legislators think either since his re-election is being bought and paid for by special interests outside my State.


Before this change, my Senator would be accountable to my State.  They would direct him/her towards committees that would benefit the State instead of benefiting his re-election.

I think you've convinced me. Thanks for posting.

Although, the special interests will see their way to the politicians no matter what.

Actually, they might be better off by just focusing directly on the State capitals as opposed to having to do statewide campaigns.

Also, presumably Senators already try to get on subcommittees that benefit their States and re election chances or are in alignment with their area of expertise.

I think in the upcoming days I'm going to further research the history of that amendment
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,289
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #42 on: September 16, 2019, 05:21:54 am »
If our State Houses appoint a Senator that we don't like, how do we hold the Senator accountable?

If the Senators are appointed by the State legislature's there's no reason for them to ever leave the State capital. Us citizens wouldn't have access to him/her and if we did he/she wouldn't care what we thought anyway because we're not his/her boss.


I believe the senators were a gubernatorial appointment, by and large.
And that they would not be controlled by the US citizen is exactly the point. Their agency is an allegiance to the governor and thereby the state they were appointed from, and the sovereign interests thereof. And the governor can remove the senator at a whim to ensure that precisely.

And the citizen is not without recourse - If they do not like what the governor is doing, he's coming up for election soon, or he can be impeached if in dire violation.

Your question is actually bass ackwards: Since the popular vote for senators began, what representation does the state itself have in the federal government?

Offline The_Reader_David

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,275
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #43 on: September 16, 2019, 12:09:53 pm »
If our State Houses appoint a Senator that we don't like, how do we hold the Senator accountable?

Change the composition of the state legislature before six years come round again.

Under the current system, how do the states hold any aspect of the Federal government accountable?  The point of the original system was that the interests of the people were represented in the House, the interests of the several states represented in the Senate.  The original crew who called themselves "progressives" didn't like that arrangement because they, like the current crew using the same name, want a unitary state with (their) one-size-fits-all solutions dictated from Washington.  The Senate, as originally constituted, was a huge impediment to such plans.
And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know what this was all about.

Offline OfTheCross

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 739
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #44 on: September 16, 2019, 01:03:49 pm »
Change the composition of the state legislature before six years come round again.

Under the current system, how do the states hold any aspect of the Federal government accountable?  The point of the original system was that the interests of the people were represented in the House, the interests of the several states represented in the Senate.  The original crew who called themselves "progressives" didn't like that arrangement because they, like the current crew using the same name, want a unitary state with (their) one-size-fits-all solutions dictated from Washington.  The Senate, as originally constituted, was a huge impediment to such plans.

I believe the senators were a gubernatorial appointment, by and large.
And that they would not be controlled by the US citizen is exactly the point. Their agency is an allegiance to the governor and thereby the state they were appointed from, and the sovereign interests thereof. And the governor can remove the senator at a whim to ensure that precisely.

And the citizen is not without recourse - If they do not like what the governor is doing, he's coming up for election soon, or he can be impeached if in dire violation.

Your question is actually bass ackwards: Since the popular vote for senators began, what representation does the state itself have in the federal government?

That's just it, gentlemen, I'm of the impression that most all Senators in DC do things that are in the interest of their States, still.

The States are still represented. We see it often in times of emergency when our Senators request action, as did the Florida Senators during the recent storm.

But we digress...
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,289
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #45 on: September 16, 2019, 01:11:43 pm »
That's just it, gentlemen, I'm of the impression that most all Senators in DC do things that are in the interest of their States, still.

The States are still represented. We see it often in times of emergency when our Senators request action, as did the Florida Senators during the recent storm.

But we digress...

I do not agree at all, or they would be defending the sovereignty of their states respectively, and would not vote the federal state the power to subsume the states respectively. Now states are herded by federal money, either the granting thereof, or the withholding thereof, even as you portray - begging the federal government for aid. That should be the other way around.


Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,815
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #46 on: September 16, 2019, 06:03:44 pm »
There's a reason why this nation is called 'The United States of America', not the United Peoples of America.  Our Founding Fathers set up the Senate as the States' representation in our legislative branch.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline NavyCanDo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,494
  • Gender: Male
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #47 on: September 18, 2019, 12:55:51 am »
Write it with non-cursive lettering so millennials can read it. Include emojis if it helps.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2019, 12:56:43 am by NavyCanDo »
A nation that turns away from prayer will ultimately find itself in desperate need of it. :Jonathan Cahn

Offline bigheadfred

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,511
  • Gender: Male
  • One day Closer
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #48 on: September 18, 2019, 01:49:34 am »
Write it with non-cursive lettering so millennials can read it. Include emojis if it helps.

It should include the internet/texting, shorthand. No big words--u r right, etc.
She asked me name my foe then. I said the need within some men to fight and kill their brothers without thought of Love or God. Ken Hensley

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,397
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: What would you change about the U.S. Constitution ?
« Reply #49 on: September 18, 2019, 04:48:13 am »
John 11:35
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis