echelon1k1
New Member
Sounds like a metaphor for your current healthcare system...
Want to change the government?
- Thread starter Dislexicmidget2021
- Start date
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
No representative goverment
Dislexicmidget2021
Well-Known Member
Ok, Canndo,first I have to ask,Are you in favor of constitutional restoration?
Second,What would you view as the solution to the lobbyism that happens in the elections in this nation?I listed the Voter ID proposal,because the voting system in this country has a tendency to conveniantly miscount votes that are being processed in the primary elections.I.E. the second term Bush that really shouldnt have happened yet did,yes this a small tangent aside from the constitutional restoration ideal that I hold,but it is a necessary cog in the proper procession for electing people to office and the number of voters to be clarified district by district and eliminate gerrymandering issues.I merely wish to inform others about the fact that we can bypass congress by law through the constitution.
Supporting a weaker Government?NO, a decentralized Government ,Yes.I listed only a few proposals,,,The whole point would be to bring those specific proposals to an ammendments convention and put them on the docket where they can be voted on,I certainly would not be the only Citizen making those proposals if the convention were to take place.
Youre treating my Op as if I am suggesting the foundation for the perfect Utopia and I feel that is unfair of you.
The intended course that the forefathers engineered is aptly obvious within the laws of the constitution,,,im sure you already know this.There are alot more people than you think who take issue with the governments conduct and affairs,you should be concerned as well.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Am I in favor of a restoration? I really don't know. It is possible but it is the long way around if you want to do it according to amendment proceedure.
So far as elections are concerned, money should be eliminated, all election monies should come equally from federal funds, with donations from individuals not to exceed $1000, Period. All candidates should get an equal amount of time on radio and TV and there should be no collateral groups of any kind. Now that is radical enough to call upon the details of the first amendment to be changed.
I can't see your voter ID amendment being a part of Federal jurisdiction even though I hold that voter ID requirements are inherently unconstitutional.
I do not believe that the problem is strong government, I believe the problem is money in government and corporatism. Decentralization without any provisions for containment of corporatism will give the individuals even less protection against that corporatism.
I am not asking for a utopia, I am pointing out that you seem to view only one side of the problem. Government by itself is not the problem as so many believe and are led to believe by those same corporate interests that would have us all go so far as to alter the constitution without examining the part they play in the problems we currently have.
And no, it is not obvious when examined in the context of our 21st century environment. I am quite certain that there are many who take issue with government conduct. This is exactly the sort of slight of hand and misdirection that those who profit from our concentrating on government to the exclusion of big business would have us follow.
I think my point here is the curious lack of provisions for containment of corporate abuses in your list.
So far as elections are concerned, money should be eliminated, all election monies should come equally from federal funds, with donations from individuals not to exceed $1000, Period. All candidates should get an equal amount of time on radio and TV and there should be no collateral groups of any kind. Now that is radical enough to call upon the details of the first amendment to be changed.
I can't see your voter ID amendment being a part of Federal jurisdiction even though I hold that voter ID requirements are inherently unconstitutional.
I do not believe that the problem is strong government, I believe the problem is money in government and corporatism. Decentralization without any provisions for containment of corporatism will give the individuals even less protection against that corporatism.
I am not asking for a utopia, I am pointing out that you seem to view only one side of the problem. Government by itself is not the problem as so many believe and are led to believe by those same corporate interests that would have us all go so far as to alter the constitution without examining the part they play in the problems we currently have.
And no, it is not obvious when examined in the context of our 21st century environment. I am quite certain that there are many who take issue with government conduct. This is exactly the sort of slight of hand and misdirection that those who profit from our concentrating on government to the exclusion of big business would have us follow.
I think my point here is the curious lack of provisions for containment of corporate abuses in your list.
darrellduaner
Active Member
our representative gov't does not represent many people's wishes. look at the marijuana laws; most people dont care one way or the other if some want to possess it, but we still cant. they dont represent us at all
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
asked and answered the last time you trotted out this lame canard.
or would you like me to prove the US built OVER FIVE THOUSAND SHIPS OF WAR between dec 1941 and dec 1945 again?
seriously, you act like nobody remembers the bullshit you crap out.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
considering that the person in question is cheezie's uncle, the dam will probably be constructed of strawmen, shabby recycled arguments, specious claims, and bullshit, thus the dam will hold up just long enough to build up a destructive force, and then collapse washing away everyone downstream in a muddy brown torrent of shitty fallacies, crappy hypotheticals and feculent ad hominems.
personally i think the living will envy the dead.
Doer
Well-Known Member
No...cool trick though.
We are so broken and indecisive, mean, and self defeating, ant are superior in almost everyway, execpt getting the DNA pool off planet, That is the job of their monkey mind slaves, us.
And there will be ants. Ant are everywhere, right? We have already given them space rides. They like it.
We are so fucked up, we need governance from day one - 10K. Then we are seriously fucked up, unlike ants.
No. Ants are very evolved and will surely outlast humans. They already have colonies on the moon.
Not all of those are natural craters, you know. wait one....(what? Raid??!!?!? someone is using RAID in my house...gotta go!)
Dislexicmidget2021
Well-Known Member
By returning the proper constitutional power to the states and imposing term limits on senators dont you think it would limit their ability to keep funding the same old twits back into office every election?It would be an impeding strike against the corporate abuse that runs rampant in this day and age,,particularly the ever abundant lobbyism would be dramaticaly affected in this measure.
I think creating a measure making it easier for the states to amend the Constitution, and giving them a brief window of opportunity to strike down both congressional legislation and Executive Branch legislation would deal with this issue of lobyism corruption,which runs heavily on both levels of legislation.How do you perceive it as a lack of containment of corporate abuses?Perhaps I didnt explain it at great length in my OP,,but is that lengthy explanation necessary when it should be apparent that by limiting the dynastic Senatorial term limits,you are severing the line of bought and payed for incumbants.
I was examining the context of the constitution not in the 21 century environment, but how it was written and clearly INTENDED.For me to look at it and say the constitution isnt as applicable in this day and age as it was when it was written is like trying to say that it is no longer relevant,that it should be set aside and forgotten.It certainly dose apply to the 21st Century Canndo and should continue to do so now more than ever IMO.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
States rights need to be curtailed
We already had as civil war over them
We already had as civil war over them
canndo
Well-Known Member
I do not. We see incursons into state and even local races by orgainziations heavily backed by the the Koch brothers among others. You don't think congressmen at a state level are apt to be just as influenced?
So far as letting states opt out of particular federal legislation, I believe that to be very unwise. There need to be predictable, nation wide laws in certain areas. We are no longer disparate locals losely knit and far from each other. I can get from one end of this country to the other in what? 5 hours or so? I expect the laws to be somewhat the same at either end of my journey.
Oh, I there really isn't such a thing as executive branch legislation, much as the right would have us believe it to be so.
"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law"
Do you really believe that we should allow civil suits for amounts as low as 21 dollars? Things change.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"
Now what is meant by excessive? and has that term changed through the course of years? more importantly, what constitues cruel and unusual is far different today than it was during that time. Last I recall, flogging and pillorying stopped being the "usual" method of punishment in this country some time ago.
No one says it is no longer relevent but we know the founders had a deep distrust of corporations. They would never have seen them aquire he status of citizenship. they had no idea of the ruinous influence of big money on even small government.
And you still have not managed to explain how corporate abuse of the citizen can be controled without a strong, central goernment.
canndo
Well-Known Member
And another thing, as has been learned in California, there is art, science, and experience necessary for one to well govern in today's society. Term limits do several things, they deprive the citizens of their right and proper choice to have anyone they so chose in office, they in effect, actually limit rights. They cause an even quicker sort of turnstyle between public and private, so those in power for a while in the public sector simply enjoy more power in the private, even more quickly than they do now. And finally, it takes a number of years for officials to get proficient in the process. Term limits ensure that everyone is always inexperienced in their jobs.
Impman
Well-Known Member
- Oh, I there really isn't such a thing as executive branch legislation, much as the right would have us believe it to be so.
That is true. Article 1 Section one of the Constitution: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United Sates, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives".
THAT IS ALL POWERS. not some, not a couple. ALL
Impman
Well-Known Member
- Term limits ensure that everyone is always inexperienced in their jobs.
The framers did this on purpose. A Representative is given office for 2 years but the really only work 14 months. After 6 months of vacation and lame duck session. This is to limit government, which everyone can agree is an American Ideal-- Limited Government
canndo
Well-Known Member
They limited lengths of term, not absolute terms. Big difference.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but you missed the legal play, used twice. SHALL. Big difference. Here is the Oath of President.
Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The President does not even have to take the Oath, but there are things he must do or answer at his peril.
Technically, Will is the iron clad, contractual obligation, whereas Shall describes a duty, only.
In the US Constitution, the word Shall is used appox. 80 times. The word Will, only 3. Two are in the Oath above and here is the only other.
-------------------------------------------------------
Section: 10. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
-------------
IOW, even a State is contractually obligated, to Fight another Nation, to act in Sovereign, as necessary. No Shall here. MUST.
Shall is the duty, and for elected civilians, failing in duty, is not even punished.
canndo
Well-Known Member
as a side note - see that little alternative to the oath? affirmation? througout the consitution, it gives that same option - oath or affirmation. It can't be any clearer than that, that the Constitution is totaly and completely religious neutral. Oath is religious, affirmation is not - your choice. Consider also that given that (not necessarily true, but fine), the founders were all Christian, the very fact that they put that option in the Constitution demonstrates how they put their religions away before they started in writing this thing.