# Hi all, Senior in HS and trying to understand



## 18 and Life (Nov 1, 2016)

Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
Here to learn!


----------



## defcon4 (Nov 1, 2016)

Welcome. 
Godspeed in your efforts.


----------



## aaronleland (Nov 1, 2016)

Welcome to USMB. Good luck learning anything.


----------



## 18 and Life (Nov 1, 2016)

defcon4 said:


> Welcome.
> Godspeed in your efforts.


Hopefully you aren't being sarcastic... and Thanks!


----------



## Stasha_Sz (Nov 1, 2016)

Congratulations, 18, good luck in the future, and welcome to the boards.

First thing you need to do in order to "understand this thing we call our government" is to forget all the sranje that your teachers have been filling your head with for the past decade or so. They have not been teaching you, they have been indoctrinating you, big difference.
The USA are/was a Constitutional Republic. Not a democracy, (or oligarchy as it appears to be becoming).
The foundation of the government is the recognizance that all men are endowed with the ability to rule themselves through their elected officials and thus enjoy the fruits of their labor without undue interference.

Keep this in mind as you enjoy the site... oh, and beware of Sorosians...


----------



## Hossfly (Nov 1, 2016)

18 and Life said:


> Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
> Here to learn!





​


----------



## Hossfly (Nov 1, 2016)

18 and Life said:


> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> > Welcome.
> ...


----------



## aaronleland (Nov 1, 2016)

Hossfly said:


> 18 and Life said:
> 
> 
> > Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
> ...


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 2, 2016)

18 and Life said:


> Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
> Here to learn!



Good for you! Are you going to school in a state that leans
towards states rights and away from dependence on federal govt?

The biggest split I see between liberals and conservatives,
Democrats and Republicans, is the difference in belief about the role of govt:

Conservative Constitutionalists tend toward the position that rights and responsibilities
belong with people first, then the state, and last the federal govt which
should only exercise authority within the limits of the Constitution,
and only gain more authority by amendment to the Constitution.
This notion of courts making laws by rulings, or executive orders to bypass the legislature,
is seen as abuse and overriding separation of powers and checks and balances.

People who don't put the Constitution first as the guideline and central standard,
can be more relative, and push for  "any laws" passing as long as they go through
the given process through legislatures and courts -- 
i.e.,  pushing for govt to take on more responsibility for the people's welfare, 
even at the expense of Constitutional restrictions, until and unless
the courts find otherwise, all that is needed is majority rule and it becomes law.

The worse problems with the two major parties is
exploiting the division in class between the poor (who
tend not to have experience or education in ownership so 
that making and keeping them dependent on party or govt for help
makes them vulnerable to buy out their votes and lose their leverage to check govt),
and the rich who don't want to fund dependence on govt and massive bureaucracies
built around social programs poorly run by govt when private sector could do a better job.

So one is conditioned to fear corporate welfare and blame the rich for abusing govt,
while the other is conditioned to fear social welfare and blame the poor for abusing govt.

Both sides, instead of correcting these problems, deny them and try to push blame on the other
for political points.

Where we are today is between Occupy, the Tea Party, independent supporters of
Sanders and Trump trying to overcome career politicians hijacking both parties, etc.
people are rejecting the partisan politics of corporate buying and selling of agenda,
and people in both major parties are calling for reform and answering to the working 
people instead of politicians kowtowing to corporate interests that buy out both parties.

The corporations, the media and the political parties are NOT regulated by the Constitution.

So all of that influence is a distraction from enforcing the Constitution to get govt back on track.

But what you will see, instead of people enforcing Constitutional corrections,
are people lobbying through the media to influence politicians and public policy.

That's where America is because we are not educating and empowering our citizenry
to learn and enforce the laws and process in the Constitution, but just teaching them
as Clinton and Trump are doing, that whatever we see in the media is what influences elections and power.

The true power and authority lies with people taking back charge and responsibility
for self-governance, but you won't see that taught in the media.  

If you find the Constitutional and Tea Party and Libertarian groups that teach
Constitutional history and law, you will understand how far we have strayed.

So it may be hard to teach these principles, since very few people are following and enforcing them.
Most people go with the popular means today of using party and media to lobby for reforms.

It's not about consent of the governed, and defending equal protections of the laws for all.
It's about fighting for one's own beliefs, and getting caught in competition with other people doing the same.

It's very sad to me we don't use our resources to work out conflicts, find common solutions
and invest in those instead. Most people just pour money into campaigns to compete to hire
or elect the bigger bully to override the other party equally fighting for those beliefs and members
trying to defend their interests.

So party politics has become more important than sticking with common Constitutional principles,
and pushing help for people to solve their own problems and govern their own resources locally.

When this phase comes to a head, at some point we should figure it out we'd do better
working together to make sure all of America is equally represented, rather than parties
compete to dominate, each only representing half the nation, and taking turns undercutting each other.


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 2, 2016)

Point to the place on the teddy bear where the government touched you.


----------



## RWS (Nov 2, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> 18 and Life said:
> 
> 
> > Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
> ...



The biggest difference is that everybody is going to disagree about one thing or the other. Never fails. Parties try to group as many of those disagreements as possible into one side or the other, to polarize us. Nobody is right, and nobody is wrong, yet they have to split us up in order to find a winner.

Once people believe that all Democrats are for their beliefs, or all Republicans represent their beliefs, is when American Politics becomes a "religion". We've been seeing that for a very long time, and it's time to understand how bad it is.

Because religion is the biggest horror story in human history, and why politics has to turn away from that mentality if we wish to betterment society.

Fuck the parties, let righteous people rule. Problem is how to figure it out... And we have 4 years before we go through this again! I'm working on figuring it out... I hope the OP and others do the same.


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 2, 2016)

18 and Life said:


> Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
> Here to learn!


I'm a senior also, and still trying to figure out our govt.


----------



## Boss (Nov 2, 2016)

18 and Life said:


> Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
> Here to learn!



Welcome to USMB. The first thing I can tell you is, you're probably not going to learn much from the posters here. Most here are partisans who are promoting our own points of view and not really spending much time teaching. Sometimes you can learn by reading various viewpoints and perhaps that will be of some help. My suggestion for you would be to study the Federalist Papers. It's tricky because the language is old English and a bit hard to decipher sometimes but it is the most insightful resource for discovering what our government is all about. 

There have been many times when I have encountered a question about certain issues that arise, where I am uncertain about what is actually "constitutional" or what the constitution means, and I will Google "federalist papers" along with the subject and bring up a relevant document to show me what the founders thought. You are so fortunate to live in an age where this kind of information is at your fingertips. 

I would like to hear more about you. What do you plan to do in life? What are your goals and ambitions? Do you plan to go to college? Etc.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Nov 2, 2016)

18 and Life said:


> Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
> Here to learn!



Not the best place to learn about government. School is the best place to learn how it works, the branches, the separation of powers, gerrymandering, etc. 

You come here to read _opinion_, not fact.


----------



## Bush92 (Nov 2, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> 18 and Life said:
> 
> 
> > Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
> ...


Always question the angle of your college professors in PoliSci and US History classes.


----------



## defcon4 (Nov 2, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> 18 and Life said:
> 
> 
> > Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
> ...


The school will leave you with want about how the government was set up and will teach you only the revisionist version what gradually takes the country down the road of servitude as the generations before you die out. If the school teaches you anything at all.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 2, 2016)

RWS said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > 18 and Life said:
> ...



Dear RWS and 18 and Life 
Good point, that people have different beliefs and are going to disagree.

That brings up another MAJOR point:
Since people in the distinct parties have their OWN political beliefs and platforms,
why not separate taxes and responsibilities for policies,
and let each govern their own members and resources through their own party?

What legislative changes or agreements between parties are necessary
to establish equal respect for political beliefs, as we argue to separate
religious beliefs from govt and keep them private?

Because political beliefs inherently involve govt,
such as gun rights and voting rights,
right to marriage and right to prayer through public institutions,
right to life and right to health care, etc.,
these are harder to separate from govt.
So the other way to treat them equally is to endorse them all
and include them all in govt as an equal choice.

I propose a third house of Congress that
allows representation by party, for the purpose of conflict resolution, 
and mediation to reach a consensus on policy -- where the parties
agree shall be public policy and govt jurisdiction, and where the
parties disagree that is delegated to states or parties as needed.

Is an Amendment to the Constitution needed for this?
Since there is no mention or Amendment involving political parties
and beliefs, can such an agreement also be done through parties.

Where any reform touch tax policies and state-federal relations,
each issue of law would require its own revisions through
the given legislative process.

I would also suggest separating the powers of President
and Vice President into Internal/Domestic and External/Foreign Affairs.
So we can elect 2-4 people for these positions, divide the work,
and possibly employ leaders from more than one party instead
of competing for the same office. That would take a Constitutional
Amendment to change the rules on positions and elections.

In general, I believe we need parties to be represented in a
Constitutional conference to review judicial powers and interpretation
of the Constitution, because there is irreconcilable disagreement.

We do not agree on political beliefs, so how do we manage those
differences and respect equal protection and representation of interests?

If we cannot agree on the above suggested solutions,
I suggest having an agreement or amendment
that conflicts concerning political beliefs should be
resolved by mediation and consensus to protect the
equal interests and beliefs of all citizens. If people involved
in a conflict agree to majority rule to decide the law for them,
then the current process can be used; but where people do 
not agree to compromise their political beliefs for majority rule
or court ruling, then those citizens can invoke the right to
conflict resolution, mediation and consensus until the issue
is settled to the satisfaction of all parties to the conflict.

This is an extension of both Amendment 1, 10 and 14,
and also addresses issues of discrimination by creed under
the Civil Rights movement to extend equal protection of
the laws to public institutions. I also suggest extending
equal protections and responsibility for the laws to all
citizens and corporations, including political religious
nonprofit partisan business educational media etc.,
to be equally responsible for enforcing the
Bill of Rights, and 14th Amendments on equal protections,
and the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, and redressing
any grievances, objections, or complaints of abuse or
conflicts infringing or threatening equal protection of laws.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 2, 2016)

>

You will come to understand that government is like a woman.

.......... Just when you think you've got it figured out,

...................She changes the rules.



>>>>>


----------



## miketx (Nov 2, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> 18 and Life said:
> 
> 
> > Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
> ...


School is the worst place to learn anything because all the teach is left wing nonsense.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Nov 2, 2016)

As you can see 18 and life, this isn't the place to look for fact. Unless you can weed through the derps who think opening a book is tantamount egging Jesus' house.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2016)

Boss said:


> 18 and Life said:
> 
> 
> > Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
> ...



It will be important to understand that the federalist papers are not law, and are only a reflection of some of the beliefs of some at that time. Similar to what one of the parties might consider their platform today. If the Federalists were an actual indication of what the Constitution was intended to do, they wouldn't contradict the Constitution in so many ways.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 2, 2016)

Lesson One:  You can get a bunch of jaded old people to post about government with less than three posts.


----------



## Boss (Nov 2, 2016)

BULLDOG said:


> It will be important to understand that the federalist papers are not law, and are only a reflection of some of the beliefs of some at that time. Similar to what one of the parties might consider their platform today. If the Federalists were an actual indication of what the Constitution was intended to do, they wouldn't contradict the Constitution in so many ways.



I never claimed the Federalist Papers were the law. They are much more than merely a reflection of beliefs of some at the time. They are the literal arguments made for what is in the Constitution. They do not contradict the Constitution, they often conflict with Supreme Court rulings. That said, the SCOTUS has ruled some crazy whacked-out things... like slaves are property and it's okay to intern Japanese-Americans. 

During the deliberation of the Constitution, the framers wrote extensively on every aspect because that's how people communicated in the day. So every detail in the Constitution is explained by the very people who wrote the Constitution. Various objections are addressed, specific wording is clarified and the case is made for exactly what was intended. You reject this because you're a kooky liberal who wants the Constitution to be your plaything... a "living document" you can mold and shape as you see fit... and those pesky Federalist Papers get in your way.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2016)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > It will be important to understand that the federalist papers are not law, and are only a reflection of some of the beliefs of some at that time. Similar to what one of the parties might consider their platform today. If the Federalists were an actual indication of what the Constitution was intended to do, they wouldn't contradict the Constitution in so many ways.
> ...



Those pesky federalist papers are immaterial. The constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is all that matters. That's what our founding fathers decided, and any peripheral discussion at the time is moot. If they wanted something else, they would have put it in the document. Your efforts to bastardize the full, complete text of the Constitution is noted. I'm sorry if you don't like what it says, but you'll just have to get over it.


----------



## Boss (Nov 2, 2016)

BULLDOG said:


> Those pesky federalist papers are immaterial. The constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is all that matters. That's what our founding fathers decided, and any peripheral discussion at the time is moot. If they wanted something else, they would have put it in the document. Your efforts to bastardize the full, complete text of the Constitution is noted. I'm sorry if you don't like what it says, but you'll just have to get over it.



The Constitution doesn't need interpreting. Our founding fathers explained everything in it and they most certainly did not grant the SCOTUS the authority to change it. They gave us a process by which we can change things in the Constitution. 

I haven't tried to bastardize anything... that's what YOU want to do, which is why you are trying to dismiss the Federalist Papers and making the asinine argument the SCOTUS can "interpret" the Constitution like a bunch of tea leaves.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2016)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Those pesky federalist papers are immaterial. The constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is all that matters. That's what our founding fathers decided, and any peripheral discussion at the time is moot. If they wanted something else, they would have put it in the document. Your efforts to bastardize the full, complete text of the Constitution is noted. I'm sorry if you don't like what it says, but you'll just have to get over it.
> ...




So what is the Supreme Court for? Why did the founding fathers institute it as our highest court if not to interpret our rights, as laid out in the constitution? You act as if the court can just write law on a whim. Your disappointment at some of their rulings doesn't mean they operate contrary to the rules as laid out by the constitution.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Nov 2, 2016)

18 and Life said:


> Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
> Here to learn!



It's complicated and entangled. Read diverse opinions, and when in doubt, follow the money.


----------



## Boss (Nov 2, 2016)

BULLDOG said:


> So what is the Supreme Court for? Why did the founding fathers institute it as our highest court if not to interpret our rights, as laid out in the constitution? You act as if the court can just write law on a whim. Your disappointment at some of their rulings doesn't mean they operate contrary to the rules as laid out by the constitution.



I think they've been operating contrary to the rules laid out in the constitution since Marbury v. Madison. Yes, in many cases they do effectively write law from the bench and that's NOT what the framers ever intended. We have a legislative branch for that. 

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to settle disputes over conflicting constitutional rights. The framers realized there would be instances where this could happen and they felt the most fair way to settle it was through a supreme court of the land.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 2, 2016)

18 and Life said:


> Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
> Here to learn!



We're a Republic, not a democracy 
FDR was awful
More government = less freedom


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 2, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> Point to the place on the teddy bear where the government touched you.


Dear Lewdog:

* If the bear was made in the US where workers had vacation and employment rights and protections,
were under OSHA safety regulations, and weren't child laborers (but they could be exploited prison labor),
and if the taxes from the sale of the bear goes to city, state or federal taxes,
and might pay for helpful or abusive things, that may or may not represent the taxpayers paying in
(or if the bear is made of materials that contribute to an environmental hazard or waste that is unsustainable, and the corporation profiting is not taking that into account as part of the cost of the production and their own costs to pay)

that's different from

* a bear made by illegal slave labor, children forced to work in unsafe conditions without breaks
or seeing the outdoors or their families, working for 50 cents a day, or to pay off rent in a dorm
that costs more than they make so they stay enslaved.
* or a bear made from homegrown materials by fair trade workers where the money
stays with the community and workers and isn't channeled into a larger corporation that neglects them

But again, if it's made by prison labor exploited by others for profit,
this could take place in the US or in other countries, and could still
involve "involuntary servitude" outside the legal conditions on restitution, penalty, or deprivation of liberty for crimes.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 2, 2016)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Dear BULLDOG the Court can answer yes or no, yes this fits what is already written or established.
Or NO, the LEGISLATURE needs to take responsibility to rewrite what is rejected, not the judge or courts doing it, not the president or governor.

The problem is taking shortcuts.
If the judges/courts start assuming legislative authority, then some of their rulings are taken as law.

Such as rejecting abortion laws taken as establishing abortion as legal which requires the legislature to write out how to do that.

Just striking down something as constitutional or not does not have to go too far as "creating a right" or "establishing a law."

With marriage laws, for example, in both cases, with both bans, pro-traditional, or pro-same sex,
the SAME answer could have been given in all these: NO it is NOT constitutional for govt
to pick and choose to endorse ANY laws about marriage without the full consent of the citizens of that state.
so the court should REJECT any and all "contested" versions and proposals
and order the states to either REMOVE all of them, ENDORSE all choices equally,
or some other combination but WITH THE CONSENT OF ALL ITS CITIZENS so nobody argues there is bias.

the courts should have kicked marriage laws back to STATES to decide through its citizens how
to resolve their own conflicts in beliefs. And if any state refused to respect that inclusion,
then the court could order the state to be penalized as long as the order is constitutional, such forcing the state to disband any and all marriage laws policies
and benefits, or to relegate them to other institutions the citizens agree on, such as dividing by party, until the citizens agree on a policy that doesn't violate any of their beliefs but allows free and equal exercise of all them, together or separately, as long as it's agreed it's equal. if they can reach an agreement, that can be endorsed and implemented publicly. But if not, then whatever institutions they choose to use to operate separately, they agree to use those instead. (for example if the only language they agree to publicly is civil unions, then that's all the state is authorized to do)


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 2, 2016)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Those pesky federalist papers are immaterial. The constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is all that matters. That's what our founding fathers decided, and any peripheral discussion at the time is moot. If they wanted something else, they would have put it in the document. Your efforts to bastardize the full, complete text of the Constitution is noted. I'm sorry if you don't like what it says, but you'll just have to get over it.
> ...



Boss, yes it does. Even when you are explaining the history, that is teaching "interpretation"

Whether we interpret right to life as meaning born people or people before birth, that is an "interpretation"

Whether we interpret gun rights for people meaning law abiding citizens or any people at all, that is an "interpretation"

Whether we interpret people being the govt and govt for the people as being a left wing or right wing relationship,
that is an "interpretation"

Whether we interpret "freedom of religion" as organized established religions only, ones in harmony
with laws or ones against, or including "political beliefs and creeds" equally as traditional religions,
that is an "interpretation"

I happen to interpret due process of laws and equal protections on a broader basis than a lot of people think about.
I interpret People as Government to mean we the people share responsibility for redressing our own grievances as equals
(as in the First Amendment, where people petitioning the government starts with people petitioning each other
because we are responsible for govt directly or indirectly)

Where we fall short of resolving our own issues and conflicts on policy directly among ourselves,
we start to lose or give up authority to outside sources we turn to to resolve our problems for us. Thus, we need to make sure we agree on this authority, and how much we are delegating. Not giving up all power unless we agree to that.

Thus the more we do for ourselves, the less we depend on outside govt to act as this third party.
we become more empowered as we do more of the work ourselves.

That takes a special interpretation of the First Amendment to apply to the power
of citizens to act equally as the people in govt, by free speech and press,
free exercise of religion or free will, and right to assemble and petition
as democratic/due process of law to resolve grievances objections conflicts wrongs or abuses
to establish an agreed policy or plan for reforms corrections and solutions.

But I believe that level of education and empowerment is necessary to fulfill
equal protections and justice under law. That's why I promote that interpretation.

It can best be taught by teaching by example.
So when you teach history and interpretation/meaning of laws,
you are participating in this level of empowerment of people
accepting equal responsibility for govt. Thank you for that.

You prove this very point, of why interpretation is needed.
What we need is to make sure we are teaching the same thing.
We don't need govt abused to teach interpretations as law
that not all people agree is Constitutional.
Again, that's why it's better we resolve differences in advance,
and then after we reach agreement, then we work together
to make sure govt reflects the public policies we all agree represent us,
as a state or a nation, so we practice equal protection of all persons.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Nov 2, 2016)

_*Well welcome to the board...*_

*1. If you want to learn about the government then logoff here and pick up a book, research the web, and go to your local city hall and learn how it works...

2. If you are wanting to interact with posters for their view on what they believe then still logoff and save yourself!*

_*Again welcome and enjoy the insanity that they call the USMB!*_


----------



## Boss (Nov 2, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



To "interpret" is to explain the meaning of words or actions. With every syllable in the Constitution, this is done in the Federalist Papers.  If it is not there, it can't be interjected into interpretation by nine people in black robes... or at least, that's not how it's supposed to work. If it's not explained, it is left to the Congress of our elected representatives to determine based on what "we the people" tell them we want. If it pertains to something outside of their authority as outlined in Article I Sec. 8, it is for the people and their state to decide. 

Clearly, we have gotten away from that but that's precisely how it was intended to be by our founders. This is the foundation and basis for Constitutional Conservatism. We've strayed from what the framers laid out and we continue to embark on a course of allowing the courts to "interpret" their own meanings when that was never the founding intent. To allow such "interpretation" is to effectively render the Constitution meaningless because it can simply be "re-interpreted" to mean anything we please.


----------



## Onyx (Nov 2, 2016)

18 and Life said:


> Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
> Here to learn!



Well you already failed your first test. 

You should of dropped out of government education instead of hanging around like a dumbass.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2016)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > So what is the Supreme Court for? Why did the founding fathers institute it as our highest court if not to interpret our rights, as laid out in the constitution? You act as if the court can just write law on a whim. Your disappointment at some of their rulings doesn't mean they operate contrary to the rules as laid out by the constitution.
> ...



So you agree that they are the final arbiters of what the constitution says. Their opinion of what it says is the overruling authority for what is constitutional or not, regardless of any other opinions.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 2, 2016)

18 and Life said:


> Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
> Here to learn!



I'm 34 and I still don't understand it............


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 2, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> Not the best place to learn about government. School is the best place to learn how it works.



Not if he's in public school


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Congress is certainly free to rewrite the laws any time they want, but those rewritten laws still have to pass the Supreme court's opinion if those laws are acceptable. Until they do rewrite those laws in a constitutionally acceptable way, The SC rulings are final. That's the way the founding fathers set it up. Sorry it doesn't work the way you want it to.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...





Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The federalist papers are nothing more than negotiating points before a contract is signed. The contract, or in this case, the Constitution is all that matters. Sorry someone told you different. They were wrong.


----------



## Boss (Nov 2, 2016)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



I don't agree they are supposed to "interpret" what the Constitution means. That has already been done and it can be found by reading the Federalist Papers. Their job is to APPLY the interpretation already determined by the framers. Their arbitration is supposed to be limited to determining which constitutional rights supersede others on a case-by-case basis. They have often overstepped their authority.


----------



## Boss (Nov 2, 2016)

BULLDOG said:


> The federalist papers are nothing more than negotiating points before a contract is signed. The contract, or in this case, the Constitution is all that matters. Sorry someone told you different. They were wrong.



No sir. You are completely wrong. The Federalist Papers WERE the argument for the measures outlined in the Constitution. They are not subject to negotiation. At the time they were written a counter-argument was made by the Anti-Federalists and their arguments did not prevail. Sorry if someone told you different. THEY were wrong.


----------



## norwegen (Nov 2, 2016)

Welcome, 18.

Just a note: don't read Emily's posts unless you have a pot of coffee and a big stogie.


----------



## Boss (Nov 2, 2016)

BULLDOG said:


> Congress is certainly free to rewrite the laws any time they want, *but those rewritten laws still have to pass the Supreme court's opinion if those laws are acceptable*. Until they do rewrite those laws in a constitutionally acceptable way, The SC rulings are final. That's the way the founding fathers set it up. Sorry it doesn't work the way you want it to.



No they don't. There is absolutely NO provision for the SCOTUS to approve or disapprove legislation by Congress. Someone can challenge legislation and it can make it's way to the SCOTUS if the SCOTUS opts to hear the case. SCOTUS rulings are certainly NOT final, if they were, slaves would still be considered property and it would be perfectly okay to intern Japanese-Americans or any citizen without due process.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2016)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I completely understand that is what you believe. Unfortunately, for you, you are wrong. Which part of the constitution binds interpretation of the constitution, in any way, to the federalist papers? That document is self supporting and complete.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2016)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The federalist papers are nothing more than negotiating points before a contract is signed. The contract, or in this case, the Constitution is all that matters. Sorry someone told you different. They were wrong.
> ...



OK. When I got a divorce, I wrote down what I wanted and she wrote down what she wanted. We negotiated and the final agreement is all that mattered. Neither of those lists mean anything. Same principle.


----------



## Boss (Nov 2, 2016)

BULLDOG said:


> I completely understand that is what you believe. Unfortunately, for you, you are wrong. Which part of the constitution binds interpretation of the constitution, in any way, to the federalist papers? That document is self supporting and complete.



Well I'm not wrong and you've not proven me wrong. Nothing needs to "bind" the Constitution to the papers which define what it means. That's like arguing the Webster's Dictionary doesn't "bind" a word to what it means. If you're not going to adhere to what the Federalist Papers articulate as the meaning then the Constitution virtually has no meaning at all.


----------



## Boss (Nov 2, 2016)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



No it's nowhere near the same principle.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2016)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Congress is certainly free to rewrite the laws any time they want, *but those rewritten laws still have to pass the Supreme court's opinion if those laws are acceptable*. Until they do rewrite those laws in a constitutionally acceptable way, The SC rulings are final. That's the way the founding fathers set it up. Sorry it doesn't work the way you want it to.
> ...



You're just being silly now. Ask a junior high student if you can borrow his government textbook. Obviously you played hooky the week your teacher covered that.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2016)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > I completely understand that is what you believe. Unfortunately, for you, you are wrong. Which part of the constitution binds interpretation of the constitution, in any way, to the federalist papers? That document is self supporting and complete.
> ...



I doubt anyone could prove anything to you. Your mind is made up, and facts just confuse you. Believe what you want. I'm sure you will find lots of RWNJs that agree with your silly crap.


----------



## Boss (Nov 2, 2016)

BULLDOG said:


> You're just being silly now. Ask a junior high student if you can borrow his government textbook. Obviously you played hooky the week your teacher covered that.



Well, I am  not being silly and you are getting real close to violating the rules of this particular forum. If you want to argue about the Constitution, start a thread on it and we'll debate it. This forum is for us to cordially welcome newcomers and such.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2016)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > You're just being silly now. Ask a junior high student if you can borrow his government textbook. Obviously you played hooky the week your teacher covered that.
> ...



Good advice for both of us. You'll note that I've done nothing but respond to your posts.


----------



## Boss (Nov 2, 2016)

BULLDOG said:


> Good advice for both of us. You'll note that I've done nothing but respond to your posts.



Well... up until your last reply which was getting a bit personal. Yes, it's best if we both walk away now and save this debate for another forum and time.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 4, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> As you can see 18 and life, this isn't the place to look for fact. Unless you can weed through the derps who think opening a book is tantamount egging Jesus' house.



Yes and no IsaacNewton and 18 and Life 
if you look at the thread Gay Marriage is not a Constitutional right
you will find Syriusly C_Clayton_Jones and Tennyson
both sorting through citing and comparing constitutional
law history and precedence. A lot of good arguments
and statements are being made on BOTH SIDES.

I recommend you start there, so you can see
a glimpse of what our Founding Fathers
argued about from federalists to antifederalists
pushing states rights to centralizing federal authority.

This is a microcosm of those same debates.
And all three are very fair and cite references worth looking into and learning.


----------



## RWS (Nov 4, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Great ideas, let me just see if I've generally got this straight, on first read. 

So we have a government that takes care of the running of the nation on a global scale. Military budget, taxes for global affairs, science for exploration, foreign policy, etc... Things that aren't tied to a religious point of view (though foreign policy is very inclined to that) or internal issues. 

And another government that governs the human/internal issues within our country, like budget/taxes for internal affairs, abortion, human rights, immigration, gun rights, agriculture, infrastructure, etc... 

An external and an internal government. Running under different control based on voter preferences, but still somehow working together.

I really like it! How that can work, and how it can be allowed to happen, are huge questions. First, of course, is figuring out how it can work in a limited budget for both governments to draw from. Then we can figure out how to make it happen. I think it is a great idea on how to separate the different issues that Dem/Rep parties isolate, to make our politicians more closely represent our wants and needs.

This is definitely a step in the right direction! Needs more people to think about it and share ideas.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 4, 2016)

RWS said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



Dear RWS I think the best way is to call together members and leaders of all the
parties and states to take this idea and fill in the outline.

Hold Constitutional conferences on where their state and party members
agree or disagree with other states and parties where to draw the lines
and where to delegate which tasks. We have to work this out together.

It will empower the people to learn and share solutions and problems
why one thing works and something else doesn't. We will learn
the laws and process, by sharing notes and including all
objections and solutions in the answers.Not everyone will
adopt the same answers, but all should have equal choice
and access. 

I think that is the best approach, to empower and include
people regardless which party they align with to express their beliefs
about govt.  Then from there, we map out how to organize.
What is left to states or to party, what is national through
party or federal through govt. We all agree who is going to
be in charge of what, so all groups get their interests protected.


----------



## RWS (Nov 5, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Well that's where it would fail, if we take the current members and leaders to try to make it happen. Because they definitely won't want to make it happen... 

Because they lose their jobs. 

It will take a revolution of ideas to make this happen. And a crack in the infrastructure of the Constitution to allow it. 

But I think the stages are set. Whatever happens, I'm definitely down for that 2-stage gov't idea. I think it should iterate more than 2 stages, but that is the best idea I've heard, rather than voting Rep/Dem. 

But seriously, it takes Trump to make this happen.... As sad as it seems...


----------



## OldLady (Nov 5, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > Point to the place on the teddy bear where the government touched you.
> ...


Emily, I've worked in a prison, and inmates FIGHT for those jobs.  It is something to do besides sit around watching tv all day, AND it gives them a small "nest egg" for when they are released, or if they're not getting released during their lifetimes, it is money to spend on chips and books at the commissary.  "Involuntary servitude?"  Unless you're talking about a very different scenario than I'm aware of, the prisoners LOVE those jobs.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 5, 2016)

RWS said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



Dear RWS no they don't lose their jobs, the jobs would double.
For each office there would be now an internal and external office.

To afford this split, such as splitting the salary between the two,
that would mean each office holder works an outside job to support themselves
and works with the partner office to split that work.

I think that's better anywyay, and most people are making money on the side,
so this just cuts their job duties in half so they can work another job.

I've had to work two jobs to pay for damage done by govt abuses in two districts
I was trying to help recover and rebuild their community plans destroyed by govt corruption.

And with the policies passed by Congress, lots of other citizens are having to
work two part time or full time jobs because of the economic restructuring by companies to adjust as well.

So isn't it fair to ask people in govt, that if we're having to pay these costs
by working two jobs, so should they. And split the duties in half so they can manage both.

I think we could find the political leaders who already work two jobs
and can consult on public policy at the same time. Maybe that level
of leadership would rise to the top who can do the work, while
supporting themselves so they aren't a burden on taxpayers,
and don't ask citizens to work any harder than they have to!

What do you think? Shall we consult with the Greens
and Workers unions on this idea to lobby the officials
to work two jobs like everyone else has to, and start job sharing?


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 5, 2016)

OldLady said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...



Dear OldLady 
1. Are the workers keeping the income from their own labor?
There needs to be accountability  of what are the costs of restitution they owe proportionally for crimes,
and what are their costs. And make sure they are working off their own debt so they have goals
and can track progress. 
2. Are they working for private corporations that are using cheap prison labor to profit others?
This is what I heard was going on. (previously I heard that phone companies were caught abusing prison labor to do sales or service calls, now I've heard high end dept stores use prison labor to make their goods, and one
activist told me of a unit where the inmates are being abused and enslaved even trafficked there and he
wants to free them from that mess.)

3. IF THERE IS ABUSE GOING ON that could count as "racketeering" or trafficking of labor under RICO
why not allow these abuse victims to TAKE BACK the prison programs as restitution
and turn it into microlending and business building where they learn management skills
and the money DOES go into paying off restitution they owe and paying their costs
instead of paying private profit?

Just police it and make sure it isn't being exploited, but is run more like a "work-study" program
where inmates are treated equally as students who can pay for their education and housing by working onsite
like a campus.

Why not turn sweatshops and prisons into schools and make sure the labor is managed safely without abuses:
www.rightsfortheworkers.org


----------



## there4eyeM (Nov 5, 2016)

Webster's, nor anyone else's, dictionary does not 'bind' anything (which should be obvious to anyone who has seen how the word 'fascist' is used in threads). 
Words mean a combination of what they have been accepted and used to mean and what they currently 'mean' to speakers of the language.
As with every other aspect of human life and reasoning, words are relative.


----------



## OldLady (Nov 5, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


At the prison I worked at, the prisoners kept their money except if they owed restitution or other court fines, at which point a percentage is taken from their earnings to pay those.  That helped them when released, since they didn't get out with huge fines hanging over their heads.  I don't know about any of the other things you bring up.  Thank you for the suggestions, but I will tell you realistically tax payers are willing to contribute squat to prisoners.  Around here many were absolutely incensed that they are even allowed tv's.  The feds have insisted on work ready programs to help prisoners leave there employable, but the funds to back it up are scant and the personnel to carry out these programs are just not available due to "cost saving measures" over the years.  Good ideas, though.


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 5, 2016)

OldLady said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



I worked at a state prison in Ohio for 5 years and you are right about several things.


----------



## OldLady (Nov 5, 2016)

Hey, guys.  We scared off the kid.


----------



## Stratakat (Nov 5, 2016)

18 and Life said:


> Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
> Here to learn!




Hi there Sr in HS. 
It's so encouraging to see you here. 

The next phase in our government is getting everyone involved. 
It's not an option any more to sit on the sidelines and just criticize those involved. 


Great just so great to see you here. Do you have friends with your quest?  

Welcome home


----------



## RWS (Nov 6, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



I definitely understand your points, but a lot of the problems we have with government, is about corruption. Forcing them to work 2 jobs, like a citizen, just opens up more opportunities for corruption.

I think what we need to weave into our government is a sense of responsibility.

Where, if you don't meet your level of responsibility, you go to jail.

Politicians should be held accountable to produce the needs of their constituents. When they don't do that, they should suffer the consequences. This is how we get corrupt people out of the system, and allow true people to succeed.

But the corruption is often very sublime, and only seen after many years.

Given the level of technology that we have, we should be able to get a pulse on the citizen rating for any particular politician.

And when they fall under a certain percentage, they should be immediately removed from office. I realize how hard that is to make true, but it is not far off in our future.

A politician cannot make bad decisions for the public for his/her personal benefit, and continue to do so for a long time. A heart-beat level of approval, may allow us to stop these people sooner, rather than later. Because that person, once approval ratings go low enough, will go to jail for 10 years.

I don't know... this is one of my ideas of how to stop corruption in the future, and it involves real-time thinking, and instant penalties for the corrupt.

I'm just throwing that out here for now, I've thought about it a lot more, but this is all I can produce on a late Sat night!


----------



## RWS (Nov 6, 2016)

Politicians should be held accountable when they sell their souls to get elected, and then don't fulfill their promises.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 6, 2016)

RWS said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



I'm glad we're both thinking this through along the same line RWS, Thanks!

Just like Ryan and others support the idea to "tie in" welfare WITH work,
the paid work these govt and citizens do can also be in consulting but on private sector solutions so that
1. there is teamwork with ALL the parties participating so we check and balance
and stop abuses and waste and CORRUPTION before it happens
2. the paid work CAN be "tied" to restitution for past abuses and wrongs.

For example, if my community complains that our local leaders misspent taxmoney
and got paid to destroy two school districts by selling them out to corporate interests and contracts,
then the money for restitution can go into creating jobs to pay mentors and consultants
to work with paid interns in these communities to repair the damage done.
the work done and money it costs to pay those community administrators and reconstruction workers
is part of the restitution for the wrongs owed to taxpayers and to that community.

This system will thus create jobs for accounting and legal staff to track the
restitution and settlement plans. And people can learn and teach from the process
so it pays for education and training.

There is more transparency and accountability when working in teams across the parties.

What Clinton's administrative and corporate entanglements show
is that when these are in a closed loop unchecked and people are
paying off each other to CYA, then there's no accountability and corruption breeds more to cover itself up.

The opposite of that is paying people to clean up the corruption.
The transparency and checks and balances needed to expose and correct
the problem are the same that is needed to supervise and implement solutions.

So the same way the problems feed on themselves and are self-perpetuating,
so are the solutions self-defining and sustainable by building a positive relationship and progression of development.


----------



## Dale Smith (Nov 6, 2016)

OldLady said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...




86 percent of the prison population committed a victim-less crime and simply violated an act, statute or code of USA.INC because we do not have a republic anymore...it was lost in 1933 ( but that is another story in of it's self). The alleged "land of the free" has the highest prison population in the world and why is that? Because this corporate "gubermint" wants access to your bond i.e "birth certificate" that was monetized when you were born and assigned a value. The "gubermint" is the trustee of that bond. The drug problem in this country is perpetuated by the fact that the CIA (working on conjunction with drug lords) actually bring drugs into this country. Lab grade LSD was put on the streets by a CIA operation. All of this is fact and easily verified. Prison labor is lave labor and since USA.INC owns the controlling shares in every Fortune 500 corporation, free labor pads their bottom line.


----------



## RWS (Nov 6, 2016)

Emily, I agree with what you say, but... what's the next step?

How do we get a better world?


----------



## RWS (Nov 6, 2016)

I posted something for fun on another thread, and i said that "anyone who votes for either candidate in this election should not be allowed to vote again". (or something like that)

But after thinking about it, it's true!

We don't want anybody who actually votes for either party in this election to ever have any sort of control of our future!

Their voting privileges should be revoked, for participating in such a joke.

They don't deserve to vote, going forward...


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 6, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Dear Dale Smith and RWS
I think you just asked and answered the next question, on where to start.
I say we start by petitioning key leaders in the Democratic party to fulfill the long 
promised party platform of reforming prisons while creating sustainable affordable health care for all.

We write out a resolution in support of lawmakers
converting the prisons into medical schools clinics and supervised training and research
facilities and programs for TREATING mental and criminal illness instead of merely punishing it.

That way over time the resources spent on failed criminal and mental facilities
can go into medial training research and programs.

We pay for health care with the budgets we are currently wasting on criminal systems we all agree are not working.

How about that?

Instead of paying 50K a year per person trapped in a cycle of poverty welfare and inability to work for a living,
we pay 30K for a mentor and 20K for an intern to assist each inmate to become self sufficient.
After they get the 50K loan to invest in their business plans educating training and mentoring,
they can pay it back to pay for the next partnership.  And the resident client becomes the next 
intern, and the trained intern becomes the next mentor. So they learn to move up in responsibilities
and heip the next person. So we have a revolving school system to produce graduates
instead of a revolving door to nowhere.


----------



## RWS (Nov 6, 2016)

I'm not gonna argue anything, until I understand our 2 gov theory first. 

I really like that idea! I will be working on it in my mind!


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 6, 2016)

RWS said:


> I'm not gonna argue anything, until I understand our 2 gov theory first.
> 
> I really like that idea! I will be working on it in my mind!



Dear RWS How about a training track and internal mirror of the external govt.

So one is used for "soft" programs that only affect state-federal and citizens internally.
We can use that track to train leaders and test out new programs per state
(or nationally through party where it's optional to fund and participate to troubleshoot
the new proposed model program being tested). So this doesn't affect the public policy
that govt and people are responsible for funding through mandatory taxes. That is
reserved for tested and working reform proposals that states/people have agreed to fund as public.

Where people DON't agree on what health care or gun policy to go with,
the parties test out their proposals through their own networks of
internal management and reps per state (or nationally if it's a federal proposal
which I assume they'd test after it passes the state testing level).

The advantages are
1. we can have a chance to prove a process works using people who SUPPORT it not trying to make it fail, and we can invest our own resources in it without fighting with others
2. we have means of training new leaders and interns, so minorities and women
have a place to start to prove their experience at any level of govt from city to federal
3. we can reward people with taxbreaks for investments or loans, or use restitution for past wrongs and abuses to finance the corrective reforms, so there is financial benefit to reward effective efforts in developing sustainable solutions
4. we can stop this business of trying to impose our beliefs in one way or another,
prove it works first, and allow people to voluntarily participate or elect to adopt
working models into state or federal govt AFTER they've proven to work not before which causes fights

both parties can try different models simultaneously by offering to their members,
or they can take turns microlending into the other party's program by free choice.

lots of ways we can make this work

for each model or each problem the parties or states take on,
they may structure it differently. that's part of the value, to encourage
and reward leaders for consulting with each other to come up with
a model that works for their situation, not fight to dictate answers not proven yet.


----------



## RWS (Nov 7, 2016)

I'm your new best friend! 

I love your ideas!

So the next question is, how to implement them. I mean, there are still very many questions about how this can all work, but given that, how do we get the current system to accept the new system?


----------



## 18 and Life (Nov 7, 2016)

OldLady said:


> Hey, guys.  We scared off the kid.



been here all along lurking... You scared off no-one not even 'the kid' as the OldLady calls me... Just been watching each and every question and response... still evaluating each forum member and their logic and their motivation. It (their motivation) comes through whether they want it to or not....
*Love all you people on both sides though.!* I hope we are all wanting what's best for our country, constitution, and it's citizens.
*The USA's legal citizens. Right? That's who we are wanting the best for right?* That is an issue in my mind as I live in a bordering state and deal with crime from illegals that keep our local jail full and my own classmates that some of them can't even pass English classes because they can't speak or understand it but the teachers pass them anyway... what the heck is up with that?
Anyways. Still here Old Lady... keep trying though


----------



## RWS (Nov 7, 2016)

I live in Phx.

There are no sides in reality.

Only sides in what your mind makes.


----------



## 18 and Life (Nov 7, 2016)

RWS said:


> I live in Phx.
> 
> There are no sides in reality.
> 
> Only what your mind makes.



Well, I have a friend in the hospital right now there in Glendale (if you know where that is) from being attacked/mugged by a teenage mexican gang... 
*I kinda think that there are or might be sides in his 'mind' as you say or his viewpoint as he lies there in ICU...* or what would you call it? Maybe we are calling the same thing something different... Or maybe not.


----------



## WheelieAddict (Nov 7, 2016)

18 and Life said:


> Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
> Here to learn!



This forum is not the place to learn about government.


----------



## WheelieAddict (Nov 7, 2016)

U.S. Government and Politics Study Guides - SparkNotes


----------



## frigidweirdo (Nov 7, 2016)

18 and Life said:


> Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
> Here to learn!



You'll probably first learn that too many people don't have a clue, and yet have a vote. That they find it easy to be convinced by people who spout out lies, and mistrust the truth.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Nov 7, 2016)

RWS said:


> I'm your new best friend!
> 
> I love your ideas!
> 
> So the next question is, how to implement them. I mean, there are still very many questions about how this can all work, but given that, how do we get the current system to accept the new system?



Best idea for government is proportional representation. If you look at the 2000 farce of an election you'll see hundreds of thousands more people voted for Gore than Bush, but Bush won. Congress should be PR and the presidential election should scrap the electoral college and just go for a "winner gets the most votes" situation. This would change how the US works.


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Nov 7, 2016)

18 and Life said:


> Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
> Here to learn!


_Welcome to USMB. You'll have to sift through a lot of trash to get to the valuable bits of information, be careful._


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 7, 2016)

RWS said:


> I'm your new best friend!
> 
> I love your ideas!
> 
> So the next question is, how to implement them. I mean, there are still very many questions about how this can all work, but given that, how do we get the current system to accept the new system?


Dear RWS all my ideas have come from listening to solutions critics insights and input of others From ALL Parties and taking the best and refining the flaws. So we keep doing this. 

Let's start by assessing our networks and circle of influence. Are you near a school or business that interacts with the public. Which party district chairs are near you. What student groups or any Tea Party, Green or Libertarian groups have independent activists looking to galvanize grassroots ideas.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 7, 2016)

18 and Life said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, guys.  We scared off the kid.
> ...


Good for you 18 and Life 
I'm sorry to hear about your friend in the hospital, I hope that the sitiation is going to be alright and getting better soon, people heal faster in a forgiving and uplifting environment so please set aside any negative thoughts energy and talk so your friend can heal faster, keep focusing on the positive and on recovering and forgive any fearful angry thoughts that otherwise slowdown healing and drag it out. Work that out later, but have everyone you know join in prayer and agreement for healing and uplifting for fastest recovery. The other issues can best be corrected when everyone is United and standing strong. So get well first, then you can take on what put your friend in the hospital. Focus on what unites and brings everyone up, not down and divided. 

I'm more glad you like what you see here which means you get what's going on and can see the solutions through the problems that don't discourage you. This says a lot about you, so good for you!

As a side note, some other student asked a favor and needs a survey filled out for class. Can I ask if you'll contact Lewdog and find friends teachers students who will answer by email or PM ? The topic is on perception of police or abuse of power. I thought perhaps other students would be sympathetic in helping with a class project just to get answers turned in for the deadline. Can you help? 

I encourage you to follow posts on any angle you find interesting, maybe start with one person here or there and just talk with them. Your interests and areas of strength will come out in the process which is a mutual benefit.

Thanks for being here, take care and sorry about your friend. Hope to hear more from you as we go, and thanks also if you can help Lewdog with that survey for class.


----------



## RWS (Nov 9, 2016)

Well, option one has now opened its window...

It's up to us to make it happen. Give it time. Let it grow. Be prepared for change. This is why we needed Trump...

We need a lot of people thinking hard about a new way of government. And the way things should roll, in a society like ours...Emily has some great ideas to start.

But needs to simplify them for the masses


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 9, 2016)

RWS said:


> Well, option one has now opened its window...
> 
> It's up to us to make it happen. Give it time. Let it grow. Be prepared for change. This is why we needed Trump...
> 
> ...


Dear RWS one other independent citizen who likes the idea of organizing a separate system to govern social programs is jumping on board here soon.

So with three we have a conspiracy to defend equal civil rights instead of violate them!

I posted more replies with more descriptions in the thread by JimBowie1958 called ARGH!
Can I please ask your help to edit that language into something simpler?

If you track my posts on that thread and the ones I addressed to JakeStarkey and C Clayton Jones 
Can you pick out which statements
summarize the points the best? 

They come out different when I talk with different people. Do you see anything there that is general enough to use?  Thank you!


----------



## RWS (Nov 10, 2016)

I'm sorry Emily, while I'm very good at converting complex thoughts into simple ideas, I simply do not have the time on this forum to translate everything you're saying.   And you definitely need to simplify those ideas into something the masses can understand. 

First thing, if I'm gonna help you, let's group the ideas into the category they belong. 

OK? 

We need an external gov't that takes care of global matters.

We need an internal gov't that takes care of country-wide issues.

And we need our state govt's for stuff that the country doesn't understand based on your region.

And our local govt's to help people down to the city level. 

Each one of those should be independently elected. Whatever parties they dream up, only affects that level of government. So a local government's candidates have no affiliation to any of the other candidates. I understand the need for a party system, to allow us to vote for a few people instead of millions. But there's no reason that party system has to apply to all levels of government. 

Let's call it a rainbow government. With each spectrum, or color within, to have a political voice in some part of our government. This allows people to band together with ideas about certain issues, but not control every single issue that faces an American. Like the way it is now..


----------



## RWS (Nov 10, 2016)

Because anyone who professes to know everything about world matters and foreign politics, and war...cannot possibly know the internal workings of life where you live, and apply the same politics across the board. So they gather people around them that are affiliated to the same party to give their input. 

Let the experts be the experts of their subject matter. Let's have independent experts leading us in each level of government. And they should not be people the president selects to be those experts, but people WE select to represent us at each level, independent of other policies.

That is the key thought. We need to dismantle the current party system, and put a more uncorruptible system in place, where we have many choices. We have to get rid of Dem/Rep, and give multiple options for each level of government, and opportunity for people to have the exposure necessary to run for a position, without already having sold out their soul to gather the millions/billions necessary nowadays to run for a high office.


----------



## RWS (Nov 10, 2016)

We need a grass-roots transformation of the electoral system, allowing non-rich people to run for office, but still limit it so that there aren't 1 million people running for the same job.

That's what I find really hard to figure out.

How to get someone on the ballot and in public consideration, that isn't rich and hasn't sold out his/her soul to raise millions/billions to fund a campaign...

When we can answer that question, then we can move on to our progressive ideas. We need to figure that one out first, because once Trump fails, we'll be back to the same thing.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 10, 2016)

RWS said:


> We need a grass-roots transformation of the electoral system, allowing non-rich people to run for office, but still limit it so that there aren't 1 million people running for the same job.
> 
> That's what I find really hard to figure out.
> 
> ...


Dear RWS
1. Thank you for spelling things out in a clear list. The objection you listed, that the collective power should not be abused to impose or confuse the authority of different levels of government is just that: one of the goals is to prevent this as an objection. So all participants in each group agree NOT to abuse power to raise this objection, or if it starts to happen, the members agree to follow a,mediation process to point out the abuse (whether inside the group or petition an official outside that is doing this) and to resolve it by agreement. However it could be that to resolve the abuse, it could take a person intervening from one level or region coming in to talk to the person or group from a different section to work out a solution to whatever is causing them to overreach. So I agree we should all agree on the objectives and prevent the objections, but we may not agree on restrictions to prevent it. We can agree to focus on the issue or level we commit to, and to consult with those people first should an issue arise at that level and not bypass or issue statements without consensus among the group first. I get your idea, and just sense it would change a little by the time a group agrees how to frame it.
2. I do believe there should be some consultants who operate on all levels such as ministerial where all things are interconnected, but these should have no power to intervene except by consensus so that power is not abused. The mediators work by having zero say over the outcome and only serve to facilitate between the other parties. The arbitrators work by consensus of the people agreeing to them and to that process. These are basically acting as judges who only monitor if there is a conflict and whether it is resolved by consensus or it is being forced by compromise or coercion that won't last. But you are right the judges should not have power to impose their own solution, it has to come from the people directly involved in the conflict and not pressure not bullying by coercion or exclusion from outside. However in mediating or consulting to resolve a conflict between parties, these parties should be free to pick any mediator on the planet they agree to listen to, so if they request that help it should not be restricted or denied as long as they all agree to mediation and consensus not coercion.
3. The reasons mediation fails include raising objections but not committing to resolve them so it blocks consensus, time limits or legal restrictions such as speak freely or admitting wrong would trigger punishment and people cannot talk but compelled to take the fifth or not to disclose information that has implications from outside sources, and not asking or accessing help with a solution from other sources that could have helped them. If arbitration or mediation fails this is when I would recommend seeking help from outside to try to resolve the obstruction by consensual steps the parties agree to try next, not by coercion. The time limits are the worst pressures, and for the legal we might rely on a legal team to write agreements of immunity from prosecution as needed to resolve issues by consensus so this process isn't abused by either side to avoid addressing things but used to resolve the grievance and agree on solutions in full, not to obstruct justice but to protect the consensus process until the issues are settled to satisfaction of all directly affected.
4. Trump said he would take input from the public and put together ideas from that. I'd say let's contact Jill Stein and the Greens who practice consensus building as their meeting model, and they support representation by party, and ask her to lead the mediation that has zero power over the outcome. Let's state the goals and the objections.
The goals can be setting up 4-5 city states along the border to build campuses for workers to replace prisons and sweatshops as restitution for labor abuses by wrongdoers held responsible for costs, and to claim legal residency for dual citizenship for nationals from Mexico living undocumented in America so they have a safe agreed way to register by enrolling in work study programs through these school bases. These schools can be restitution for any complaints or abuses or fraud by Trump University and ask the students and workers across America to build campus programs the right way. Families or communities with mixed status or citizenship don't have to be divided if they have legal residence in these bases, and military prisons and teaching hospitals and factories can be developed along the border for security, and to provide jobs education and services legally, instead of just building a wall.

The goal of city states is to legalize the process of coming forward admitting violations of immigration labor criminal or trafficking laws and agreeing to a consensus process of assessing debts and damages and working out settlement and restitution plans. The workers and residents should have rights to ownership by investing their labor, and citizens who agree to donate or lend against debts owed by wrongdoers should get tax breaks while all costs should be covered by wrongdoers including interest or legal fees to work out settlement plans so there is no cost to taxpayers.

This WILL create tracks for interns and upstarts to learn to manage and lead got at all levels. The next Obama or Trump does NOT have to be a billionaire to work their way up this track from city to national to earn experience as Clinton did to seek higher office.

So this answers the issues brought up by Trump and Clintons backgrounds

And let's all ask the people on agreement to nominate Hillary Clinton to lead the nation in putting together these plans with all parties left out of representation, especially women and minority leaders and interests.

She can exercise power as President of this people's senate to put all the progressive ideas into action. Set up Model states along the border guarded by the military bases, and show,her leadership does unite if we back her. To assist Trump in managing and leading input from the people.
Www.earnedamnesty.org
www.rightsfortheworkers.org
www.ethics-commission.net

Note: where we need Cruz and Clintons help of legal expertise is applying RICO restitution laws for victims of trafficking to claim property as restitution.  Whole prisons were abused to traffic labor, and jails abused to traffic women and LGBT youth on the streets. So this is the source of saving taxpayer resources and all this can be invested in rebuilding communities the workers can own and manage by pairing interns with mentors and giving tax breaks to investors to lend money until the debts and restitution are paid off by the wrongdoers responsible or by their donors or sponsors agreeing to help voluntarily.

The Green progressive Democrats want a cabinet level Peace Dept. I suggested expanding the Dept of Justice to Dept of Peace and Justice to offer mediation and consensus for Restorative Justice. Where complaints and solutions are reported to the Senate Judiciary committee. But the mediation process remains outside to be free of politics and pressure. If the people help Trump define this new position then Cruz could lead the men who have restitution to pay and invest and Clinton can work with Sanders and Stein to lead women and workers who are owed restitution in voicing and repressing their demands damages and debts.


----------



## Picaro (Nov 10, 2016)

18 and Life said:


> Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
> Here to learn!



Stay away from ideologies, and try and travel overseas or even South America some; that way you can see what real oppression and racism is and get a sense of context. That will make it easy to laugh off most of the drivel you read re 'left' and 'right' after seeing both in their existential realities.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 10, 2016)

Picaro said:


> 18 and Life said:
> 
> 
> > Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
> ...


Thanks Picaro 
Actually some of the solutions coming out of Africa are better models of restorative justice than we have here. Look up Mandela s Truth Commission in South Africa and Reconciliation villages that heal and reunite tribes after genocide.


----------



## MisterBeale (Nov 30, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> As you can see 18 and life, this isn't the place to look for fact. Unless you can weed through the derps who think opening a book is tantamount egging Jesus' house.


What books would you recommend to someone for understanding how government works?


----------



## Boss (Nov 30, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > As you can see 18 and life, this isn't the place to look for fact. Unless you can weed through the derps who think opening a book is tantamount egging Jesus' house.
> ...



You're asking the wrong poster. Ike is a devout Communist who has no clue how our government works and is sorely in need of such books himself. 

There is no single book that adequately explains everything in all it's nuance. For a basic primer, Syl Sobel's books are a pretty good place to start if you are a young person wanting to learn the basics. If you are more advanced or need something with a little more depth, my recommendation is _Democracy in America_ by Alexis de Tocqueville. It was written in the 1830's by a Frenchman but is still surprisingly relevant today. 

Probably the very best resource for discovering how our founders intended our government to work is not a book at all.... it's the Federalist Papers. I mentioned this in my first post.  Anyone who wants to fully understand what the framers meant by the words written in the Constitution, should read the Federalist Papers.


----------



## ChrisL (Nov 30, 2016)

Boss said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...



It's amazing that this isn't covered in school.  I remember very briefly going over the constitution and the federalist papers.  More time obviously needs to be spent covering this subject.


----------



## MisterBeale (Nov 30, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



I know all of this, I was asking Isaac.  I know he claims to read a lot.  I really wanted HIS opinion on what books one should read.  

As someone who has studied political science, I have my own ideas, naturally.  However, he seems quite opinionated, but didn't give any advice about what books one should study, so I was just curious what he thought were good resources to learn about the truth of government.

I have no problem with folks who like literature, but I'm not sure he has read, or is familiar with anything that is really informative about the real nature of modern government.


----------



## there4eyeM (Nov 30, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > As you can see 18 and life, this isn't the place to look for fact. Unless you can weed through the derps who think opening a book is tantamount egging Jesus' house.
> ...


"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"?


----------



## MisterBeale (Nov 30, 2016)

Boss said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...



Those might be a good start about how things got started, however, they don't really explain the reality, not one bit, of what is going on today.  

They are idealistic tracts which should inform citizens about the ideal, but in no way have any bearing on reality.


----------



## Boss (Nov 30, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



Well, if you want reality.... Read any of Mark Levin's books. I recommend _Ameritopia_, _Plunder and Deceit_ and _Liberty and Tyranny_. You will find them to be full of factual information and historical events you probably never knew about. 

Now, I will take exception to your comment that the Federalist Papers are "idealistic tracts" ...because they certainly are nothing of the sort. The FP are a series of essays from the framers on the specifics surrounding everything in our Constitution. Why it is there and why it is important. It's really like the User's Guide to the Constitution. 

A lot of young people today think that the SCOTUS exists to "interpret" the Constitution. That is false. The SCOTUS exists simply to rule on the Constitution which is interpreted through the writings in the Federalist Papers. Everything in the Constitution is addressed in full detail with complete explanations in no ambiguous terms as to what it meant. So this silly notion that SCOTUS is supposed to "read the tea leaves" and determine what was meant is foolish and ignorant of actual historic fact. 

This is the single biggest problem we have with regard to education on government in America today and as ChrisL said, schools should spend MUCH more time on this. I will admit, it's difficult to read the Federalist Papers because it's written in Old English and it takes a bit of patience and becomes cumbersome and monotonous sometimes, trying to decipher what is being said. Still, it is our best resource for the meaning and intent of every single detail found in the Constitution.


----------



## vasuderatorrent (Nov 30, 2016)

miketx said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > 18 and Life said:
> ...



Yep.  Just skip school and you will be much better off in life.


----------



## MisterBeale (Nov 30, 2016)

Boss said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



It's idealist insofar as none of it is applicable today, or rather, that it _isn't being_ applied today.

I won't disagree with you that IT SHOULD BE. 

Yes, I agree with you, young people think the SCOTUS exists to interpret the Constitution.  But why?

The reason they do, is because there are two schools of thought, strict constructionists, and judicial activists.  Judicial activism seems to be the philosophical rule of the day.

As far as Mark Levin goes?  He might be fun for partisans to read, or if you want a political hack to confirm your political bias, but he's not going to tell you how the elites really run the system, nor how they think.


----------



## Boss (Nov 30, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> As far as Mark Levin goes? He might be fun for partisans to read, or if you want a political hack to confirm your political bias, but he's not going to tell you how the elites really run the system, nor how they think.



I disagree. I think the man has a remarkably brilliant understanding of history and he lays out the case very well in the books I mentioned. If you haven't read them, don't cast judgement. It's not just ideological pablum to confirm political bias, it's documented facts of history. He goes into quite a bit of extensive detail on the elites in _Plunder and Deceit_ in particular. 

People on the Left call him a "hack" because he speaks out against their Socialist agenda... that doesn't make him a hack just because they claim it. I mean... wtf? Is everything a Liberal spews the fucking gospel truth now? If you're honestly THAT brainwashed, there's no help for you anymore.


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 1, 2016)

vasuderatorrent said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...




"Brown shoes don't make it..."


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 1, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> 18 and Life said:
> 
> 
> > Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
> ...


It might be easier to figure out things if you were not perma-buzzed.

Nothing personal, just an observation.


----------

