CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[dcraelin]

an expansion of the house of representatives, part-time, stay in district,
who can vote when asked to by a strong minority of DC reps. Disperses power.

a national initiative option,

I am not clear on what you are suggesting. Can you expand on this?

At time Constitution originally passed there was roughly 1 representative for every 10,000 voters I believe. for years representation was expanded to keep that ratio low......they stoped expanding I believe in the 20s...now ratio is 1 rep to every 700,000 or so voters.....I would bring it more in line with what it was at founding....with some part-time, stay in the district, representatives.

there is a website advocating something similar I believe. I-ll try an find again and link
Thirty-Thousand.org - Return the House of Representatives to the People Home Page

 

[Derideo_Te]

gerrymandering could be illiminated by making representation proportional to party vote by state...or even nationwide.

Party affiliation changes constantly. The concept is that each representative is answerable to the same number of people irrespective of party affiliation. If we voted for parties instead of individuals nationwide the parties would appoint their representatives as opposed to the people electing them directly. That concept works in other democracies. No reason why it can't work here.

 

[dcraelin]

gerrymandering could be illiminated by making representation proportional to party vote by state...or even nationwide.

Party affiliation changes constantly. The concept is that each representative is answerable to the same number of people irrespective of party affiliation. If we voted for parties instead of individuals nationwide the parties would appoint their representatives as opposed to the people electing them directly. That concept works in other democracies. No reason why it can't work here.

yes I think it can work here...but some countries have a way that local voters still have a say in the people the parties put in office. not sure how that works off hand.

could still be primarys or caucuses of sorts

 

[Olde Europe]

It is impossible to get anything perfect. You have to do the best you can and then deal with the imperfections as they occur. That is why there are 3 branches of government. It is a system of checks and balances rather than a one size fits all solution.

I tend to agree with all of the above, but still I am quite unhappy with your statement.

Of course, nothing humans do will ever be perfect. However, that isn't a license for sloppy thinking (that doesn't mean you, BTW). It took a century between the Civil War and the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s that was supposed to seal the deal, and whilst everyone should join the "free at last" happiness over the latter, the implementation wasn't unproblematic. I'd say, the Teaparty movement was at least in part motivated by the continued resentment cause since. Or, look at Roe v. Wade. Was it enormously helpful? Absolutely. It also helped to cause four decades of relentless and escalating strife over women's right to choose.

And, why is "one size fits all" such a smear? Isn't the "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" in conjunction with "born equal" the greatest "one size fits all" ever conceived? Why should there be 50 different versions thereof within the U.S.? Checks and balances are all fine, as are 50 States checking the Federal Government (and vice versa). The issue is to get the balance right (as right as possible), so that the "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" is most plausibly enjoyed by all, and to the fullest extent possible, and for the long haul.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It is impossible to get anything perfect. You have to do the best you can and then deal with the imperfections as they occur. That is why there are 3 branches of government. It is a system of checks and balances rather than a one size fits all solution.

I tend to agree with all of the above, but still I am quite unhappy with your statement.

Of course, nothing humans do will ever be perfect. However, that isn't a license for sloppy thinking. It took a century between the Civil War and the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s that was supposed to seal the deal, and whilst everyone should join the "free at last" happiness over the latter, the implementation wasn't unproblematic. I'd say, the Teaparty movement was at least in part motivated by the continued resentment cause since. Or, look at Roe v. Wade. Was it enormously helpful? Absolutely. It also helped to cause four decades of relentless and escalating strife over women's right to choose.

And, why is "one size fits all" such a smear? Isn't the "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" the greatest "one size fits all" ever conceived? Why should there be 50 different versions thereof within the U.S.? Checks and balances are all fine, as are 50 States checking the Federal Government (and vice versa). The issue is to get the balance right (as right as possible), so that the "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" is most plausibly enjoyed by all, and to the fullest extent possible, and for the long haul.

You made an excellent point about my rather glib "one size fits all" remark. And so I am more than willing to go along with your version of what is essentially the same position as mine, albeit better stated.

 

[PratchettFan]

I love this thread. I really do.

If I understand your argument correctly, you would want to restore the current Constitution to its originally intended meaning, and now quote Jefferson to the effect that educating the people would be the way to go about it, since the people's educated attention and enlightened demands would be the ultimate safeguard for rights as enshrined in the Constitution. Correct? And no re-writing it, whether by amendment, or by beginning from scratch, would ultimately be helpful if that seemingly failed education wasn't remedied, because the re-written Constitution wasn't safeguarded and thus bound to fail, and in the same way and for the same reason the current one is (allegedly) failing.

I still don't understand your intent to write a NEW Constitution that would implement the original intent of the old one. You'd have to do a better job of it than the Founding Fathers, and that is assuming you (we) can discern their original intent. If so, good luck with that.

Not that I would ever dare to tell you what to do with your thread, Foxfyre, but, since I find we're meandering somewhat aimlessly here, I'd like to make a recommendation: Before assuming what is arguably the most complex writing task any society can undertake, why not take a (historically) preceding step first, and write what would be the Declaration of Independence (from the current Constitutional order)? [Well, fear from sounding pompous when writing about writing a Constitution isn't an option.]

That would involve...

1) setting out a guiding principle (or guiding principles), as in "born equal".

2) collecting information on, and systematically grouping and organising a list of grievances and complaints raised against the current Constitutional (dis-) order.

3) determining, in light of both principle(s) and grievances what the appropriate steps would be to secure an order of society and state more conducive towards the common welfare and in line with the principle(s) set out above.

Maybe, once that's done, we'd arrive on more secure ground, and even receive some direction?

You could add:

4. Defining the type of weapons that should be legal for keeping one's life and one's property safe.

What if I just like shooting weapons?

AR 15's / M16's? At people?

I haven't fired a weapon at people since the early 70's. But yes, AR 15's and 16's, AK's, etc. I enjoy putting holes in pieces of paper. Why should I have to justify that?

Because putting holes in a piece of paper doesn't require such weapons or the specific training that goes along with shooting an AR-15/ M-16, etc. The military (which those weapons were designed for) get all the necessary training in how to use, clean, assemble, disassemble, etc., these weapons.....when civilians get them, they are left to their own devices. Anyone should be able to recognize that this is not smart.

Tearing down an AR-15 is no more complicated than tearing down your average semi-auto pistol. Neither is firing it. The primary difference is the length of the cleaning rod. It is not beyond the capacity of anyone not mentally incapacitated. So unless you can demonstrate that I am personally not capable of doing so, you have no basis to question my owning such weapons.

 

[Foxfyre]

an expansion of the house of representatives, part-time, stay in district,
who can vote when asked to by a strong minority of DC reps. Disperses power.

a national initiative option,

I would have no problem with expanding representation in Washington IF we do away with ridiculous gerrymandering. Districts should be shaped to get the right number of population but not the 'right kind' of population.

What do you mean by a national initiative option?

Gerrymandering is created by state governments. Without imposing federal authority over the states, how would you propose we do away with it?

The federal government can and should make the rules about how the federal laws are implemented. If a state wants to gerrymander for the purposes of state legislatures that is certainly something the federal government would have no say in. But the Constitution could quite justly designate the rules for the federal districts.

 

[Foxfyre]

an expansion of the house of representatives, part-time, stay in district,
who can vote when asked to by a strong minority of DC reps. Disperses power.

a national initiative option,

I would have no problem with expanding representation in Washington IF we do away with ridiculous gerrymandering. Districts should be shaped to get the right number of population but not the 'right kind' of population.

What do you mean by a national initiative option?

gerrymandering could be illiminated by making representation proportional to party vote by state...or even nationwide.

a nationl intitiative option would be like the Swiss have...upon gathering enought signatures people can get an issue they care about on the ballot.

The Swiss have a much smaller (8 million or so folks--smaller than New York City) and much more homogenous and culturally uniform population than does the USA. Their land area is roughly the size of Vermont combined with New Hampshire or maybe two or three counties in New Mexico. I think extrapolating what works for them to what would work for us could be as impractical and perhaps as destructive as saying the local government of Muleshoe TX would be okay for New York City.

And no way in hell do I want to put all the power with the political party machines. Those already hold far too much power as it is and they all exist to get what THEY want in government rather than for the best interests of the whole country.

The Swiss, however, are a culture that is most similar to ours of all countries. The people there have the power, via petition, to object to actions of Parliament, and there is growing concern among the people that far too much power is being placed in their central government as opposed to mostly in the municipalities, cities, or canton where it has traditionally been.

But I do think increasing the number of representatives so that each represents a lot fewer people in smaller districts would be a positive thing. Most especially if we are successful in downsizing and limiting the federal government so that those representatives don't need to be in Washington most of the time but can stay home most of the time with the people they represent.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because putting holes in a piece of paper doesn't require such weapons or the specific training that goes along with shooting an AR-15/ M-16, etc. The military (which those weapons were designed for) get all the necessary training in how to use, clean, assemble, disassemble, etc., these weapons.....when civilians get them, they are left to their own devices. Anyone should be able to recognize that this is not smart.

And yet. more people are killed with hammers and other blunt objects than with 'assault weapons'.
Oh, the danger these weapons pose to society.

 

[dcraelin]

an expansion of the house of representatives, part-time, stay in district,
who can vote when asked to by a strong minority of DC reps. Disperses power.

a national initiative option,

I would have no problem with expanding representation in Washington IF we do away with ridiculous gerrymandering. Districts should be shaped to get the right number of population but not the 'right kind' of population.

What do you mean by a national initiative option?

gerrymandering could be illiminated by making representation proportional to party vote by state...or even nationwide.

a nationl intitiative option would be like the Swiss have...upon gathering enought signatures people can get an issue they care about on the ballot.

The Swiss have a much smaller (8 million or so folks--smaller than New York City) and much more homogenous and culturally uniform population than does the USA. Their land area is roughly the size of Vermont combined with New Hampshire or maybe two or three counties in New Mexico. I think extrapolating what works for them would work for us could be as impractical and perhaps as destructive as saying the local government of Muleshoe TX would be okay for New York City.

And no way in hell do I want to put all the power with the political party machines. Those already hold far too much power as it is and they all exist to get what THEY want in government rather than for the best interests of the whole country.

The Swiss, however, are a culture that is most similar to ours of all countries. The people there have the power, via petition, to object to actions of Parliament, and there is growing concern among the people that far too much power is being placed in their central government as opposed to mostly in the municipalities, cities, or canton where it has traditionally been.

well a national initiative option could be structured slightly different form Swirzerlands...using state processes already used and expanding on that. organization already in place promoting a NI.

on partys I think actually the partys in america are weak. Ive seen studies that show would be an improvement if party line actually meant something. As it is now lots of rank and file of both the corrupt puppet parties feel backstabbed by most of their politicians. BEcause those politicians are more atuned to the needs of donors than to party ideology.

 

[Mertex]

claiming that doing nothing and letting time take care of the problems because the people will eventually get it right is not a valid position.

I tend to agree with that, but great care should be taken to ensure that the remedy isn't worse, and doesn't cause worse problems, than that which it is intended to solve, is all I am saying.

It is impossible to get anything perfect. You have to do the best you can and then deal with the imperfections as they occur. That is why there are 3 branches of government. It is a system of checks and balances rather than a one size fits all solution.

It's a system of checks and balances until Obama doesn't get another branch to do what he wants.

He doesn't have to. He has authority as President to do certain things. Good thing he's not like GW Bush and uses the Executive Order as much as he did.

A true sign of hypocrisy when the right calls Obama a dictator for using Executive Order, when they applauded George W. Bush when he did it.


So much for the right calling President Obama a ‘dictator’ for threatening the go unilaterally via executive orders. The freak out after his State of the Union address was just ridiculous. They literally lost their minds after President Obama said he would raise the minimum wage for government contractors to $10.10 via an executive order.

Glenn Beck, who recently declared his remorse for being a divider, boldly deemed President Obama to be “America’s first dictator.”

President Obama Signed Fewer Executive Orders Than George W. Bush

 

[Conservative65]

claiming that doing nothing and letting time take care of the problems because the people will eventually get it right is not a valid position.

I tend to agree with that, but great care should be taken to ensure that the remedy isn't worse, and doesn't cause worse problems, than that which it is intended to solve, is all I am saying.

It is impossible to get anything perfect. You have to do the best you can and then deal with the imperfections as they occur. That is why there are 3 branches of government. It is a system of checks and balances rather than a one size fits all solution.

It's a system of checks and balances until Obama doesn't get another branch to do what he wants.

He doesn't have to. He has authority as President to do certain things. Good thing he's not like GW Bush and uses the Executive Order as much as he did.

A true sign of hypocrisy when the right calls Obama a dictator for using Executive Order, when they applauded George W. Bush when he did it.


So much for the right calling President Obama a ‘dictator’ for threatening the go unilaterally via executive orders. The freak out after his State of the Union address was just ridiculous. They literally lost their minds after President Obama said he would raise the minimum wage for government contractors to $10.10 via an executive order.

Glenn Beck, who recently declared his remorse for being a divider, boldly deemed President Obama to be “America’s first dictator.”

President Obama Signed Fewer Executive Orders Than George W. Bush

One has to look at the content or purpose of them not just the number. Your problem is you think an EO to expedite something already passed by Congress (EO 13212), Create a task force to improve healthcare delivery to veterans (EO 13215), or to provide an order of succession in Cabinet departments (EO 13484, 13485) is the same thing as one letting a bunch of criminals stay in the country because Congress won't do it his way.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Insults are not permitted in the Clean Debate Zone

 

[Foxfyre]

an expansion of the house of representatives, part-time, stay in district,
who can vote when asked to by a strong minority of DC reps. Disperses power.

a national initiative option,

I would have no problem with expanding representation in Washington IF we do away with ridiculous gerrymandering. Districts should be shaped to get the right number of population but not the 'right kind' of population.

What do you mean by a national initiative option?

gerrymandering could be illiminated by making representation proportional to party vote by state...or even nationwide.

a nationl intitiative option would be like the Swiss have...upon gathering enought signatures people can get an issue they care about on the ballot.

The Swiss have a much smaller (8 million or so folks--smaller than New York City) and much more homogenous and culturally uniform population than does the USA. Their land area is roughly the size of Vermont combined with New Hampshire or maybe two or three counties in New Mexico. I think extrapolating what works for them would work for us could be as impractical and perhaps as destructive as saying the local government of Muleshoe TX would be okay for New York City.

And no way in hell do I want to put all the power with the political party machines. Those already hold far too much power as it is and they all exist to get what THEY want in government rather than for the best interests of the whole country.

The Swiss, however, are a culture that is most similar to ours of all countries. The people there have the power, via petition, to object to actions of Parliament, and there is growing concern among the people that far too much power is being placed in their central government as opposed to mostly in the municipalities, cities, or canton where it has traditionally been.

well a national initiative option could be structured slightly different form Swirzerlands...using state processes already used and expanding on that. organization already in place promoting a NI.

on partys I think actually the partys in america are weak. Ive seen studies that show would be an improvement if party line actually meant something. As it is now lots of rank and file of both the corrupt puppet parties feel backstabbed by most of their politicians. BEcause those politicians are more atuned to the needs of donors than to party ideology.

I disagree. I think the party structures are as tied into the self-serving corruption as much as anything else. And I think there is plenty of evidence that those in elected and appointed offices as well as the more powerful bureaucrats are extorting money from those donors more than they are concerned with the needs of those donors. The donors give money to prevent government from making mischief more than they give money as bribes. And millions--I am not exaggerating--millions of that extorted money is funneled into the political party organizations. Which is why I propose this situation be corrected via the Constitution.

America is like no other nation. We were intended to be like no other nation. And when we operated via those principles, we were the most powerful, prosperous, innovative, and free nation in the world--the place in the world all wanted to come to because here people would have liberty to make of themselves whatever they had the vision and aptitude to be. No other nation could come close to us.

But we are what we are because we chose to be different--to have a government and society that embraced liberty instead of the whims of kings or other authorities that existed in the European and Asian systems. We should not be so eager to think we should be like Europe. We should instead look to restore those qualities that all of Europe envied and slowly but surely were emulating.

 

[dcraelin]

an expansion of the house of representatives, part-time, stay in district,
who can vote when asked to by a strong minority of DC reps. Disperses power.

a national initiative option,

I would have no problem with expanding representation in Washington IF we do away with ridiculous gerrymandering. Districts should be shaped to get the right number of population but not the 'right kind' of population.

What do you mean by a national initiative option?

gerrymandering could be illiminated by making representation proportional to party vote by state...or even nationwide.

a nationl intitiative option would be like the Swiss have...upon gathering enought signatures people can get an issue they care about on the ballot.

The Swiss have a much smaller (8 million or so folks--smaller than New York City) and much more homogenous and culturally uniform population than does the USA. Their land area is roughly the size of Vermont combined with New Hampshire or maybe two or three counties in New Mexico. I think extrapolating what works for them would work for us could be as impractical and perhaps as destructive as saying the local government of Muleshoe TX would be okay for New York City.

And no way in hell do I want to put all the power with the political party machines. Those already hold far too much power as it is and they all exist to get what THEY want in government rather than for the best interests of the whole country.

The Swiss, however, are a culture that is most similar to ours of all countries. The people there have the power, via petition, to object to actions of Parliament, and there is growing concern among the people that far too much power is being placed in their central government as opposed to mostly in the municipalities, cities, or canton where it has traditionally been.

well a national initiative option could be structured slightly different form Swirzerlands...using state processes already used and expanding on that. organization already in place promoting a NI.

on partys I think actually the partys in america are weak. Ive seen studies that show would be an improvement if party line actually meant something. As it is now lots of rank and file of both the corrupt puppet parties feel backstabbed by most of their politicians. BEcause those politicians are more atuned to the needs of donors than to party ideology.

I disagree. I think the party structures are as tied into the self-serving corruption as much as anything else. And I think there is plenty of evidence that those in elected and appointed offices as well as the more powerful bureaucrats are extorting money from those donors more than they are concerned with the needs of those donors. The donors give money to prevent government from making mischief more than they give money as bribes. And millions--I am not exaggerating--millions of that extorted money is funneled into the political party organizations. Which is why I propose this situation be corrected via the Constitution.

America is like no other nation. We were intended to be like no other nation. And when we operated via those principles, we were the most powerful, prosperous, innovative, and free nation in the world--the place in the world all wanted to come to because here people would have liberty to make of themselves whatever they had the vision and aptitude to be. No other nation could come close to us.

But we are what we are because we chose to be different--to have a government and society that embraced liberty instead of the whims of kings or other authorities that existed in the European and Asian systems. We should not be so eager to think we should be like Europe. We should instead look to restore those qualities that all of Europe envied and slowly but surely were emulating.

I think you've got on rose colored glasses when it comes to the past....

I admire the founding generation...but they were in some ways betrayed by the federalists and the Constitution. Patrick Henry opposed it...so did James Monroe....

 

[Foxfyre]

I would have no problem with expanding representation in Washington IF we do away with ridiculous gerrymandering. Districts should be shaped to get the right number of population but not the 'right kind' of population.

What do you mean by a national initiative option?

gerrymandering could be illiminated by making representation proportional to party vote by state...or even nationwide.

a nationl intitiative option would be like the Swiss have...upon gathering enought signatures people can get an issue they care about on the ballot.

The Swiss have a much smaller (8 million or so folks--smaller than New York City) and much more homogenous and culturally uniform population than does the USA. Their land area is roughly the size of Vermont combined with New Hampshire or maybe two or three counties in New Mexico. I think extrapolating what works for them would work for us could be as impractical and perhaps as destructive as saying the local government of Muleshoe TX would be okay for New York City.

And no way in hell do I want to put all the power with the political party machines. Those already hold far too much power as it is and they all exist to get what THEY want in government rather than for the best interests of the whole country.

The Swiss, however, are a culture that is most similar to ours of all countries. The people there have the power, via petition, to object to actions of Parliament, and there is growing concern among the people that far too much power is being placed in their central government as opposed to mostly in the municipalities, cities, or canton where it has traditionally been.

well a national initiative option could be structured slightly different form Swirzerlands...using state processes already used and expanding on that. organization already in place promoting a NI.

on partys I think actually the partys in america are weak. Ive seen studies that show would be an improvement if party line actually meant something. As it is now lots of rank and file of both the corrupt puppet parties feel backstabbed by most of their politicians. BEcause those politicians are more atuned to the needs of donors than to party ideology.

I disagree. I think the party structures are as tied into the self-serving corruption as much as anything else. And I think there is plenty of evidence that those in elected and appointed offices as well as the more powerful bureaucrats are extorting money from those donors more than they are concerned with the needs of those donors. The donors give money to prevent government from making mischief more than they give money as bribes. And millions--I am not exaggerating--millions of that extorted money is funneled into the political party organizations. Which is why I propose this situation be corrected via the Constitution.

America is like no other nation. We were intended to be like no other nation. And when we operated via those principles, we were the most powerful, prosperous, innovative, and free nation in the world--the place in the world all wanted to come to because here people would have liberty to make of themselves whatever they had the vision and aptitude to be. No other nation could come close to us.

But we are what we are because we chose to be different--to have a government and society that embraced liberty instead of the whims of kings or other authorities that existed in the European and Asian systems. We should not be so eager to think we should be like Europe. We should instead look to restore those qualities that all of Europe envied and slowly but surely were emulating.

I think you've got on rose colored glasses when it comes to the past....

I admire the founding generation...but they were in some ways betrayed by the federalists and the Constitution. Patrick Henry opposed it...so did James Monroe....

One of the greatest errors in evaluating history is that if ANYBODY opposed something or ANYBODY misused something or if ANYTHING didn't work as expected or if ANYTHING was not as it should be, then the whole thing was too flawed or incompetent or evil to be considered effective. The irony is that the same people who accuse the past in that way don't seem to have enough problem with the glaring inefficiencies, error, evils, and misconduct in the present system to declare it too flawed or incompetent or evil to be considered effective.

 

[Mertex]

claiming that doing nothing and letting time take care of the problems because the people will eventually get it right is not a valid position.

I tend to agree with that, but great care should be taken to ensure that the remedy isn't worse, and doesn't cause worse problems, than that which it is intended to solve, is all I am saying.

It is impossible to get anything perfect. You have to do the best you can and then deal with the imperfections as they occur. That is why there are 3 branches of government. It is a system of checks and balances rather than a one size fits all solution.

It's a system of checks and balances until Obama doesn't get another branch to do what he wants.

He doesn't have to. He has authority as President to do certain things. Good thing he's not like GW Bush and uses the Executive Order as much as he did.

A true sign of hypocrisy when the right calls Obama a dictator for using Executive Order, when they applauded George W. Bush when he did it.


So much for the right calling President Obama a ‘dictator’ for threatening the go unilaterally via executive orders. The freak out after his State of the Union address was just ridiculous. They literally lost their minds after President Obama said he would raise the minimum wage for government contractors to $10.10 via an executive order.

Glenn Beck, who recently declared his remorse for being a divider, boldly deemed President Obama to be “America’s first dictator.”

President Obama Signed Fewer Executive Orders Than George W. Bush

One has to look at the content or purpose of them not just the number. Your problem is you think an EO to expedite something already passed by Congress (EO 13212), Create a task force to improve healthcare delivery to veterans (EO 13215), or to provide an order of succession in Cabinet departments (EO 13484, 13485) is the same thing as one letting a bunch of criminals stay in the country because Congress won't do it his way.

And since Republicans will never look at the content of Obama's Executive Order in a positive manner.....you will continue to complain about it, when you probably lauded the shrub for all the bad EO's he signed.

George W Bush's executive order Executive Order 13201 was overturned.
Court Overturns President Bush s Union Dues Executive Order National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

President George W. Bush issued an executive order in 2001 that restricted public access to the papers of former presidents. Obama revoked it in 2009.
Executive orders What they are and how they work

So far, Mr. Obama has averaged 37 executive orders p.a., which is below the long-term average of 44 p.a., and lower also than the rate of five GOP presidents – including Gerald Ford (84 p.a.), Dwight Eisenhower (60 p.a.), Richard Nixon (58 p.a.), Ronald Reagan (48 p.a.), and George H.W. Bush (41 p.a.).
When It Comes To Abuse Of Presidential Power Obama Is A Mere Piker - Forbes



I see you can't handle the truth....have to resort to name calling. George Bush had plenty of EO's which have been overturned due to their inefficiency.


This is the CDZ. You don't even have enough sense to realize you have just broken the rules. Good luck with that.

 

[Mertex]

I think you've got on rose colored glasses when it comes to the past....

That's for sure. I've heard Republicans claim that the slaves were happy being slaves.....after all, they were always singing!

 

[BlackSand]

gerrymandering could be illiminated by making representation proportional to party vote by state...or even nationwide.

a nationl intitiative option would be like the Swiss have...upon gathering enought signatures people can get an issue they care about on the ballot.

The Swiss have a much smaller (8 million or so folks--smaller than New York City) and much more homogenous and culturally uniform population than does the USA. Their land area is roughly the size of Vermont combined with New Hampshire or maybe two or three counties in New Mexico. I think extrapolating what works for them would work for us could be as impractical and perhaps as destructive as saying the local government of Muleshoe TX would be okay for New York City.

And no way in hell do I want to put all the power with the political party machines. Those already hold far too much power as it is and they all exist to get what THEY want in government rather than for the best interests of the whole country.

The Swiss, however, are a culture that is most similar to ours of all countries. The people there have the power, via petition, to object to actions of Parliament, and there is growing concern among the people that far too much power is being placed in their central government as opposed to mostly in the municipalities, cities, or canton where it has traditionally been.

well a national initiative option could be structured slightly different form Swirzerlands...using state processes already used and expanding on that. organization already in place promoting a NI.

on partys I think actually the partys in america are weak. Ive seen studies that show would be an improvement if party line actually meant something. As it is now lots of rank and file of both the corrupt puppet parties feel backstabbed by most of their politicians. BEcause those politicians are more atuned to the needs of donors than to party ideology.

I disagree. I think the party structures are as tied into the self-serving corruption as much as anything else. And I think there is plenty of evidence that those in elected and appointed offices as well as the more powerful bureaucrats are extorting money from those donors more than they are concerned with the needs of those donors. The donors give money to prevent government from making mischief more than they give money as bribes. And millions--I am not exaggerating--millions of that extorted money is funneled into the political party organizations. Which is why I propose this situation be corrected via the Constitution.

America is like no other nation. We were intended to be like no other nation. And when we operated via those principles, we were the most powerful, prosperous, innovative, and free nation in the world--the place in the world all wanted to come to because here people would have liberty to make of themselves whatever they had the vision and aptitude to be. No other nation could come close to us.

But we are what we are because we chose to be different--to have a government and society that embraced liberty instead of the whims of kings or other authorities that existed in the European and Asian systems. We should not be so eager to think we should be like Europe. We should instead look to restore those qualities that all of Europe envied and slowly but surely were emulating.

I think you've got on rose colored glasses when it comes to the past....

I admire the founding generation...but they were in some ways betrayed by the federalists and the Constitution. Patrick Henry opposed it...so did James Monroe....

One of the greatest errors in evaluating history is that if ANYBODY opposed something or ANYBODY misused something or if ANYTHING didn't work as expected or if ANYTHING was not as it should be, then the whole thing was too flawed or incompetent or evil to be considered effective. The irony is that the same people who accuse the past in that way don't seem to have enough problem with the glaring inefficiencies, error, evils, and misconduct in the present system to declare it too flawed or incompetent or evil to be considered effective.

Bingo ...



Side Note:
Once we can accept that nothing ever works perfectly as well as the fact efficiency and effectiveness supersede intention ... Then principle and responsibility override political response.

The intention to help someone does not ensure success nor excuse failure ... Especially if it requires confiscating resources and infringing on the rights of responsible citizens.

.

 

[dblack]

One of the greatest errors in evaluating history is that if ANYBODY opposed something or ANYBODY misused something or if ANYTHING didn't work as expected or if ANYTHING was not as it should be, then the whole thing was too flawed or incompetent or evil to be considered effective. The irony is that the same people who accuse the past in that way don't seem to have enough problem with the glaring inefficiencies, error, evils, and misconduct in the present system to declare it too flawed or incompetent or evil to be considered effective.

Likewise, advocating policies of the past because they "worked" is a weak endorsement at best. History doesn't provide us with counterfactuals (e.g.. we really don't know what would have happened if the Court had struck down the New Deal). And just because a given policy achieved its nominal goal doesn't mean it was worth the cost, or that we can't do better.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Founders knew that there is no liberty if some are given power to dictate the rights that others will have. Those in government understood that very well and had no problem with understanding that they were limited to what the government [Constitution?] stated they could do. That is why the original Constitution was intended to strictly restrict the power of the federal government and give all power to the people to form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have and to discipline and govern themselves. No despot, dictatorship, monarchy, papacy, or other totalitarian form of government would be allowed to develop.

And up until the turn of the 20th Century when the people failed to object to increasing power grabs by the federal government, every President and congress interpreted the constitutional restrictions on federal government the same:

“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves ; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” ― Thomas Jefferson, Letters of Thomas Jefferson

I love this thread. I really do.

If I understand your argument correctly, you would want to restore the current Constitution to its originally intended meaning, and now quote Jefferson to the effect that educating the people would be the way to go about it, since the people's educated attention and enlightened demands would be the ultimate safeguard for rights as enshrined in the Constitution. Correct? And no re-writing it, whether by amendment, or by beginning from scratch, would ultimately be helpful if that seemingly failed education wasn't remedied, because the re-written Constitution wasn't safeguarded and thus bound to fail, and in the same way and for the same reason the current one is (allegedly) failing.

I still don't understand your intent to write a NEW Constitution that would implement the original intent of the old one. You'd have to do a better job of it than the Founding Fathers, and that is assuming you (we) can discern their original intent. If so, good luck with that.

Not that I would ever dare to tell you what to do with your thread, Foxfyre, but, since I find we're meandering somewhat aimlessly here, I'd like to make a recommendation: Before assuming what is arguably the most complex writing task any society can undertake, why not take a (historically) preceding step first, and write what would be the Declaration of Independence (from the current Constitutional order)? [Well, fear from sounding pompous when writing about writing a Constitution isn't an option.]

That would involve...

1) setting out a guiding principle (or guiding principles), as in "born equal".

2) collecting information on, and systematically grouping and organising a list of grievances and complaints raised against the current Constitutional (dis-) order.

3) determining, in light of both principle(s) and grievances what the appropriate steps would be to secure an order of society and state more conducive towards the common welfare and in line with the principle(s) set out above.

Maybe, once that's done, we'd arrive on more secure ground, and even receive some direction?

Hear, hear!
Madison and Hamilton were all over the place on intent and meanings, so how the heck can anyone else claim to know -- unless they buy into the originalist approach and seek out what the people who ratified the document and not the mere writers meant and intended -- oh never mind