CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[dblack]

Again unalienable rights are what and who we are, what we believe, what we think, what we want, and what we do with our own persons and property that requires no participation or contribution from any other person. Because it requires participation of my neighbor, I do not have an unalienable right to pollute the air that he must breathe. I have the unalienable right to breathe. I have no unalienable right to demand that somebody else provide me with unpolluted air, but as a citizen I have the same unalienable right as everybody else to form a society that values unpolluted air, water, soil etc. and support common laws that promote that.

Yes, I am mostly fine with the above, and I am very much in favor of societies aiming for a form or organization that ensures the citizens' highest-possible quality of life, and clean air is certainly a valuable part thereof...

The problem with expecting government to ensure "quality of life" is that it's largely a subjective concern. As long as we're talking about issues where there is near universal consensus - like the desire to maintain the commons (safe, clean environment), for example - it's not a problem. But beyond the areas of widespread agreement, our ideas of what comprise the "good life" vary radically. And trying to promote one person's idea of the good life, or one group's idea of the good life, at the expense of another's isn't good government. It's far better for government to protect everyone's freedom to pursue their own vision of happiness, rather than define the vision and force everyone to comply.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nope, you are taking the reductio ad absurdum approach.

Nope, I am just saying that a law that isn't being enforced is worse than no law, as the former creates a false sense of security where none exists. Whereas if you want to enforce the rules you outlined, you end up exactly in the situation I described. The law of unintended side-effects, as always, applies.

Politicians are making "deals" all the time, basically with every larger donation they accept, and most aren't exposed, or "found out". Pretty much all they have to do to avoid being in violation of the law is to avoid saying, "I'll vote for your project / interest in return for your money."

No, it isn't as simple as that. In order to prove a crime you have to show that a pay off actually occurred. A politician can still vote for a bill because he agrees with it. That is perfectly legitimate and cannot be the basis for an indictment. The crime occurs when there is both an inducement and a payoff. That is what will have to be proven. So no, there are "police state side affects". Just a better monitoring of how the government of the people BY the people is actually conducted.

 

[Olde Europe]

It's far better for government to protect everyone's freedom to pursue their own vision of happiness, rather than define the vision and force everyone to comply.

I believe you've severely misread FoxFyre's statement, as she seems to speak about the citizens' unalienable right to organise society according to their prevalent concepts, and a government's obligation / power to support that, not a government's right to define society's aims or vision: "[A]s a citizen I have the same unalienable right as everybody else to form a society that values unpolluted air, water, soil etc. and support common laws that promote that."

It so happens, I largely agree with that. Government should foremost and meticulously follow the Constitution, and otherwise react to the citizenry's wants and needs, and assist in organising the citizens' prevalent notions of good life (to be distinguished from imposing a form of good life).

There are, of course, still differences between our notions of legitimate government interference in that I do not believe the following to be strictly true (it may just be somewhat haplessly phrased): "I have the unalienable right to breathe. I have no unalienable right to demand that somebody else provide me with unpolluted air", as I think that whoever poisons my air, the soil on which I live, or the drinking water on which I depend, interferes with my unalienable rights to life and pursuit of happiness, and government interference on my rights' behalf, forcing the polluter to cease and desist, is entirely warranted.

Were my pursuit of happiness to result in your house being enveloped by billowing clouds of black smoke, you'd immediately recognise that the right to pursuit of happiness isn't unlimited, and certainly in this instance doesn't deserve the government's protection. And that's where some of the complexity of rights and government power begins.

_____________________________________________

In order to prove a crime you have to show that a pay off actually occurred.

Yep. That was pretty much what I tried to express.

 

[dblack]

It's far better for government to protect everyone's freedom to pursue their own vision of happiness, rather than define the vision and force everyone to comply.

I believe you've severely misread FoxFyre's statement ,,,

Maybe i was out of line, cutting in on the middle of a conversation, but I wasn't really responding to her statement. I was simply commenting on the general notion that government should be concerned with ensuring (or "assisting") any particular quality of life. We, as a society, can pursue those goals voluntarily, without enlisting the coercive powers of government.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again unalienable rights are what and who we are, what we believe, what we think, what we want, and what we do with our own persons and property that requires no participation or contribution from any other person. Because it requires participation of my neighbor, I do not have an unalienable right to pollute the air that he must breathe. I have the unalienable right to breathe. I have no unalienable right to demand that somebody else provide me with unpolluted air, but as a citizen I have the same unalienable right as everybody else to form a society that values unpolluted air, water, soil etc. and support common laws that promote that.

Yes, I am mostly fine with the above, and I am very much in favor of societies aiming for a form or organization that ensures the citizens' highest-possible quality of life, and clean air is certainly a valuable part thereof. Yet, you failed to explain how that establishes federal jurisdiction to intervene on the side of these aims, as this power doesn't seem to be included in the Federal government's enumerated powers.

Federal jurisdiction should come into play in the matter of air pollution when such pollution crosses state lines and therefore becomes more than a simple state's right issue. This is where the achieve the domestic tranquility and/or general welfare comes in. Rather than have Louisiana go to war with Texas to deal with a pollution issue, the federal government can realistically step in to arbitrate the matter and establish regulation to protect Louisiana's air quality from infringement by another state.

It is quite simple. Under the banner of liberty, Texas is free to pollute anything it wants if that is what it wants within the boundaries of Texas. And the people of Texas will need to deal with that and work out whatever everybody is willing to live with and correct whatever conditions exist that are unsatisfactory to the people. But Texas should not be allowed to pollute any other state's water, air, or soil with impunity. And the Federal government can and should be involved with that.

And I think the difference between these two things should be spelled out in the enumerated authority given to the federal government and whatever federal laws/regulation are necessary to deal with issues that cross state lines are appropriate.

 

[Olde Europe]

Under the banner of liberty, Texas is free to pollute anything it wants if that is what it wants within the boundaries of Texas.

Shall we then consider this....

"I [as does every U.S. citizen] have the unalienable right to breathe."

... retracted?

 

[Foxfyre]

Under the banner of liberty, Texas is free to pollute anything it wants if that is what it wants within the boundaries of Texas.

Shall we then consider this....

"I [as does every U.S. citizen] have the unalienable right to breathe."

... retracted?

I think you are missing the point altogether. Whether intentionally or you are unable to grasp it, I don't know, but you obviously are arguing something different than I am arguing. And your question is simply too silly to take seriously.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again unalienable rights are what and who we are, what we believe, what we think, what we want, and what we do with our own persons and property that requires no participation or contribution from any other person. Because it requires participation of my neighbor, I do not have an unalienable right to pollute the air that he must breathe. I have the unalienable right to breathe. I have no unalienable right to demand that somebody else provide me with unpolluted air, but as a citizen I have the same unalienable right as everybody else to form a society that values unpolluted air, water, soil etc. and support common laws that promote that.

Yes, I am mostly fine with the above, and I am very much in favor of societies aiming for a form or organization that ensures the citizens' highest-possible quality of life, and clean air is certainly a valuable part thereof...

The problem with expecting government to ensure "quality of life" is that it's largely a subjective concern. As long as we're talking about issues where there is near universal consensus - like the desire to maintain the commons (safe, clean environment), for example - it's not a problem. But beyond the areas of widespread agreement, our ideas of what comprise the "good life" vary radically. And trying to promote one person's idea of the good life, or one group's idea of the good life, at the expense of another's isn't good government. It's far better for government to protect everyone's freedom to pursue their own vision of happiness, rather than define the vision and force everyone to comply.

This is why I so object to social engineering from the federal level. One example: the federal government makes the local schools dependent on federal funding and then threatens to withhold that funding if the local schools do not 'obey' the federal government. So if the school does not comply with federal standards for what the kids must be served in the school cafeteria, even though the kids and the staff both hate it, it will have its funds withheld. That is not liberty. That is authoritarian arm twisting by a too large, too powerful, too intrusive federal government. The result is almost always wasted food in the cafeteria and the kids smuggling in food that is likely far worse for them than cafeteria food that they would eat would have been. Yet one more instance of good intentions creating unintended negative consequences.

Liberty is the ability to live their lives and order their societies as the people want them and not as some power figure in Washington thinks they should. So again if you have people who want a Mayberry USA with strict moralistic standards of 'decency' and 'goodness' expected and enforced, those people should have that. And if people want a wide open Deadwood with little or no law and order at all, those people should have that. And neither should be any business of the federal government.

 

[dcraelin]

Have elections every 2 years has effectively created the Campaign-Industrial-Complex (CIC).

We would all be better off if elections were only held every 4 years (as someone else has already proposed.) And yes 100% of all seats should be up for election at that time.

If we are going to impose term limits on the POTUS then they should apply to all elected positions in the House and Senate too. I have no problem with setting that at either 2 or 3 terms.

The Electoral College is an anachronism that needs to be scrapped. Every vote should have equal weight. The whole concept of "battle ground states" was invented by the CIC because of the EC.

All House Districts must have one tenth of one percent of the population irrespective of state boundaries. There will be a total of 1000 House members and they must be directly accountable to their electorate.

Funding for elections must come from the Federal government for Federal elections and every candidate who obtains the requisite number of names on a petition is entitled to that funding. No other funding of any kind can be spent on the campaign. No 3rd party can campaign on any issue or for any candidate. Instead they must nominate their own candidate and run them if they want to participate in the election.

Election Campaigns can only last a maximum of 6 weeks from start to finish. Primaries prior to Campaigns can last up to 8 weeks but they must be completed at least 2 weeks prior to the start of the Election Campaigns. Start to finish the entire election process should take just 16 weeks.

That can all be done via a single Amendment to the existing Constitution. Needless to say the CIC won't be happy campers and will obstruct it.

at the time of the revolution, there was a saying which went something like this "where yearly elections end tyranny begins"
a proportional election of representatives every year, by state, region or nationwide, would be the direction I would want to go in. This could be a party list vote only and changes made in membership only if enough change were had in party vote.

I would not scrap the electoral college, without it nationwide recounts could be a problem, and it does give perhaps give some influence to what would otherwise be fly-over country.

Interesting concept and certainly worthy of some consideration and discussion. But if we go with the more European system of party membership/strength determining the representation in government, what do we do with the independents?

Well what I like about the more European system is access by smaller parties. I suppose you could treat independents as a party of one. Or have them establish a party before granting ballot access.

But it does compromise the concept of unalienable rights and individual liberty to some degree if one must belong to a political party in order to have representation in government.

Oh I dont think so really, youd have to have some level of support to get into office anyway.....But I'd be open to Idea of party of 1.

 

[dblack]

Have elections every 2 years has effectively created the Campaign-Industrial-Complex (CIC).

We would all be better off if elections were only held every 4 years (as someone else has already proposed.) And yes 100% of all seats should be up for election at that time.

If we are going to impose term limits on the POTUS then they should apply to all elected positions in the House and Senate too. I have no problem with setting that at either 2 or 3 terms.

The Electoral College is an anachronism that needs to be scrapped. Every vote should have equal weight. The whole concept of "battle ground states" was invented by the CIC because of the EC.

All House Districts must have one tenth of one percent of the population irrespective of state boundaries. There will be a total of 1000 House members and they must be directly accountable to their electorate.

Funding for elections must come from the Federal government for Federal elections and every candidate who obtains the requisite number of names on a petition is entitled to that funding. No other funding of any kind can be spent on the campaign. No 3rd party can campaign on any issue or for any candidate. Instead they must nominate their own candidate and run them if they want to participate in the election.

Election Campaigns can only last a maximum of 6 weeks from start to finish. Primaries prior to Campaigns can last up to 8 weeks but they must be completed at least 2 weeks prior to the start of the Election Campaigns. Start to finish the entire election process should take just 16 weeks.

That can all be done via a single Amendment to the existing Constitution. Needless to say the CIC won't be happy campers and will obstruct it.

at the time of the revolution, there was a saying which went something like this "where yearly elections end tyranny begins"
a proportional election of representatives every year, by state, region or nationwide, would be the direction I would want to go in. This could be a party list vote only and changes made in membership only if enough change were had in party vote.

I would not scrap the electoral college, without it nationwide recounts could be a problem, and it does give perhaps give some influence to what would otherwise be fly-over country.

Interesting concept and certainly worthy of some consideration and discussion. But if we go with the more European system of party membership/strength determining the representation in government, what do we do with the independents?

Well what I like about the more European system is access by smaller parties. I suppose you could treat independents as a party of one. Or have them establish a party before granting ballot access.

But it does compromise the concept of unalienable rights and individual liberty to some degree if one must belong to a political party in order to have representation in government.

Oh I dont think so really, youd have to have some level of support to get into office anyway.....But I'd be open to Idea of party of 1.

But I suspect the people responsible for deciding which parties get government funding, and which don't, wouldn't be. Especially if said party was perceived as a threat.

 

[Foxfyre]

Have elections every 2 years has effectively created the Campaign-Industrial-Complex (CIC).

We would all be better off if elections were only held every 4 years (as someone else has already proposed.) And yes 100% of all seats should be up for election at that time.

If we are going to impose term limits on the POTUS then they should apply to all elected positions in the House and Senate too. I have no problem with setting that at either 2 or 3 terms.

The Electoral College is an anachronism that needs to be scrapped. Every vote should have equal weight. The whole concept of "battle ground states" was invented by the CIC because of the EC.

All House Districts must have one tenth of one percent of the population irrespective of state boundaries. There will be a total of 1000 House members and they must be directly accountable to their electorate.

Funding for elections must come from the Federal government for Federal elections and every candidate who obtains the requisite number of names on a petition is entitled to that funding. No other funding of any kind can be spent on the campaign. No 3rd party can campaign on any issue or for any candidate. Instead they must nominate their own candidate and run them if they want to participate in the election.

Election Campaigns can only last a maximum of 6 weeks from start to finish. Primaries prior to Campaigns can last up to 8 weeks but they must be completed at least 2 weeks prior to the start of the Election Campaigns. Start to finish the entire election process should take just 16 weeks.

That can all be done via a single Amendment to the existing Constitution. Needless to say the CIC won't be happy campers and will obstruct it.

at the time of the revolution, there was a saying which went something like this "where yearly elections end tyranny begins"
a proportional election of representatives every year, by state, region or nationwide, would be the direction I would want to go in. This could be a party list vote only and changes made in membership only if enough change were had in party vote.

I would not scrap the electoral college, without it nationwide recounts could be a problem, and it does give perhaps give some influence to what would otherwise be fly-over country.

Interesting concept and certainly worthy of some consideration and discussion. But if we go with the more European system of party membership/strength determining the representation in government, what do we do with the independents?

Well what I like about the more European system is access by smaller parties. I suppose you could treat independents as a party of one. Or have them establish a party before granting ballot access.

But it does compromise the concept of unalienable rights and individual liberty to some degree if one must belong to a political party in order to have representation in government.

Oh I dont think so really, youd have to have some level of support to get into office anyway.....But I'd be open to Idea of party of 1.

But remember that the power is held by the party with the largest delegation. So your party of one will have little or no say in much of anything.

So I still think the ONLY solution to return the government to the people is to take away the ability of those in government to use their position, whether elected, appointed, or employment, to increase their own personal power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. And the only way to do that is to cap their compensation at a reasonable amount and prevent them from using the people's money to benefit any person, entity, group, or demographic that does not at the same time benefit all. That way they can't use our money to buy any benefit for themselves.

 

[dcraelin]

That is what I am proposing as an amendment to Constitution to eliminate the corrupt campaign financing we have today. Lobbyists have a right to petition Congress but there can be no funding attached to those petitions.

As far as voters "forgetting" that doesn't happen for presidential, sentorial and gubernatorial elections so I don't see why it will suddenly be a problem if we put everyone on a 4 year term and restrict them to only 2 or 3 terms max.

I think forgetting ...or just plain not knowing what reps, sens, govs are up to is a problem...not totally solved by my proposal...nor solvable totally at all....I see you dont want campaigns..as they lead to fundraising needs?... I like that,....but worried about accountability

It would be a full time job to keep track of what they're up to, because they're up to way too much.

Which is why everything must be "on the record" and open to public scrutiny. All meetings with lobbyists, corporations, special interests, etc must be open to the public and recorded. Failure to do so means expulsion from office and massive fines.

Indeed. And it's why as much of the decision making as possible should happen locally, where we have some hope of keeping track of what our leaders are doing. Even if we had perfect transparency, centralizing so much of our government at the federal level makes it virtually impossible to keep track of, and creates a focal point for those who want to manipulate government.

On the flip side, dcraelin makes a valid point that smaller, local governments are more likely to indulge provincial quirks and bigotry, as that's why we need real federal oversight, but it's foolish to send so much of our tax money to DC with so little control over how it is spent.

Even more foolish when so much of the money that goes to DC is swallowed up to feed the ever more inefficient bloated bureaucracy that has grown to proportions that no government can provide adequate oversight of it. And once the federal government takes its cut, little of that same money is returned to the states to use. How much more efficient to keep and use as much tax money as possible at home?

And if a smaller government does engage in provincial quirks and bigotry in one place, what business is that of ours? Does not liberty allow people to be wrong as well as right? We the people should insist on exemplary government at all levels. If we do not, then turning that responsibility over to larger structures where we have far less influence and control just seems dumb.

Agree should insist on exemplary government at all levels. ...influence and control is the key......I think proportional representation and expanded representation at the national level would help with that

 

[dcraelin]

at the time of the revolution, there was a saying which went something like this "where yearly elections end tyranny begins"
a proportional election of representatives every year, by state, region or nationwide, would be the direction I would want to go in. This could be a party list vote only and changes made in membership only if enough change were had in party vote.

I would not scrap the electoral college, without it nationwide recounts could be a problem, and it does give perhaps give some influence to what would otherwise be fly-over country.

Interesting concept and certainly worthy of some consideration and discussion. But if we go with the more European system of party membership/strength determining the representation in government, what do we do with the independents?

Well what I like about the more European system is access by smaller parties. I suppose you could treat independents as a party of one. Or have them establish a party before granting ballot access.

But it does compromise the concept of unalienable rights and individual liberty to some degree if one must belong to a political party in order to have representation in government.

Oh I dont think so really, youd have to have some level of support to get into office anyway.....But I'd be open to Idea of party of 1.

But remember that the power is held by the party with the largest delegation. So your party of one will have little or no say in much of anything.

So I still think the ONLY solution to return the government to the people is to take away the ability of those in government to use their position, whether elected, appointed, or employment, to increase their own personal power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. And the only way to do that is to cap their compensation at a reasonable amount and prevent them from using the people's money to benefit any person, entity, group, or demographic that does not at the same time benefit all. That way they can't use our money to buy any benefit for themselves.

to a certain extent I agree....but restricting government compensation doesnt address private bribery. ......I can see lots of lawsuits in restricting too much as ANY

at the time of the revolution, there was a saying which went something like this "where yearly elections end tyranny begins"
a proportional election of representatives every year, by state, region or nationwide, would be the direction I would want to go in. This could be a party list vote only and changes made in membership only if enough change were had in party vote.

I would not scrap the electoral college, without it nationwide recounts could be a problem, and it does give perhaps give some influence to what would otherwise be fly-over country.

Interesting concept and certainly worthy of some consideration and discussion. But if we go with the more European system of party membership/strength determining the representation in government, what do we do with the independents?

Well what I like about the more European system is access by smaller parties. I suppose you could treat independents as a party of one. Or have them establish a party before granting ballot access.

But it does compromise the concept of unalienable rights and individual liberty to some degree if one must belong to a political party in order to have representation in government.

Oh I dont think so really, youd have to have some level of support to get into office anyway.....But I'd be open to Idea of party of 1.

But I suspect the people responsible for deciding which parties get government funding, and which don't, wouldn't be. Especially if said party was perceived as a threat.

true that happens now....have to have a formulaic rule.

 

[dcraelin]

at the time of the revolution, there was a saying which went something like this "where yearly elections end tyranny begins"
a proportional election of representatives every year, by state, region or nationwide, would be the direction I would want to go in. This could be a party list vote only and changes made in membership only if enough change were had in party vote.

I would not scrap the electoral college, without it nationwide recounts could be a problem, and it does give perhaps give some influence to what would otherwise be fly-over country.

Interesting concept and certainly worthy of some consideration and discussion. But if we go with the more European system of party membership/strength determining the representation in government, what do we do with the independents?

Well what I like about the more European system is access by smaller parties. I suppose you could treat independents as a party of one. Or have them establish a party before granting ballot access.

But it does compromise the concept of unalienable rights and individual liberty to some degree if one must belong to a political party in order to have representation in government.

Oh I dont think so really, youd have to have some level of support to get into office anyway.....But I'd be open to Idea of party of 1.

But remember that the power is held by the party with the largest delegation. So your party of one will have little or no say in much of anything.

So I still think the ONLY solution to return the government to the people is to take away the ability of those in government to use their position, whether elected, appointed, or employment, to increase their own personal power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. And the only way to do that is to cap their compensation at a reasonable amount and prevent them from using the people's money to benefit any person, entity, group, or demographic that does not at the same time benefit all. That way they can't use our money to buy any benefit for themselves.

to a certain extent I agree....but restricting government compensation doesnt address private bribery. ......I can see lots of lawsuits in restricting too much as ANY

at the time of the revolution, there was a saying which went something like this "where yearly elections end tyranny begins"
a proportional election of representatives every year, by state, region or nationwide, would be the direction I would want to go in. This could be a party list vote only and changes made in membership only if enough change were had in party vote.

I would not scrap the electoral college, without it nationwide recounts could be a problem, and it does give perhaps give some influence to what would otherwise be fly-over country.

Interesting concept and certainly worthy of some consideration and discussion. But if we go with the more European system of party membership/strength determining the representation in government, what do we do with the independents?

Well what I like about the more European system is access by smaller parties. I suppose you could treat independents as a party of one. Or have them establish a party before granting ballot access.

But it does compromise the concept of unalienable rights and individual liberty to some degree if one must belong to a political party in order to have representation in government.

Oh I dont think so really, youd have to have some level of support to get into office anyway.....But I'd be open to Idea of party of 1.

But remember that the power is held by the party with the largest delegation. So your party of one will have little or no say in much of anything.

So I still think the ONLY solution to return the government to the people is to take away the ability of those in government to use their position, whether elected, appointed, or employment, to increase their own personal power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. And the only way to do that is to cap their compensation at a reasonable amount and prevent them from using the people's money to benefit any person, entity, group, or demographic that does not at the same time benefit all. That way they can't use our money to buy any benefit for themselves.

well neither would an independent.....

your 'not benefiting ANY person that does not at same time benefit all" I see as too restrictive......and too vague....inviting lawsuits...etc.

 

[Foxfyre]

Interesting concept and certainly worthy of some consideration and discussion. But if we go with the more European system of party membership/strength determining the representation in government, what do we do with the independents?

Well what I like about the more European system is access by smaller parties. I suppose you could treat independents as a party of one. Or have them establish a party before granting ballot access.

But it does compromise the concept of unalienable rights and individual liberty to some degree if one must belong to a political party in order to have representation in government.

Oh I dont think so really, youd have to have some level of support to get into office anyway.....But I'd be open to Idea of party of 1.

But remember that the power is held by the party with the largest delegation. So your party of one will have little or no say in much of anything.

So I still think the ONLY solution to return the government to the people is to take away the ability of those in government to use their position, whether elected, appointed, or employment, to increase their own personal power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. And the only way to do that is to cap their compensation at a reasonable amount and prevent them from using the people's money to benefit any person, entity, group, or demographic that does not at the same time benefit all. That way they can't use our money to buy any benefit for themselves.

to a certain extent I agree....but restricting government compensation doesnt address private bribery. ......I can see lots of lawsuits in restricting too much as ANY

Interesting concept and certainly worthy of some consideration and discussion. But if we go with the more European system of party membership/strength determining the representation in government, what do we do with the independents?

Well what I like about the more European system is access by smaller parties. I suppose you could treat independents as a party of one. Or have them establish a party before granting ballot access.

But it does compromise the concept of unalienable rights and individual liberty to some degree if one must belong to a political party in order to have representation in government.

Oh I dont think so really, youd have to have some level of support to get into office anyway.....But I'd be open to Idea of party of 1.

But remember that the power is held by the party with the largest delegation. So your party of one will have little or no say in much of anything.

So I still think the ONLY solution to return the government to the people is to take away the ability of those in government to use their position, whether elected, appointed, or employment, to increase their own personal power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. And the only way to do that is to cap their compensation at a reasonable amount and prevent them from using the people's money to benefit any person, entity, group, or demographic that does not at the same time benefit all. That way they can't use our money to buy any benefit for themselves.

well neither would an independent.....

your 'not benefiting ANY person that does not at same time benefit all" I see as too restrictive......and too vague....inviting lawsuits...etc.

It is not vague at all. And it is intended to be restrictive.

 

[Foxfyre]

Interesting concept and certainly worthy of some consideration and discussion. But if we go with the more European system of party membership/strength determining the representation in government, what do we do with the independents?

Well what I like about the more European system is access by smaller parties. I suppose you could treat independents as a party of one. Or have them establish a party before granting ballot access.

But it does compromise the concept of unalienable rights and individual liberty to some degree if one must belong to a political party in order to have representation in government.

Oh I dont think so really, youd have to have some level of support to get into office anyway.....But I'd be open to Idea of party of 1.

But remember that the power is held by the party with the largest delegation. So your party of one will have little or no say in much of anything.

So I still think the ONLY solution to return the government to the people is to take away the ability of those in government to use their position, whether elected, appointed, or employment, to increase their own personal power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. And the only way to do that is to cap their compensation at a reasonable amount and prevent them from using the people's money to benefit any person, entity, group, or demographic that does not at the same time benefit all. That way they can't use our money to buy any benefit for themselves.

to a certain extent I agree....but restricting government compensation doesnt address private bribery. ......I can see lots of lawsuits in restricting too much as ANY

Interesting concept and certainly worthy of some consideration and discussion. But if we go with the more European system of party membership/strength determining the representation in government, what do we do with the independents?

Well what I like about the more European system is access by smaller parties. I suppose you could treat independents as a party of one. Or have them establish a party before granting ballot access.

But it does compromise the concept of unalienable rights and individual liberty to some degree if one must belong to a political party in order to have representation in government.

Oh I dont think so really, youd have to have some level of support to get into office anyway.....But I'd be open to Idea of party of 1.

But I suspect the people responsible for deciding which parties get government funding, and which don't, wouldn't be. Especially if said party was perceived as a threat.

true that happens now....have to have a formulaic rule.

No it would not stop private bribery, but hopefully we would attract people to Washington who are there to truly be public servants and therefore far less likely to get involved in illegal activities like bribery. But bribery is already illegal now. What I want to stop is the legal extortion of campaign contributions and votes in return for promised benevolence from the public treasury. What I want is to eliminate the ability of those in government to enrich themselves at our expense.

And the beautiful part is that nobody is deprived of their individual liberties in any way. The rich, the big corporations, the unions, the opportunists can all shovel as much money as they want to those in government. But nary a dime of it will buy them any benefit that everybody else doesn't get. Which I am guessing will take many hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars out of the campaign process the first year such an amendment passes.

 

[Olde Europe]

I think you are missing the point altogether. Whether intentionally or you are unable to grasp it, I don't know, but you obviously are arguing something different than I am arguing. And your question is simply too silly to take seriously.

Rest assured, if I am in fact missing your point, it isn't deliberate. For to me the right to pollute at liberty, and the "the unalienable right to breathe" pose a contradiction that I don't know how to resolve. Moreover, since there's no reasonable grounds to assume that unalienable rights ought to be disregarded in one state, whilst protected in another, why, in fact, unalienable right should be subject to different levels of protection, I see no reason to leave that to the States or to local communities.

So again if you have people who want a Mayberry USA with strict moralistic standards of 'decency' and 'goodness' expected and enforced, those people should have that. And if people want a wide open Deadwood with little or no law and order at all, those people should have that. And neither should be any business of the federal government.

What happens if...

1) ... it turns out that there are communities / States that are roughly equally divided between "Mayberry" and "Deadwood" Americans?

2) ... it turns out that the "Mayberry" Americans start to burn witches? ... and the "Deadwood" Americans make their living by secretly offering child prostitutes to the "Mayberry" Americans?

3) ... it happens that "Mayberry" and "Deadwood" Americans go to war with each other over the "right" way to organise their communities?

 

[Olde Europe]

The result is almost always wasted food in the cafeteria and the kids smuggling in food that is likely far worse for them than cafeteria food that they would eat would have been. Yet one more instance of good intentions creating unintended negative consequences.

As smuggling is usually done in secret, how do you know it occurs? And how do you know what kind of contraband is in the kids' lunch boxes?

Liberty is the ability to live their lives and order their societies as the people want them and not as some power figure in Washington thinks they should.

As the growing obesity (and diabetes) epidemic requires a contribution by others (in the form of rising, unnecessary health care costs to be covered by all), isn't it entirely sensible to insist that kids aren't being set on that path by the school cafeteria?

 

[dcraelin]

During the Tarp debates, the House at first rejected the bailout,.....so the Senate, in my opinion, bypassed the intent of the founders and initiated the bailout by amending a house bill to include TARP.

I would modify the Origination clause to state that any amendment may not modify the houses numbers by more than 5%

from wikipedia "At the Virginia Convention to ratify the Constitution, delegate William Grayson was concerned that a substitute amendment could have the same effect as an origination: "the Senate could strike out every word of the bill except the word whereas, or any other introductory word, and might substitute new words of their own.""

Again it appears the critics of the Constitution had it right.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think you are missing the point altogether. Whether intentionally or you are unable to grasp it, I don't know, but you obviously are arguing something different than I am arguing. And your question is simply too silly to take seriously.

Rest assured, if I am in fact missing your point, it isn't deliberate. For to me the right to pollute at liberty, and the "the unalienable right to breathe" pose a contradiction that I don't know how to resolve. Moreover, since there's no reasonable grounds to assume that unalienable rights ought to be disregarded in one state, whilst protected in another, why, in fact, unalienable right should be subject to different levels of protection, I see no reason to leave that to the States or to local communities.

So again if you have people who want a Mayberry USA with strict moralistic standards of 'decency' and 'goodness' expected and enforced, those people should have that. And if people want a wide open Deadwood with little or no law and order at all, those people should have that. And neither should be any business of the federal government.

What happens if...

1) ... it turns out that there are communities / States that are roughly equally divided between "Mayberry" and "Deadwood" Americans?

2) ... it turns out that the "Mayberry" Americans start to burn witches? ... and the "Deadwood" Americans make their living by secretly offering child prostitutes to the "Mayberry" Americans?

3) ... it happens that "Mayberry" and "Deadwood" Americans go to war with each other over the "right" way to organise their communities?

The point has always been that our unalienable rights are secured and with that done, THEN we are at liberty to live our lives and form whatever sorts of societies we wish to have. Hopefully all thinking people will have laws to prevent witch burning and child prostitution, but this is not the prerogative of the federal government if we wish for liberty to be the goal. I believe a free people will choose to not allow willful pollution of everybody else's air, water, and soil at will, but unless such crosses state lines, that is the business of the people to enforce and should not be the prerogative of the federal government. A federal government given such power to do what most of us would think of as good will also have power to do what most of us would think of as evil.

So, I want the central government to have authority for only such laws and regulation as is necessary for us to function as one country, to secure our right of self determination (i.e. our unalienable rights), and prevent the states from doing economic or material violence to each other. And then the federal government must strictly keep hands off and allow us to govern ourselves as we see fit.