Debate Now I'm Leaving! Who Is With Me?

[Statistikhengst]

I am all for having fun with the topic guys, but one of the expressed rules in the OP is to stay on topic.

I am staying on topic, contributing information and asking questions.

What is your beef, Master Sergeant Fox??

One cannot not expect debate to be 'clean' or 'on topic' or to adhere to specific rules, qualifications, and guidelines when that 'debate' is initiated in bad faith with a premise that is factually wrong; in this case to maintain that the Constitution has been 'misinterpreted' or is in need of being 'cleaned up.'

Indeed, when one makes such blatantly wrong statements concerning the Constitution, its case law, and current Constitutional jurisprudence, she forfeits any expectation of 'debating now' in a manner subject to rules and guidelines, where those rules and guidelines are devoid of merit.

The Constitution exists now as intended by the Framers, interpreted by the Supreme Court in accordance with the doctrine of judicial review, authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution, as expected and desired by the Founding Generation of Americans who sought to be subject solely to the rule of law and a National government of their creation, supreme and immune from attack by the states, where the states and local jurisdictions are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government.

^ that

OP presumes, or goes by what is said in her henpecked media outlets of a certain bent, that the Constitution has somehow been surreptitiously corrupted.

Yes, but there is nothing wrong with basing a hypothetical "what if" scenario upon it, imo.

 

[Gracie]

Anyone who watched the short lived TV series, Utopia, knows how this "New America" is going to turn out.

*shudder*. I watched it. I gave it 3 months or less to be shut down and I was right. Why? Because nobody wanted to WORK for a Utopia.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I am all for having fun with the topic guys, but one of the expressed rules in the OP is to stay on topic.

I am staying on topic, contributing information and asking questions.

What is your beef, Master Sergeant Fox??

One cannot not expect debate to be 'clean' or 'on topic' or to adhere to specific rules, qualifications, and guidelines when that 'debate' is initiated in bad faith with a premise that is factually wrong; in this case to maintain that the Constitution has been 'misinterpreted' or is in need of being 'cleaned up.'

Indeed, when one makes such blatantly wrong statements concerning the Constitution, its case law, and current Constitutional jurisprudence, she forfeits any expectation of 'debating now' in a manner subject to rules and guidelines, where those rules and guidelines are devoid of merit.

The Constitution exists now as intended by the Framers, interpreted by the Supreme Court in accordance with the doctrine of judicial review, authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution, as expected and desired by the Founding Generation of Americans who sought to be subject solely to the rule of law and a National government of their creation, supreme and immune from attack by the states, where the states and local jurisdictions are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government.

^ that

OP presumes, or goes by what is said in her henpecked media outlets of a certain bent, that the Constitution has somehow been surreptitiously corrupted.

Yes, but there is nothing wrong with basing a hypothetical "what if" scenario upon it, imo.

Exactly!

But as everyone knows if you are going to propose a hypothesis it needs to be tested as thoroughly as possible otherwise the results are not going to withstand peer scrutiny.

The OP specifically asked that we do our best to explain all of the problems/issues that might arise. So far it seems that is exactly what is happening with very few exceptions.

Explain why or why not and the advantages and/or problems/issues you would see in such a process.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Exactly!

But as everyone knows if you are going to propose a hypothesis it needs to be tested as thoroughly as possible otherwise the results are not going to withstand peer scrutiny.

The OP specifically asked that we do our best to explain all of the problems/issues that might arise. So far it seems that is exactly what is happening with very few exceptions.

Explain why or why not and the advantages and/or problems/issues you would see in such a process.

Correct.

The OP lays out very-well a couple of parameters worth thinking about, but it should be painfully clear that in a world of 7+ billion people, where most of the inhabitable part of this world is pretty heavily populated, that any kind of insurrection requires:

a.) a plan
b.) dedication
c.) a physical infrastructure
d.) firepower
e.) allies

The American insurrection of the 1770s (which we call our Revolution) had a plan and certainly a huge amount of dedication, but little physical infrastructure was there. Without the allies we found in the Germans and the French, I doubt we would have survived the Revolutionary War. Seeing that his army was sorely lacking, Washington himself asked Prussian General Steuben to take over the training of the fledgling army.

The point I am making is that insurrections do not happen in a vacuum.

Because let's be real here: by theorizing that a group of states would secede from a US Government that would be highly unlikely to take it lying down, we are talking about insurrection - which means bloodshed, tears and tragedy. Which means that a lot of the Basketcases would also be dead basketcases. Just to keep a grip on reality, here..

 

[Foxfyre]

Anyone who watched the short lived TV series, Utopia, knows how this "New America" is going to turn out.

*shudder*. I watched it. I gave it 3 months or less to be shut down and I was right. Why? Because nobody wanted to WORK for a Utopia.

The whole Utopian concept whether it is the book or the variations of it in film and television, is based on strict authoritarianism and a communist system. Nothing could be further from the nation I envision in a New America in which private property is inviolate and the people are free to engage in communes if that is how they choose to live or live in a pure regulated capitalism if that is what they choose. (The regulation would be strictly what is necessary to prevent the various states from doing physical or economic violence to each other and to enforce RICO and anti-trust laws of corporations who cross state lines and the individual states cannot easily regulate.)

 

[Statistikhengst]

Anyone who watched the short lived TV series, Utopia, knows how this "New America" is going to turn out.

*shudder*. I watched it. I gave it 3 months or less to be shut down and I was right. Why? Because nobody wanted to WORK for a Utopia.

Spot-on.

 

[Dot Com]

I am all for having fun with the topic guys, but one of the expressed rules in the OP is to stay on topic.

I am staying on topic, contributing information and asking questions.

What is your beef, Master Sergeant Fox??

One cannot not expect debate to be 'clean' or 'on topic' or to adhere to specific rules, qualifications, and guidelines when that 'debate' is initiated in bad faith with a premise that is factually wrong; in this case to maintain that the Constitution has been 'misinterpreted' or is in need of being 'cleaned up.'

Indeed, when one makes such blatantly wrong statements concerning the Constitution, its case law, and current Constitutional jurisprudence, she forfeits any expectation of 'debating now' in a manner subject to rules and guidelines, where those rules and guidelines are devoid of merit.

The Constitution exists now as intended by the Framers, interpreted by the Supreme Court in accordance with the doctrine of judicial review, authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution, as expected and desired by the Founding Generation of Americans who sought to be subject solely to the rule of law and a National government of their creation, supreme and immune from attack by the states, where the states and local jurisdictions are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government.

And all this time I had been searching in vain for a very long definition of the word "buzzkill."

In her defense, Foxy did say that this was merely a hypothetical, nothing more.

Furthermore, there is always room for improvement within the US Constitution. For this very reason, amendments are allowed, and Thomas Jefferson encouraged that the Constitution be renewed every 19 years.

The Framers were not of one mind, nor did they speak with one voice as the sole authority on any subject; and clearly not everything they thought or believed was appropriate, accurate, or desirable – including Jefferson.

Nevertheless, they were able to discuss the issues and disagreements like grown ups and without fear, and they eventually were able to agree on compromises that allowed a Constitution to be signed and ratified.

I would like to think there are people now with the intellect and creative minds who could accomplish the same thing. Especially in a hypothetical discussion.

..... which counted blacks as three fifths of a person

 

[Foxfyre]

Exactly!

But as everyone knows if you are going to propose a hypothesis it needs to be tested as thoroughly as possible otherwise the results are not going to withstand peer scrutiny.

The OP specifically asked that we do our best to explain all of the problems/issues that might arise. So far it seems that is exactly what is happening with very few exceptions.

Explain why or why not and the advantages and/or problems/issues you would see in such a process.

Correct.

The OP lays out very-well a couple of parameters worth thinking about, but it should be painfully clear that in a world of 7+ billion people, where most of the inhabitable part of this world is pretty heavily populated, that any kind of insurrection requires:

a.) a plan
b.) dedication
c.) a physical infrastructure
d.) firepower
e.) allies

The American insurrection of the 1770s (which we call our Revolution) had a plan and certainly a huge amount of dedication, but little physical infrastructure was there. Without the allies we found in the Germans and the French, I doubt we would have survived the Revolutionary War. Seeing that his army was sorely lacking, Washington himself asked Prussian General Steuben to take over the training of the fledgling army.

The point I am making is that insurrections do not happen in a vacuum.

Because let's be real here: by theorizing that a group of states would secede from a US Government that would be highly unlikely to take it lying down, we are talking about insurrection - which means bloodshed, tears and tragedy. Which means that a lot of the Basketcases would also be dead basketcases. Just to keep a grip on reality, here..

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. We first have to decide what sort of nation we want to have and who wants to be a part of it. THEN you start figuring out how to make it happen. Trying to do the logistics without knowing what it is you want to accomplish won't get us there.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am staying on topic, contributing information and asking questions.

What is your beef, Master Sergeant Fox??

One cannot not expect debate to be 'clean' or 'on topic' or to adhere to specific rules, qualifications, and guidelines when that 'debate' is initiated in bad faith with a premise that is factually wrong; in this case to maintain that the Constitution has been 'misinterpreted' or is in need of being 'cleaned up.'

Indeed, when one makes such blatantly wrong statements concerning the Constitution, its case law, and current Constitutional jurisprudence, she forfeits any expectation of 'debating now' in a manner subject to rules and guidelines, where those rules and guidelines are devoid of merit.

The Constitution exists now as intended by the Framers, interpreted by the Supreme Court in accordance with the doctrine of judicial review, authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution, as expected and desired by the Founding Generation of Americans who sought to be subject solely to the rule of law and a National government of their creation, supreme and immune from attack by the states, where the states and local jurisdictions are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government.

And all this time I had been searching in vain for a very long definition of the word "buzzkill."

In her defense, Foxy did say that this was merely a hypothetical, nothing more.

Furthermore, there is always room for improvement within the US Constitution. For this very reason, amendments are allowed, and Thomas Jefferson encouraged that the Constitution be renewed every 19 years.

The Framers were not of one mind, nor did they speak with one voice as the sole authority on any subject; and clearly not everything they thought or believed was appropriate, accurate, or desirable – including Jefferson.

Nevertheless, they were able to discuss the issues and disagreements like grown ups and without fear, and they eventually were able to agree on compromises that allowed a Constitution to be signed and ratified.

I would like to think there are people now with the intellect and creative minds who could accomplish the same thing. Especially in a hypothetical discussion.

..... which counted blacks as three fifths of a person

Non sequitur and irrelevent to the topic. This was already dealt with in the OP and I do NOT want this thead to become yet another thread on racism.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I think most of us would prefer to stay right where we are, so annexation of others who liked what we accomplish could be a possibility on down the line.

Some seem to think the new nation--I'll call it New America to accommodate more than just the breadbasket states--will be made up of a few tiny parcels. Well, that would depend on how many like minded and freedom loving people are left wouldn't it? Just the few states I've mentioned as possibilities cover a land area much larger than most European countries.

I am guessing that if this was done right and in the spirit of re-establishing a prosperous, innovative, creative, just, and benevolent nation that puts human liberty first and foremost in importance, there could be a lot of interest out there.

But the USA already is a prosperous, extremely innovative, extremely creative, just and benevolent nation. And please list for me just one nation on earth where people have more liberties than we have right now. Good luck with that one.

Yepp, it's the word "re-establishing", I think, that put a massive monkey-wrench into your argument.

Of course, by Liberty, wouldn't that also be the liberty to marry the one whom you love?

There is the dictionary definition of liberty and then there is the definition used by those who are don't like the dictionary definition of liberty.

The OP made that point in the Rules;

2. Words can mean different things to different people. Do not assume that a term used by one person means the same thing it means to another and be prepared to define the terms used in your argument.

Oy, Gewalt.

Wouldn't it be a massive pain in the ass to have to make sure everyone knows "your" definition of a word all the time, and for you to have to learn each and every other person's definition of that word? Good Lord, what a massive waste of time and energy. Were that to be the case in the real world, nothing would ever get done...

Example:

"Kumquat"

Suzy: "it means half-moon at night"
Rob: "it means my car has a flat"
Janice: "it is a fruit"

Suzy and Rob:"Janice, that's stupid!"

Agatha: "it's the coming together of the four winds of the earth."
Herbert: "Oh, Jesus!"

Suzy, Rob, Agatha, to Herbert: "Ok, we can go with that".
Janice stands there fully in shock.


OY.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Anyone who watched the short lived TV series, Utopia, knows how this "New America" is going to turn out.

Many libertarians have realized a new phase in their reactionaryism – the 'take the ball and go home' mentality.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Exactly!

But as everyone knows if you are going to propose a hypothesis it needs to be tested as thoroughly as possible otherwise the results are not going to withstand peer scrutiny.

The OP specifically asked that we do our best to explain all of the problems/issues that might arise. So far it seems that is exactly what is happening with very few exceptions.

Explain why or why not and the advantages and/or problems/issues you would see in such a process.

Correct.

The OP lays out very-well a couple of parameters worth thinking about, but it should be painfully clear that in a world of 7+ billion people, where most of the inhabitable part of this world is pretty heavily populated, that any kind of insurrection requires:

a.) a plan
b.) dedication
c.) a physical infrastructure
d.) firepower
e.) allies

The American insurrection of the 1770s (which we call our Revolution) had a plan and certainly a huge amount of dedication, but little physical infrastructure was there. Without the allies we found in the Germans and the French, I doubt we would have survived the Revolutionary War. Seeing that his army was sorely lacking, Washington himself asked Prussian General Steuben to take over the training of the fledgling army.

The point I am making is that insurrections do not happen in a vacuum.

Because let's be real here: by theorizing that a group of states would secede from a US Government that would be highly unlikely to take it lying down, we are talking about insurrection - which means bloodshed, tears and tragedy. Which means that a lot of the Basketcases would also be dead basketcases. Just to keep a grip on reality, here..

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. We first have to decide what sort of nation we want to have and who wants to be a part of it. THEN you start figuring out how to make it happen. Trying to do the logistics without knowing what it is you want to accomplish won't get us there.

Oh, uh, sorry about that.



But in my humble defense, if you look at your posting no. 2, you get pretty deep into nuts and bolts stuff of a country after is is formed, which means we have to get through and survive the insurrection, right?

 

[Foxfyre]

Exactly!

But as everyone knows if you are going to propose a hypothesis it needs to be tested as thoroughly as possible otherwise the results are not going to withstand peer scrutiny.

The OP specifically asked that we do our best to explain all of the problems/issues that might arise. So far it seems that is exactly what is happening with very few exceptions.

Explain why or why not and the advantages and/or problems/issues you would see in such a process.

Correct.

The OP lays out very-well a couple of parameters worth thinking about, but it should be painfully clear that in a world of 7+ billion people, where most of the inhabitable part of this world is pretty heavily populated, that any kind of insurrection requires:

a.) a plan
b.) dedication
c.) a physical infrastructure
d.) firepower
e.) allies

The American insurrection of the 1770s (which we call our Revolution) had a plan and certainly a huge amount of dedication, but little physical infrastructure was there. Without the allies we found in the Germans and the French, I doubt we would have survived the Revolutionary War. Seeing that his army was sorely lacking, Washington himself asked Prussian General Steuben to take over the training of the fledgling army.

The point I am making is that insurrections do not happen in a vacuum.

Because let's be real here: by theorizing that a group of states would secede from a US Government that would be highly unlikely to take it lying down, we are talking about insurrection - which means bloodshed, tears and tragedy. Which means that a lot of the Basketcases would also be dead basketcases. Just to keep a grip on reality, here..

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. We first have to decide what sort of nation we want to have and who wants to be a part of it. THEN you start figuring out how to make it happen. Trying to do the logistics without knowing what it is you want to accomplish won't get us there.

Oh, uh, sorry about that.



But in my humble defense, if you look at your posting no. 2, you get pretty deep into nuts and bolts stuff of a country after is is formed, which means we have to get through and survive the insurrection, right?

I disagree. My Post #2 points to issues that have to be debated and whatever compromises are necessary agreed on before we know what to write into the new Constitution.

I think those joining New America will not be the type to want to continue to give the government the power to take whatever of our resources it wants as it takes now, but the new government will have to be funded. No doubt some compromise and give and take will be necessary to accomplish agreement on how to do that.

Already one member has expressed his concern over not including the 14th amendment in the original document and expressed his reasons for that. And while I probably disagree with him on that particular issue, it is THAT kind of intelligent debate I was shooting for with this thread. It is an important issue and it is probable that some kind of compromise would have to be hammered out after all the pros and cons are fully aired.

Certainly the Founders disagreed on many things but they had the ability to figure out something that everybody could live with. Nobody got everything they wanted, but nobody was required to put their deepest convictions on the back burner either.

 

[Gracie]

Too deep for me, Foxfyre.
Too many ands ifs and butts.

 

[Foxfyre]

My theory is that in our complicated and advanced society, we cannot form a new country without having a Constitution in place. Otherwise nobody would take the risk of jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Exactly!

But as everyone knows if you are going to propose a hypothesis it needs to be tested as thoroughly as possible otherwise the results are not going to withstand peer scrutiny.

The OP specifically asked that we do our best to explain all of the problems/issues that might arise. So far it seems that is exactly what is happening with very few exceptions.

Explain why or why not and the advantages and/or problems/issues you would see in such a process.

Correct.

The OP lays out very-well a couple of parameters worth thinking about, but it should be painfully clear that in a world of 7+ billion people, where most of the inhabitable part of this world is pretty heavily populated, that any kind of insurrection requires:

a.) a plan
b.) dedication
c.) a physical infrastructure
d.) firepower
e.) allies

The American insurrection of the 1770s (which we call our Revolution) had a plan and certainly a huge amount of dedication, but little physical infrastructure was there. Without the allies we found in the Germans and the French, I doubt we would have survived the Revolutionary War. Seeing that his army was sorely lacking, Washington himself asked Prussian General Steuben to take over the training of the fledgling army.

The point I am making is that insurrections do not happen in a vacuum.

Because let's be real here: by theorizing that a group of states would secede from a US Government that would be highly unlikely to take it lying down, we are talking about insurrection - which means bloodshed, tears and tragedy. Which means that a lot of the Basketcases would also be dead basketcases. Just to keep a grip on reality, here..

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. We first have to decide what sort of nation we want to have and who wants to be a part of it. THEN you start figuring out how to make it happen. Trying to do the logistics without knowing what it is you want to accomplish won't get us there.

Oh, uh, sorry about that.



But in my humble defense, if you look at your posting no. 2, you get pretty deep into nuts and bolts stuff of a country after is is formed, which means we have to get through and survive the insurrection, right?

I disagree. My Post #2 points to issues that have to be debated and whatever compromises are necessary agreed on before we know what to write into the new Constitution.

I think those joining New America will not be the type to want to continue to give the government the power to take whatever of our resources it wants as it takes now, but the new government will have to be funded. No doubt some compromise and give and take will be necessary to accomplish agreement on how to do that.

Already one member has expressed his concern over not including the 14th amendment in the original document and expressed his reasons for that. And while I probably disagree with him on that particular issue, it is THAT kind of intelligent debate I was shooting for with this thread. It is an important issue and it is probably some kind of compromise would have to be hammered out after all the pros and cons are fully aired.

Well, ok.

First, the new constitution would need no amendments. The things that we call amendments in the US Constitution would be enshrined in the original articles of the Constitution of the Breadbasket Basketcase States of America.

The question would then be as to the wording and scope,and also, whether anything is missing.

Is that intelligent enough for you?

 

[Foxfyre]

Too deep for me, Foxfyre.
Too many ands ifs and butts.

For sure this kind of discussion probably isn't for everybody. It is best suited for those who enjoy unraveling mysteries and puzzles.

 

[Faun]

Anyone who watched the short lived TV series, Utopia, knows how this "New America" is going to turn out.

Well I watched a bit of Utopia and I am a student of American history. So I don't know how this "New America' is going to turn out if we manage to attract enough people with the will to get into the spirit of the discussion. Or those doing their damndest to derail it may prevail. We'll just have to see how it turns out.

Why would it turn out any different? A bunch of people trying to establish their own version of utopia, protected by a "new constitution." Only what are you going to do with the belligerents who refuse to conform? They're not going to leave willingly like the ones banished on the TV show.

In the end, it will end the same. Discombobulated and ended ubruptly for lack of interest and funding.

 

[Foxfyre]

Exactly!

But as everyone knows if you are going to propose a hypothesis it needs to be tested as thoroughly as possible otherwise the results are not going to withstand peer scrutiny.

The OP specifically asked that we do our best to explain all of the problems/issues that might arise. So far it seems that is exactly what is happening with very few exceptions.

Explain why or why not and the advantages and/or problems/issues you would see in such a process.

Correct.

The OP lays out very-well a couple of parameters worth thinking about, but it should be painfully clear that in a world of 7+ billion people, where most of the inhabitable part of this world is pretty heavily populated, that any kind of insurrection requires:

a.) a plan
b.) dedication
c.) a physical infrastructure
d.) firepower
e.) allies

The American insurrection of the 1770s (which we call our Revolution) had a plan and certainly a huge amount of dedication, but little physical infrastructure was there. Without the allies we found in the Germans and the French, I doubt we would have survived the Revolutionary War. Seeing that his army was sorely lacking, Washington himself asked Prussian General Steuben to take over the training of the fledgling army.

The point I am making is that insurrections do not happen in a vacuum.

Because let's be real here: by theorizing that a group of states would secede from a US Government that would be highly unlikely to take it lying down, we are talking about insurrection - which means bloodshed, tears and tragedy. Which means that a lot of the Basketcases would also be dead basketcases. Just to keep a grip on reality, here..

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. We first have to decide what sort of nation we want to have and who wants to be a part of it. THEN you start figuring out how to make it happen. Trying to do the logistics without knowing what it is you want to accomplish won't get us there.

Oh, uh, sorry about that.



But in my humble defense, if you look at your posting no. 2, you get pretty deep into nuts and bolts stuff of a country after is is formed, which means we have to get through and survive the insurrection, right?

I disagree. My Post #2 points to issues that have to be debated and whatever compromises are necessary agreed on before we know what to write into the new Constitution.

I think those joining New America will not be the type to want to continue to give the government the power to take whatever of our resources it wants as it takes now, but the new government will have to be funded. No doubt some compromise and give and take will be necessary to accomplish agreement on how to do that.

Already one member has expressed his concern over not including the 14th amendment in the original document and expressed his reasons for that. And while I probably disagree with him on that particular issue, it is THAT kind of intelligent debate I was shooting for with this thread. It is an important issue and it is probably some kind of compromise would have to be hammered out after all the pros and cons are fully aired.

Well, ok.

First, the new constitution would need no amendments. The things that we call amendments in the US Constitution would be enshrined in the original articles of the Constitution of the Breadbasket Basketcase States of America.

The question would then be as to the wording and scope,and also, whether anything is missing.

Is that intelligent enough for you?

Has nothing to do with intelligence. But I am one who wants the Bill of Rights in place at the signing. So we're already at a point of disagreement that would have to be worked out.

 

[Gracie]

Personally, I think a constitution would be as worthless as the paper it is written on since most who form such rules and policies are looking out for themselves somewhere down the road.
I liken it to The Walking Dead. Apocalypse happens. Little groups here, big groups there, all doing what works for that one particular group. Trying to run a country this size with ONE set of laws might not fit what is right for each little group (state or town or village within that particular state).

This is way over my head and will give me a headache trying to express what IS in my head but I cannot post it well enough like some here are so good at.

So no. I would not be interested in ANY large government or "constitution".....the one now...or the one being formed. It's worthless.