The Extremist Experiment.

[AVG-JOE]

It appears that if we continue to use The US Constitution as our go to organizational document, I'm not going to get 100% MY way and you're going to get 100% YOUR way.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is something cobbled together that MOST of us would be willing to call OUR way.

Choices.....​

 

[emilynghiem]

It appears that if we continue to use The US Constitution as our go to organizational document, I'm not going to get 100% MY way and you're going to get 100% YOUR way.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is something cobbled together MOST of us would be willing to call OUR way.

Choices.....​

Disagree

I believe by fully using free speech/press and right to petition
all conflicts can either be resolved, or people agree to divide and fund their own policies.

End of conflict. No need to impose all one way or another.
And both sides get their way 100% when decisions are made by consensus.

I believe mediation/consensus is legally necessary for Constitutional inclusion and equal
protection of the laws, due process and representation.

We are just so used to bullying back and forth, we don't try to enforce higher
standards that could actually fulfill Constitutional laws better than what we practice now!

 

[AVG-JOE]

Disagree with what, my claim that the US Constitution precludes everyone having 100% of their political dreams come true? I think that would be an obvious fact both in theory and in practice.

I made no other conclusions, other than the role of extremism in proving the fact above in reality.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It appears that if we continue to use The US Constitution as our go to organizational document, I'm not going to get 100% MY way and you're going to get 100% YOUR way.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is something cobbled together MOST of us would be willing to call OUR way.

Choices.....​

Disagree

I believe by fully using free speech/press and right to petition
all conflicts can either be resolved, or people agree to divide and fund their own policies.

End of conflict. No need to impose all one way or another.
And both sides get their way 100% when decisions are made by consensus.

I believe mediation/consensus is legally necessary for Constitutional inclusion and equal
protection of the laws, due process and representation.

We are just so used to bullying back and forth, we don't try to enforce higher
standards that could actually fulfill Constitutional laws better than what we practice now!

If there are enough sides to involve the word 'both', how can an agreement of any kind not be a consensus?

And specifically, I was not referring to the consensus generating middle, as there in lies the source of the previously mentioned, cobbled-together, "OUR Way" as a solution. I was referring to the fringes.
Does that mean we agree?

100% political paradise will never happen for 100% of voting individuals. Not as long as The Constitution reigns.

That's what I was talking about. As individual voters we need to accept the fact that compromise is a necessary tool of government. We need to ask our representatives how willing they are to 'bend' and vote accordingly.

 

[whitehall]

The greatest document ever created by mankind is under assault by ....radical Americans. Why am I not surprised.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The greatest document ever created by mankind is being used by
Radical Americans
Female Americans
Leftist Americans
Black Americans
Liberal Americans
Brown Americans
Communist Americans
Gay Americans
Original Americans
and Americans who don't believe in The God of Abraham to get some semblance of justice in the market place.

Is the reign of the American red-neck over?​

`​

 

[whitehall]

The greatest document ever created by mankind is being used by
Radical Americans
Female Americans
Leftist Americans
Black Americans
Liberal Americans
Brown Americans
Communist Americans
Gay Americans
Original Americans
and Americans who don't believe in The God of Abraham to get some semblance of justice in the market place.

Is the reign of the American red-neck over?​

`​

"The Constitution is being used by"? I prefer to say that the Constitution protects every faction that you listed regardless of their intent to undermine it. That's the beauty of the greatest document ever created in civilized human existance.

 

[jwoodie]

The Constitution was designed to LIMIT the federal government to ENUMERATED powers granted to it by the PEOPLE. One of its devices is the distribution of power between the House, Senate and President. Unless all three are in substantial agreement, legislation should not be passed OR FUNDED.

 

[whitehall]

I'm not quite sure about the intent of the original post. Is it an argument to replace the Constitution with something more simple like a decree from the dictator?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Idiots cannot handle complex concepts, Joe.

You are right, of course. We need to grasp the fact that we inhabit this land with people who do not see things the way we do. That is why we have the USC to begin with.

This nation's history is nothing but a continuous struggle get along. Some give up......it is hard work and involves compromise.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'm not quite sure about the intent of the original post. Is it an argument to replace the Constitution with something more simple like a decree from the dictator?

Absolutely not! I too think that The Constitution is a great document to organize a country around.

When The Constitution was first adopted, slavery was an institution protected by it. Obviously, one of the great things about the document is a certain amount of flexibility, subject to interpretation, based on when in history the concepts are being applied. Remember, that same great document was the source of the laws that prevented women from having a vote until the 1920's.

More and more 'non-traditional' groups are finding a constitutional basis for claiming a piece of American Pie. The choices I suggest are more along the lines of acceptance of the diversification of American Political power, and choosing representatives who are more willing to compromise, in an effort of compliance with the spirit of The Constitution.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I heard an hour of radio ( Stand Up With Pete Dominic) this morning.....with a Georgia State College Prof. named Seagel.

He outlined the History of the Supreme Court and its rulings on race. Every decision since 1857.......with the exception of Brown VS BOE ( which was ignored in the south for lower grades) has been AGAINST promoting equality.

The USC needs to be interpreted by flawed HUMAN BEINGS.

It must, therefore, be seen as LIVING.

 

[whitehall]

I'm not quite sure about the intent of the original post. Is it an argument to replace the Constitution with something more simple like a decree from the dictator?

Absolutely not! I too think that The Constitution is a great document to organize a country around.

When The Constitution was first adopted, slavery was an institution protected by it. Obviously, one of the great things about the document is a certain amount of flexibility, subject to interpretation, based on when in history the concepts are being applied. Remember, that same great document was the source of the laws that prevented women from having a vote until the 1920's.

More and more 'non-traditional' groups are finding a constitutional basis for claiming a piece of American Pie. The choices I suggest are more along the lines of acceptance of the diversification of American Political power, and choosing representatives who are more willing to compromise, in an effort of compliance with the spirit of The Constitution.

Ah the old slavery card. Actually while the rest of the world accepted the enslavement of Africans the Founding Fathers did not sanction slavery in the Constitution. The fledgling Country might not have lived up to the incredible statement at the time that "all men are created equal" but it was somehow entwined in the greatest document ever created. What's the point anyway? Is there an argument emerging on the left that the Constitution should be replaced by something else?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Absolutely not.

I will however predict that conservatives will grow to hate The Constitution as it's used by more and more non-conservatives to assert their political power.

 

[whitehall]

Absolutely not.

I will however predict that conservatives will grow to hate The Constitution as it's used by more and more non-conservatives to assert their political power.

Conservative Tea Party members carry around a copy of the Constitution in their pockets. OWS radicals burn the Flag. Maybe you have the parties confused.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is only 2 ways to change the Constitution, one is by amendment. I don't see ANY of you suggesting any. The other is by a convention to rewrite the document. Again I don't see any of you suggesting that. failing one of those two methods you do not get to ignore nor randomly change the meaning or purpose of said document.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Actually while the rest of the world accepted the enslavement of Africans the Founding Fathers did not sanction slavery in the Constitution.

Stop the lying or I will turn you over to paperview, who will school you, buddy!

The Constitution recognized and protected slavery.

The Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act recognized and regulated it.

Dred Scot recognized and regulated Negroes as having no standing in federal courts.

What are you smoking, flakehead.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"I believe mediation/consensus is legally necessary for Constitutional inclusion and equal protection of the laws, due process and representation."

That is what the Tea Party tried to stop for almost three weeks.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Absolutely not.

I will however predict that conservatives will grow to hate The Constitution as it's used by more and more non-conservatives to assert their political power.

Conservative Tea Party members carry around a copy of the Constitution in their pockets. OWS radicals burn the Flag. Maybe you have the parties confused.

You would think so, I know, but I'll stand by my prediction.

It will be an interesting media moment, ass-u-me-ing conservatives realize it in my lifetime, that it's precisely The Constitution that's been forcing them to share political power with every interest group of size and their fund-raising brother, making them more and more uncomfortable in the new political arena of inclusion that arrived in the early 1960's.

​

 

[AVG-JOE]

There is only 2 ways to change the Constitution, one is by amendment. I don't see ANY of you suggesting any. The other is by a convention to rewrite the document. Again I don't see any of you suggesting that. failing one of those two methods you do not get to ignore nor randomly change the meaning or purpose of said document.

Nor does anyone else, RGS. Nor does anyone else.



Going forward, amendments are, at least in practice, impossible. Now that the definition of 'Men' in the phrase "All Men are Created Equal..." has been broadened to truly include women and minorities, and more political power is flowing towards them, the modern application of The Constitutional is causing discomfort.

Predictable when you think about it, eh?