BURN the Constitution

[2sense]

I feel America should burn its constitution and make a new one.

All Americans admit (to other Americans) that the government doesn't work. Few outside of the polititians pretend it will ever work.
But people never question why. It is easier just to find someone to blame.
The Founders are revered. No one doubts the Fathers of our country. The whole political spectrum worships them. The only people I've heard call for a Constitutional Congress are the Militias.
Hey, if your apartment building collapses, do you blame the contracter or the super?

Don't get me wrong. I agree with the ideals put forth in the the document... Freedom, Democracy, Justice. I am arguing about the details of how best to acheive these. I think, like us today, the framers let their prejudices affect their efforts. Also by today's standards they would be woefully ignorant.

Disclaimer.
Please no jingoism(or make it subtle).

My points.
1. The constitution is undemocratic.
---1a. Did you ever vote on it?
---1b. why do we need the electoral college? Our votes should be what matters.
---1c. 1 citizen 1 vote. The Senate is blatently nonrepresentational(19, count em, 19 letters). Why are Californians less valuable than Utahers? (insert own joke here.)

---2 The constitution is too rigid. Give the power to amend it directly into the hands of the people.

---3 The Constitution is obscure. Precise modern wording would eliminate semantic arguments.(and happily put all constitutional lawers out of business)

---4 The constitution makes goverment complex. If we steamlined the government structure itself, we could make it more responsive to voters. Plus we would know who to point the finger at when things go wrong.

---5 Equality. This should be ensrined with the other great virtues of America. It is not.


Last disclaimer: This is not a Bill of Rights thread. Will discuss amendments if they pertain to the shape of government.

Wow! My very first thread. Got my copy ready. So proud of myself. I didn't use the word elitist even once.oops.

Fire Away.

---------------------------------------
The Constitution is a contract with death.
Frederick Douglass

[RoboDude]

If we did what you propose, how could we be certain the new Constitution would guarantee the same basic rights as the old one? Many gun control advocates probably wish the Second Amendment didn't exist, a lot of fundamentalists aren't too happy about the separation of church and state, some people don't like the idea of rights of the accused, and there are even those who don't think that we should have the level of free speech that we do.

------------------
Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.

[Joe_Cool]

It's late, so forgive me for not getting as in-depth as I'd like. More to come tomorrow.

But for now I would like to address two of your points, in random order.

---2 The constitution is too rigid. Give the power to amend it directly into the hands of the people.

I'm really sorry to say this, but look around you. The american public is too fickle, confrontational, whiny, and (dare I say it?) stupid to truly govern themselves. Granted, the people whom we elect to do it for us are not a whole lot better, but they at least are educated in the system of governance.

If the people had direct control over the government, rather than a representative system as we have now, the constitution would be a self-contradictory (17 letters, how is that? ) motley patchwork of crap, with each portion catering to the selfish needs of a vocal minority. We don't need a constitutional amendment telling burger king to stay open until 1:00am instead of 11:00pm, but that's the kind of thing we would end up with. (maybe not to that degree, but I hope you see what I'm saying)

Which brings me to this:

---3 The Constitution is obscure. Precise modern wording would eliminate semantic arguments.(and happily put all constitutional lawers out of business)

One of the greatest strengths of the constitution is that its wording is NOT precise. Precision of language is a scourge upon our legal system. The more precisely worded a law becomes, the more easily you can worm your way out of prosecution under that law by arguing points of language. So you need more laws to cover the minutiae that you missed with the first one, and more to cover what you missed with those, and so on.

Additionally, with very precise language, you blur the division of governmental checks and balances.

Example: You start with a law, "Do not Kill."
Understandably, you decide that this is MUCH too vague, as killing includes self-defense, euthanasia, what-have-you.
So you narrow the definition, and reword it to say "Do not Murder." A much better choice of words. At this point, you have a dictionary that defines the word "murder" for you to a reasonable degree, and you have judges who are qualified to hear cases and decide whether a) a particular killing qualifies as murder, and b) whether circumstances were extenuating.
In other words, your judges have the power to see that your law is enforced fairly and taking into account the facts of each individual case.

Let's take the other route now, the one our current legal system has taken: you pass thousands or even millions (as we have now) of laws in an attempt to have legal verbage covering every possible permutation of circumstances with corresponding penalties written right into the legal code.

First problem: You can NEVER foresee every possible set of circumstances. even a chess game has mind-bogglingly many possible outcomes over just a few moves. Every day life has far more variables than that. So there will always be loopholes and ways around. (on the other hand, you have built-in job security, because you will always be passing more and more and more laws...)

Second problem: It's not possible for a person to know and follow every law that can possibly apply to him/her. There are too many to know, and even lawyers, who have nothing to do EXCEPT study the law know only small portions in which they specialize. Not to mention contradictory sets of laws that are bound to show up.

Third problem: Your legislators are doing the job of the judiciary branch. They are usurping the power of your judges by defining law in such narrow channels that the judges have no room to act. They merely look up offenses in tables and books and read the pre-defined sentence. And voila, your legislative branch is dangerously powerful and your judiciary is weak and useless.

That's enough for tonight. I apologize for how disjointed I sound. More to follow on saturday.

------------------
Mere Life is not Victory.
Mere Death is not Defeat.
-----
Joe Cool

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by RoboDude:
...a lot of fundamentalists aren't too happy about the separation of church and state...

I agree with you. but one minor point...
There is no separation of church and state in the constitution. That's a principle that was adopted later on and separately.

------------------
Mere Life is not Victory.
Mere Death is not Defeat.
-----
Joe Cool

[Bored2001]

I do not claim to be a political expert, but...

All Americans admit (to other Americans) that the government doesn't work.

Elaborate please, cause I don't.

Hey, if your apartment building collapses, do you blame the contracter or the super?

Hah, ignorant argument on your part. Lets say the contracter made it perfectly, but it was a 300 year old building and the super was an idiot and neglected it. Who do you blame now?

Did you ever vote on it?

Uh, no, but it WAS ratified by the colonies.

---1b. why do we need the electoral college? Our votes should be what matters.
---1c. 1 citizen 1 vote. The Senate is blatently nonrepresentational(19, count em, 19 letters). Why are Californians less valuable than Utahers? (insert own joke here.)

Balance of power.The states rights preserve power. Why do you think it was so hard to make the union in the first place? The articles of confederation failed cause it had too much states rights. The constitution was a rather decent comprimise.

The constitution is too rigid.

Actually it is extremly flexible, but it's true that it is firm.

The Constitution is obscure. Precise modern wording would eliminate semantic arguments.

That was the point. It was meant to be ambiguous so that it would allow for maximum flexibility.

Equality. This should be ensrined with the other great virtues of America. It is not.

Blame the status quo. Thats the way the ball bounced way back then. So deal. It's different now.

[mangeorge]

Th OP sez;
All Americans admit (to other Americans) that the government doesn't work.
---------------------------------------------
Bored2001 replies;
Elaborate please, cause I don't.
-------------------------------
Nor do I, so please, do elaborate.
Peace,
mangeorge



------------------
I only know two things;
I know what I need to know
And
I know what I want to know
Mangeorge, 2000

[2sense]

RoboDude,

Valid points. But not in the vein of this argument. I am trying to establish that we SHOULD write a new constitution. Not how we CAN. That is a whole 'nother can of worms. I don't want to discourage people with how difficult THAT will be.

I will say that if we can't establish a government, how can we be smart enough to run a government.

I would like to discuss it later, if this shows promise. Joe-Cool sounds like he'd like some of that action.

_______________________Peace

[2sense]

Oh sorry.
Thank you for posting RoboDude.
You were the first to answer me.
You are my friend!


__________________________Peace.

[NicePete]

I couldn't disagree more.

The constitution is very well drafted and general enough to meet our needs today. It's a statment of principals, not a code of laws.

In essence, our government has only seen fit to change the constitution 15 times in 213 years. What other government can claim that its basic organizational document has sustained that long?

You didn't vote on it? Which laws did you vote on? Are you a Congressman or a Senator?

------------------
Plunging like stones from a slingshot on Mars.

[SingleDad]

All Americans admit that the government doesn't work.

I also disagree. The government may not be the most efficient organization, but we have a pretty good society overall.

1a. Did you ever vote on it?

Should we re-count the votes every time a new voter reaches majority or an old one dies? Seems impractical.

1b. why do we need the electoral college? Our votes should be what matters

The electoral college is pointless and it'll probably get amended the next time the candidate who wins the popular vote loses in the EC. But not yet a reason for burning the whole Constitution.

The Senate is blatently nonrepresentational

The Senate represents the States, and the HoR represents the people. The whole states thing is kind of weird, but it's working, so why change it?

The Constitution is obscure.

Actually, the Constitution is one of the shortest and clearest of any legal document, much less of a document governing an entire country.

The constitution makes goverment complex.

There are a lot of reasons the government is complex. I don't think the Constitution makes it so. If you have more evidence, put it forth.

Equality.

What sort of equality do you have in mind?

[2sense]

Bored2001,

To your first concern:
Check out the 2 posts before yours. Do they sound confidant in our government? I do not think these opinions are rare.

To your response to my building analogy:
But the contracter promised you an eternal home. And left no way to change the tenant agreement to provide for routine safty precautions. Of course, new-fangled items like fire escapes weren't provided for. And you have your family in this building.
What then?

But the colonies voted on it:
If YOU don't have a vote, how is that democratic?

States rights concerns:
I don't believe states should have rights. People should.
If people decide to move to California, why should they be represented less in government?

The constitution as a compromise. I'll buy this argument. Then. But if the constitution was more easily changed, a better compromise might have been possible later. After the American Civil War, for example.

Accually it is extremely flexible:
I am refering to Artical 5, the ammendment process. Not to glib and convienent interpetations by lawyers.

Blame the status quo:
Exactly. I do.

_________________________________Salaam

[Sam Stone]

2sense, the whole POINT to the constitution is that it is undemocratic. A Constitution's purpose is to set limits on democracy. Without it, the 'tyranny of the majority' rules, and under-represented people may have their rights squashed.

You know, there's nothing magical about democracy. Majority rule is just a way to attempt to have government reflect the wishes of the governed, but it's a pretty blunt instrument for that purpose. Do you really want white people to be able to vote to enslave blacks? The Nazi party in Germany was democratically elected. Shall we vote on which minority we want to exterminate in ovens?

The founding fathers of the U.S. were of the opinion that majority rule is a good thing as long as it is not allowed to step past certain boundaries, and those boundaries are described by the constitution. Having people be able to vote on it renders the whole concept meaningless, and makes a society much more unstable and dangerous.

[Sam Stone]

Oh, and constitutions are also worthless if they only reflect the wishes of the electorate in the first place. A constitution is only valuable when it protects people from the desires of others. As it is right now when it protects the right of free speech from a reactionary electorate that would vote to make flag burning illegal (a measure, btw, which has a majority of people behind it), or when it protects the rights of gun owners from the majority of people who wish to take those rights away.

If you're going to scrap and re-write the Constitution whenever the wishes of the populace stray from it, you might as well not have one at all.

[Lux Fiat]

The whole point of the federal government established by the Constitution is that it isn't efficient. It's supposed to be hidebound and slow to act. The framers (rightly, IMHO) perceived that the pursuit of happiness is not a right that the government provides for, it's a right that the government must be prevented from infringing upon. The more efficient a government is, the more powerful and quicker to act it is, the scarier and potentially more oppressive it is. You want efficient government? Hitler's Germany was pretty damned efficient. And a lot of the people who weren't being rounded up and killed loved it, because the government was finally getting some results after all that Weimar government ineptitude.

I realize that whenever someone wants to provide an illustration of a bad idea coming to its logical conclusion, they trot out Hitler's Germany. But I stand by my assertion (and the Framers') that an efficient government is to be feared and avoided.
And I have to say something here:

The Senate is blatently nonrepresentational

If people decide to move to California, why should they be represented less in government?

SingleDad already mentioned it, but I will repeat: The Senate may be unrepresentational based on population, but that's the reason we have a bicameral legislature. The House allocates seats based on population, so those Californians can hold off on their San Francisco Tea Party, because it turns out that they are proportionally represented in the legislature.

------------------
"Are you frightened of snakes?"
"Only when they dress like werewolves."
-Preacher

[2sense]

SingleDad


The government may not be the most efficient organization, but we have a pretty good society overall.
---------------------------------------
The government section of our society is the portion I am focusing on.(meoww)


Should we re-count the votes every time a new voter reaches majority or an old one dies? Seems impractical.
---------------------------------------------
The document that guarantees your freedom doesn't even give you a choice? Doesn't that seem odd? The Michigan state constitution mandates a contitutional vote every 12 years.


The electoral college is pointless and it'll probably get amended the next time the candidate who wins the popular vote loses in the EC. But not yet a reason for burning the whole Constitution.
---------------------------------------------
The electoral college is not pointless. Remember the debates that the framers went through over the specific wording. They had a point. It never occurs to people to wonder what it was though.


The Senate represents the States, and the HoR represents the people. The whole states thing is kind of weird, but it's working, so why change it?
---------------------------------------------
Obviously I don't think it IS working.


There are a lot of reasons the government is complex. I don't think the Constitution makes it so. If you have more evidence, put it forth.
---------------------------------------------
The government was created by the constitution as a weak central government. Not as weak as the previous one, but a compromise. Much of the complexity in our government comes from trying to twist the letter of the constitution to fit contemperary needs.

An example,
The first national proscription of marahuana was called the Marahuana Tax Law of 1937. The federal government didn't have the authority to ban Marahuana. But it decided to get rid of it anyway. By taxing it out of existance. This is the sort of roundabout government we get. The constitution is outdated.


What sort of equality do you have in mind?
-------------------------------------------
Hey relax, don't want too much equallity.
Seriously, nothing to radical. Just to have it stated up front with the others.
Even just eliminating the outdated wording would make me happy. I'm talking about the 3/5ths clause(You know...the one that said Blacks were worth 3/5ths of a White.)

_______________________________PEACE

[2sense]

Mangeorge,

My apologies. I shouldn't have spoken for you. I will admit it to anyone who will listen, apparently.

Quick elaboration:
Abortion.
The gun debate.
Campaign finance Reform.
Health Care Reform.
When do you think our government will solve these arguments and move on to other questions?

Also, what were those months of impeachment about? You wouldn't see that happen in other western countries. When they have leadership questions, they don't have long trials.
They have elections. Ergo-Democracy.

______________________________Salaam

[2sense]

Frankd6,

I'm going to cut your message up into separate quotes. It is easier for me to think that way. Plus I'm going for speed. I'm going to try to catch up. I hope that won't bother anyone. Sorry,I don't type very fast.

Originally posted by Frankd6:


In essence, our government has only seen fit to change the constitution 15 times in 213 years.

Exactly. Think about how much the world and America have changed in those 213 years.

And having the oldest constitution around is not something to be proud of. If it means our government is obsolete.

Why did other governments get new constitutions? Because things changed there.

Why don't things change in America?


________________________PEACE

[Billdo]

The reason that we do not scrap the constitution is that the government works! Not perfectly, not all that efficiently, but pretty damn well. Almost all Americans have a strong feeling that the basic outline of our government serves them well. We as a nation have a strong economy, basic social and human rights, and with few exceptions, all of our citizens are having their basic needs of food, clothing and shelter met, and indeed have a huge number of what would be considered luxuries in much of the world.

Yes there are problems, and societal issues that must be resolved, but they are not problems with the Constitution. Let's take your list:

Abortion.
The gun debate.
Campaign finance Reform.
Health Care Reform.
When do you think our government will solve these arguments and move on to other questions?

When you think of it these are pretty trivial issues, particularly compared to countries that are trying to work out their basic pattern of government like Russia and China, to use two fairly significant examples.

Perhaps the most important thing about the issues you raise is that we do not have anything approaching a national consensus on those issues. Until the populace gets behind one side or another of a controversial public issue, the elected government will be quite properly reluctant to impose a definative solution.

[2sense]

Originally posted by Frankd6:

You didn't vote on it? Which laws did you vote on? Are you a Congressman or a Senator?

In a democracy people have a voice in government. The elected officials should feel an obligation to go to the people for a vote on important questions.

Again the Impeachment example(that one burns me up). If an election were held during the Senate trial, it appeared as though Clinton would have won handily. But the Senators continued the farce in the face of hostile public opinion.

Some Senators used the constitution defense :"I am only doing as the Constitution mandates".
I want them to do what the people want. Or convince the people to change their views. That is leadership. IMHO.

NOT to get to vote on the documentary basis of your democracy? No one finds that unreasonable?

________________________________Peace

[2sense]

Originally posted by dhanson:
2sense, the whole POINT to the constitution is that it is undemocratic. .

Hi dhanson. Thanks for replying.

Yes I know. This is my problem.

Your thoughts seem to me to mirror those of the founders. I do not agree.

The purpose of a constitution should be to shape the government into a less blunt instrument to serve the people.

Look I not saying some of the founders weren't admirable. I particularly like Franklin and Washington. But they were who they were. In "The Vinyard of Liberty", James McGregor Burns calls them," the well-bred, the well-fed, the well-read, and the well-wed."

As for enslaving Blacks, the constitution explicitly forbade outlawing slavery for 20 years.
The compromises antislavery supporters made with the southerners cost the Blacks almost another century of slavery.

Far from protecting minorities from slavery, it hurt them. Because the constitution is so hard to change, it was necessary to fight a war to free them. Despite the fact that most Americans(and not just in the north) found slavery immoral, as long as the south held onto its Senatoral seats, there was no way to end slavery. I still don't know why the south panicked and chose war.

As for Germany, how have they done since WW2?
Just fine. Why? Maybe because we gave them(and the Japanese) a brand spanking new constitution.Which they ammended more than 30 times in over many years.

Finally, Having people vote on their own constitution makes a society dangerous and unstable? Democracy may not be magic, but surely people have more faith in it than that.


---------------------------------------------
{my alter-egos become restless}

1sense: " Do it. C'mon ya know yer right. Call 'em elitist."

6sense: "Dude, I am definatly picking up those vibes on some ectoplasmic wavelengths."

2sense: "Shut up! I alluded. Let people draw their own conclusions"

[2sense]

OK, off to bed. Will try to get on again in tomorrow. Sorry Joe-Cool, it got late.


__________________PEACE

[Otto]

But the contracter promised you an eternal home. And left no way to change the tenant agreement to provide for routine safty precautions. Of course, new-fangled items like fire escapes weren't provided for. And you have your family in this building. What then?

I don't believe this analogy is valid. The Constitution can't be legitimately compared to a single apartment building. If a building analogy is needed, I think a mall might be a better one. The builders put up the structure and laid out the powers of the administrators, then left it to the individual stores (states) to decide on store policy, as long as they don't conflict with the few mall policies. And the store owners themselves and even the customers have the ability to change those policies. This is not a really great analogy either, but better than yours I think.

The document that guarantees your freedom doesn't even give you a choice?

But you do have a choice. You're free to run for Congress and propose constitutional amendments. You're free to run for your state legislature and propose a constitutional convention. You're free to contact every legislator in the nation with suggestions. It's not supposed to be easy to change the Constitution precisely because with an easy way to change it the whims of the day will become the laws of tomorrow. The process is designed to allow those who will be affected by the changes, we the people, ample time to consider the ramifications of the proposal. The fact that the Constitution has changed so little is a strength, not a weakness.

Obviously I don't think it IS working.

How would you suggest that the people be represented, if not proportionally in the House and by state in the Senate?

Even just eliminating the outdated wording would make me happy. I'm talking about the 3/5ths clause(You know...the one that said Blacks were worth 3/5ths of a White.)

That language, Article I section 2, was overridden by the Fourteenth Amendment.

In a democracy people have a voice in government. The elected officials should feel an obligation to go to the people for a vote on important questions.

Whatever gave you the idea we live in a democracy? We live in a democratic republic. We elect representatives to speak for us in government. If someone doesn't represent us as we wish, we vote them out of office. Going to the people for a vote on every issue (and who will say their issue is unimportant?) is, at least, impractical. Constitutents are of course encouraged to notify their representatives as to their wishes on particular issues, and it's a less than canny politician who ignores her constituents.

Because the constitution is so hard to change, it was necessary to fight a war to free them.

The Civil War was not fought to free the slaves. Had it been possible to preserve the union without ending slavery, that's what would have happened.

As for Germany, how have they done since WW2?Just fine. Why? Maybe because we gave them(and the Japanese) a brand spanking new constitution.

Oh yeah, that's probably it. <shaking head and rolling eyes>

[2sense]

Insomnia strikes again.
Fun Fun.

OK Joe-Cool,

Briefly, I hope,

I have heard the vocal minority argument before. I don't buy it. If the constitution is supposed to protect the majority from minority agendas, it's doing a pretty poor job.

A minority IS having its agenda pursued by the government. But it's not a vocal minority. You don't have to scream loudly if you can afford to bribe congressmen.

Personally I don't think this is accidental. Why is the electoral college there anyways?

I am not advocating a direct democracy. Simply a representational democracy with faith in its constituancy. Faith enough to give the people a real voice.

As for legal minutia, this is an American problem. Other democracies don't put up with this type of legal tripe.

I resectfully submit that you have it backwords. The constitution has the judiciary doing the legislative branch's job. The judges ARE suposed to follow the law, not make it. Judges shouldn't judge the legislature. They should judge people under the law. The people should judge the legislature. That is democracy.

As for your murder law example, It's silly.
Not that things don't "work" that way now. But that they do.

Granted, the people whom we elect to do it for us are not a whole lot better, but they at least are educated in the system of governance.

No, they are not. Most are lawyers.
Lawyers are not trained in what is right or wrong. They are trained in what is legal. Not the same thing at all.

I wonder if this is why the laws are so numerous and complex?

---------------------------------------------
{1sense:"say it! say it!}
{2sense:"OK, Then you be quiet"
It's government of the lawyers,by the lawyers, for the lawyers. - I. Fergit

[2sense]

{6sense-"I detect regret about the apartment analogy"}
{2sense-"oh, your good Kreskin. back in your hole."}

Hi Otto. Where's Hagop?

Again, this is not a solutions thread,but I am not suggesting the House is unproportional.

The 14th amendment was overrode the wording yes. But the hatefull words are still on the document.

{1sense:"a minor complaint. Hit him where it hurts"}
{2sense:"SHUT UP"}

I would like to see more democracy and less republicanism then.

Also, a canny polititian knows where his bread gets buttered.

And as for the American Civil War, people say it wasn't over slavery. But that does not make it true. Those words were propaganda then and they still are.


---------------------------------------------
The Constitution is a contract with death!
Frederick Douglass

[2sense]

Otto again,

I'm not sure about the German constitution. But maybe compare it to that of the Weimar Republic.
I would guess the modern constitution(I think it's called the Basic Law), has a stronger central government. And perhaps a more ceremonial upper house. Just a WAG, but interesting.


---------------------------------------------
Old Smoke, the so-called fire chief, did nothing all evening but nod off and start awake. Being a cynic, I approved of him as a public official. The best kind are those who stay the hell out of the way and don't mess with things. Except for me of course.
-Croaker

[2sense]

Lux Fiat,

I understand that the constitution was intended to be inefficient.
I just disagree that this is still the way to go.

---------------------------------------------
{6sense- "I could channel Hitler if it would help get this overwith as soon as possible."}
{1sense-"Right on."}
{2sense-"You're going to get me in trouble for tagline infringement! Good thing only I can here you."}

[2sense]

Billdo,
Great handle. I love it.

It is the job of government to build consensus. If we could all agree on our own we wouldn't need government.

In my Civil War example, no consensus was reached untill many were dead. This is to be avoided.

Building consensus before things get out of hand. I call this leadership.

Russia and China have problems of their own. But at least they have admitted they have a problem. And who knows, they may even solve some of them.

---------------------------------------------
{1sense: "Come on! that was jingoism!"}
{2sense: "It was subtle enough."}
{0sense: "Subtle my as......mpph...mmmmppppphh"}

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by 2sense:
But the colonies voted on it:
If YOU don't have a vote, how is that democratic?

News Flash: We don't live in a democracy. We live in a Republic. You do have a voice: Your vote helps choose who represents you. Your representative's votes help choose which laws will affect you.

A pure democracy would leave us in chaos. You can't get 10 people in a room to agree where to get lunch, how do you propose to find a reasonable consensus with 230 million people clamoring for their own personal agendas?

------------------
Mere Life is not Victory.
Mere Death is not Defeat.
-----
Joe Cool

[Monty]

Three things:

(1) Regarding the assertion that "all Americans think the government doesn't work:" WRONG! In addition to those who posted above they believe the government works, please add me to that number.

(2) Regarding the assertion that "Separation of Church and State was a concept added later and separately:" WRONG! The concept is contained in the very words of the document itself (of course I include amendments as part of the constitution, see below). Or just maybe the OP has a different meaning of "Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, etc."

(3) Regarding the analogy of the contractor: IRRELEVANT! The Constitution specifically describes how to change it.

Thanks for playing, sorry you didn't win a cigar. Now go back to 6th Grade Civics Class and attempt to learn something this time.

[tracer]

2sense wrote:

The only people I've heard call for a Constitutional Congress are the Militias.

The people that call themselves "militias" in the modern U.S. are not Militias in any legal or Constitutional sense of that word. They are self-ruled bands of anti-government roughians that call themselves militias. Real militias are required to answer to the State civil authority (the legislature and the governor) -- these so-called "militias" answer to no one but themselves.

But don't take my word for it. It's all right here: http://www.militia-watchdog.org/faq4.htm

[2sense]

Thank you for the link, Tracer.

Having grown up in northern Michigan,
(thats mid-lower-Michigan for you UPers)
I am familiar with the militias.

I am not a member.

Reformed gun control supporter,

2sense.

[2sense]

Originally posted by Monty:
Three things:

(1) Regarding the assertion that "all Americans think the government doesn't work:" WRONG! In addition to those who posted above they believe the government works, please add me to that number.

(2) Regarding the assertion that "Separation of Church and State was a concept added later and separately:" WRONG! The concept is contained in the very words of the document itself (of course I include amendments as part of the constitution, see below). Or just maybe the OP has a different meaning of "Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, etc."

(3) Regarding the analogy of the contractor: IRRELEVANT! The Constitution specifically describes how to change it.

Thanks for playing, sorry you didn't win a cigar. Now go back to 6th Grade Civics Class and attempt to learn something this time.

Monty,

Peace and Love brother

Thank you for your reply. I envy your brevity and clarity.
{6sense:"I sense a military mind"}
This makes answering your post much easier. Thank you.

1.
I hereby abandon this unwarrented, baseless, unthinking, unreasonable, insensitive, and downright foolish assumtion. I can't imagine what I was thinking.

2.
Not my argument.

3.
Still smarting about that one. I've taken quite a beating there. If you wish to make an improved analogy,I will be happy to pick away at it.

3b
Yes, there is an amendment process. I am making the point that the restrictive nature of Article 5 leads to problems.

an example:
Prohibition.
Once it was passed(the amendment, not the Volstead Act) it was impossible to remove. If a tiny minority of the people(or more accuratly the people who are supposed to speak for them) hold firm, majority opinion doesn't matter. It takes a supermajority to change the constitution.

So, Prohibition was bad. Most people knew it was bad. But there was nothing they could do about it. Undemocratic. And we still live with the social problems this mistake caused.(Organized Crime, the Kennedys, the Great Depression JUST KIDDING!)

The American Civil War is my other example.(see above)


A question for you:
Why was the electoral college created?

As to your final point,
My school didn't teach civics in the 6th grade. So your assumption is false. And your insult ignored.
If you think a 6th grade civics class teaches all one needs to know to intelligently discuss this topic, well, I will understand if you do not comprehend my points.(note- you don't have to agree with them to understand them)


___________________________Salaam

[Otto]

Prohibition.

Once it was passed(the amendment, not the Volstead Act) it was impossible to remove.

The Eighteenth Amendment was ratified January 16, 1919. It was repealed December 5, 1933. Impossible to remove? What are you talking about?

[Monty]

Otto: Evidently the OP's not smarting enough from the other thing which gave him/her a serious beating.

What the heck, here goes on the Electoral College:

"Why was it created?" You ask? Simple, as the Constitution itself says, to elect the President and Vice-President of the United States. You may have noticed this, but just in case you haven't: the Federal Government is a different entity from the State Governments. Another couple of interesting things for those of us who actually are both (a) capable of reading the Constitution, and (b) actually read that esteemend document is that: (1) The method of selecting the Prez & Veep have changed, by Amendment to the Constitution and (2) the method of selecting Senators has changed by the same method. For that matter, the enumeration of the populace now determines the distribution of the set number of seats in the House of Representatives; the original method was the enumeration determined the total number of Representatives and thus the House could have had (under the original system) thousands of seats depending on how large the national population got.

I feel the need to revisit the bit about Senators: the 1st system of selecting the Senators was that they were appointed by the State legislators.

In answer to your remark about my comment on 6th Grade Civics class: I didn't assert that your particular school taught Civics in the 6th grade. What I did assert is that a 6th Grade Civics class does teach that. Now, if your school waited (waits?) until 12th grade, then kindly reinterpret it to say "12th Grade Civics class." In any event, a competent Civics class in these United States does teach much of what one needs to know to discuss this topic intelligently; i.e., the Constitution. Failing that, one would hope that by the time you graduated (graduate?) from school, you would at least have the ability to read. I operate now under the assumption that you do given the particular medium of this particular debate at this particular moment. Given that ability, and the presumed application of it to the Constitution, you should have at least seen some of what the folks here have already told you. If not, well, what can one say about someone who "hears but does not listen?"

[Weirddave]

Now Monty, I think you are being too hard on 2sense. It is obvious that he dosen't grasp the fact that the beauty of the Constitution are exactly the things he is bitching about. My WAG is that this comes from a lack of experence, certainly not a lack of inteligence. I think a productive aproach here would be to teach, not hastle. But that's just MHO.



------------------
Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.

Wow, what a lot of 2 bit nonsense from 2Sense. This'll take a while to shred, but only due to sheer volume.

I'll start with the OP. Just as a note, 2Sense, if I'm agreeing with you about anything in this I'm being sarcastic.

I feel America should burn its constitution and make a new one.

No, burning is too good for it. We need some better way to celebrate getting rid of the document that's responsible for the complete lack of success our country has had. I'll bet that if we had a halfway decent constitution we could have won at least one of those world wars.

All Americans admit (to other Americans) that the government doesn't work. Few outside of the polititians pretend it will ever work.

Even if this were true, it wouldn't mean anything. In case you hadn't noticed, all Americans don't agree with each other. If all Americans agreed that there were certain specific problems with the Constitution, that would have mean something. One thing even more Americans (have you ever met one, by the way) agree on is that the Constitution is pretty good.

The Founders are revered. No one doubts the Fathers of our country. The whole political spectrum worships them. The only people I've heard call for a Constitutional Congress are the Militias.
Hey, if your apartment building collapses, do you blame the contracter or the super?

The founders are well respected because they wrote a Constitution that brought into existence a radically new form of government, and has been in use for about 213 years. Find me someone else who's ever done that.
Also, at what point did the "apartment building" collapse? I'm just wondering, since I figured that I would have noticed, but looking out my window it looks like America is still there. When your apartment building has a leaky roof, do you tear it down and build a new one?

Don't get me wrong. I agree with the ideals put forth in the the document... Freedom, Democracy, Justice. I am arguing about the details of how best to acheive these. I think, like us today, the framers let their prejudices affect their efforts. Also by today's standards they would be woefully ignorant.

Ignorant of what, exactly? Their area of expertise was in creating systems of government. They didn't do so well with the Articles of Confederation, but their second effort has yet to be surpassed anywhere at any time. A rational person would conclude that they probably weren't ignorant of anything terribly relevant.

My points.
1. The constitution is undemocratic.
---1a. Did you ever vote on it?
---1b. why do we need the electoral college? Our votes should be what matters.
---1c. 1 citizen 1 vote. The Senate is blatently nonrepresentational(19, count em, 19 letters). Why are Californians less valuable than Utahers? (insert own joke here.)

Each state is a separate entity. Giving each one the same representation in the Senate puts them all on an equal footing there. The United States is a conglomerate of the states, not just a whole bunch of people. Also, if you read the Constitution, you'll find that the Senate can't do anything (well, a couple things) by itself. All laws have to pass both houses.

Also, representation means the group of elected representatives serving a constituency. The Senate is representational.

---2 The constitution is too rigid. Give the power to amend it directly into the hands of the people.

Because the last thing a government should be is rigid. Who wants laws that aren't in a constant state of flux? And not just all the little laws, but the really important ones that dictate how the country is run as well.

Perhaps one reason that it's so hard to amend the Constitution is because the rule of law shouldn't be constantly subject to whatever the whim of the people happens to be. If there is a desperate need for some change to be made, it can be done, but unnecessary changes are kept to a minimum.

---3 The Constitution is obscure. Precise modern wording would eliminate semantic arguments.(and happily put all constitutional lawers out of business)

ob•scure (ob-skyoor) adj [b](-scur•er, -scur•est)[b/] 1.dark, indistinct. 2. remote from people's observation. 3.not famous, an obscure poet. 4. not easily understood, not clearly expressed.

Apparently you have a problem with the fact that the Constitution isn't just lying aroud everywhere, or that it's behind glass and not really easy to see. It's definately pretty famous, and is pretty easily understood, with the exception of that run-on sentence it starts off with. example: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." How much easier can things get?

---4 The constitution makes goverment complex. If we steamlined the government structure itself, we could make it more responsive to voters. Plus we would know who to point the finger at when things go wrong.

The Constitution does no such thing. It sets up a system of checks and balances, so that the power isn't consolidated in one person or group. Nazi Germany is a great example of a streamlined government that was responsive to the voters. And everyone knew who to blame when things went wrong.

---5 Equality. This should be ensrined with the other great virtues of America. It is not.

Equality is given it's proper dues in the Constitution. Each person gets one vote and approximately equal representation in the House. Each state gets equal representation in the Senate. Most importantly, we are all given equal treatment under the law. What more do you want?

Now moving on to other posts of 2Sense's

I will say that if we can't establish a government, how can we be smart enough to run a government.

I will say that if you can't build a car, how can you be smart enough to run one? Simple. Because establishing a government (or building a car) is a hell of a lot more difficult than
running one. Under the current system, the government is run mostly by people who know a bit about running the government. You are proposing that everyone (regardless of whether they are smart enough) go about establishing a government.

To your first concern:
Check out the 2 posts before yours. Do they sound confidant in our government? I do not think these opinions are rare.

But they did not say that the government doesn't work. Or even imply it. The government works. Every detail is not exactly the way everyone wants it, but that is far from admitting that it doesn't work.

But the colonies voted on it:
If YOU don't have a vote, how is that democratic?

Look, I really don't have time to vote on everything. I do vote for representatives who could bring up the idea of having another Constitutional Convention. I can even ask them to do so. The reason nobody does this is because it's a dumb idea. If this isn't democratic enough, it's only because it works better.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><

[Monty]

Dave: Normally, I'd agree with you on this but 2sense is continuing to assert things which are false. As it is, he/she still asserts that "most people knew [Prohibition] was a bad idea. Sadly, the truth of the matter is that most people of the time (well, most voting people) thought it was a good idea (or at least voted as though they thought it was a good idea). Apparently, the wrong people were voting then.

[waterj2]

...You fuck up one UBB tag...
grr... well, at least the quotes look right.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by Monty:
...Given that ability, and the presumed application of it to the Constitution, you should have at least seen some of what the folks here have already told you. If not, well, what can one say about someone who "hears but does not listen?"

Come on, kids, play nice. This isn't the pit. No need to go slinging insults. I disagree with what the guy is saying, but he does raise some interesting points. Why not answer them with your intelligence, instead of making a veiled implication that he doesn't have any?

------------------
If you say it, mean it. If you mean it, do it.
If you do it, live it. If you live it, say it.
-----
Joe Cool

[Joe_Cool]

I'll be the first to admit that our government has flaws. In fact, it has some very serious flaws. But they are not caused by the constitution. It's a brilliantly written and though-out document. A very sensible process. And the constitution itself admits that it's not all-inclusive or perfect. So it includes a method of changing it.

The problems we have are caused by human greed and corruption. By a flawed Legal system that favors precision of language over common sense, and even over a sense of right and wrong.

But all things considered, if I were given a new nation to govern with its governmental system left 100% up to me, I would want a copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to work from. I would probably adopt it nearly verbatim (minor changes here and there, but largely the same).

The men who drafted it had their "thinking tukes" on, so to speak. No, they weren't perfect, they weren't godlike, and they might have been downright scummy. But they had their heads on straight when they did this.

------------------
If you say it, mean it. If you mean it, do it.
If you do it, live it. If you live it, say it.
-----
Joe Cool

[tracer]

Joe_Cool wrote:

I'll be the first to admit that our government has flaws. In fact, it has some very serious flaws. But they are not caused by the constitution.

Some parliamentarians would disagree.

[2sense]

Hey Otto,

I know not to fight with you. I may wound you, even seriously. But that's all.
Otto & Hagop are immortal.(so far)

About Prohibition, I was speaking metaphoricly. While a small minority on people(again presuming their elected officials listen to them), hold out on an issue, the constitution is a rock.

So if ,say, 10% of the population says no. Depending on their various election districts, they might be able to spike positive change.

I have read that elected officials voted for Prohibition with no thought that it could ever pass. There was that little support for it.
But its support was vocal. Groups like the Womens Christian Temporance Union, picketted and lobbied hard. And finally got their way.

At the expense of the majority of Americans who wanted a drink.

I hope you see my point now.

Small minorities can control the nation.
As long as they have hidebound and unprogressive views.
The constitution was intended to stop this.
It failed.
And so a minority(the rich) control the government. And the majority(the people) suffer.

I would like a government that looks to the future.
Not one that lives in the past.


________________________________Salaam

[2sense]

Monty my boy,[poor english accent]

Thank you for your reply.

I hope I pass your interesting things test.

{1sense-"Go for the typo!"}
{2sense-"NO. Never. We are new here. This is their house"}

I notice both of your numbered points are exactly that. Yours. I don't understand how they are germaine to this discussion. Unless you are under the impression that I am saying the constitution can't be ammended at all.

I understand article 5.
{1sense-" I notice people who refer to the constitution by article number usually have actually read the thing.'}

As for the Senators, true. Unfortunatly, they didn't change article 5 at the same time. They could have given the people the right to elect their own President as well as their own Senators. Also the constitutional ammendment powers stayed with the state legislatures.


I am surprised that you want to play the question game. But I can play if you wish.

ME: Why was the electoral college created?

You: To elect the President and the Vice-President.

ME: Why did they create an electoral college to elect the President and Vice-President?


{6sense-" I sense you have a point you want to make."}
{2sense-" Thanks buddy."}
{6sense-" I also sense why ME is capitalized and not you"}
{2sense-" Ouch"}


Thank you again for takeing the time to reply.
I am not trying to upset anyone. You might have noticed an attempt at humor or 2 in my posts.

While the title of this thread is intentionaly inflamitory, I am looking for GREAT DEBATORS not PIT FIENDS.
Originaly I was going to make a joke about the document being written on hemp. But I didn't.

FTR- I do not actually endorse the physical destruction of the relic.

---------------------------------------------
The Constitution is a contract with death.
Frederick Douglass

[2sense]

Thanks for the kind word Weirddave.

I would call you my friend, but RoboDude might get upset.

I don't mind insults if they are humorous. Or at least clevely worded enough to repeat.

" 2 bit nonsense" is not bad at all.

If someone didn't step up my alter egos were about to start acting like sock pupetts.

---------------------------------------------
{6sense-" I am NOT a sock pupett!"}
{2sense-" Easy now, that won't be necessary.}
{6sense-" Quiet! I am getting into character.}

[2sense]

Wow Waterj2 long answer.

When I get a long one like this I cut it into pieces. En garde. Slash, slash

Equality is given it's proper dues in the Constitution. Each person gets one vote and approximately equal representation in the House. Each state gets equal representation in the Senate. Most importantly, we are all given equal treatment under the law. What more do you want?

I don't get my one vote for President.
How does Senatorial representation by state make me more equal?

In fact a large portion of Americans don't recieve equal treatment in our courts.
But that is not this argument. I am nt saying the wording in the document doesn't call for it. And the discrimination wouldn't evaporate simply because we got a new set of basic laws.


More to follow,

___________________________peace

---------------------------------------------
{1sense-"heh heh. Gonna come down on him like a million pound shithammer!"}
{2sense-"Hey! No Thompson quotes. I've got that drug-law argument comming up. I've gotta have some credibility. Why do you think I pretended to misspell "Marijuana"?"}

[Surgoshan]

The Constitution does work. 200+ years of history back that up.

The Constitution can change. 13 amendments back that up.

We have freedom under the Constitution. That you can wrongly say otherwise backs that up.

If you want to make changes, you can start an organization, write to representatives, run for a seat, so many things. Or you can complain and not change anything.

------------------
I sold my soul to Satan for a dollar. I got it in the mail.

[2sense]

Waterj2,

Hey thats strange.

When I read your message in reply-with-quote it cut off a bunch of the beginning.

I didn't mean to start in the middle.
{1sense-" Newbie"}

OK ,very quickly to catch up.


No I wouldn,t burn it. Not even if someone rolled it up into the bigest spliff.
But what about tearing off peices and selling them like peices of the True Cross?

I don't think the constitution is completly without merit. I tend to agree that it was the best compromise at the time. And Franklins handprint is huge in America.(article 1, section 8, To promote the progress of science...)

Sorry, Sorry, Sorry again. I have nowhere further to retreat on speaking for all Americans. Can we let it go?

My nationality is not a mystery. Read above. I know how the vast majority feels about its Constitution. Also read above.

As for respecting the framers, I'm OK with that.Many do deserve respect. A lot of countries around the world heard the Battle Cry and joined in Democracy. I'm NOT being sarcastic here.

As for finding out that no other society has ever survived with the same constitution, if true, is not a comforting thought.

All right! Someone elses apartment analogy.
{1sense-" Sucker"}

OK. You got a lifetime guarentee on the roof. And the insurance company wont pay for it. And wont allow you to do it yourself. While burying you in red tape.
Are you happy?

Founder ignorance I will save for later.
But that has yet to be surpassed stuff reeks of jingoism.

The states are unequal. Check out the populations of California and Wyoming. Why is it bad for states to be unequal?

Yes I have read the document. See above. And I understand the Senate is designed to slow down legislation. I think this is not the way we should do things.

You don't have to waste time explaining how and why things were done. I get it. But when I add it up it doesn't.

The senate represents the people of the states, true. But it does so unequally. The Senate is not representational of the population of the people it serves.

Thanks for the sarcasm warning at the top of the post. This one threw me. The constitutional rigidity causes all this proliferation of laws. This is a whole post. Repost me if you wish to discuss.

The "whim of the people" argument is unsupportable. The question is not should the government trust the people. It is the reverse.

No, I have a problem peices are not being sold as relics. Hey, you wouldn't really have to damage it.

No more Hitler until Monday please.

Looks like I caught up.

OK thanks, I'll get to the rest. I promise.

---------------------------------------------
Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. -Dono

[2sense]

Surgoshan,

Thank you for your post.

I am not an unloyal American. I am proud to be American. We live in a great country. I am aware that many people in the world do not have our freedoms.

What I am trying to do right now is have a debate. Please feel free to join in.
I will answer any post concerning the OP or anything on the topic.

So repost. If you ask concise questions I can usually be funnier.
But That might not be an incentive .


Peace.
---------------------------------------------
One for Tracer,

An armed society is a polite society.-Robert Heinlen.

[tracer]

2sense wrote:

Hey thats strange.

When I read your message in reply-with-quote it cut off a bunch of the beginning.

This is a relatively recent "feature" added to the reply-with-quote button.

In the Good Old Days (about 2 weeks ago), when you quoted someone else's message, the entire message was quoted verbatim, even if the quoted message contained QUOTE blocks itself. Like this:

{QUOTE}Originally posted by A_Flaming_Poopie:
{B}Weenie_poster said:
{QUOTE}HELLO I AM A WEENIE!{/QUOTE}
Please refrain from using SCREEMING CAPS, you weenie!{/QUOTE}

The problem was, UBB QUOTE blocks do not "nest". The second QUOTE would just appear as the word QUOTE in square brackets, and the first /QUOTE would end the entire quoted section, even though the text following it was still inside the "outer" QUOTE block.

The solution? Chop off everything before the last /QUOTE in the original message, thus defeating the purpose even further.

This is why I prefer to use cut-and-paste instead, and write my own {QUOTE} {/QUOTE} directives, like I did with your message at the top of this one.