Joe_Cool wrote:
Some parliamentarians would disagree.
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
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
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.}
Wow Waterj2 long answer.
When I get a long one like this I cut it into pieces. En garde. Slash, slash
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”?”}
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.
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
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.
2sense wrote:
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.
Tracer,
Thank you for the heads up.
I can use the help. I am pretty new at this.
I like the reply with quotes to view the message as I compose my answer. Since I type very slow, I like to use the reply quotes.
__________________________Salaam
Hello again Joe_Cool,
Thanks for posting again.
I’ve been a bit busy trying to answer all these points. But I think maybe I should reply to regular posters first.
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you.
Got your news flash.
I think this Republic needs more Democracy.
Why can’t I use my voice to choose to be represented in a different manner?
And I have to ask this again. Isn’t it odd that people don’t get to vote on the constitution itself?
Government should encourage consensus. I feel this is one area our government could improve.
So I look at this question in a contradictory manner. Do you see my point?
Also in the spirit of brotherhood, I will leave your analogy intact(damned if I intend to make one again soon).
But I think those 10 people could find someone fair enough for everybody. And then let that person pick for all 10.
But that’s just it. I want to be able to pick the picker.
Anyway, thanks again brother.
I am J-O-E to the C, yo.
Call me Joe C. got more game than Koleco.
I’m a freak, ho.
Call me sick.
3’9" , with a 10’ dick.
The ladies’ pick.
I’m a crazy hick.
----------------------------Kid Rock
Translation for the tragicly unhip:
“ME, ME, ME”
2sense, a minor note:
It isn’t. It’s supposed to protect those with with a minority opinion from a tyranny of the majority. I would submit to you that most of the problems you perceive in our government as it currently exists stem not from a faulty constitution, but from faulty implementation of that constitution. The majority you hold in such esteem in fact gets its way more often than not. Sure, vocal minorities have a lot of pull, perhaps more than they should. That’s not due to a constitutional flaw, that’s a simple matter of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. If you think there’s a little too much grease involved for your liking, join a campaign finance lobbying group and become a squeaky wheel yourself.
“Are you frightened of snakes?”
“Only when they dress like werewolves.”
-Preacher
2sense: You have this weird way of posting, but don’t get me wrong, its kind of interesting. Let me take a wild guess here… You read a lot of Roger Zelazny or you use a lot of Dr. Bronner’s soap.
I’m not really seeing how you’re making a case for scrapping the whole Constitution. There are some problems, and perhaps some amendments necessary.
But on the whole, our society is the measure of our government and Constitution. We’re healthy, wealthy, and wise… Well, ok, 2 out of 3 ain’t bad.
Most of the serious issues today come not from Constitutional problems, but from the problems that are going to be inherent in any large democracy.
You don’t have to propose a whole new constitution, but what serious specific problems (as opposed to the generalizations in the OP) do you see, and what sort of changes would you make?
The Founders had a unique problem. A new country at the beginning of the age of science, repudiating its historical politics and having the to design a government. We have to commend them for the courage to adopt a new philosophy and not just naming Washington King. But that situation doesn’t hold now.
Another point: If you want to see how direct democracy really works, join a condo complex and try to change the color of your front door. Let me tell you, it will make you pine for the days of good ol’ despotism. The Founders, IMHO, were very correct to trust neither the government nor the people, but to have the strengths of one support the weaknesses of the other.
If Cecil Adams did not exist, we would be obliged to create Him.
Once we clear up a small misunderstanding, I think you will see my point was not false.
You see, people DON’T get to vote on constitutional amendments. The voting was done on the Hill, and in state legislatures.
So yes:
The wrong people were voting then. And they still are.
Thank you for stating my point so elegantly.
{1sense-" OUCH. Thats gotta hurt. Medic! Medic!"}
And they were forced to eat Sir Robin’s minstrels.
And there was much rejoicing! -Monty Python
Hey thanks for the nice post, SingleDad.
{6sense-“Your dreams tonight will be peacefull. I have POWERS!”}
Read through the link you provided. Good stuff.I’m not much Zelany though. I prefer my SF pretty hard. And not tongue in cheek.
The alteregos was a spur of the moment thing. I was reading about the sock puppet phenomonon and I was LOL. If you see one doing his thing, please let me know. This I gotta see.
I am going with the It Needs To Go argument, because of the nature of the document itself. We are not allowed to just throw it out and start again.
So I proposed that we should.
If you want to start a hypothetical New Deal thread, I would love to post on it.
I also think that the bones of the current constitution is the place to start.
But I have more work to do on this thread.
I made some foolish statments early, and got burned. So I’m still bailing water.(to mix a metaphor)
Yes, we are doing well economicly.
(Blessed is Allan Greenspan. Long may he live.)
But that will change eventually. And then we will have the same government. Maybe then change will occur.
Hey, I am painting all the framers with the same brush. Big Ups to Washington for not just keeping the power.
I am interested in the ones unique to America. Urban decay for example.
And I know what you mean about condo communities. We(The little missus and I) rented 1 in Bethel Park, Pa. Outside of the 'Burgh.
Bethel Park was named in some study as the safest community in America.
I once saw a man and a woman exchange threats because the base on the small lamp attached next to his door was black instead of regulation gold.
2 cop cars showed up.
OK off to bed. Will try to post again tomorrow.
Thanx again for the post.
A friend with weed is a friend indeed.-(disputed. I personally know 3 people who want credit for this one.)
Sorry, I don’t take the reference.
I’m sorry, I have no clue what you mean by this.
Thirteen states had prohibition laws prior to the Civil War. They were all, except for Maine’s, either repealed or declared unconstitutional, but the number of states thinking about prohibition indicates to me that it was not a small vocal minority holding sway. Constitutional amendments don’t get ratified on the basis of small minorities. And even if they do, that’s not the fault of the Constitution. If the opposition is silent, then what is the lawmaker who hears only from the minority to believe?
Majorities generally don’t “suffer” in silence, and if they do, it’s their own fault.
That’s a very pretty slogan, one which I’m sure will look good on your campaign website. You might want to keep the “burn the constitution” rhetoric under wraps until after you’re elected, though.
The HoR is designed to be the direct representatives of the people, which is why they are apportioned based on population. The Senate is designed to be the representatives of states as a whole, which is why each state gets two. In your example of Wyoming v California, California has more representatives in the HoR because more people live there. Were the HoR apportioned in some other way, then the people would not be represented equally.
The Constitution does not designate the Senate as the body which serves to “slow down legislation.” Senate rules may allow for this (e.g. filibuster) but that is not a direct result of the Constitution.
In todays America, we wouldn’t be able to get everyone to agree on one line, let alone a complete document as intricate as a constitution. You ever try to get ten people to agree on where to eat?
Thank god it’s already been written for us. I think they did a pretty good job(except for that electoral college bullshit).
Spooje,
Thank you for responding.
The old thread could allways use some humor, right?
I mean I know that it is a lot of text to wade through, but…
Your putting me on , right?
{6sense- I’m getting nothing. The line may be busy.}
Bawadita baw da Bang a Bang digy digy… -Kid Rock
translation for the tragicly unhip:
“…um…HEY!”
Lux Fiat,
And there was light.
{1sense- Not a good call. Your Latin is weak. This guy could be demanding people admire his good fortune in driving a small fuel efficient foriegn car.}
I just can’t bring myself to thank you for posting again.
It may be only a minor point to you.
But I was hoping to get a little more bang out of it.
Very perceptive Lux(Luther)Fiat. Notice the if in my statement. I didn’t believe this either.
Your assesment is correct. And neutraly stated so I can’t even insinuate you are an elitist.
{1sense- Do it anyway. Elitist pi…mmmpphh}
I shall strive to overcome my devestation.
And keep my surly alteregos in check.
Your other points,
I’ve heard the Blame the Caretakers argument…yada yada…
You know where I’m going with that.
Vocal minorities… I think we are close enough there.
Majority I hold in esteem…who wouldn’t?
I’m sorry, I had a virulent, but eloquent rant prepared against the “tyranny of the majority” argument.
But I just don’t have the heart for it right now.
{3sense- I hope your happy you big meanie}
__________________________Peace
( I am kidding with the guilt trip)
Good Post.
I laid traps for troubadors
Who get killed before they reach Bombey.
- The Rolling Stones
Greetings Otto,
Sorry for the confusion. Otto and Hagop are characters in the Black Company, my favorite military fantasy series.
They are good guys so…
{1sense- Good guys? I recall Otto being decribed as having “very little consience”}
{2sense- Shut up. He might hear you. Anyways Otto is one of the most popular guys in the Company.}
… the comments weren’t derogatory. I assure you.
Let me try to clear up my first quote.
I was discussing the nonrepresentational nature of the Senate.
Each state gets 2 Senators. And amendments need 67 Senators in favor to pass.
So if the amendment was contrary to the vested interests of many of the smaller states(say a mining law). Then they could vote it down.
If the population of the 17 smallest states is around 10% of total US population.(I am guessing.) Then when all 34 Senators voted no, Bingo, no new amendment.
Despite 90% of the rest of the country saying yes.
That is what I was saying(badly).
I have decided I don’t like this argument much either.
There are too many ifs in it.
Thank you, Otto, for curing a small part of my ignorance
Sure lots of people are murdered every year,
But remember, a lot of them have it comming.
-my father