Stop doing that. Not only is it rude but you’re not answering the question. I asked why you wanted to destroy the United States. Because let’s be honest, your proposals would mean we were no longer the “United States.” I said nothing about a civil war.
Marc
There have been five amendments to the constitution in my lifetime. It is changeable when necessary, and it is deliberately difficult to change. It works.
But the United States is not a democracy (much as BG would like it to be), it is a republic.
It is a very curious argument that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections of freedom should be open to revision every 20 years. I really wonder how many people who, say, are in strong opposition to the Patriot Act (because of its boogeymanish assault on liberty) would, upon careful reflection, decide that if the Fifth Amendment prohibition on compelling someone to testify against himself should be a topic that is debated every 20 years. If the Patriot Act is bad, but it has the majority support of our elected representatives, why would putting the fate of the Fifth Amendment into the hands of the same (type) of elected representatives yield better results?
The same argument could be said about those who oppose gun control legislation: would they really want to open up the Second Amendment for debate every two decades?
Speaking for myself, I certainly would not want to see this Republican Congress, or a similarly constituted assembly, being able to tamper with a woman’s right to an abortion, my right to say what’s on my mind, Hollywood’s ability to make films that are suitable for someone other than a 12 year old, and so on, without the overwhelming assent of the people. Making things more democratic and opening up the Constitution to willy-nilly rewriting every so often appears profoundly unwise.
Furthermore, although this can’t be proven, I wouldn’t be surprised if segregation were still around today, and protected by constitutional law, if we had had mandated constitutional conventions thoughout the 20th century.
Apparantly if your country is democratic enough, individuals will have nothing to fear.
Massachusetts abolished counties because they essentially had no purpose. While they still exist in name, there is no county government anymore in MA.
This statement, which I’ve been hearing a lot since the 2000 election, is one or more of the following:
How exactly does a state get pissed off? It seems to me that the only logical unit for political rights and powers is a person, not a state.
Yes, that would be a good idea.
Well, the Tribunate is a detail – not essentially connected to the other reforms. I think we could do without the Senate even if we had no Tribunate. The “control” of the Tribunate would be substantially different. E.g., unlike their classical namesakes, the tribunes would have no veto power. Their main job would be to investigate (absolutely without hindrance or limits) government business and then drag anything they regard as an abuse into the light of day. They would have the power (by majority vote of the board) to indict and prosecute any government official or employee (and nobody else). Nothing like what the Senate does.
I’ll concede number four, although there is a considerable difference between “legally meaningless” and “philosophically meaningless.” And if the fact that the US is a republic – “… and to the Republic, for which we stand…” & “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government…” – does not make sense or is disputed by you, I say get thee to a civics class. And I think it is very consequential that our form of government is not what the OP suggests in his reforms, but YMMV.
Which is rather the point; see above.
The House would have exactly as much incentive as it has now to think about long-term effects. Rather more, in fact – because simplifying the system as I have described make responsibility clearer and makes it harder for the House to shift blame onto somebody else.
Under this system, a Montanan’s vote has exactly the same weight in Washington as a Californian’s – no more, no less.
I really doubt that. But consider, even a few independents in the House would make sure that neither major party is the majority party. No legislation gets passed unless more than one party is willing to support it. Isn’t that a more effective check than a second legislative house?
Under this system, a Montanan’s vote has exactly the same weight in Washington as a Californian’s – no more, no less.
The Tribunate would be elected by party-list PR – meaning there would be no dominant party on the board, and each tribune would have some powers to exercise on his/her own, without the board’s approval. Therefore, every party would use the office as a club to beat over the heads of their enemies, which is the whole point. Everybody gets an occasional beating and the relentless surveillance keeps them honest.
I’m describing a system where Congress has the power to decide, e.g., that the New York metropolitan area, including counties in New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania, would be better and more efficiently governed as a separate, consolidated state. That is not the same as the situation you describe, which might have arisen in the first couple of decades of the Republic, when Virginia claimed lands west to the Pacific, etc.
As for why we need states – well, the system of dividing the country into petty, politically autonomous quasi-republics works well enough; I’m just talking about organizing it more rationally and systematically. The existing state boundaries mostly were drawn up before the states were fully settled and developed. As a result, the state borders often cut across real lines of division between real functional, cultural, economic and biogeographical regions.
Under this system . . . oh, fuck it. :rolleyes:
I just think it’s a good thing that every generation should have a chance to participate in renegotiating our fundamental political contract. Thomas Jefferson proposed the Constitution be revised every 20 years or so, on the grounds that you can’t expect a man to wear a boy’s jacket.
What we’ve got now is a nation where the plurality preys on the majority as a matter of policy. I propose to liberate us from the tyranny of the plurality.
But nothing short of civil war (or foreign conquest) would destroy the United States. First of all, I’m not talking about scrapping the federal system (see above). Second – and this requires more than one :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: – assuming I were proposing something far more radically different – please bear in mind that the United States is not its constitution. This is a nation-state like France, not an idea-state like the Soviet Union. Nations are not immortal, but they last much longer than constitutions, regimes, systems of government. An America ruled by a king, pope or ideological party would still be America; so would an America divided into independent states. The Chinese understand this. In their long history they have been ruled by multiple imperial dynasties, they have gone through periods of political division into independent states, periods of rule by foreign conquerors, “republican” rule, Communist rule, and through it all, China remains China – the same national culture that produced Confucius and Lao-Tze.
:rolleyes: For Christs sake some people just love picking at those nits. I think you know exactly what was meant.
Marc
Yikes. I anticipate the executive and legislature instantly seeking to expand the definition of “national security” or using any other justification to put some of their more questionable activities (not necessarily wrong activities, mind you, but icky unpleasant duties that the press will gladly run with and could shift an election) under wraps.
Of course, an alternative response to the Tribunate releasing too many embarassing stories to the press is to use the 20-year Constitutional cycle to gut the first amendment, thus bringing the press under control. Just spend the two years leading up to vote talking about how irresponsible and unpatriotic the press is, and you can get any damn fool idea through.
The national culture of the United States has in part been formed and shaped by the constitution. It is, root and branch, part of the national culture. Without the constitution, we’re not the same country.
The phrase at issue is not “The United States is a republic.” The phrase is “The United States is a republic, not a democracy.”
So while it is possible that a statement such as “The United States is a republic, not a democracy,” could be true, it is essentially a meaningless statement. You can have republics that are or are not democracies and you can have democracies that are or are not republics.
Untrue – The United States is, in fact, a democracy. The first definition of “democracy” in my dictionary is “government in which teh people hold the ruling power either directly or thorugh elected representatives; rule by the ruled.”
Inconsequential – The words republic and democracy are general terms. They require only a system of government whose ultimate authority rests in the governed, whose head of state is not chosen through hereditary means, and in which governmental decisions are made by representatives chosen by the governed. They do not inherently imply any specific governmental structures or principles.
Unless you are talking about eliminating any form or representation or removing the ultimate sovereignty of the people then it is of no consequence to insist that “The United States is a republic” or “The United States is (or is not) a democracy” when debating specific governmental structures.
– The Pledge of Allegiance has no legal or constitutional authority or relevance. Even if it did, no reference to “a republic” contradicts the statement “The United States is a democracy.”
– The Constitution does not state explicitly nor implicitly that “The United States is not a democracy.” In fact it implies that the United States is a democracy.
I did not say that the United States is not a republic. The United States is a republic and it is a democracy. And if you want to question my schooling, please first post your primary, secondary, and post-secondary transcripts to establish yours.
You have not demonstrated that any of the reforms proposed by the OP are anti-republican or anti-democratic under (1) any legally or constitutionally relevant definitions of the words or (2) any commonly accepted definitions of the words.
I call bullshit on that.
As I envision the Tribunate (see the thread linked in the OP), individual tribunes would have unlimited access even to classified information. They would not have an unlimited right to publish classified information; only the whole board could approve that, and any tribune who published classified materials without board approval would enjoy no immunity from criminal or civil prosecution for his/her act. But everything would, at least, be brought to the whole Tribunate’s attention.
We are coming from completely different political philosophies and I think it’s safe to say that we will never reach an accord. What you see as fundamental flaws I see as positives that protect the rights of individuals. I don’t see this discussion going anywhere but in circles so I’m going to go ahead and bow out of the thread.
Just to make sure there are no misunderstandings I’m not doing this to be hostile towards you and I’ll be more then happy to participate in other threads with you about other topics.
Marc
:dubious: It ain’t a nit, it goes to the heart of whether we define ourselves, politically, as one people or 50.
From the first paragraph of the OP: “The following changes are expressly intended to make the U.S. less of a republic and more of a democracy, in the terms of that old “a republic not a democracy” cliche, if it has any meaning…”
I assume you’ll want to rephrase your criticism of the way I have read the OP.