NationStates Jolt Archive

I am interested to see how many United States citizens believe it is time we held a Second Constitutional Congress, as Abraham Lincoln suggested we should do in order to avoid the Civil War?

I am going to post a Poll, and I will have a seperate area for those people outside the U.S. to express their Opinion but I would like to see where U.S. citizens only stand also, so please Vote accordingly, if you decide to Vote...

Please feel free to discuss any matters you feel may be pertinent/addressed should we have a Second Constitutional Congress or even reasons why you may believe we do not need one.

Regards,
Gaar

yup. its long past time to dismantle the state and setup the institutions necessary for a decentralized libertarian collectivist society.

I believe we should and the sooner the better...

I think there are many things we need to clarify and make more well understood by the average Person.

We could take out things that should have never been in there in the first place and make it so there is no need for many of the changes we have and continue to make.

We can better define things in more practical and decisive terms, and if we choose to relinquish certain Authorities to the State and Federal Government we should "specifically enumerate" those Right's (as called for in the Constitution) as well. I don't mind giving our Government certain Rights to do things, I just want it to be very clear what we are "giving" and that "all else" is being retained, that are not enumerated.

I believe that is what the Constitution calls for. We have had better than two and a quarter centuries now in messing with what our founding Fathers "gave us", I believe it is about time we saw what some of the more brilliant minds of "our time" were able to come up with, given the chance...

Oh if "wishing" only made it true! :D

Regards,
Gaar

“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”

“…I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it.”

“…I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Speech

I would be in favor, then I realise the kinds of people that would be writing the new constitution. The judicial branch would be next to useless, much of the Congress's power would be ceded to the president. And more bullshit to limit leftist ideas and etc

yup. its long past time to dismantle the state and setup the institutions necessary for a decentralized libertarian collectivist society.


And put everyone who doesnt want to be collectivized into camps with gas chambers and ovens?

Or starve them?

I would be in favor, then I realise the kinds of people that would be writing the new constitution. The judicial branch would be next to useless, much of the Congress's power would be ceded to the president. And more bullshit to limit leftist ideas and etc

Why is that?

We would get to "select" different people than those who Represent us now...

I believe it would get a few more people to Register to Vote, so they could help decide who it is they would be sending, from their State, to best represent their ideals and the ideals we would like to have represented in our Government.

Regards,
Gaar

And put everyone who doesnt want to be collectivized into camps with gas chambers and ovens?

Or starve them?

no. why would we do that? and if it were libertarian and decentralized, how would we do that?

besides, people aren't collectivized. i'm not even sure what it would mean to collectivize people.

yup. its long past time to dismantle the state and setup the institutions necessary for a decentralized libertarian collectivist society.

Say it ain't so, Free Soviets! Say it ain't so.

Yes, every day the ideals (that i agreed with entirely) that your country was founded on and at the cost of many brave lives, is being slowly eroded into a police state, do it and I will almost certainty join an international column and fight with you if it happens.

Say it ain't so, Free Soviets! Say it ain't so.

what can i say, i'm a libertarian socialist (anarcho-communist with mutualist leanings)

do it and I will almost certainty join an international column and fight with you if it happens.

Fight? Who said anything about a fight?

Although it may resemble a fight at times, a "Congress" is supposed to be an orderly Democratic Institution, I believe...

Maybe we should also make a Rule that no weapons can be brought?

:p

Regards,
Gaar

The way things are going today, I think that a new Constitution would cause more harm than good. We would probably find things like Social Security and Medicare enshrined in it. As a libertarian, I can't stomach that.

Personally, I think this would be a lousy time to have a consitutional congress. One side of the political spectrum is in ascendency, the other in decline. One is fully mobilized, the other is depressed and angry after recent losses.

The only thing that a congress would do now is make permenant the inbalance of power; which in the final analysis would be bad for both camps.

Personally, I think this would be a lousy time to have a consitutional congress. One side of the political spectrum is in ascendency, the other in decline. One is fully mobilized, the other is depressed and angry after recent losses.

The only thing that a congress would do now is make permenant the inbalance of power; which in the final analysis would be bad for both camps.

What if the Congress that were put together consisted of 4 people from each State and each contingency contained one Republican, one Democrat, one Libertarian and one Independant, so each of the 4 Main Party's were represented equally and fairly?

Regards,
Gaar

No. Now is not the time. If we held a constitutional convention now, who would have the most influence? Who would draft it? The Founding Fathers were men of vision, virtue and intelligence. The people in government today are tools for established wealth and corporate America. They're corrupt and desire only power.

I prefer my current Constitution to whatever THEY might draw up.

What if the Congress that were put together consisted of 4 people from each State and each contingency contained one Republican, one Democrat, one Libertarian and one Independant, so each of the 4 Main Party's were represented equally and fairly?

Regards,
Gaar

You say those words as if they mean something. Independant? What issues will an Independant take to the floor? What KIND of Libertarian would there be? NS General has taught us that no two Libertarians agree on all their stances.

How would they be selected? Why select an equal number of Libertarians when their party is a tiny minority to begin with? Why not the Greens or the Bull Moose party for that matter? Why have third parties at all? Who would we choose from the two main parties, and how?

No, this is poorly thought out. Perhaps you meant it as a rhetorical question or something.

I am interested to see how many United States citizens believe it is time we held a Second Constitutional Congress, as Abraham Lincoln suggested we should do in order to avoid the Civil War?

I am going to post a Poll, and I will have a seperate area for those people outside the U.S. to express their Opinion but I would like to see where U.S. citizens only stand also, so please Vote accordingly, if you decide to Vote...

Please feel free to discuss any matters you feel may be pertinent/addressed should we have a Second Constitutional Congress or even reasons why you may believe we do not need one.

Regards,
Gaar
In the existing political climate in the US, trying to hold a Constitutional Convention would be a nightmare. Every nut-case with an ax to grind would demand some new clause in the rewritten Constitution to support his or her pet idiocy. Just leave it the way it is and make any Amendments that the Nation feels necessary.

In the existing political climate in the US, trying to hold a Constitutional Convention would be a nightmare. Every nut-case with an ax to grind would demand some new clause in the rewritten Constitution to support his or her pet idiocy.

I understand the concern but I guess I believe that each State would be able to find at least "one good man" from each of the Represented Parties to go and do what is in the best interest of our Country.

Mind you, I am not saying we need a "total" re-write of the Constitution, just to take out parts that shouldn't be there in the first place, and more well define the principals it is trying to espouse.

That way, instead of having these "grey areas" (please, let's not start about the spelling) we could have a much more concise and more well defined Authority on each level.

I would suggest that, any Congress held for such a thing could be given "specific" tasks for better defining or more well stating certain parts while also saying there are parts that we don't want touched.

After all, it is OUR Document that protects our Right's and we are the ones that get to say how it may or may not be Amended. And we could make it so that any changes were only made if a "Super Majority" of the Congress agreed.

So the "nutcases" could find it difficult to even get a "voice" in the Congress, let alone have anything added to or detracted from the Document itself, even if they did get "in".

Regards,
Gaar

i think the current system is a piece of junk, and gets worse constantly, but with so many people worrying more about their NCAA pool than politics, politicians would make it and speed up the downward spiral, regardless of which party benefited most

The number of people on this Forum that have something derogatory to say about the U.S. System, yet don't feel a need to change it or believe it can't be changed for the better...

I believe, if you aren't going to do something to make the System better yourself, then why do you feel some need to complain about it and have a negative attitude about those people who would like to at least try?

As I try and point out all the time...

I believe there are reasonable people on all levels of the Political spectrum. We shouldn't allow the fear that the "bad Apples" will bring the rest of us down to overcome our need to have our Right's more well defined.

I believe it is time, and can't understand why we wouldn't at least try.

Regards,
Gaar

i think the current system is a piece of junk, and gets worse constantly, but with so many people worrying more about their NCAA pool than politics, politicians would make it and speed up the downward spiral, regardless of which party benefited most

That's why it is always suggested that we "Elect" non-Politicians if we were to attempt such a thing.

Some even suggest that we don't even allow Lawyers... :p But I don't see how we could enforce such a thing...

:D

Regards,
Gaar

What if the Congress that were put together consisted of 4 people from each State and each contingency contained one Republican, one Democrat, one Libertarian and one Independant, so each of the 4 Main Party's were represented equally and fairly?

Regards,
Gaar
As long as the democrat isn't a conservative democrat like Zell Miller.

No. Now is not the time. If we held a constitutional convention now, who would have the most influence? Who would draft it? The Founding Fathers were men of vision, virtue and intelligence. The people in government today are tools for established wealth and corporate America. They're corrupt and desire only power.

I prefer my current Constitution to whatever THEY might draw up.
Ditto.

I don't believe any other action would be quite as horribly destructive to the country. Who know what crap would get written into (or out of) it? I don't want to see a Constitutional statement on marriage, gay or otherwise, I don't want to see an enumerated list of appropriate firearms, I don't want to see Social Security getting written in, I don't want to see an income tax getting written in, I don't want to see prayer in public schools getting in. There'd be way too many people trying to put way too many things into it.

Was it Locke that said it was not our right as citizens to rebel if the govenrment is screwing us, but rather our duty? Becuase I think we do need a Congress, ASAP.

The number of people on this Forum that have something derogatory to say about the U.S. System, yet don't feel a need to change it or believe it can't be changed for the better...

I believe, if you aren't going to do something to make the System better yourself, then why do you feel some need to complain about it and have a negative attitude about those people who would like to at least try?

As I try and point out all the time...

I believe there are reasonable people on all levels of the Political spectrum. We shouldn't allow the fear that the "bad Apples" will bring the rest of us down to overcome our need to have our Right's more well defined.

I believe it is time, and can't understand why we wouldn't at least try.

Regards,
Gaar

The problem with the system is not the Constitution. It's the people in power, the political parties, etc.

Besides, if we held on convention, what is to keep the people who are currently in power from just getting elected to the convention? Why would we think that it would be any different?

Was it Locke that said it was not our right as citizens to rebel if the govenrment is screwing us, but rather our duty? Becuase I think we do need a Congress, ASAP.
The problem remains: the people who wrote the original Constitution were intelligent, enlgihtened, studied people. They knew what they had to do despite the wishes of the congress under the Articles or the populace. You think you could name 100 Americans today that fit that description that could sit on a Constitutional Congress? Hell no. And if you did, you think the states would pass a new constitution if what they wanted was not written into it? Hell no. If ever we could find enough enlightened, unbiased, intelligent people to write a Constitution, it would be shot down before it begun due to the fact that 2/3rds of the states have to ratify it, and without foolish limits on people rights and idiotic prejudices written in, it would never pass.

good lord NO

read what ihatecows wrote very carefully. he knows stuff

the chances of getting a "decentralized libertarian collectivist society" are vanishingly small

think of the things that would be up for grabs...

the right to bear arms

the right to privacy

the right to be free from warrantless searches

freedom of speech, press, religion, etc.

system of checks and balances


i have no problems with the structure of government as it is right now and cant see any chance that a convention would end up making actual improvements.

any changes necessary can be made through the ammendment system.

The problem remains: the people who wrote the original Constitution were intelligent, enlgihtened, studied people. They knew what they had to do despite the wishes of the congress under the Articles or the populace. You think you could name 100 Americans today that fit that description that could sit on a Constitutional Congress? Hell no. And if you did, you think the states would pass a new constitution if what they wanted was not written into it? Hell no. If ever we could find enough enlightened, unbiased, intelligent people to write a Constitution, it would be shot down before it begun due to the fact that 2/3rds of the states have to ratify it, and without foolish limits on people rights and idiotic prejudices written in, it would never pass.

Yes, yes...

Or so you say. I happen to have a bit more faith in my fellow Human than you obviously do. Perhaps you have reasons for feeling the way you do, but so do I.

I believe that everyone has "some" type of problem with what has and is being done to our Constitution...

I contend that, if written well enough by learned men who have the Individuals Right's as their first priority, then the "average" person, upon reading a Document so well written, would better understand the Right's it is trying to preserve for the people as well as better define the "responsibilities" to the PEOPLE of the other Branches of each Government put in place to "serve them".

But hey, I tend to be an optimist and I allow for my "opinion" to be wrong, so here is MY question to those who oppose such a thing...

If in FACT we would have to "approve" any such changes with a "Super Majority" of the States, what would be the harm in at least trying? If we try and fail, we try and fail...

But at least it could not be said that "We the People" did not at least "attempt" to try to fix those things that we saw going terribly wrong with our Government.

Regards,
Gaar

I'd rather just see the 10th amendment adhered to and upheld by the courts.

I can imagine the changes that would be made in the current climate: limits placed on the first amendment, more authority given to military and government regarding the third, fourth, fifth, de-liberalising the sixth, permission of cruel punishments in the eighth, removal of the ninth, and more authority given to federal government in the tenth.

I can also imagine amendments to discriminate against homosexuals, abortion rights, and drug freedom being inserted.

No. Now is not the time. If we held a constitutional convention now, who would have the most influence? Who would draft it? The Founding Fathers were men of vision, virtue and intelligence. The people in government today are tools for established wealth and corporate America. They're corrupt and desire only power.

I prefer my current Constitution to whatever THEY might draw up.

well you don't let them write it up. first you go for the end-run around the established political forces, and then you work to rally supporters to the new document.

Change shouldn't be shied away from.
The extremism worried about by many people wouldn't happen. Extreme ideas, regardless of the side they are on, rarely gain enough support to pass and considering that a super majority would most likely be required for passage of amendments extremist ideas wouldn't make it through. (Of course, never having read law on what is required for a constitutional convention I am not sure if a super majority is needed. Anybody know the law here or if there even is a law?)
I can see being worried about the calibre of people selected to do the job. We don't seem to produce the deep thinkers we used to.

The problems in the United States would have a very slim chance of being solved through a re-write of the Constitution, even if it is carefully rewritten to clearly define the positions, roles, and powers of each branch of government, and to delineate the rights and responsibilities of the citizens (lets also say that by some further miracle, it contains no liberal/conservative or capitalist/socialist bias). Even with all vagueries clarified, the end result of the process will not change because of a fundamental problem with politicians.
Everything politicians do, they do in self-interest. Darwin is in full effect in political arenas: any politician who does not get their constituents what they want will fall in an election to another who will get them what they want. Thus it is a matter of survival for politicians to satisfy their constituents. The easyiest way to accomplish this is to take money from the government and give it to the home state ("taking home the bacon" or "pork barreling") and passing legislation that benefits the home state (and usually no one else). With each and every politician is fighting over scraps of government money, and trying to pass their pet bills, nothing would ever get done unless there is some form of cooperation. Thus evolved an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" system, where bad legislation that should never have even made it to paper, and ridiculous, irresponsible handouts of money to people who don't need it, and causes that probably shouldn't exist (the "Christian Children (in need of a Mercedes) Fund"; the "People for the Eating of Tasty Animals (PETA)"; or farming subsidies, which deserve a whole rant in and of themselves). As long as there are politicians, there will be stupid legislation and wasteful spending, regardless of the system used.
How many gamers out there (of the RPG variety - think D&D, Everquest, Dark Age of Camelot, City of Heroes, etc)? I see a few hands, so I'll continue. Politicians are like power gamers: no matter what game system you use, how many rules changes you make, what you ban them from using, or how many times you tell them the game is about the story and not how powerful the character is, they will continue to find combinations of rules and loopholes that allow them to be "more powerful" than anyone else. If they are spoiling your game, the only way to fix the problem is to throw them out.
Without having politicians, the only choices are a dictatorship, a true democracy, or anarchy. One is "evil", one fails to create a functional society, and the third requires a population that is far less politically apathetic than what we have now.[/speachy-preachyness]

I can see being worried about the calibre of people selected to do the job. We don't seem to produce the deep thinkers we used to.

While I do not agree with this statement, I would say that I do believe that these types of people no longer get the "Public notoriety" that they once did...

Regards,
Gaar

Change shouldn't be shied away from.
The extremism worried about by many people wouldn't happen. Extreme ideas, regardless of the side they are on, rarely gain enough support to pass and considering that a super majority would most likely be required for passage of amendments extremist ideas wouldn't make it through. (Of course, never having read law on what is required for a constitutional convention I am not sure if a super majority is needed. Anybody know the law here or if there even is a law?)
I can see being worried about the calibre of people selected to do the job. We don't seem to produce the deep thinkers we used to.
Yes, they would. Only extremist ideas would get a new Constitution to pass, and that is the kind of shit we don't need in a Constitution. Look at the number of red states in the Union and THEN pretend there isn't enough of a majority to pass extremist, reactionary ideas into a Constitution.

I contend that, if written well enough by learned men who have the Individuals Right's as their first priority, then the "average" person, upon reading a Document so well written, would better understand the Right's it is trying to preserve for the people as well as better define the "responsibilities" to the PEOPLE of the other Branches of each Government put in place to "serve them".


Perhaps you are correct, but I challenge your assumption that the creators of this revised Constitution would have individual rights as their first priority, seeing as how current trends in the United States seem to be moving towards restricting individual rights rather than enhancing them (eg anti-gay legislation passed or pending in most states and the federal government).

Even with all vagueries clarified, the end result of the process will not change because of a fundamental problem with politicians.
Everything politicians do, they do in self-interest.

Who said we had to "appoint" Politicians?

We don't even "have" to Elect the people that we send in the normal manner, if we choose not to...

I don't see what most are worried about, seems many just like to complain about things but when pressed to what they believe they can help do about it, they very easily dismiss the very tool their Founding Fathers gave them to correct any mistakes that may have been made along the way.

Why is that? Why do we U.S. citizens no longer trust one another?

Regards,
Gaar

Perhaps you are correct, but I challenge your assumption that the creators of this revised Constitution would have individual rights as their first priority, seeing as how current trends in the United States seem to be moving towards restricting individual rights rather than enhancing them (eg anti-gay legislation passed or pending in most states and the federal government).

Well then, as citizens that would appoint them, perhaps we take just a bit of that "responsibility" upon our own shoulders and do a bit of legwork to "find" those who would support those types of things?

Is it that hard to admit that we too share some of the burden for what is being done "in our name"?

Regards,
Gaar

Who said we had to "appoint" Politicians?

We don't even "have" to Elect the people that we send in the normal manner, if we choose not to...

I don't see what most are worried about, seems many just like to complain about things but when pressed to what they believe they can help do about it, they very easily dismiss the very tool their Founding Fathers gave them to correct any mistakes that may have been made along the way.

Why is that? Why do we U.S. citizens no longer trust one another?

Regards,
Gaar
What reason has the US population given for the rest to trust them? Especially what has the right wing of America done to show they will be fair and impartial if a Constitutional Congress is held? None. Their entire agenda is the imposition of their beliefs on everyone else and those beliefs do no allow for a choice either way; it is their way or the highway

While I do not agree with this statement, I would say that I do believe that these types of people no longer get the "Public notoriety" that they once did...

Regards,
Gaar

Well, yes, it is a generalization. But because they do not get the noteriety there would be little chance of them being chosen to rewrite a constitution.
The Constitution was created as a living document so that writing a new one wouldn't be neccessary. We shouldn't be afraid to change it.

Now this is funny, I, a conservative, advocate change. The lefties wouldn't want the constitution changed (that is until they gain power again). I thought liberals were supposed to embrace change while we conservatives sat in a stodgy clubs (white men only clubs of course, never forget that all we conservatives are racist sexists) harrumping about those hippies making trouble.

Look at the number of red states in the Union and THEN pretend there isn't enough of a majority to pass extremist, reactionary ideas into a Constitution.

Firstly, wouldn't creating a Second Continental Congress be reactionary in of itself. People should try and contribute to it before they tear it down.

And about "having enough Red States..." didn't people complain we were too divided not so long ago? Did half of those Blue States convert without letting me know, or are we bending truths to support hypotheticals and left-sided propaganda? (No flaming intended ^^)

What reason has the US population given for the rest to trust them? Especially what has the right wing of America done to show they will be fair and impartial if a Constitutional Congress is held? None. Their entire agenda is the imposition of their beliefs on everyone else and those beliefs do no allow for a choice either way; it is their way or the highway

And guess what...

I am a Conservative, and I am very Religious.

And I believe it is "wrong" to Legislate Morals in any way. So, I would say that, some of the people who may be described as Religious Conservatives DO NOT believe in what a small minority of people who have similar Religious beliefs are trying to do in Legislating such things, so if they can't even get a majority within their OWN ranks to agree to such things, what makes you think they will be able to get any type of voice on such matters?

My Religion is between me and God, just as anything "you" believe in is between you and "whatever".

Regards,
Gaar

If pro is the opposite of con, then is a Prostiutional Progress the opposite of a Constitutional Congress?

And guess what...

I am a Conservative, and I am very Religious.

And I believe it is "wrong" to Legislate Morals in any way. So, I would say that, some of the people who may be described as Religious Conservatives DO NOT believe in what a small minority of people who have similar Religious beliefs are trying to do in Legislating such things, so if they can't even get a majority within their OWN ranks to agree to such things, what makes you think they will be able to get any type of voice on such matters?

My Religion is between me and God, just as anything "you" believe in is between you and "whatever".

Regards,
Gaar

**seconded

Though less religious than most, I claim to be Conservative because of the way they handle themselves. Best to be proud of one's values than -judgemental of everyone else's- *cough* liberals *cough* It is the fundamental belief of TRUE conservatism to NOT impose beliefs on others.

If pro is the opposite of con, then is a Prostiutional Progress the opposite of a Constitutional Congress?

and we have our preamble!

I, like several other people on the board here, believe there needs to be a large involvemebt from the Libertarian Party. I am a registered Republican, a supporter of Bush, and pro-life, but I think that almost everyone can gree on a large amount of libertarian issues. I think that most Democrats and Repbulicans that aren't radical are, more or less, libertarians to an extent. What we really need to do if we had this congress would be to really discuss the power of the judiciary.

I, like several other people on the board here, believe there needs to be a large involvemebt from the Libertarian Party. I am a registered Republican, a supporter of Bush, and pro-life, but I think that almost everyone can gree on a large amount of libertarian issues. I think that most Democrats and Repbulicans that aren't radical are, more or less, libertarians to an extent. What we really need to do if we had this congress would be to really discuss the power of the judiciary.

I think the first "discussion" should be on the Electoral College...........

Nothing like having your vote interpretted FOR you ^^

I think the first "discussion" should be on the Electoral College...........

Nothing like having your vote interpretted FOR you ^^

The Electoral College espouses States Right's...

I don't want California telling the rest of the States who should Preside over them.

Without the Electoral College it is mathematically possible for "one State" to decide, over the expressed wishes of the other 49, who will become President.

With the Electoral College in place, I believe it takes a minimum of 13 States to decide, and they would have to be the 15 most populated States...

I believe our Forefathers found a very elegant solution to this problem, and no changes need to be or should be made to the Electoral College, in my mind, but I would gladly debate the Issue with you on its merits.

Regards,
Gaar

Extreme ideas, regardless of the side they are on, rarely gain enough support to pass
Doesn't seem like that for at least 11 states in America.

The Electoral College espouses States Right's...

I don't want California telling the rest of the States who should Prside over them.

Without the Electoral College it is mathematically possible for "one State" to decide, over the expressed wishes of the other 49, who will become President.

With the Electoral College in place, I believe it takes a minimum of 13 States to decide, and they would have to be the 15 most populated States...

I believe our Forefathers found a very elegant solution to this problem, and no changes need to be or should be made to the Electoral College, in my mind, but I would gladly debate the Issue with you on its merits.

Regards,
Gaar

I personally think that ALL voting procedures for Federal positions (including the Presidency) should be done by a direct-democratic voting structure. And if, for some reason, one state has more people than the rest of the country, than its not the State that wins, its the People. The current system only hides the problem, because the 2 thru 4 vote states are side dishes compared to Florida, California, NY etc. etc. Now you don't need 1 state, you only need 12. You should need a majority of the coutry, not of the States.

I thought liberals were supposed to embrace change while we conservatives sat in a stodgy clubs
Being liberal is not about embracing each and every change that is thought up, it's about not being afraid of changes that are deemed necessary.

Who said we had to "appoint" Politicians?

We don't even "have" to Elect the people that we send in the normal manner, if we choose not to...

I don't see what most are worried about, seems many just like to complain about things but when pressed to what they believe they can help do about it, they very easily dismiss the very tool their Founding Fathers gave them to correct any mistakes that may have been made along the way.

Why is that? Why do we U.S. citizens no longer trust one another?

Regards,
Gaar


My point was about politicians in general. It doesn't matter if they are involved in the rewrite or not. Once you are done modifying, if you haven't removed the politician from the end product, then the same problems we are experiencing today will continue to happen in the future, due to a fundamental flaw in the idea of an elected politician. Since the people of the United States presumably will not accept either a dictatorship or anarchy, the only option is to evolve into a true democracy, which requires a dramatic social revolution, the end result of which is a more politically interested and involved population. I just don't see that coming anytime soon.

I don't mean to sound like I'm against the idea of amendment, I just don't believe that it will solve the major problems inherent in the system.

A Constitutional Congress needs consensus to have the legitimcay to pass anything. Given the recent elections I doubt that consensus exists. Its division would only further highlight the divisions within the country.

Well then, as citizens that would appoint them, perhaps we take just a bit of that "responsibility" upon our own shoulders and do a bit of legwork to "find" those who would support those types of things?

Is it that hard to admit that we too share some of the burden for what is being done "in our name"?

Regards,
Gaar

So you want to involve only those people whose views support your own (which are probably not representative of a majority of the population) to draft your new amendments to the Constitution? Sounds an awful lot like the Radical Right to me. >;o)

Though since that is precisely the tactic the Radical Right is employing to pass anti-gay amendments, I fully approve of your exploitation of their precedent.

Just for accuracy's sake, this would be the third constitutional convention, seeing as how we've already had two. Though I suppose we could throw everyone a curveball and call it the fourth >;o)

I think if we had a constitutional convention now political parties and other groups would try to manipulate it in their favor, and probably the republicans would try to strenghen the executive and legaslative branch and weaken the judicial.

Sounds an awful lot like the Radical Right to me. >;o)


Actually, that would be the action of any radical, left or right. Conservatism is NOT about imposing a belief on others, but rather the protection of one's beliefs from OTHERS' aggression.

Conservatism is NOT about imposing a belief on others, but rather the protection of one's beliefs from OTHERS' aggression.

well, maybe if you change the word 'beliefs' to 'privilege', and 'aggression' to 'egalitarianism'

As an experiment, might I suggest we draft our own Constitution here, perhaps in a seperate thread? Or at least write what we would like to contribute to it, and then everyone else can critique/alter these contributions?

As an experiment, might I suggest we draft our own Constitution here, perhaps in a seperate thread? Or at least write what we would like to contribute to it, and then everyone else can critique/alter these contributions?

i was thinking the same thing. it'd be an interesting experiment at the very least. let's try it.

i was thinking the same thing. it'd be an interesting experiment at the very least. let's try it.I'll throw a post together.

What if the Congress that were put together consisted of 4 people from each State and each contingency contained one Republican, one Democrat, one Libertarian and one Independant, so each of the 4 Main Party's were represented equally and fairly?

Gaar, I hate to break it to you, but:

A. Libertarians are a fringe group, not a main party

B. Independents are, by definition independent. They are members of no party.
To be represented in the kind of system you suggest, every independent in
every state would have to be present

Other than those problems, it wouldn't be too bad. Unfortunately, those problems are unfixable. Sorry.

yup. its long past time to dismantle the state and setup the institutions necessary for a decentralized libertarian collectivist society.

Right on!

Gaar, I hate to break it to you, but:

A. Libertarians are a fringe group, not a main party

B. Independents are, by definition independent. They are members of no party.
To be represented in the kind of system you suggest, every independent in
every state would have to be present

Other than those problems, it wouldn't be too bad. Unfortunately, those problems are unfixable. Sorry.

When they started receiving Federal Funds because they had reached a certain level of the percentage of Votes, I deemed they were a viable Party. Independence should get a voice too, and just like the other Parties, not everyone agrees with everything they stand for...

I believe that 4 reps from the differing Political spectrums would balance things quite nicely and not give any side too much voice to push their own agenda.

They would either need to compromise or their efforts would fail.

Regards,
Gaar

Now you don't need 1 state, you only need 12. You should need a majority of the coutry, not of the States.

Sorry, but it doesn't "take" a Majority of the States to "win"...

Like it was stated, you can win with as few as 12 or 13, something like that and FAR from a majority.

We just won't allow ONE State to Rule all others, sorry. States Right's have to mean something.

Regards,
Gaar

My point was about politicians in general. It doesn't matter if they are involved in the rewrite or not. Once you are done modifying, if you haven't removed the politician from the end product, then the same problems we are experiencing today will continue to happen in the future, due to a fundamental flaw in the idea of an elected politician. Since the people of the United States presumably will not accept either a dictatorship or anarchy, the only option is to evolve into a true democracy, which requires a dramatic social revolution, the end result of which is a more politically interested and involved population. I just don't see that coming anytime soon.

I don't mean to sound like I'm against the idea of amendment, I just don't believe that it will solve the major problems inherent in the system.

Sorry, I disagree...

The problem you state is precisely why I want to make everything clearer and more well defined, so that there is as few grey areas as possible and so that the principles can be more easily understood by the lay-person.

Regards,
Gaar

A Constitutional Congress needs consensus to have the legitimcay to pass anything. Given the recent elections I doubt that consensus exists. Its division would only further highlight the divisions within the country.

Consensus may not exist in Electing an "individual" to lead us, but certainly we should be able to agree on the principles behind the formation of our Society, shouldn't we?

Regards,
Gaar

So you want to involve only those people whose views support your own (which are probably not representative of a majority of the population) to draft your new amendments to the Constitution? Sounds an awful lot like the Radical Right to me. >;o)

Though since that is precisely the tactic the Radical Right is employing to pass anti-gay amendments, I fully approve of your exploitation of their precedent.

Something about getting 4 Reps from different Political spectrums you are having a hard time with?

Regards,
Gaar

Right on!

so you (and everyone else who wants to give it a go) should come over to the other thread and we'll see what we can come up with.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=408131

so you (and everyone else who wants to give it a go) should come over to the other thread and we'll see what we can come up with.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=408131

Yeah, I said "learned" people, not some of the whack jobs that inhabit these Forums... (not referring to anyone in particular, and certainly not the person I am replying to).

But hey, have fun!

Just don't expect me to participate so that some can then point to it as some type of evidence that it wouldn't work in real life because it didn't work here.

I'm just not "into" watching as everyone berates a Document I hold in very high esteem.

Regards,
Gaar

Yeah, I said "learned" people, not some of the whack jobs that inhabit these Forums... (not referring to anyone in particular, and certainly not the person I am replying to).

aww, you should come participate. argument is a far more democratic structure than hoping experts will come to save us. if something suggested seems awful say so and offer constructive criticism or a counter-argument.

aww, you should come participate. argument is a far more democratic structure than hoping experts will come to save us. if something suggested seems awful say so and offer constructive criticism or a counter-argument.

If you believe that some of the "discussions" around here bare any resemblance to a well discoursed debate, then you have obviously never participated in a true Formal Debate.

By I can appreciate your want to have the discussion and encourage you to have at it.

I have been to the Thread and do not care to even start with some of those discussions. It was not my intent to suggest a total re-write because I believe the basis of what our fore Fathers put together was quite sound. To see some make suggestions of a total make-over of our Government was precisely what I wanted to stay away from, and the reason I didn’t want this Thread to become just that.

And I do have to say that, if what I am seeing over on that other Thread is any indication, then those suggesting that it would be a farce and nothing would come of it may be more right than I care to admit.

My only consolation is that I have suggested that we let some people do it who may try to keep what we have as intact as possible but more well define those things we seem to have the most problems with...

But given the evidence I am seeing, I may have to reconsider my position on the matter.

But then again, I can go back to my initial thoughts about such a Thread and realize I was right in the first place.

Regards,
Gaar