Reforming the U.S. Gov't

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: Then do you think (and I'm asking out of curiosity and not as some Socratic-thing) that future amendments limiting gov't power would be taking power away, or just establishing a solid definition of roles of gov't?

I think it would by definition of our republic, HAVE to take some powers away in order to maintain constitutionality which has been lost.

I also think we would need some solid amendments completely, and fully describing clear limitations for government, without a possibility of mis-interpretation.

For example:

A modern day (rewriting) of the 2nd amendment might look like this:

The second amendment of the US constitution, which has been a part of the document since its 1791-Dec-15 ratification (the initial body of the document became effective 1789-Mar-4, and the Bill of Rights was passed by the House and Senate on 1789-Aug-24 and 1789-Sep-9 respectively), reads:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

If this is restated in more precise modern language, it reads:

Safeguarding of a state that respects the rights of the nation's citizens depends on those citizens being individually equipped with military pattern weapons, and their being practiced and competent in their use in uncoordinated and coordinated warfare against those who violate those rights, whoever they may be. Consistent with but not dependent on this observation, no law can diminish the right of each citizen to fabricate, sell, purchase, own, carry, and practice with such weapons, particularly including firearms.

It is entirely reasonable to expect certain restrictions on who can own and carry firearms. Violent criminals are excluded consistent with the US Constitution because these people have deprived others involuntarily of constitutionally recognized rights, thereby forfeiting the rights they would otherwise enjoy under that constitution (they have breached the contract).

Restriction on where, how, and which firearms can be possessed and carried (excluding ``assault rifles'', ``Saturday night specials'', ``school zones'', or concealed carry, for example) are not consistent with the constitution.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready While I agree with your views, I don't see why the same one couldn't be re-written with the update that it requires. New, or old/fixed but seems like new..... not much different.

"Re-written" is equivalent to "new".

Interestingly enough, the current Constitution provides for amendments such that its original meaning can be destroyed. One can, in theory, propose an amendment like the following: "Article II of the Constitution is to be changed to the following: ..." The only catch is, if people felt like the Constitution had been so amended as to be very different from the original, they would likely prefer that a new Constitution be written based on the amendments.

As Rob said, in my opinion. Flaws in the original document, mainly the "lack of a dictionary of terms and words" used in the document which has opened the door for perversion of interpretation. I find very few flaws with the design elements, mainly I believe semantical fallacies have led to where we are.

I have to disagree here. Many of the "important" parts of the Constitution, such as the general-welfare, necessary-and-proper, and supremacy clauses, constitute flaws IMHO. Here's another interesting tidbit:

Quote by: U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

The bolded portion proves that neither Lincoln's nor Bush's suspension of habeas corpus is unconstitutional. Very interesting, ne?

I do think it could be done better, but I wouldn't let any modern politicians REMOVE our current Constitution, so that idea is beyond "off the table" for me, it becomes grounds for war.

Lulz. Who then can remove our current Constitution?

For the same reason I stated above. I don't trust any single person in Washington right now, except Ron Paul, and that is only because he has said on camera exactly the problems we are now speaking of. I wouldn't let any person in Washington do such a thing, in our modern society where the people have no voice.

So, again, who would you let do it?

There are no changes that CANT be made via "amendment" except the removal of rights, and I am not about to allow a removal of anymore rights.

AFAIK, rights can indeed be taken away via amendment. Can you prove otherwise?

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I think part of the problem now is not enough representation for the variety of people we have. (two parties for 300,000,000 people). I don't think 1 person can honestly or accurately represent 1 million people.

Can anyone honestly or accurately represent anyone else?

I understand what you mean, though. It's one of the core problems with a large republic. Of course, that begs the question: should a republic ever be large, and if so, why?

I think our population is outgrowing its system of representation, and again, I attribute most of that to the 156 year monopoly of power by two parties.

I forget which year this began, but for a long time now, the number of Representatives has not increased. Rather, each Representative has come to represent an increasingly large number of people.

States were meant to be MORE than LESS independent. That is why they each have their OWN Constitution. What is ok in Nevada, might not be ok for Alaska, or Ohio.

I agree. States were intended to have sole sovereignty over all matters not explicitly delegated to the federal government. Unfortunately, the Constitution did not sufficiently specify the terms of the federation, including such matters as secession and nullification. No news can be taken as good news or bad news.

We need more freedom per state to vary laws, such as right now many states who have voted to legalize medical marijuana are being denied their rights to do so without federal agents still acting on federal law within their jurisdiction. CRIMINAL.

Unfortunately, not criminal. There is a large body of legal precedent for their activities. I'm sure the Justice Department investigated the matter thoroughly before proceeding.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready A modern day (rewriting) of the 2nd amendment might look like this: The second amendment of the US constitution, which has been a part of the document since its 1791-Dec-15 ratification (the initial body of the document became effective 1789-Mar-4, and the Bill of Rights was passed by the House and Senate on 1789-Aug-24 and 1789-Sep-9 respectively), reads: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. If this is restated in more precise modern language, it reads: Safeguarding of a state that respects the rights of the nation's citizens depends on those citizens being individually equipped with military pattern weapons, and their being practiced and competent in their use in uncoordinated and coordinated warfare against those who violate those rights, whoever they may be. Consistent with but not dependent on this observation, no law can diminish the right of each citizen to fabricate, sell, purchase, own, carry, and practice with such weapons, particularly including firearms.

How about this:

Congress shall make no law respecting the keeping and bearing of arms.

It is entirely reasonable to expect certain restrictions on who can own and carry firearms. Violent criminals are excluded consistent with the US Constitution because these people have deprived others involuntarily of constitutionally recognized rights, thereby forfeiting the rights they would otherwise enjoy under that constitution (they have breached the contract). Restriction on where, how, and which firearms can be possessed and carried (excluding ``assault rifles'', ``Saturday night specials'', ``school zones'', or concealed carry, for example) are not consistent with the constitution.

I agree, but that shouldn't mean that individual States can't make such regulations.

- Rob

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: So should the number of representatives be based on population and split to somehow represent a certain land area?

I think that is a pretty good approach, or possible solution. An equation of the two in some form of balanced equality.

Fonceai said: Also, would it open more doors to problems if the individual states have more independence?

I don't know if I would say "more" or "different" problems. I am sure there would be some problems of acclimatization, but to be trite, freedom isn't free.
I see almost every path from where we are now, as a form of "fragmentalization", because people in general are becoming more and more dis-satisfied with their level of influence on politics.(something many of the poor knew long ago, but now that its crushing the "perceived" middle class, its gaining corporate media attention.) I think the only remedy is a form of fragmenting the union, or allowing more police statism in the name of blind patriotism.

Fonceai said: One of the things that I think causes trouble is precisely that what is legal in one state is illegal in another. It creates separation in a union.

I think this is nearly inevitable now. The two major parties have removed (in various ways) a large percentage of the voice of the people, represented in all third parties of substance. (Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Greens, Independents, etc.)

Its more than simple partisan politics, its exterminating ESSENTIAL questions, debate and dialog about the course of the nation. We as a nation depend on information, hence our clause on freedom of the press. That amendment didn't address long term influence peddling, economic domination, or lobbyist influence that have overtaken the system which provides that very necessary, and vital free press.

This to me, is a huge and well documented argument, as well as nearly all encompassing. We are talking of the systematic destruction of necessary pillars that outline our system of law, citizenship and national identity through information control by moneyed intrests, that cross into the economic and political government structure.

Economic slavery, through information control.

Anyway, I won't go into that, sorry if I am derailing in your opinion.

Fonceai said: Personally, I'm all for removing the concept of states and instead just splitting the country up into representational districts.

I am not saying thats a bad idea, but I think it is fine the way it is if we just had adequate representation, and access to information on popular mediums of public broadcast.(Cable, Radio, Internet, etc.)

[Osborn F Enready]

Auto said: Interestingly enough, the current Constitution provides for amendments such that its original meaning can be destroyed.

I also happen to agree that, that in fact is one of the major problems. The forefathers knew the people "of the time" were aware of the cost of liberty. They failed to see, or acknowledge in their writings, the safeguard to prevent that from being our downfall as time passes and new generations take the reigns of leadership without understanding the threat of tyranny from within.(even worse, counting on it)

Auto said: I have to disagree here. Many of the "important" parts of the Constitution, such as the general-welfare, necessary-and-proper, and supremacy clauses, constitute flaws IMHO

I would have to debate them parcel by parcel to agree or disagree.

I think the system has merit, and can work (because it did, for some time).

Could it be better, yes. It would take significant argument as to what is removed, and significant deabate as to what is added.

Auto said: The bolded portion proves that neither Lincoln's nor Bush's suspension of habeas corpus is unconstitutional. Very interesting, ne? The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

I would say the argument RESTS on the word and definition applied to "require" in the sentence.

This would mean the threat would have to be significantly proven, and understood, as well as accepted by those "representatives" who are put in place by the people. Once again the people rely on their "representatives" to protect their rights against all arguments, no matter how reasonable or seemingly harmless.

Auto said: Who then can remove our current Constitution?

In my opinion, or by law?

The people, by law.

In my opinion, were it to be re-written, I think would have to be the best and brightest academic minds from all fields of the social and economic spectrum. Constitutional Scholars would have to be versed in the background of the writers, the surrounding papers of the writing and the forefathers, and also understanding of our modern age, our strengths and weaknesses as a nation.

Hard to answer without being vague, or investing a lot of time in "theoretical" picks. Edwin Viera would be one Constitutional Scholar I would demand as a citizen, be included in a project like this.

Auto said: rights can indeed be taken away via amendment. Can you prove otherwise?

What will you accept as proof?

Examples in life, or written intentions of the writers themselves?

Auto said: Can anyone honestly or accurately represent anyone else? I understand what you mean, though. It's one of the core problems with a large republic. Of course, that begs the question: should a republic ever be large, and if so, why?

I do think people can honestly represent other people, if that representation is kept adequately in check by the powers to remove that representative, and transparency of actions is nearly complete.

That is one reason I propose that all public officials who serve as Congress, Senate and appointed positions, should take an oath, forfeiting all rights to economic privacy for the duration of their campaign for office, their term in office, and two years after their term in office by FOIA request only to media organizations, courts or the justice system.

I agree, great topic, and worthy of debate as far as size of the republic. I don't think the republic at the size it is, can be efficient, effective or in any way representative as it is. To be specific is almost a debate on its own, isn't it?

Auto said: I forget which year this began, but for a long time now, the number of Representatives has not increased. Rather, each Representative has come to represent an increasingly large number of people.

The total number of Representatives is currently fixed at 435 by the Reapportionment Act of 1929, though Congress has the authority to change that number.

The Bi-Partisan game between the two major parties has been going strong since at least 1912.

Auto said: I agree. States were intended to have sole sovereignty over all matters not explicitly delegated to the federal government. Unfortunately, the Constitution did not sufficiently specify the terms of the federation, including such matters as secession and nullification. No news can be taken as good news or bad news.

Yes, I agree. An issue that must be addressed.

Auto said: Unfortunately, not criminal. There is a large body of legal precedent for their activities. I'm sure the Justice Department investigated the matter thoroughly before proceeding.

Well, people like me alledge they are all complicit with blind acceptance, or a lack of intellectual honesty, or mistaken values, or whatever else people plea for ignorance of essential service to our system.

The Constitution is plainly written, as are its surrounding documents by the writers. They choose to take the wrong road either of ignorance or complicity, and I can only excuse so much ignorance.

Here nor there..... A topic we probably all differ on.

As quoted on C-Span the other day, someone said "Thats unconstitutional!", and the other guy said "yea, but thats like calling HOLDING in the NFL, you can call it on every play!"

I agree, since 1912, you can call it on every play.

Auto said: How about this: Congress shall make no law respecting the keeping and bearing of arms.

I would have to debate it, but even off the top of my head, I would add to it.

Congress, nor the Senate, nor the judiciary via precedent, nor the Executive via proclamation, or any form to be so construed, etc.

Auto said: I agree, but that shouldn't mean that individual States can't make such regulations.

I think states are too large a demographic to work with in that sense.

States vary quite a bit depending on the state, location and population.

This makes them unique in problems of repairing the representation problem.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I also happen to agree that, that in fact is one of the major problems. The forefathers knew the people "of the time" were aware of the cost of liberty. They failed to see, or acknowledge in their writings, the safeguard to prevent that from being our downfall as time passes and new generations take the reigns of leadership without understanding the threat of tyranny from within.(even worse, counting on it)

No system of government is 100% stable. To rephrase in statistical terms, given a sufficiently long amount of time, the probability of a government collapsing or becoming entirely different will become 1.

I would have to debate them parcel by parcel to agree or disagree.

I'd be more than happy to do so with you.

I think the system has merit, and can work (because it did, for some time). Could it be better, yes. It would take significant argument as to what is removed, and significant deabate as to what is added.

That's why we're here, isn't it?

I think all three of us would agree that a State founded on a (written) constitution is better than a State founded without one. The United Kingdom, for example, is less politically stable in some ways than the United States. Its instabilities are due to its lack of a formal, written constitution. Most of its political conventions are based almost entirely upon tradition.

I would say the argument RESTS on the word and definition applied to "require" in the sentence. This would mean the threat would have to be significantly proven, and understood, as well as accepted by those "representatives" who are put in place by the people. Once again the people rely on their "representatives" to protect their rights against all arguments, no matter how reasonable or seemingly harmless.

Congress, in passing the MCA, has authorized the President to suspend habeas corpus for suspected terrorists. So apparently there is a terrorist threat that has been significantly proven, understood, and accepted by the members of Congress.

I think a simpler solution would be to eliminate the clause that I marked in bold. As a result, it would require a Constitutional Amendment in order to put it (back) in, which is supposed to be much more difficult than merely passing a statute.

In my opinion, or by law? The people, by law.

Yet that does not provide for any implementation. How are "the people" to remove the Constitution?

In my opinion, were it to be re-written, I think would have to be the best and brightest academic minds from all fields of the social and economic spectrum. Constitutional Scholars would have to be versed in the background of the writers, the surrounding papers of the writing and the forefathers, and also understanding of our modern age, our strengths and weaknesses as a nation.

I don't understand why people on the "Constitutional Re-write Committee" would have to have extensive knowledge of the Founding Fathers. After all, were the Constitution to be re-written, it would mean that the Founding Fathers have formally failed, and we, the living today, are taking it upon ourselves to succeed in their place.

Also, I take dispute to the issue of "our strengths and weaknesses as a nation". It begs the question as to whether "the nation" should even continue to exist, to speak nothing of its alleged "strengths" and "weaknesses". There is no reason why a constitution written for one state could not also be applied to another state. In other words, constitutions should be independent of specific historical and/or cultural circumstances.

What will you accept as proof? Examples in life, or written intentions of the writers themselves?

Examples in life would be preferable.

I do think people can honestly represent other people, if that representation is kept adequately in check by the powers to remove that representative, and transparency of actions is nearly complete.

Let's see... how is the representation to be kept adequately in check (to speak nothing of just what "adequately in check" means)? How is nearly-complete transparency of actions to be ensured?

That is one reason I propose that all public officials who serve as Congress, Senate and appointed positions, should take an oath, forfeiting all rights to economic privacy for the duration of their campaign for office, their term in office, and two years after their term in office by FOIA request only to media organizations, courts or the justice system.

What if they take the oath with their proverbial fingers crossed?

I agree, great topic, and worthy of debate as far as size of the republic. I don't think the republic at the size it is, can be efficient, effective or in any way representative as it is. To be specific is almost a debate on its own, isn't it?

A true federation is such that its members reserve the right to opt out at any time. Thus a federation is similar to a club. Individuals can join upon the approval of the existing members. Current members can leave at any time and for any reason. However, rules are binding for all members. If a member refuses to obey a rule, the rest of the members can either vote him out of the club or repeal the rule.

(On a side note, it was a great stroke of propaganda that Hamilton and his posse labelled themselves as the "Federalists", thus ensuring that Jefferson and his crew would be called the "Anti-Federalists". A more accurate pair of labels would be "Unitarists" and "Federalists", respectively.)

The total number of Representatives is currently fixed at 435 by the Reapportionment Act of 1929, though Congress has the authority to change that number.

Correct. Congress, and no other organization, has the authority to change its own number. I don't expect them to make any changes anytime soon.

The Bi-Partisan game between the two major parties has been going strong since at least 1912.

The United States has had a de facto two-party system from its inception, in 1787.

Yes, I agree. An issue that must be addressed.

So let's address it. What are your thoughts? Do you agree with me that a federation means a voluntary association of individual members?

I would have to debate it, but even off the top of my head, I would add to it. Congress, nor the Senate, nor the judiciary via precedent, nor the Executive via proclamation, or any form to be so construed, etc.

The constitution should provide for the legislative branch being the only branch to make statute law. Any executive proclamations will apply only to the members of the executive branch; they will not constitute statutes (i.e. laws that apply to all citizens).

I think states are too large a demographic to work with in that sense. States vary quite a bit depending on the state, location and population. This makes them unique in problems of repairing the representation problem.

The federal government deals only with the states, as they are the individual members of the federation.

- Rob

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Auto I think all three of us would agree that a State founded on a (written) constitution is better than a State founded without one.

Agreed. A document, while changeable, still represents something definitive.

Quote by: Auto So apparently there is a terrorist threat that has been significantly proven, understood, and accepted by the members of Congress.

I think I understand what you mean, here.

Basically, we have elected representatives to make decisions for us and literally represent our best interests. If they believe that there is a threat, or they believe in supporting it, they are doing so because of the power we gave them.

I think Amending the Constitution to include definitive limitations on power of representatives is a great idea. Even if it means writing a numbered list saying that those things are the only things a representative can do and nothing else.

Quote by: Auto There is no reason why a constitution written for one state could not also be applied to another state. In other words, constitutions should be independent of specific historical and/or cultural circumstances.

Doesn't that, then, mean that individual states would have no autonomy, and only be formal "districts" of geographical separation?

Quote by: Auto What if they take the oath with their proverbial fingers crossed?

To address this and the greater point which it addresses, I think there is an easier answer.

Shorter terms.

In Ancient Rome, decisions were voted on by the first X-thousand people to walk through the doors. The idea was that if you cared enough you got your ass to the forum.

By having frequent elections, it would encourage more effective campaigning, less time for bullshit tactics, and clarify that it's not the person that matters as much as their ability to do the job.

Let's say 1 year terms, and you cannot run for re-election, but you can run again a year later.

Or a better system of election... counties put up representatives (that they vote for) and then those reps. go to the state level to represent the state.

It's more administration and structure and such, but it keeps pockets from being lined.

Quote by: Auto The federal government deals only with the states, as they are the individual members of the federation.

Then maybe a federal system isn't the best idea, because it allows for that same autonomy that causes conflict.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Fonceai I think I understand what you mean, here. Basically, we have elected representatives to make decisions for us and literally represent our best interests. If they believe that there is a threat, or they believe in supporting it, they are doing so because of the power we gave them. I think Amending the Constitution to include definitive limitations on power of representatives is a great idea. Even if it means writing a numbered list saying that those things are the only things a representative can do and nothing else.

I'm sure you know that this has already been done. The problem with the current enumerated powers, IMO, is that they're too open-ended. Hence my opposition to the three "great clauses" -- the supremacy clause, the commerce clause, and the necessary-and-proper clause.

Doesn't that, then, mean that individual states would have no autonomy, and only be formal "districts" of geographical separation?

Not if the constitution explicitly acknowledges that the government it sets up is a federation of individual states.

To address this and the greater point which it addresses, I think there is an easier answer. Shorter terms. In Ancient Rome, decisions were voted on by the first X-thousand people to walk through the doors. The idea was that if you cared enough you got your ass to the forum. By having frequent elections, it would encourage more effective campaigning, less time for bullshit tactics, and clarify that it's not the person that matters as much as their ability to do the job. Let's say 1 year terms, and you cannot run for re-election, but you can run again a year later. Or a better system of election... counties put up representatives (that they vote for) and then those reps. go to the state level to represent the state. It's more administration and structure and such, but it keeps pockets from being lined.

I'm not concerned with the individual state governments, i.e. those of the United States, Germany, and other federal countries. However, one-year terms are not a problem for me. I also agree with people being ineligible to run for consecutive terms. The most they can do is run every other year, in this case.

Then maybe a federal system isn't the best idea, because it allows for that same autonomy that causes conflict.

How do you think the autonomy would cause conflict?

- Rob

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Auto How do you think the autonomy would cause conflict?

Simply put, you end up dealing with issues related to culture (Bible Belt versus Las Vegas, for example) or other concerns that reflect that there are laws that go beyond national authority.

[Autolykos]

"Laws that go beyond national authority"?

- Rob

[Fonceai]

State laws that establish authority over areas that the national authority does not cover.

I think all issues that require a law should have the law made at the national level and apply to all citizens, not regional exceptions because the national law leaves it open for decision.

[Autolykos]

If a state government makes a law, it governs only the citizens of that state. What's so bad about that?

- Rob

[Fonceai]

Why should citizens of different states have different rights if they are all citizens of the same nation?

[Autolykos]

Well, the idea is that there wouldn't be a unitary state. As I said, there would instead be a federation of states.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Let me add that there are, IMO, some advantages to a federation vs. a unitary nation-state. The most obvious advantage is the lack of unity, forced or otherwise. A federation does not have to worry about "national values" for it does not constitute a nation per se. Indeed, the intentions of the federation should be made clear at the outset. Some likely intentions include common defense, free trade, and assurance of certain political rights among all member states.

Another advantage is that a federation would likely have reduced conflict with regards to laws, given the fact that the federal government would be rather limited. Its authority comes from below, namely from the (founding) member states. The federal government has no power over anything not explicitly delegated to it. As a result, member states are able to enjoy a wide degree of autonomy. I consider such autonomy to be a good thing, as I see no need for a "national culture" whereby the federation somehow becomes a "nation".

Finally, a third advantage lies in the fact that a federation is far more flexible than a unitary nation-state. At least in theory, it is able to accept any other state or territory as an equal member. The situation is far different with unitary nation-states. They typically have a historical "home" territory and expand by conquering other territories. Inhabitants of conquered territories are not members of "the nation" and thus are typically relegated to second-class citizens (if they are citizens at all). Basically what this means is that unitary nation-states are far more prone to imperialism than federal states, because they think in terms of "the nation" and "outside of the nation".

Ideally, with a federation, there is no nation on the federal level. However, it will probably exist of multiple nations, and each nation may well constitute a separate member state. The idea is that, being a voluntary association of states, the federation will have little or no need for conquest and imperialism, and will thus promote peace and harmony.

- Rob

[Fonceai]

Here's the fundamental problem with a federation... it's not really a government.

The first two advantages aren't really advantages... they are better described as disadvantages that a federation doesn't have. But I understand what you meant; they are advantages in the sense that they circumvent those problems.

Ultimately, though the members of a federation are all independently governed. This still, in a way, returns us to the nature of the original post; how to reform the U.S. government. Making it a true federation results in the resident of one state looking at the problems with the others and saying, "Hey, not my state, not my problem."

The European Union is the closest thing to a federation at this time. If you look closely, it doesn't address the governments of the individual countries. It just wants those countries to all have some basic items before they can be members.

I don't think a federation would be effective here because the last thing we need is discrepancy due to geography, especially in such close proximity. Europe does it, sure, but the U.S. as a nation doesn't have the "maturity" to handle it.

Good idea, but more for a "from scratch" government and not as a reformation.