Reforming the U.S. Gov't

[Fonceai]

Currently, the U.S. government structure sucks.

The three (hopefully) participants of this thread share this opinion but have different ideas for the result of reformation.

Here is my assessment, as a foundation for this thread, of what each of us believes. This is the results, not the method. We don't need to go there.

Fonceai
Completely scrap the U.S. Constitution and write something better. I believe that there needs to be a completely different government system in place. Something new that reflects modern concepts and social climates, not a document forged from the bitter fires of the American Revolution.

Therefore, as we consider different aspects of the U.S. government, I will be approaching them as to how they would match a more definitive system.

Autolykos
Completely eliminate government. Though since this thread was inspired by his U.S. Constitution revision, I think it would be more appropriate that maybe you could also present ideas your opinion on how to reform the different aspects of the U.S. government. Obviously I can't dictate how you and (hopefully) Osborn approaches your response, but I'm trying to get a feel for what you believe.

Osborn
Scrap everything and start with the basic foundation documents. Though I get the distinct impression that you might also agree that there are structural flaws in its composition that have allowed for the gross abuses of the past 230 years. I'm thinking you would provide a better perspective on how to start with the current Constitution and relate it to modern times, minus the corruption we have today.

To kick things off, I'll start with the first aspect of the government to consider...

The Executive Branch.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: Scrap everything and start with the basic foundation documents. Though I get the distinct impression that you might also agree that there are structural flaws in its composition that have allowed for the gross abuses of the past 230 years.

I would say you pretty much nailed it right there, from my perspective.

Certain things in particular, that have come about in the past 200 years have been particularly detrimental to our limited republic.

A couple examples: Executive Order Privlidge, Removing the War Powers from Congress.

I think a lot of problems we have today, could easily be rectified by having the original Constitution done as a contract, having its own dictionary of terms used, requiring those words used be attributed direct, definite meanings.

I honestly believe there is no problem on this earth, that can't be handled Constitutionally, if enough thought is put into it.

I have a lot of things I would change in the Executive if we started from now, but not much if we started from the original documents and a clean slate.

I will wait to see other replies before clarifying if necessary.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Osborn A couple examples: Executive Order Privlidge, Removing the War Powers from Congress.

What about those two do you perceive as detrimental?

Quote by: Osborn I think a lot of problems we have today, could easily be rectified by having the original Constitution done as a contract, having its own dictionary of terms used, requiring those words used be attributed direct, definite meanings.

This is something Auto and I have touched on multiple times in our discussion; that definitive vagaries result in different interpretations.

"As long as this word means this, then I'm right."

I think the agreement we came to was that using our different defintions, we were each correct.

My other question is how, then, would you propose returning the Constitution to the clean slate? Does this include scrapping all the Amendments and starting again, or leaving the Bill of Rights?

I only ask because there are some Amendments in the Bill that I think are current and applicable, but others I would remove in a second (... "second" being the appropriate word).

Before I can intelligently respond, I'm also wondering how you perceive the original intent and role of the Executive branch as a whole, not just the Presidency.

I personally think we've strayed from what the word actually means. I think the President should be the something of a governmental project manager. Not the power to make decisions, but the power to coordinate and focus decisions..

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: What about those two do you perceive as detrimental?

Executive Order: I find this particularly troubling since it sidesteps every check and balance put in place to protect the republic, and worse yet, it puts the power to renew that act into the hands of the ultimate power holder, the President. It places the people of the entire nation, of all states, at the whim of one man who only had to ask himself if he "deserves" the power. It is the absolutely corrupt position of ultimate power, with no effective check to that power until all damage is done.

War Powers: War Powers should be fully in the hands of Congress, unless action must be taken so immediately that "permission" cannot be obtained in due time to prevent unnecessary damage. In that case, the President has the perogative and power to act on those "necessary threats" and committ whatever resources or forces necessary, with full "responsibility" for those decisions being the Presidents. In other words, it would be more honest and forthright to have a President act un-constitutionally in a time of crisis, based on his decisions, if his name and person were to be held accountable for such.

War is an act of a nation, or should be, and in defense ONLY. The military is not a Presidents playtoy, as it is not his military, it is the nations, paid for by their dollars, their famillies who make it up. The more rational minds involved in declaring war, the better, which is why Congress was issued that right Constitutionally, and was removed by politicians with bi-partisan "majority" that had a "vested intrest" in creating a "unitary executive" branch.

The only time the nation should be at war, is when the voice of the people provokes their elected officials to voice that opinion, or when direct threat is imminent.

The president should not have power to make war, unless the nation is under "direct" and "unquestionable" attack.

Fonceai said: This is something Auto and I have touched on multiple times in our discussion; that definitive vagaries result in different interpretations. "As long as this word means this, then I'm right." I think the agreement we came to was that using our different defintions, we were each correct.

That is the problem, in essence.

There cannot be "multiple definitions" that conflict the other definitions.

For example, "one" can not be alternately described as "many" and still have valid meaning as representing an individual notion, or entity.

If the law is confusing, it is not an "aid", it becomes a burden to the ruling, and the ruled, as well as those in between.

The forefathers spoke on this topic, but it is not often talked about since it was not often in "official writings" except in personal notes, later published. They also addressed it in some news clipplings, but most wrote on the topic at some point in their lives.

The Constitution was written in Common English, of its day. It was meant to be understood by anyone who had access to understanding Common English, and the "definitions" of the day.

A large part of the government Constitutional transgressions has been due to allowing "new and conflicting" definitions be accepted as "acceptable interpretation" by judges, over the years. One example that has haunted us since the adoption of its newest "interpretation" is the word "income" in the phrase "income tax", and what constitutes an "income tax". Also the way the words "direct and indirect" are applied to that tax by the courts, which has changed since 1913. These changes of court ruling usually are the result of "new interpretation" that results in massive "textual shift" in the writings, and how they apply.

Fonceai said: My other question is how, then, would you propose returning the Constitution to the clean slate? Does this include scrapping all the Amendments and starting again, or leaving the Bill of Rights?

I would say scrapping all the amendments EXCEPT the Bill of Rights, as written and adopted. The bill of rights was only a clarification of the limitations of the government, upon its citizens. I would seek to further clarify that line, that has already been drawn.

Fonceai said: I only ask because there are some Amendments in the Bill that I think are current and applicable, but others I would remove in a second (... "second" being the appropriate word).

I think the bill of rights is clearly the basis of this nation. The life blood and ONLY common threads we have as people. To cut one, is to cut all, as they are truly synergistic, and outline a way for very different people to live at peace with one another toward mutual and seperate goals.

I have never heard a good argument against any right enumerated, but feel free to propose one if you feel differently.

Fonceai said: Before I can intelligently respond, I'm also wondering how you perceive the original intent and role of the Executive branch as a whole, not just the Presidency. I personally think we've strayed from what the word actually means. I think the President should be the something of a governmental project manager. Not the power to make decisions, but the power to coordinate and focus decisions..

I agree with your feelings of the perception of the Executive.

In my opinion, from what I have read, studied and rationalized to myself, I see the executive as created as being a "manager".

The market (free market) charts the course of the nation economicly, coupled with public input via representatives for social legislation. The President simply "assures" the ship is on course, more than actually plotting it. The Senate and Congress plot the course, and put forth what is imperative for the people to accomplish their goals and protect their lives, investments and property from foreign or domestic legal "loopholes". The president also acts as a moderator in times of great unrest between majority, minority disputes in Congress and the Senate.

So basicly, I see the people as the true "Captain" of the ship, since it is their social imperatives, and economic choices that form the course of the ship. I see the Congress and Senate as the "plotters" of that course, trying to find a "common thread" between all their constituents that allows a course for calm waters. I see the President as the "Executive Officer" of the ship, since it is he who takes responsibility for actions taken while the Captain was away, or couldn't be notified before pressing action was taken, and also he that assures workload is properly distributed to those that actually do the work (congress and senate), and also he that assumes responsibility when the ship runs afoul into nasty seas, while on his watch.

The proverbial shit runs downhill, and the President is at the bottom, not the top of the hill. The most responsibility for actions taken, the least direct ability to act.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Osborn The only time the nation should be at war, is when the voice of the people provokes their elected officials to voice that opinion, or when direct threat is imminent.

"Dear Gov't,

We don't want to die. Please organize and send our Armed Forces to nation X and obliterate their ability to bring war to us. Then come home.

Hugs and kisses,

The Citizens"

Quote by: Osborn The Constitution was written in Common English, of its day. It was meant to be understood by anyone who had access to understanding Common English, and the "definitions" of the day.

So would the Constitution need to be stripped and given definitions, or would it need to be interpreted and re-written, once and for all, in modern language, to eliminate discrepancy?

Quote by: Osborn I have never heard a good argument against any right enumerated, but feel free to propose one if you feel differently.

Tempting, but not in the context of this discussion. Maybe once we've gotten more practice here we can take up that one.

---

Funny you should use the analogy of a Captain and XO. I actually know exactly what you mean. Also ironic that the President is, technically, the Executive Officer of the government.

Ideally, I don't think the President should be limited to the Executive branch. I think as a "management / coordination" role, he would be more effective as follows:

- The People say what they want added, changed, removed.
- The House of Representatives ensures majority or supermajority in their region and brings the case to the Federal level.
- The other Representatives bring this to their regions / states and also put it to a vote.
- If there is a majority or supermajority (whichever is needed) of the People, then the Judicial branch writes the addition, change, deletion in order to ensure 100% Constitutionality.
- After the required voting and such, the bill becomes law.
- The Executive branch is responsible for coordinating the implementation of the law on a Federal level, wherever it applies. They make the paperwork changes.
- The President, then, speaks to the People. He is the face of the government entity.

To be even more detailed, I think of the process of communication on a U.S. submarine. The Captain speaks, the XO relays commands, even if it's to people in the same room, and vice versa. That's how it should be with the gov't.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: "Dear Gov't, We don't want to die. Please organize and send our Armed Forces to nation X and obliterate their ability to bring war to us. Then come home. Hugs and kisses, The Citizens"

Well, basicly, yes. But I think it would be more along the lines of people writing and saying "dear government", we think you should pay attention and propose options concerning "x issue" in "x nation", and discuss our responsibility if any, and our options or support for intervention.

As citizens, we pay close attention to the world through the media. Look at the foreign aid for any given cause, and where the bulk of it comes from.

Fonceai said: So would the Constitution need to be stripped and given definitions, or would it need to be interpreted and re-written, once and for all, in modern language, to eliminate discrepancy?

I think Constitutional scholars, historical education leaders, and all the surrounding documents should be used to identify and compile a dictionary of the words and terms listed, at the time when it was written, and put into a dictionary of terms to be used when reading the document for any case, at any level of law.

There is no mystery what was intended, as the surrounding documents and briefs well describe the thoughts and "context" of the intentions, especially when looking at the first years of how the courts operated. I really think the only people who have a problem with this are overt progressives, and extremists from each partisan partition, which have a vested intrest in using force to enforce laws like prohibition laws, or "protecting people from themselves". As noble as it may be, government and force are not the method to achieve any success in terms of prohibition of anything other than that which directly violates the rights of others.

Fonceai said: Funny you should use the analogy of a Captain and XO. I actually know exactly what you mean. Also ironic that the President is, technically, the Executive Officer of the government.

Well, I am ex-Navy and I know you are well familiar with the "chain of command" in the service. I wish more people understood that the people were actually the Captain, in the government chain of command though.
The great thing about our nation was that even if the XO gives bad commands without permission of the Captain, and the entire crew follows it, the Captain can still envoke his authority to stop the entire process by any means necessary. It is a defined, tangible reality, and the meaning behind the quotes :

“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the right of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms.”
-Aristotle, "Politics"

“The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defence. The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside.... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; . . . the weak will become prey.”
-Thomas Paine (1737-1809), in "Thoughts on Defensive War", in The Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country...”
-James Madison

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”
-Noah Webster

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
-George Mason

“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”
-The Constitution of the United States, sovereign standing law

(I am posting these for anyone reading, not just for you Fonce. Don't want you to think I am picking a fight here.)

Fonceai said: To be even more detailed, I think of the process of communication on a U.S. submarine. The Captain speaks, the XO relays commands, even if it's to people in the same room, and vice versa. That's how it should be with the gov't.

I agree.

[Autolykos]

One can use a corporate analogy with a government. In the case of a republic, its citizens are the shareholders. The legislative body, then, is the board of directors. The executive body, on the other hand, is the management team. Finally, the judicial body is the auditing committee and/or supervisory board.

What this means is that the executive body is tasked with executing (as the name implies) the decisions of the legislature. The head of the executive body, therefore, can only make rules governing the rest of the body. Executive Orders such as EO 9066, would be expressly illegal.

- Rob

[Fonceai]

I agree on that perspective.

I'll write more when I'm more alert... I read that link and thought it said "Executive Order 66". Then I asked myself when Roosevelt said the Jedi should die. Then I actually thought of something relevant to this discussion with how the Star Wars Old Republic functioned. So more to follow.

[Osborn F Enready]

I concur on Robs analogy.

As a matter of fact, this is the "corporation" of the United States of America.
All cities are incorporated, as are some towns.

Its a game of incorporation, which is why I stress so strongly the needs for changing the laws and accountability for the "laws of incorporation" that have been changed over the years.

The publics DIRECT oversight of the powers of incorporation have been removed, and its direct effect is what we are seeing in the outbreak of corporatism, and its effect via money on politics.

[Fonceai]

A quick interjection as I write a more elaborate response...

Was the oversight of the powers taken from the public, or was there disinterest nothing more than giving them to whoever offered to take them?

Following that line of reasoning, would reforming the government serve any purpose at all unless the citizens were educated and inspired to take more interest?

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: Was the oversight of the powers taken from the public, or was there disinterest nothing more than giving them to whoever offered to take them?

That is a good question, and a very tough one to answer truly objectively because of the volumes of specific acts required to do it, and the information that must be waded through and debated in relation to it. I think personally, from what I have read and where my studies have led me, that big money individuals like E.H. Harriman, Morgan, Warburgs, Duponts and many in their corporate social circles, pioneered todays "lobbying" technique, using big money to support and help their "pre-approved" canidates get a media and political foothold. Over time, those in the know weeded the system slowly of people who refused to go along with their bi-partisan agreements, often times by any means necessary.(media slander, planted stories, etc)

The election of 1912 was a very pivotal year, and the political rhetoric was thick between Socialists, the "newly split" Republican party, and the Democrats. Critical legislation was being prepared to be passed through, talks of foreign policy changes were drastic, and the entire textual arguments of the canidates to me seems to show the work of large money donations to influence and peddle politics.

There is a whole lot that goes into that debate I think, and it would take recognition of those things to truly get to the meat of that answer in fairness.

I have done a lot of research on the time from 1890 to 1945, in all areas of government foreign and domestic, as well as analyzing partisan aspects. To me there is no doubt that big business was feeling the loss of slavery, and looking to "recoup" their losses through any means necessary, up to and including the bi-partisan tax plan and upcoming change of banking that would forever change the economic freedom of every citizen in the nation, and abroad.

I personally point to the elections preceeding, of, and immediately after 1912 for the most egregious changes and policy shifts, that resulted in the textual shift of government.

Fonceai said: Following that line of reasoning, would reforming the government serve any purpose at all unless the citizens were educated and inspired to take more interest?

Yes, I think so. We have sunk to a point of grave disinformation, as well as highly commercialized news and information. We have a lot of general apathy towards politics until people are directly affected, which the bi-partisan system has been working hard to reduce in frequency. This apathy comes from the lack of perception of the threat that resides within the government, to remove the economic and social freedom we have come to take for granted through disinformation.

I think this can be changed, within a reasonable amount of time if the right methods of reform were designed with this in mind, and implemented with full disclosure.

[Osborn F Enready]

Rob, Fonce?

[Fonceai]

I'm here. Real life. Stuff. Tomorrow (Monday). I promise.

[Autolykos]

Osborn,

Basically, I think the Constitution was flawed at the outset. No amount of debate over later historical events will change that fact. The Constitution allowed for them to happen, one way or another. As a result, there's no way to somehow magically "restore" things to "how the Constitution intended". I think a better approach is to debate about what should replace the Constitution.

- Rob

[Fonceai]

My response is, in a way, tied into what Auto just posted.

If those are the events that started the shift of government, what was it that made it possible for the shift to happen?

I know, Os, that you already addressed that an addition needs to be made to the Constitution that includes very clear definitions of terminology.

What I'm thinking is that why spend the time defining terms in a document when the document can just be rewritten?

[Fonceai]

Earlier I wrote that the Star Wars Republic concept really sparked my interest.

The basic structure is what did it for me. One representative from an area. That representative speaks on that area's behalf in the greater government.

Now obviously population should factor in if we're talking about something on the national level.

Why not just round each state to the nearest million and then have one representative per million people?

And then those representatives can meet collectively and propose, vote, and pass motions to create laws and policy. Then those laws and policy pass to the "judicial" section that evaluates them for Constitutionality. Then they go to the "executive" section to decide how to implement the policies.

I think the current structure of the U.S. government was written out of resistance to the British form of government and not because it is necessarily efficient. It's basically a "keep what we like and scrap what we don't" approach instead of actually constructing a government that works and can evolve.

I think the best government is both simple in structure; clear in definition and purpose. The Constitution just doesn't cut it.

[Osborn F Enready]

Rob said: Basically, I think the Constitution was flawed at the outset. No amount of debate over later historical events will change that fact. The Constitution allowed for them to happen, one way or another. As a result, there's no way to somehow magically "restore" things to "how the Constitution intended". I think a better approach is to debate about what should replace the Constitution.

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.

Fonceai said: If those are the events that started the shift of government, what was it that made it possible for the shift to happen?

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 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.

Fonceai said: I know, Os, that you already addressed that an addition needs to be made to the Constitution that includes very clear definitions of terminology. What I'm thinking is that why spend the time defining terms in a document when the document can just be rewritten?

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.

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.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: The basic structure is what did it for me. One representative from an area. That representative speaks on that area's behalf in the greater government.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Fonceai]

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?

[Fonceai]

Ack, ninja'd.

You raise a good point about 1 person not representing 1 million. So should the number of representatives be based on population and split to somehow represent a certain land area?

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

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.

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

New York City, for example, would be a very small area, while the North Country of New York would have to be gigantic in order for there to be enough people within it to merit a representative.