Time to amend the wording in the Consitution?

[ren]

Quote by: Jayjhis What you are all witnessing is the natural process of entropy as it acts on government. Democracy has been done before, and with similar result as it would seem so far. The power was originally in the hands of the people, but gradually drifted towards the central governing body. The cause of this was always economic failure and relatively minor attacks from foreign places that created fear and paranoia, which allowed the government to slowly shift the balance between civil rights and defense towards the latter. As the power continues to centralize itself, eventually the government is able to take the power from the people entirely and become totalitarian. Corruption ensues and the empire falls to ruin creating anarchy, which lasts about 30 seconds since inevitably someone will have a bigger gun or more friends and will take power of his immediate surroundings, creating thousands of tiny kingdoms warring with one another, overthrowing each other, and through a process akin to natural selection of the strongest "kings" it becomes feudalism, followed eventually by monarchy, revolution, and finally democracy again. The western world has been through this cycle at least 3 times, it would be naive to think that simply because we have bombs and computers now the cycle has ceased, especially in light of recent developments.

You seem to have a basic structural understanding of a process I too see going on. This may be more important than fiddling around with the Constitution, which is something like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Are you familiar with complexity theory and organizations? One application of it has been brought to bear on historical collapse scenarios by Joseph Tainter in his book The Collapse of Complex Societies. If you are interested, here is an essay he wrote after the book was published that gives a brief synopsis of how the theory works: COMPLEXITY, PROBLEM SOLVING, AND SUSTAINABLE SOCIETIES

[ren]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary If people's property and lives are protected, the rule of law exists. What do you mean by group rights? I'm not sure I'd recognize any. The individual's rights are what matters. Democracy is the rule of the majority, no? Unless you get everyone to agree, the majority will always have to impose some sort of rules on others, the key is to keep that to an absolute minimum. Perfect is, of course, an absract, because people are far from perfect.

If the majority, 51% decides for the other 49%, how are individual rights of the 49% who disagree protected? Democracy by rule of majority defines group rights, do you see? At that point, group rights and individual rights are in conflict.

[Gods_Mercenary]

But the majority's powers are limited by the dissenter's individual rights. The Rights should be a function of government, as was attempted in the Bill of Rights. If the 49% feels the majority has become intolerably tyrranical, they can always rebel and protect their own rights, which is what they join a government for anyway. If they lose, then the 51% have chosen Tyrranny, and deserve what they get.

[ren]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary But the majority's powers are limited by the dissenter's individual rights. The Rights should be a function of government, as was attempted in the Bill of Rights. If the 49% feels the majority has become intolerably tyrranical, they can always rebel and protect their own rights, which is what they join a government for anyway. If they lose, then the 51% have chosen Tyrranny, and deserve what they get.

I'm still trying to understand what you mean by a perfect democracy:

Gods_Mercenary: First of all, even in a perfect democracy, government is tied to the will of the majority of the people. Jefferson would have supported the government not interfering in most aspects of a person's life no matter how much the majority wanted to. Second of all, the people as a whole are idiotic.

I'm just fascinated with the combination of ingredients there. The "people as a whole" ad hominem argument is superb!

You asked what group rights are vs. individual rights. Do you disagree about what group rights are as I've described them? Is the "will of the majority" a right? It does have a legal basis in the Constitution, does it not? And there's always the fundamental "might makes right" argument, which can be very persuasive if you happen to find a gun pointed at your head. Do you recognize this as a problem? I'm not sure how you are talking about a majority rule scenario and individual rights. Are they fundamentally different things in your mind?

I dissented with Congress when they passed the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq in 2002 -- and they did so unconstitutionally in my opinion, and my opinion seems to concur with a number of legal scholars. It was a huge majority vote. Should it wish to, this government could invoke conscription and force me into the military and put me into a conflict with which I fundamentally disagree on all levels. That certainly would be an example of the government interfering in my individual life. Do I have the individual right to dissent? How do you see "dissent" and "individual rights" correlated in this instance? And how would that in any way limit the power of the majority? Could you explain what you mean by dissenter's rights being protected, please?

I see you have resorted to using the word "they" in both a majority and minority group sense. This again raises the issue of group rights which you say you don't recognize. but the individual rights issue itself is still the question. Individual rights themselves pertain to the individual. But to solve them, the individual must resort to a group, even the group agreement in the rule of law is not superseded by a higher authority in a democracy. Monarchy, Theocracy, maybe yes, in concept. Do you see the inherent paradox you are working with?

In order for me to deal with what I feel are losses to my individuality, which are defined by the Bill of Rights, supposedly protected by the rule of law, you suggest I must form a large group and "rebel." Individually I am powerless. "We" rebels together will be facing some legal issues, some of which may be created by the majority in their right as legislators to create laws.

I seems to me that implicitly, here, the majority gives individual rights, and the majority can take them away. This can occur hegemonically or by sheer coercion.

If it turns out that the majority becomes a tyranny, maybe out of combined fear of an enemy defined in their minds as "terrorism," abrogating the individual rights of the minority (and their own as well), and you say they deserve what they get, how does that solve this problem of designing a democracy? Is there a "perfect" democracy in which the problem would be resolvable? If so, what would the structures be in resolving the problem?

[Domino]

This thread needs to be broken into many more. Given the degree of participation, I'd say we need a forum to hold them all. Anyone with a quibble can bring up their article or amendment for debate, or try to propose something newer than that. Trying to put an entire Constitutional Convention in one thread is doomed to be an unreadable chaos, rapidly approaching an intimidating amount of text that will preclude most people from participating.

I've never seen such rapid and varied series of responses on this topic. If I'd known that could happen, I would have suggested such a forum long ago.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Domino This thread needs to be broken into many more. Given the degree of participation, I'd say we need a forum to hold them all. Anyone with a quibble can bring up their article or amendment for debate, or try to propose something newer than that. Trying to put an entire Constitutional Convention in one thread is doomed to be an unreadable chaos, rapidly approaching an intimidating amount of text that will preclude most people from participating. I've never seen such rapid and varied series of responses on this topic. If I'd known that could happen, I would have suggested such a forum long ago.

And we need a round table.

[Osborn F Enready]

Techno said: And we need a round table.

Nah, the original roundtable group and their offshoots (CFR) , Trilateral Commission, etc, and their compadres are what brought about most of the corruption to begin with.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I seems to me that implicitly, here, the majority gives individual rights, and the majority can take them away. This can occur hegemonically or by sheer coercion. If it turns out that the majority becomes a tyranny, maybe out of combined fear of an enemy defined in their minds as "terrorism," abrogating the individual rights of the minority (and their own as well), and you say they deserve what they get, how does that solve this problem of designing a democracy? Is there a "perfect" democracy in which the problem would be resolvable? If so, what would the structures be in resolving the problem?

Your rights are not given, you own them, if they are violated, they are still rights.

If the people choose Tyrranny, they have spoken, and Why bother attempting to give them republic? You can only "design" a democracy among a populace with the will power to sustain it.

Government by necessity involves some tyrranny, otherwise it can't protect anyone. My perfect democracy just balances that to the point where you're safe, but the government deals with you at a bare minimum.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Technosoul So we need the a new Consitutional amendment that would allow for an expand federal governemnt in areas like socialized health care. And likewise concerning utilities and energy needs. After all, everyone needs to heat a house in winter and to have affordable transportation in our modern environment. We are no longer dependant on just a horse to get around that can eat free grass.

Well, hell, why stop there?? Let's just have the federal government get involved in every aspect of our lives. We all have to get to work, right?? Let's have federal programs to buy everyone a car. And a car won't do us much good without gasoline, so let's have the federal government provide gas to everyone. Every car will need insurance, of course, so the feds can also provide that. And what about people that can't afford to buy a house? I guess the feds will also have to provide a house for everyone that wants one. Food, water, transportation, health care, housing, retirement, the federal government should be providing it all to every citizen. Need something else?? No problem, the feds should provide it.

Yeah, sure, we need new Constitutional amendments to guarantee all of us every necessity of life.

[Maryjane]

We are no longer dependant on just a horse to get around that can eat free grass.

Techno...you never owned a horse did ya?

[lsbskins1]

No government ever devised will satisfy every citizen in every instance. Not being able to operate a chicken farm in downtown Atlanta is not an example of tyranny of the majority. It is an example of societal compromise for harmony. You can still own a chicken farm, you are just restricted in where you can place that chicken farm so that people dining in a downtown cafe or shopping for clothing in a downtown store do not have to smell the stench of a fully operational chicken farm while participating in activities of their daily lives. There are reasons you can't do anything you damn well please with any piece of property you own.

We have just about every dispute we have within our country, be it abortion, gay marriage, the "tyranny" of zoning, the rightness or wrongness of any given war, because no two people approach life in the same manner. But, in the end, we are social creatures that need the group. The paradox is life, the paradox is not democracy. No matter what system of government we choose, the paradox will remain. You will always need to balance the needs of the individual against the needs of the group. Governing humans will never be a smooth process. Needs differ and needs change. What works today may not work tomorrow. The law you pass to deal with Problem A might have an unanticipated and unintended effect on Situation B. It is an ever evolving and ever necessary process. It can not and never will be a one time plan of action that will answer all present problems and solve all problems for the future.

Looking back to a period of perfection in governance is folly. Such a period of perfection never really existed, and even if it was as close to perfection as had ever been reached in that place and time, that does not mean it is going to be that for this place and this time. We will just have to keep working, tinkering and compromising from here to all eternity. It is the nature of the beast.

[ren]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Your rights are not given, you own them, if they are violated, they are still rights. If the people choose Tyrranny, they have spoken, and Why bother attempting to give them republic? You can only "design" a democracy among a populace with the will power to sustain it. Government by necessity involves some tyrranny, otherwise it can't protect anyone. My perfect democracy just balances that to the point where you're safe, but the government deals with you at a bare minimum.

I have no idea where you plan to go next with this. You seem to be thinking inside a box and unaware that you've boxed yourself in.

RE: "Your rights are not given, you own them." You've resorted to meaningless minutia, here, I'm afraid.

Rights to your behavior are irrelevant if there is no where to exercise them. You can own a nice Ferrari parked in a garage, but if you open the garage door and there is nothing but jungle, no roads, what good is it? There needs to be a group for rights to mean anything, the group is willing or not to protect any given individual's behavioral rights ("rights are about behavior, after all) that makes sense within the context of that group. Killing another person at some whim is not, in some societies at least, a right, for instance. Pursuit of your own happiness at the expense of another's may not be a right.) What makes sense in context is what will define the rights. What the individual "owns" is the biological/cognitive features that make individual action and all the choice making possible. By the definition self actualization, that's responsibility. The social context is what creates or "gives" the potential for definable rights, and the group as a whole creates the context, which we can call society. The group can decide to protect these defined and acknowledged rights or not. They can set up mechanisms (legislatures, courts of law, police forces) to define and enforce protections. They aren't static concepts, they are defined by relationship of individual to the group so interpretation from definition becomes an ongoing issue. That's why legal professionals are hated, feared and sometimes respected. It's a position of power in society.

Who's doing this "giving" of a Republic in your mind? What is the nature of this world you imagine? Who's doing all this designing of societies if not the group? (Oh yes, the group can "accept" an authority as a designer, but in the end, it's behavior as a group is its choice as a result of the accumulated individual choices. It depends on how they want to recognize what they decide to do -- individually and as the individual decisions accumulate to become the group's agreed upon decision.)

The answers I can imagine do give me some implied sense of what you mean by a perfect democracy, so I'm satisfied.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Maryjane Techno...you never owned a horse did ya?

No, but in 1953 this fellow named Amos gave me a ride on one, he was the guy who worked for our town and he went about to pick up the trash cans in the alley, he had a horse and wagon for that purpose. It was this old horse what was real slow and gentle and he let me and my sister ride on it's back down the alley when he came by. I think I was in the 6th grade then.

My mom thew a fit when she found out because she feared we might have fallen off the old horse. None the less it is one of my most teasrued memories form the good old days.

Back then our family did not own a car. We all walked every place we went. Even in the snow and rain, off to school I went. (the schools had no bus ether). A lot of farmers still had horses to pull the plows in Litchfield Ill. The speed limit in town was 25 miles per hour. Some people had cars or trucks. My big brother was the first one in the family to get a car, he was in highschool at the time and the neighbor gave him this car called a Star. It looks like a model A Ford. Him and his friend fixed it up and made a hotrod out of it. We only had one police man in that town, and it took him nearly three months to track down my brother to give him a speeding ticket. That incident made headlines in our local newspaper. "Teen gang busted". My parents were really unhappy because his friend just happened to be the son of the local Preacher at our Baptist chruch, who commited suicide because he could not save anyone. Anyway my brother joined the Airforce and left town. And we moved to California. Where we got this Mercury so my dad could get to work, soon I became a teen and got to drive the family car (if I washed it during the week). Gas was then 25 cents per gal.

I like horses. But they had a big polution problem in the those cowboy years because of all the horse shit on the streets and the horse flies. You had to watch out where you stepped in town. And the first cars were nearly banned because the horses got scared and would rear up and toss the rider off, causing injuries. The horse people who were the majority really hated those model t fords with a passion. Also the horse did not get stuck in the mud as much as the cars did.

But another thing I remember is when I moved to Downey California in the mid 1950s is that everyone had cars, with unfiltered tailpipes. After being there all summer I woke up one day and looked out the window and saw a large mountian (Big Bear Mountain) capped with snow. I was surprised to see a mountain suddenly appear on the horizon. I was so excited I woke everyone up to come and look at that mountian. All that time the smog was so dense that we never saw the mountian before that day (after a rainfall).

[Bractals]

Technosoul - As a person who lives and grew up in Downey I have never heard of a Big Bear Mountain. Are you sure it wasn't Mount San Antonio (better known to most in the LA area as Mount Baldy).

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Nah, the original roundtable group and their offshoots (CFR) , Trilateral Commission, etc, and their compadres are what brought about most of the corruption to begin with.

Yeah, spending all that time debating what kind of table to use was a big farse.

I have sort of taken a back seat in this debate for now because it is going along so well without me and I do not want to mess up the exchange of ideas. But have been reading the comments. Amending the Constution is not something that should be done without serious concideration and lots of debate beforehand.

Later I will hop back in and give my two cents worth. (but can I sit at the head of the table like mom and pop used to do and say "gather around children and pass the gravy?).

We used to say "those who rule the kitchen rule what is put on the table". And if the kids debated what mom put on the table then pop would back her up "eat what is on your plate or else!". Hmm? I have had some of those famous White House Cookbooks but do not recall if Hillary Clinton did one when she was a first lady.
It might not have been a good cook book because Bill was often seen eating at McDonalds.

I'll be back. (next time no joking around on my part).

[Osborn F Enready]

I have no objection to using a round table, or any other type of table Techno, that was a joke, except where I stated what brought around the bulk of the corruption.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: GHook93 What should be changed and added: The 14th Amendment: We need to change it to rid ourselves of the birth right clause. Its intent was to protect the children of the newly free slaves, which is not needed anymore. It's now getting distorted to protect the rights of children of illegal immigrants. Get rid of it now.

No, we need to keep the birthright clause but change it. I would change it to "born of American citizens in the United States or its territories, embassies or military bases."

The 16th Amendment: Get rid of it now and replace it with the fair tax. Make max amount for federal government at 22%, 5% and 1% for local government. Make provisions for some exceptions (reductions or eliminates) for education. medical and real estate.

I disagree. While I support repealing the 16th Amendment, why must the fair tax be set at 22 percent? Why must the amendment address taxes in state and local governments?

Create the 28th Amendment: For a national primary Day. All primaries will be held on __________ day of before each election. Preferably September , just a few months before the general. Also put in place that every general debate must provide for at least 1 3rd party candidate.

I disagree. Eliminate primaries entirely and require political parties to choose their candidates privately within the party (e.g. by having all party members submit their votes to the local party headquarters). All national debates (which would occur only after all the parties have chosen their candidates, if any) would include the candidates of all national parties and the moderators would be required to treat each candidate equally.

Create the 29th Amendment: Balanced Budget Duty - The Congress and President must do their best to balance the budget of the US to reduce any deficits

Do their best???? What a crock! No, you have to put their feet to the fire. The amendment should mandate a balanced budget (real balance and not accounting gimmicks; as long as there is national debt, the budget is not balanced).

Create the 30th Amendment: The Accountability Amendment - Candidates whether in the House, Senate, Governorship or President, may be held accountable for promises and pledges they make during their Presidency. Breaking those promises can be grounds for impeachment.

I strongly object to the way you're trying to impose restrictions on the states!

Create the 31st Amendment: Answer abortion! Personally want an answer on this in the constitution, so this won't be a issue every election. Such as, each state has the absolute right to create and govern its abortion laws. They may outright outlaw it and outright decriminatize it. All other states must respect their sister states decisions. I am sure the conservative states will outlaw it and the liberal states will legalize it. Then we will have a balance.

No. The federal government has no business involving itself in medical procedures. It should be left to the states.

Create the 32nd Amendment on Gay Marriage. Each state has the right to choose on whether to allow gay marriages. If a gay couple legally marries in a state that allows gay marriage, then no other state can consider it a defective marriage.

No. I want the government out of the marriage business entirely. Besides, have you forgotten about the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution?

Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.


Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Chancellor No, we need to keep the birthright clause but change it. I would change it to "born of American citizens in the United States or its territories, embassies or military bases."

I agee with that.

I disagree. While I support repealing the 16th Amendment, why must the fair tax be set at 22 percent? Why must the amendment address taxes in state and local governments?

I said max 22% meaning they can go under but not over. Elimination of Corporate taxation which shift the trade war in our favor of China

I disagree. Eliminate primaries entirely and require political parties to choose their candidates privately within the party (e.g. by having all party members submit their votes to the local party headquarters). All national debates (which would occur only after all the parties have chosen their candidates, if any) would include the candidates of all national parties and the moderators would be required to treat each candidate equally.

Take the vote even more out of the hands of the people? I strongly disagree! That has was too much openness for corruption.

Do their best???? What a crock! No, you have to put their feet to the fire. The amendment should mandate a balanced budget (real balance and not accounting gimmicks; as long as there is national debt, the budget is not balanced).

Be realistic. Sometimes the budget becomes unbalance and there are no quick fixes!

I strongly object to the way you're trying to impose restrictions on the states!

States are not individual countries they are part of a Union. They have automony, but it can't infringe on the sovereignty of the whole nation.

No. The federal government has no business involving itself in medical procedures. It should be left to the states.

You simplify it too much to call it merely a medical procedure. Either way the courts shouldn't be the one creating laws. I want it decided, so its no longer an issue of which party will select the President who will select the pro or anti-abortion judge. Its needs to be answered by Federal Law and not the courts.

No. I want the government out of the marriage business entirely. Besides, have you forgotten about the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution?

Full Faith and Credit Clause has to do with sister juridiction courts respecting the previous decision of their sister jurisdiction. FFCC prevents, if I sue you for a specific tort in IL lose, then bringing the exact same tort IN that might have also have subject matter and personal jurisdication.

In family law every state has to recognize a marriage if it was valid in the jurisdiction (including foreign) it took place in, unless its considered against public policy! Every State that doesn't make gay marriage legal, has it against public policy and views it void ab initio.

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

That is the privilege and immunity clause. Very different.

[Morality Games]

I saw there were some conceptual confusions between two seperate types of government in this thread.

Popular government is about giving power to the majority of the people for the sake of empowering the majority. It is commonly mistaken for the entity called democracy. It tends to be fairly linear, sometimes not even having a constitution. It really only 'works' in small communities, and sometimes not even there. Making the majority stronger is the aim of popular government.

Democracy is about distributing power so that individuals can be equal in social status, aka, it tries to eliminate formal hierarchies. It tends to be more complex than popular government, with many checks and balances between various facets of society. Equality is the aim of democracy, and empowering the majority is just a consequence of that ... however, democracy inhibits the majority in ways a popular government does not.
.

[Domino]

I think democracy could be improved simply by changing the rule of the majority into the rule of the supermajority. If one third of the nation disagrees with a law, it's probably really not that good an idea. Even one quarter disagreement is a terrible situation, and one fifth would certainly be regrettable. I think we could do great with a >80% requirement to pass a new law.

To take a suggestion from Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", how about one house of Congress that passes bills by a two-thirds majority, and another that repeals them through one-third consensus?