Time to amend the wording in the Consitution?

[lsbskins1]

The fundamental idea of the founders that remains sound is that government should exist to benefit the citizens and that the best way to achieve that end is to ensure that law governs and not individual will. The Constitution was all about insuring that principle. I point again to the words of the Preamble: ...in order to form a more perfect union...". The basic thrust of that statement is an acknowledgement that what they had given us was not perfect, but a move towards something better. It seems that you, and other "strict constructionists" want to leave a simple fact out of the equation. As we learn and grow and develop, what worked before may not work now. I am not suggesting that the ideal of Constitutional protections is flawed. I am not saying that the Constitution is a "god damned scrap of paper", I am saying that that very fine and important document is not frozen in time and if you think that we must freeze ourselves into the modes of thinking of people who never experienced the modern world, you are asking for stagnation and decay that will destroy your country quicker than any other danger.

[Osborn F Enready]

I have no intrest in compromising with fools and fascists.

If the current or future governments don't want to abide by the law of the land, eventually, they and their supporters will be held accountable...... just ask the Tories.

[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.

[ren]

Gods_Mercenary: First of all, even in a perfect democracy, government is tied to the will of the majority of the people.

Please define "perfect democracy."

[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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Please define "perfect democracy."

People are well educated, invested in the country, and understand the underpinnings of a republic, while the politicians aren't too corrupt.

[ren]

People are well educated, invested in the country, and understand the underpinnings of a republic, while the politicians aren't too corrupt.

Doesn't give me much in the way of a definition to work with.

What about the "rule of law"? How about then the definitions of the rules in the rule of law? Once defined, how is it determined they should be interpreted? Is there a single legal theory that would be the perfect one for the task? We have all sorts of legal theories in play right now, is one of them the "perfect" one for the "perfect" democracy?

How does this "perfect" democracy deal with the paradox of individual rights and group rights when put to a test?

Then the original point, and why I asked: how does the "tyranny" of the majority come to play a role, is a tyranny of a majority actually necessary in a democracy? Or is it a structural assumption? That's why I want to know what "perfect" means.

On another thread, de Tocqueville's Democracy in America was invoked. He himself struggled with this paradox of individual rights and group association in his effort to describe the American version of democracy he observed as an early Aristotelian inspired detached social scientist:

A critic of individualism, Tocqueville thought that association, the coming together of people for common purpose, would bind Americans to an idea of nation larger than selfish desires, thus making a civil society which wasn't exclusively dependent on the state.

----->

More than just imploding any traces of old-world aristocracy, ordinary Americans also refused to defer to those possessing, as Tocqueville put it, superior talent and intelligence. These natural elites, who Tocqueville asserted were the lone virtuous members of American society, could not enjoy much share in the political sphere as a result. Ordinary Americans enjoyed too much power, claimed too great a voice in the public sphere, to defer to intellectual superiors. This culture promoted a relatively pronounced equality, Tocqueville argued, but the same mores and opinions that ensured such equality also promoted, as he put it, a middling mediocrity.

Those who possessed true virtue and talent would be left with limited choices, choices which many have suggested shed light on American society today. Those with the most education and intelligence would either, Tocqueville prognosticated, join limited intellectual circles to explore the weighty and complex problems facing society which have today become the academic or contemplative realms, or use their superior talents to take advantage of America's growing obsession with money-making and amass vast fortunes in the private sector

Somehow, I don't think it's quite worked out the way he anticipated. It seems that money now defines elite, and elite is what composes the upper levels of government decision makers. A kind of polyarchy of rulership if you will, which seems to predominate through most . Would that be part of a perfect democracy?

This form of government was first implemented in the United States and was gradually adopted by many other countries. According to Dahl, the fundamental democratic principle is that, when it comes to binding collective decisions, each person in a political community is entitled to have his or her interests be given equal consideration. A polyarchy is a nation-state that has certain procedures that are necessary conditions for following the democratic principle.

[Gods_Mercenary]

What about the "rule of law"? How about then the definitions of the rules in the rule of law? Once defined, how is it determined they should be interpreted? Is there a single legal theory that would be the perfect one for the task? We have all sorts of legal theories in play right now, is one of them the "perfect" one for the "perfect" democracy?

How does this "perfect" democracy deal with the paradox of individual rights and group rights when put to a test?

Then the original point, and why I asked: how does the "tyranny" of the majority come to play a role, is a tyranny of a majority actually necessary in a democracy? Or is it a structural assumption? That's why I want to know what "perfect" means.

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.

[ren]

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]

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]

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?