U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: GOP Platform Calls for Multiple Amendments to the Constitution (Retrofit - BandAids)
Source:
The New American
URL Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew ... amendments-to-the-constitution
Published: Jul 20, 2016
Author: Warren Mass
Post Date: 2016-07-20 21:24:56 by Hondo68
Ping List: *Bill of Rights-Constitution* Subscribe to *Bill of Rights-Constitution*
Keywords: Republicans, Democrats, the wrong direction, failure 3 branches of governme
Views: 5504
Comments: 58
Amid all of the fanfare and speechmaking at this year’s Republican National Convention in Cleveland, the party’s “Committee on Arrangements” (as the GOP’s platform committee is now called) unveiled the Republican Platform for 2016. Following a preamble that summarized the party’s basic principles in language that does justice to the work of America’s founding fathers, the platform then goes on to advocate a remedy for several of today’s national problems that some strict constitutionalists will find troubling: the passage of amendments to our Constitution. The platform starts off with lofty, unobjectionable language. Among its most praiseworthy statements are: We affirm — as did the Declaration of Independence: that all are created equal, endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We believe in the Constitution as our founding document. We believe the Constitution was written not as a flexible document, but as our enduring covenant. We believe our constitutional system — limited government, separation of powers, federalism, and the rights of the people — must be preserved uncompromised for future generations. Unfortunately, the committee’s partisanship was also revealed in statements such as “For the past 8 years America has been led in the wrong direction.” As true as the latter part of that statement is, its timing is about 80 years off. During those eight decades, Republican, as well as Democratic, presidents have led America in the wrong direction — namely, toward bigger government, usurpation of states’ rights, and an interventionist foreign policy. Where the platform goes off course, as far as the strict constitutionalist is concerned, is in proposing new amendments to the Constitution to solve problems that were not caused by flaws in the Constitution but by the failure of those in all three branches of government to adhere to the principles found in the document. The first proposed amendment in the platform is a “right to life” amendment, which reads: We assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth. While those of us who are firmly pro-life agree with the need to protect the right to life of children before birth, the remedy offered by this proposed amendment ignores the history behind the problem and how the deterioration of states’ rights contributed to it. Since the above language pointedly mentioned the 14th Amendment, it is critical to recognize that in its 7-2 decision in the case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court stated that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the “due process clause” of the 14th Amendment. The Due Process Clause reads that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Though this amendment was originally passed to protect the citizenship rights of former slaves, over time, the clause has been cited in a series of Supreme Court decisions to extend restrictions — that the Bill of Rights originally imposed only on the federal government’s power to violate citizens' rights — to the states, as well. Such an interpretation has had a damaging effect on adherence to the intent of the 10th Amendment over the years. That amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” An immediate conflict between strict adherence to the 10th Amendment and the Supreme Court’s citation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment as justification to overrule the states’ right to restrict abortion is apparent. Since the Constitution does not give the federal government the right to govern crimes against persons (such as murder, assault, and abortion) then this power obviously rests with the states. However, over time, the Supreme Court has established a precedent for using the due process clause as carte blanche to usurp states’ rights in this and many other areas. The Republican platform’s reliance on “the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections” to protect the right to life of unborn children is fraught with irony, therefore. The platform seeks to use another amendment to “retrofit” the 14th Amendment in order to undo the harm done though (an admittedly faulty) interpretation of part of that very amendment. There is a lesson to be learned from this. It is unwise to attempt to remedy social ills by amending the Constitution to address them at the federal level. A better remedy is to adhere strictly to the 10th Amendment, enforce states’ rights, and address social ills at the state or local level. Keeping this principle in mind, let’s look at the other amendments proposed by the platform committee, some of which impact states’ rights, while others deal only with federal matters. The platform proposes: We will fight for Congress to adopt, and for the states to ratify, a Balanced Budget Amendment which imposes a cap limiting spending to the appropriate historical average percentage of our nation’s gross domestic product while requiring a super-majority for any tax increase, with exceptions only for war or legitimate emergencies. Only a constitutional safeguard such as this can prevent deficits from mounting to government default. In an article published by The New American in January, John McManus, president emeritus of The John Birch Society, outlined some of the flaws of most proposed balanced budget amendments. Among these were: 1. Expecting government officials to honor an amendment — however well intentioned such an expectation might be — when they currently refuse to honor the existing Constitution is an absurdity. 2. Some BBAs allow 60 percent in Congress to override the requirement for balancing the budget. Getting 60 percent for other outrageous measures is a regular occurrence. 3. Various BBAs make no mention of the growing problem resulting from declaring some huge expenditures “off budget.” Use of this tactic makes a joke of a balanced budget mandate. 4. Some BBAs call for increasing taxes as a way to balance the budget, even steering taxing authority to the Executive branch. 5. Proponents of some BBAs want a stipulation that the budget need not be balanced if there’s a war, or a real or cleverly contrived national emergency. 6. Various proponents say that a BBA won’t have to take effect for five years or more — thereby sanctioning the addition of more trillions to the nation’s already enormous indebtedness. 7. Finally, balancing the budget ignores already accumulated indebtedness requiring billions annually for interest payments. As McManus observes: What’s lost in all of this discussion is that an amendment should be considered if the Constitution is found deficient or in error. But the U.S. Constitution isn’t at fault; the fault lies with government officials who ignore the Constitution’s existing limitations. The best way to ensure government officials’ observance of the Constitution’s existing limitations is to insist on strict compliance with the aforementioned 10th Amendment. The next amendment proposed by the committee is one to set term limits for members of Congress. This sounds appealing to many citizens tired of seeing the same tax-and-spend professional politicians elected year in and year out. However, such proposals ignore the fact that under our existing Constitution we already have term limits. They are found in the power of the people not to reelect politicians who are performing in an unsatisfactory manner. A term-limits amendment takes that power away from the people and punishes legislators who are performing well, along with those who are performing poorly. Another amendment proposed by the committee appears to limit federal power and advocates reversing the Supreme Court’s Windsor and Obergefell decisions. “In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent,” the platform states. While that much is true, we must stop and reconsider the platform’s remedy: “We do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states.” While there is nothing wrong with the above sentiment, the radical step of amending the Constitution — which says nothing about marriage — is totally unnecessary. A much better solution could be effected though the legislative route, an easier task to accomplish than amending the Constitution. Just such a legislative remedy to the federal courts’ overreach on matters such as abortion and marriage was proposed by former Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) when he introduced the “We the People Act” (“To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts”) when he was in Congress. The bill introduced by Paul sought to remove the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts to strike down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion and charged that the courts had “wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” Rather than proposing an amendment to the Constitution, it would be better if the Republican platform included a proposal to support something like Paul’s “We the People Act.” Another proposed amendment is not intrinsically bad, but would be redundant if the Constitution as written were followed. The platform proposes a constitutional amendment protecting the ability of parents to direct their children’s education and care without “interference by states, the federal government, or international bodies such as the United Nations.” None of the above-named bodies should interfere with children’s education. However, stopping the states from so interfering should be a matter that the citizens of each state take up with their state government and empowering the federal government to intervene would only compound the problem. Since the Constitution does not delegate any powers related to education to the federal government, all federal participation in education, including federal aid to the states, must be eliminated. As for the United Nations, stopping interference by the UN is as simple as withdrawing the United States from that world body. We contacted Larry Greenley, director of missions of The John Birch Society (with which The New American is affiliated) for a statement about the general concept of amending the Constitution to solve national problems that could better be addressed by less drastic methods. He said: It is the longtime policy of The John Birch Society to oppose adding amendments to the current Constitution on the basis that they usually provide the federal government with additional powers not granted to it by the original Constitution. However, we would welcome amendments that repeal certain of the harmful amendments, such as the 16th (income tax) and 17th (direct election of senators). With regard to the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) supported by the 2016 GOP platform, one of the reasons that the JBS opposes a BBA is that it would tend to legitimize the largely unconstitutional federal spending authorized by Congress each year. It would have this effect by focusing attention on whether a specific spending bill would fit within a balanced budget based on political considerations (rule of men, democracy) rather than on whether the power to legislate regarding this activity has been granted to Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (rule of law, republic). Poster Comment: The Republicans and Democrats have screwed up the Constitution so badly with their Amendments, that they need a few band-aid amendments to patch things up? They need a few impeachments and treason trials, IMO. They never even tried obeying the original Constitution. Hang 'em high!
Subscribe to *Bill of Rights-Constitution*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-18) not displayed.
.
.
.
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#18)
--- every change you want do to that is unpopular merely requires a majority opinion by the Supreme Court. ---' That's the way our system works. No, it's not working that way, -- as we see in this election, - --And, --- majority rule was never meant to substitute for the rule of (constitutional) law in our system.. Trump probably won't be able to change much, but if more constitutionalists are placed in the SCOTUS, at least we will be on the road to restoring the Republic. Nope, we have a BIG difference. -- You approve of majority rule, -- I consider it a form of mob rule, and our system of checks and balances was intended to prevent its excesses.
We DO have a big difference, but it's not the one you say. I approve of MORALITY rule, and deny the power even of the constituent people to rightly enact constitutions that override it. There is a law above the Constitution. I merely observe that majority rule is the way that things are, more or less, and I am more or less ok with that. The history of minority rule has not given me any particular reason to think that that is any BETTER than majority rule. So, really, I'm indifferent to how the laws are made, or who gets to make them. The only thing I really care about is that the laws are correct and proper. Bad laws have no business being enacted, regardless of the process. And given the obsession people have with process, when bad laws are enacted anyway, I want the authorities and everybody to simply break them, not obey them. I believe in the rule of GOOD law, but GOOD trumps law, and I do not believe in the rule of law at all when the law is bad. I believe that bad laws should be flouted and ignored, so that they fall into desuetude. When officials enforce bad laws, I consider those officials "evil". "Just doing their job" doesn't cut it with me at all, because I don't believe in the rule of law as such, I believe in the rule of GOOD law only. Men who enforce bad laws are themselves bad. The Constitution is a mixed bag. It doesn't work well. It's just a document. It's not holy. It is largely respected in the breach. It's not the answer to our problems, because it is so flexible that it need never be broken. When it WAS broken, to defeat the slave power, that was a GOOD thing.
--- We have a BIG difference. -- You approve of majority rule, -- I consider it a form of mob rule, and our system of checks and balances was intended to prevent its excesses. That is your religious opinion, and religious opinions, --- under our Constitution, -- cannot be the basis for public office. --As you well know.
It can be. The Constitution doesn't say it can't. It merely says that the federal government cannot impose a religious test for officeholding. That doesn't mean that the people cannot enforce a moral law as a condition for receiving their vote.
I am not enthusiastic about majority rule. But minority rule has been the norm in human history, and it is a very crappy system also. The key words you used there are that we have to prevent the EXCESSES of majority rule. Democracy is majority rule. Even the jury box is a place of majority rule. The key limits are to try to limit the majority from just doing anything it wants to. The risks of majority rule do not mean that minority rule is better.
how immutable vs man minority would rigged same is Make love ps mush like If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
An Article 5 Constitutional Convention can only propose amendments. They still have to be ratified by 3/4ths of the States (by State legislature or State ratifying convention). I don't know if the crazier proposals could get ratified.
That is your religious opinion, and religious opinions, --- under our Constitution, -- cannot be the basis for public office, OR CONSTITUTIONA LAW. --As you well know. That is exactly the opinion Muslims have about enacting Shiria 'law'; -- this type of thinking is not compatible with our Constitution. You approve of majority rule, -- I consider it a form of mob rule, and our system of checks and balances was intended to prevent its excesses. There is an alternative system, -- a constitutional republic. 'Democratic' majority rule IS the problem. The checks and balances in our constitutional republic even affect jury box majority rule. You need to learn live with republicanism.
You will learn to live in a republic that is democratic socialist. You'll hate it. I won't mind it. Sorry.
That is your religious opinion, and religious opinions, --- under our Constitution, -- cannot be the basis for public office, OR CONSTITUTIONA LAW. --As you well know. That is exactly the opinion Muslims have about enacting Shiria 'law'; -- this type of thinking is not compatible with our Constitution. You need to learn live within a,constitutional republic, with republicanism. A constitutional republic cannot encompass democratic socialism. -- If necessary, we may need to fight over that principle. You won't like that. Sorry.
I don't know if the crazier proposals could get ratified. Most of them are Republican Democrat party with loyalties to Panama (McCain), Canada (Cruz), Cuba (Rubio), Israel (Graham), China (McConnell), etc., just about anywhere globally, except the USA. So it's virtually certain that they can be bribed fairly cheaply, into ratifying anything anti-American. Common sense tells us that it won't make much difference what the new constitution says, since they'll ignore it like they do the present one. If they feel the need for some back up in ignoring the rule of law, they'll have SCOTUS rule in favor of their scofflaw play. They can ignore new amendments as easily as they do the old ones. Ignoring the rule of law is a D&R party tradition. Currently, it appears 3/4ths of the States do not agree on much of anything.
You won't like that. Sorry. You want a fight? Bring it. The victors will slaughter the losers, and we'll be done with the gridlock.
Our constitutional republic cannot encompass democratic socialism. -- If necessary, we may need to fight over that principle. Nothing wrong with political gridlock that a little slaughter can't fix, aye comrade?
You seem to think so. 'Twas you who said that we may need to fight over a principle. If the people decide on Democratic socialism, then that is what we will have. You said that we won't - that instead your side will fight. It is you, not me, who made the call to arms. All I said was "Bring it." If you really want to fight, with arms, against the express will of the people, you can go ahead and try. There will be a thinning of the herd, and it will be the same as it was with the confederates. Having lost the political process, the defeated minority took to arms and fought. That made it possible to slaughter them by the hundreds of thousands, which made the politics of reconstruction much easier, because the political opposition wiped itself out charging the guns. You want to fight, then let's fight. At the end of it, the weaker side will be dead, and the victors will have a freer hand to reform things more fully, one way or the other.
Damn right. We both took the oath to defend our Constitution. Our constitutional system will not work as intended under a 'democratic socialistic' regime; -- indeed, it is not. It is your side, not mine, who wants to subvert our republic, and turn it into a socialistic nightmare. We founded a constitutional republic over two hundred years ago; now you socialists want to change that. You can try, but you won't succeed.
The oath we took was an oath of office, not a lifetime vow. Neither of us are any longer in that office.
We both took the oath to defend our Constitution. Our constitutional system will not work as intended under a 'democratic socialistic' regime; -- indeed, it is not working, as is evident. As citizens we all have an obligation to defend our Constitution. You should consider renouncing your citizenship, and moving elsewhere.
It is working just fine. The majority will is winning out over time, and the society is adjusting in the direction that the bulk of the people want it to go. Our Constitution is being respected, by and large. What it means is open to interpretation and always has been. In the end, it is interpreted to mean what the bulk of the people want it to mean. Of course those in the minority, on the losing side of political movements, would very much like to be the final arbiters of the Constitution, so that THEIR ideas can - through the Constitution's "meaning" (as they see it) stop the winners from winning. But the minority doesn't have the interpretive power over the Constitution. The Supreme Court has that power, and the bulk of the people think that's where it belongs. Individual sovereignty is a fine idea, but if an individual decides that the Constitution means something that the Supreme Court and the bulk of society, and in particular the armed police, don't think it means, there will be conflict between those two ideas. And the bigger and better armed side will win. So, I don't know where you go with what you're saying other than into a bitter old age. What I call necessary society structure: universal public education, Social Security, universal health insurance, effective regulation of the banking sector, and effective environmental regulation to avoid "the tragedy of the commons" from the free rider problem - you call all of this "democratic socialism", and you say that the Constitution is violated by it. I say that the Constitution is not violated by it, that the people have voted in successive Congresses through the constitutional process that has moved towards this, because most people agree we need these things. So we're at a fundamental impasse over the question of what our system "can do". I'm in the majority, so it's moving in my direction, and has been since 1933. You're fighting a rearguard action, which is your right. Unless you go nuts and actually pull out the guns in rebellion, as you've hinted and warned at. If you do that, then the constitutional provisions for suppressing rebellion by force will be used, the Civil War precedent will be dusted off, and you and your comrades in arms will die on the battlefield, defeated by the federal forces. Any way you look at it, you lose. The better thing to do would be to be a Christian and understand that people need health care, they need an education, they need old age pensions, and the only practical way that has ever been found anywhere in the world for doing that is to have the government do it. So therefore the government will be doing it in our country too, and that is better than all of the alternatives. If you can't accept the truth, then you'll be fighting a minority rearguard action for the rest of your life, and lose. And the Constitution will go just fine.
If you can't accept the truth, He has been into a bitter old age for a long time now. All he can do is piss and moan how bad things are. The poor soul has let his depression get the best of him, so much so that his only will to live is to do more pissing and more moaning. He can't accept thge truth....he never will. He is a lost cause! His only goal in life is to fight everyone about everything, constantly arguing and trying to force everyone to accept his weird beliefs. What a waste of oxygen....he is.
Man, were you on a tirade this weekend or what? All night playing on the Internet? Talk about a gas-bag!
Our constitutional system will not work as intended under a 'democratic socialistic' regime; -- indeed, it is not working, as is evident. You're parroting the democratic/Hillary line, poor soul. You're simply denying reality with that claim. Our constitution is being subverted "to mean what the bulk of the people want it to mean." SCOTUS opinions apply to the case at issue, and do not change the Constitution. -- Regardless of bulk-think. You seem to think 'armed police' will prevail over armed citizens? Dream on. No, I say that only unfettered capitalism (as per our Constitution) Can provide enough wealth to pay for socialistic schemes. -- Call it bitter old common sense. FOR thanks you for loyalty, comrade. Your scenario will bring the death of our Constitution. We have a chance to reverse course by electing Trump, and you know it, despite all your socialistic preaching.
Poor gatlin, reacting to my criticisms of his canary clan, is more of a bitter old man than I. My 'weird beliefs' defend our Constitution, whereas you two defend socialistic fascism.
I defend our constitutional system AS IT IS. You go on and on about the constitutional system AS YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO BE, but as it IS not. Your beliefs, if put into practice, would mean half of the country uneducated, old people starving or thrown onto the backs of their struggling adult children, and lifespans a decade shorter and more because of the lack of medical care. Most people know that, which is why there will never be any significant constituency for your read of the Constitution, and why my read of it will always prevail. No matter how much the minority pisses and moans about it., government exists to serve the needs of the people, and the people have decided what that means through the democratic process. Is it perfect? Not hardly. But it's certainly better than what came before. Russia went from a socialistic system to a feral form of free market capitalism without meaningful health care or social security. Life expectancies declined by a decade. American conservatives like you are cool with that, apparently. That's why you are in the minority and never win. Most Americans are better people than you are. Most of us understand that people are more important than who gets to keep a certain extra margin of profit.
I am voting for Trump because he opposes Free Trade, opposes an open border, and will make peace with Russia and get most American forces out of Europe. Those are three concrete things. His tax plan, particularly the part about having no estate tax, is shite. Hillary's tax plan is better. Not good, mind you, but better. That's why I'm voting for Trump. He will put Scalias on the Supreme Court, ensuring that the current status quo holds. That's ok. Hilllary will rapidly cause the court to go far left, with unpredictable results that include things I think will probably be pretty bad, so I'd prefer to maintain the status quo. I support Trump for those reasons. You support him for different reasons.
My 'weird beliefs' defend our Constitution, whereas you two defend socialistic fascism. You accept our Constitution as it has been corrupted. I go on and on because you clowns don't understand our Constitution, and are willing to accept its infringements. Well, that's been the socialistic line for the last hundred years, -- and we've seen what a mess they've made. It's time for a change. The only way we will ever be able to pay for all the social welfare schemes you progressives want is through free market capitalism (under minimal constitutional controls). That's reality, and you need to understand it. We have a chance to reverse course by electing Trump, and you know it, despite all your socialistic preaching. You're learning, I'll give you that.
Let's start by taking away the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid of Republicans, because you guys hate it so much.
Well, that's been the socialistic line for the last hundred years, -- and we've seen what a mess they've made. It's time for a change. More silly hype.. Even the most conservative of republicans concede the need for basic social welfare schemes. -- The problem has always been in the scope and the funding of such schemes,--- which are now a total mess because of socialistic democratic policies. It's time for change. -- I favor a repeal of income taxation, and a Fair Tax type scheme.
I also favor a repeal of income taxation, as well as property taxation, sales taxation, "fee" taxation (for driver's licenses, for example), social security taxation, welfare taxation, excise taxes on gasoline, tobacco, alcohol, ammunition and rubber tires. I favor repeal of every form of taxation, and the substitution of a single unitary gross wealth tax, at a rate of about 2.25% per year.
Sounds interesting.. -- Under your scheme, how would you approach welfare? -- Some sort of monthly individual income?
This makes the assumption that he is delusional and actually believes his own bullshit. I find it more likely that not even he believes his bullshit. His purpose is just to get a rise out of people and get them frustrated by his stream of unconsciousness.
Poor gatlin, reacting to my criticisms of his canary clan, is more of a bitter old man than I. My 'weird beliefs' defend our Constitution, whereas you two defend socialistic fascism. Poor nolu, frustrated by his inability to get a rise from the forum from his spamming, falls victim to his own failings.
It's either that or play with himself and/or his buddy Yukon.
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
I'd like to pursue this discussion further, if you're still interested.
Sounds interesting.. -- Under your scheme, how would you approach welfare? -- Some sort of monthly individual income? What gave you the idea I wasn't? -- Please proceed. -- And, if you could, be concise.
That's a tall order for me.
Please proceed. -- And, if you could, be concise. Your overly long, essay type answers to most questions don't help discussion, they make it more difficult to answer. --Which is a good ploy if you're trying to win a debate, I'm not trying to debate. I'm trying to explain a constitutional position that will help in restoring our constitutional republic.
I'm not trying to win a debate either. These issues are complex. Really, really complex. You do one thing here, it has 50 knock on effects. If you don't discuss the knock-on effects and how to mitigate them, you get attacked for having a simple-minded plan that "is not workable". If you provide the details, you are long-winded and boring. I address complex issues, and chose to be long-winded and boring. I don't know how to take all of the complexity and knock-ons and reduce them to a few sentences. I don't believe it can be done. I think that you see the world in terms of very sharply defined and reductionist principles. I suppose I could do that too. The way that I see it, human health and human life and basic human needs supersede other political considerations and other political rights. Example: the need of everybody to be housed, clothed, fed, educated and have proper medical care is superior to the right of private property insofar as it is the right and duty to extract the amount necessary to cover those costs to the extent that they exceed the cost people will voluntarily give to charity. And I think that the real cost of providing those things is about three times the amount people willingly give to charity, so that redistributive taxation must of necessity be fairly burdensome. I don't like it, but I don't believe that there is any free-market solution to what is in essence necessary charity. And I do believe that the human needs and their fulfillment are more important than political liberties, traditions and other considerations. I would be fine with a VERY libertarian system - once the basic needs had been provided at an adequate level. I have thoughts on how to do that as cheaply as possible, and part of it is to take private profit OUT OF charity, so that it is a pure transfer without the middlemen. That substantially cuts the cost. But that's abstract. In the real world in which we live, bottom feeders will be able to make profit off of the poor, and that means that we end up having to redistribute more downward to them SO THAT we can also cover the mark-up of the bottom-feeding profit takers. I cannot write about this simply, because there are so many competing interests that have to be acknowledged and discussed, and put into their proper place. Also, I recognize that it's kind of hopeless to discuss it. Folks are dug in where they are dug in. And where everybody is dug in does not actually work. It's too cheap and too limited. So the misery remains raging and the Left over time always win, because they can always appeal to the suffering people. I want to take that permanent political advantage away from the left by actually meeting the needs. The problem with the left is that they are themselves always seeking political power. They're not really looking to JUST satisfy the needs, but to do it in a way to get control over everything. They want control. I don't. I want to see the needs met SO THAT the Left is neutralized politically and therefore does NOT keep gaining control. I recognize that we are spending more money than we can afford on government, but also that we actually have to spend more on meeting the needs. That is why I oppose foreign adventures. That is simply throwing away a trillion dollars a year down a rathole. We need that money here. Address the needs, and most people down there will get on with their lives, be consumers and float the economy. They won't always vote left. They'll vote for their interests. But where the right categorically refuses to admit they HAVE interests, and suggests they shouldn't even have the vote, well OF COURSE they are going to vote left. And they are so numerous that means that left always wins over time. It doesn't have to be that way. But to get it right it cannot be done on the cheap. And it cannot be ignored as not being a function of government, because that simply means that the left wins out over time every time, because they have more men, BECAUSE the right won't get realistic and acknowledge the need to cover the needs. That's the global picture. And that's why it can't be reduced to a few sentences. I'm sure that it's worth trying, because we're not going to actually DO the things I'd recommend. I know that. We're just going to stay locked in the left/right paradigm, and the left will just keep winning. The right has to give something up. They're too weak to win. They don't have enough men, and won't ever. To expand the base, they have to give something economically. Trying to do it by appealing to religious fanatics failed - because religion is weakening, and because militant Christians are, for the most part, insufferable assholes who alienate everybody else. And in a republic, ultimately, might makes right. Numbers determine power. And everything is ruled by power. The right needs more men. They can get more men by agreeing that enough money has to be redistributed to give the working class security and stability. Then the working class will not be focused on the wolf at the door, and will be able to consider broader things, libertarian things. Then the right will have appeal. When people can't get health care, the right is saying No, and the left is offering something, the left will always win. Always. The right has to become a lot more humane about human needs, and less doctrinaire about money. Otherwise, they are simply lost, and will go on losing. And there's no advantage for people like me in siding with losers. I hear a lot that one cannot compromise one's principles. That's fine as far as it goes. But the right has some bad principles that they need to get rid of and adopt better ones. If they won't (and I don't believe they will), then they're simply on the losing side of history and will stay there. There are still monarchists in France. They are, and will forever remain, a marginal joke. They're passionate, sincere, powerless and irrelevant. And that's where they will stay. France has been there, done that, bought the chateaux, and isn't going back. Not ever. Some ideas have to be let go, because they will not work.
Sounds interesting.. -- Under your scheme, how would you approach welfare? -- Some sort of monthly individual income? What gave you the idea I wasn't? -- Please proceed. -- And, if you could, be concise, - be specific about how your taxation/welfare plan would work... ---- Instead of your rambling, (and amusing) discourse on why you can't be concise...
Well, there are really two conversations. One is the pragmatic, real conversation, which is bound what is actually politically possible in this country in the near term. The way I think we should ACTUALLY govern. Obviously that doesn't involve replacing all taxation with a gross wealth tax, because that will never get through the Congress and the state legislatures. The way I think we SHOULD govern ourselves will never overcome the entrenched interests that have determined the way we SHALL be governed. So there is a first step that must be decided. Do you want me to talk in terms of pragmatics - what CAN be, given all of the limitations of political reality in America. Or do you want me to speak in terms of my ideals - what OUGHT to be? It seems to me that you are an idealist, and would prefer to see the whole structure I think SHOULD be, as opposed to the messy sausage of compromise and half-measures that I think could really get done. I'd like to write in terms of the ideal also, but if I go that route, it is with the understanding that the complaint "You can never get that done" is not a legitimate one, when speaking of ideals. If we have to limit ourselves to what is politically possible at present, it's a completely different conversation. So you tell me which you want to hear, and I'll go there.
Actually, you're saying the same thing I was saying, just looking down the other end of the telescope.
#20. To: tpaine (#19)
Nope, we have a BIG difference. -- You approve of majority rule,
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
We DO have a big difference, but it's not the one you say. - - I approve of MORALITY rule, and deny the power even of the constituent people to rightly enact constitutions that override it. There is a law above the Constitution.
#22. To: tpaine (#21)
That is your religious opinion, and religious opinions, --- under our Constitution, -- cannot be the basis for public office. --As you well know.
#23. To: tpaine (#21)
You approve of majority rule, -- I consider it a form of mob rule, and our system of checks and balances was intended to prevent its excesses.
#24. To: Vicomte13 (#23)
(Edited)
key limits
about
law
made
law
majority
means
what
so
ever
you
know
the
difference
forced
result
justice
ANYTHING
fascism
communism
tyranny
slavery
America
free
great
again
boris
rhetoric
that
you
do
everything
else
#25. To: Titorite2, hondo68 (#17)
A consitutional convention at this point would be terrible. Thise in power dont care about constituional adherence.
#26. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#23)
There is a law above the Constitution.
It can be. The Constitution doesn't say it can't. It merely says that the federal government cannot impose a religious test for officeholding. That doesn't mean that the people cannot enforce a moral law as a condition for receiving their vote.
I am not enthusiastic about majority rule. But minority rule has been the norm in human history, and it is a very crappy system also...
The key words you used there are that we have to prevent the EXCESSES of majority rule. Democracy is majority rule. Even the jury box is a place of majority rule. The key limits are to try to limit the majority from just doing anything it wants to. --- The risks of majority rule do not mean that minority rule is better.
#27. To: tpaine (#26)
You need to learn live with republicanism.
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#27)
There is a law above the Constitution.
It can be. The Constitution doesn't say it can't. It merely says that the federal government cannot impose a religious test for officeholding. That doesn't mean that the people cannot enforce a moral law as a condition for receiving their vote.
You will learn to live in a republic that is democratic socialist. You'll hate it. I won't mind it. Sorry.
#29. To: nolu chan, *Bill of Rights-Constitution*, rule of law is long dead (#25)
They still have to be ratified by 3/4ths of the States (by State legislature or State ratifying convention).
Castle(C), Stein(G), Johnson(L)
#30. To: hondo68 (#29)
#31. To: tpaine (#28)
If necessary, we may need to fight over that principle.
#32. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
You want a fight? Bring it. -- The victors will slaughter the losers, and we'll be done with the gridlock.
#33. To: tpaine (#32)
Nothing wrong with political gridlock that a little slaughter can't fix, aye comrade?
#34. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#33)
If the people decide on Democratic socialism, then that is what we will have. You said that we won't - that instead your side will fight.
It is you, not me, who made the call to arms.
All I said was "Bring it." If you really want to fight, with arms, against the express will of the people, you can go ahead and try.
#35. To: tpaine (#34)
#36. To: Vicomte13, -- The oath we took was an oath of office, not a lifetime vow. --- to defend the Constitution (#35)
The oath we took was an oath of office, not a lifetime vow. Neither of us are any longer in that office.
#37. To: tpaine (#36)
(Edited)
Our constitutional system will not work as intended under a 'democratic socialistic' regime; -- indeed, it is not working, as is evident.
#38. To: Vicomte13, tpaine, nolu chan (#37)
So, I don't know where you go with what you're saying other than into a bitter old age.
#39. To: Gatlin, tpaine (#38)
What a waste of oxygen....he is.
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
It is working just fine. The majority will is winning out over time, and the society is adjusting in the direction that the bulk of the people want it to go.
Our Constitution is being respected, by and large. What it means is open to interpretation and always has been. In the end, it is interpreted to mean what the bulk of the people want it to mean
Of course those in the minority, on the losing side of political movements, would very much like to be the final arbiters of the Constitution, so that THEIR ideas can - through the Constitution's "meaning" (as they see it) stop the winners from winning. -- But the minority doesn't have the interpretive power over the Constitution. The Supreme Court has that power, and the bulk of the people think that's where it belongs.
Individual sovereignty is a fine idea, but if an individual decides that the Constitution means something that the Supreme Court and the bulk of society, and in particular the armed police, don't think it means, there will be conflict between those two ideas. And the bigger and better armed side will win.
So, I don't know where you go with what you're saying other than into a bitter old age. --- What I call necessary society structure: universal public education, Social Security, universal health insurance, effective regulation of the banking sector, and effective environmental regulation to avoid "the tragedy of the commons" from the free rider problem - you call all of this "democratic socialism", and you say that the Constitution is violated by it.
I say that the Constitution is not violated by it, that the people have voted in successive Congresses through the constitutional process that has moved towards this, because most people agree we need these things. So we're at a fundamental impasse over the question of what our system "can do". --- I'm in the majority, so it's moving in my direction, and has been since 1933.
You're fighting a rearguard action, which is your right. Unless you go nuts and actually pull out the guns in rebellion, as you've hinted and warned at. If you do that, then the constitutional provisions for suppressing rebellion by force will be used, the Civil War precedent will be dusted off, and you and your comrades in arms will die on the battlefield, defeated by the federal forces. --- Any way you look at it, you lose. --- The better thing to do would be to be a Christian and understand that people need health care, they need an education, they need old age pensions, and the only practical way that has ever been found anywhere in the world for doing that is to have the government do it. So therefore the government will be doing it in our country too, and that is better than all of the alternatives. --- If you can't accept the truth, then you'll be fighting a minority rearguard action for the rest of your life, and lose. And the Constitution will go just fine.
#41. To: Gatlin, Y'ALL (#38)
Vicomte13, --- So, I don't know where you go with what you're saying other than into a bitter old age.
gatlin -- He has been into a bitter old age for a long time now. All he can do is piss and moan how bad things are. The poor soul has let his depression get the best of him, so much so that his only will to live is to do more pissing and more moaning.
He can't accept thge truth....he never will. He is a lost cause! His only goal in life is to fight everyone about everything, constantly arguing and trying to force everyone to accept his weird beliefs. -- What a waste of oxygen....he is.
#42. To: tpaine (#41)
My 'weird beliefs' defend our Constitution, whereas you two defend socialistic fascism.
#43. To: tpaine (#40)
We have a chance to reverse course by electing Trump, and you know it, despite all your socialistic preaching.
#44. To: Vicomte13 (#43)
(tpaine) is trying to force everyone to accept his weird beliefs. -- Gatlin
Vic -- I defend our constitutional system AS IT IS.
You go on and on about the constitutional system AS YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO BE, but as it IS not.
Your beliefs, if put into practice, would mean half of the country uneducated, old people starving or thrown onto the backs of their struggling adult children, and lifespans a decade shorter and more because of the lack of medical care. Most people know that, which is why there will never be any significant constituency for your read of the Constitution, and why my read of it will always prevail.
No matter how much the minority pisses and moans about it., government exists to serve the needs of the people, and the people have decided what that means through the democratic process. --- Is it perfect? Not hardly. But it's certainly better than what came before. Russia went from a socialistic system to a feral form of free market capitalism without meaningful health care or social security. Life expectancies declined by a decade. American conservatives like you are cool with that, apparently. That's why you are in the minority and never win. Most Americans are better people than you are. Most of us understand that people are more important than who gets to keep a certain extra margin of profit.
I am voting for Trump because he opposes Free Trade, opposes an open border, and will make peace with Russia and get most American forces out of Europe.
#45. To: tpaine (#44)
Well, that's been the socialistic line for the last hundred years, -- and we've seen what a mess they've made. It's time for a change.
#46. To: Vicomte13 (#45)
Your beliefs, if put into practice, would mean half of the country uneducated, old people starving or thrown onto the backs of their struggling adult children, and lifespans a decade shorter and more because of the lack of medical care. Most people know that, which is why there will never be any significant constituency for your read of the Constitution, and why my read of it will always prevail.
Let's start by taking away the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid of Republicans, because you guys hate it so much.
#47. To: tpaine (#46)
It's time for change. -- I favor a repeal of income taxation, and a Fair Tax type scheme.
#48. To: Vicomte13 (#47)
I favor repeal of every form of taxation, and the substitution of a single unitary gross wealth tax, at a rate of about 2.25% per year.
#49. To: Gatlin, Vicomte13, tpaine (#38)
He can't accept thge truth....he never will. He is a lost cause! His only goal in life is to fight everyone about everything, constantly arguing and trying to force everyone to accept his weird beliefs.
#50. To: nolu chan (#49)
He can't accept thge truth....he never will. He is a lost cause! His only goal in life is to fight everyone about everything, constantly arguing and trying to force everyone to accept his weird beliefs. -- What a waste of oxygen....he is.
This makes the assumption that he is delusional and actually believes his own bullshit. I find it more likely that not even he believes his bullshit. His purpose is just to get a rise out of people and get them frustrated by his stream of unconsciousness. --- nolu chan
#51. To: buckeroo (#39)
#52. To: tpaine (#48)
Sounds interesting.. -- Under your scheme, how would you approach welfare? -- Some sort of monthly individual income?
#53. To: Vicomte13 (#52)
I favor repeal of every form of taxation, and the substitution of a single unitary gross wealth tax, at a rate of about 2.25% per year.
I'd like to pursue this discussion further, if you're still interested.
#54. To: tpaine (#53)
And, if you could, be concise.
#55. To: Vicomte13 (#54)
That's a tall order for me.
#56. To: tpaine (#55)
#57. To: Vicomte13 (#56)
I favor repeal of every form of taxation, and the substitution of a single unitary gross wealth tax, at a rate of about 2.25% per year.
I'd like to pursue this discussion further, if you're still interested.
#58. To: tpaine (#57)
Sounds interesting.. -- Under your scheme, how would you approach welfare? -- Some sort of monthly individual income?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]