Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-09-2012, 11:57 PM
 
Location: Great Falls, Montana
4,002 posts, read 3,895,961 times
Reputation: 1398

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Yeah, I used to think secession was the only counter to the centralization of power in Washington. But secession is simply impractical and impossible. This country is just too economically integrated, so secession wouldn't work, and would just create chaos. And while I wish we could vote our way out of the problems we have in this country. There are just too many special interests in Washington who aren't going to voluntarily give up their control over this country.


I wish the problems in this country could be solved by the courts, but the courts and the activist judges, are actually a large part of the problem. Their 5-4 decisions do more to harm this country than good.


I have come to the conclusion, that the only way to solve the problems in this country, is through a new constitution, which will once and for all clarify the powers of the federal government.


At first you might be scared of a new constitution. Special-interests will certainly try to impose their wills on the new constitution, so we would have all kinds of weird new laws and powers in the new constitution, right?

Well, when you really think about it long and hard, you come to the realization that, the only result of a constitutional convention would not be an expansion of federal power, it must necessarily be a limitation of federal power. It must necessarily strip away massive swaths of authority that the federal government already has, and clarify those few powers in which the federal government will have, to prevent future courts from interpreting the provisions in ways never intended.

The reason why, is because the powers handed to the federal government, could only be powers that pretty much every single state believed the federal government should have. And there are very few powers the states all agree that the federal government should have, and those powers the federal government already has right now anyway. So the only direction the new constitution could possibly go, would be a restriction of the federal government and not an expansion.

But, while it restricted the federal government, it would expand the rights of the states. New York City and Chicago could again ban guns, while Vermont could continue to have nearly no restrictions on guns.

A new constitution would be better for the states than what we have now.
I don't think a new Constitution would look too different from the one we have now .. I mention Secession only because there are those that will just flat leave .. nothing anyone can do about it.

A CC might be the only real way to disolve this nation peacefully in the end. I surely don't want to follow the path of Rome ... waiting till the very end just to have everyone's head explode all at once all over the place .. you know .. that sort of thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-10-2012, 12:09 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,858 posts, read 8,166,057 times
Reputation: 4590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint. View Post
I don't think that tensions about state religion, immigration, or talk about reuniting with Great Britain simmered for 75 years before leading to civil war.
You are missing my point. Certainly you can argue that slavery lasted as long as it did because of states rights, that the Civil War came about because of a conflict over states rights. But that isn't what you were saying. You were saying that states rights were only created for the purpose of slavery, and that if you are arguing for states rights, then you are arguing for slavery. Which simply isn't true.


If you were to think of this situation more logically, you will look at it over the entire course of time. In 1789 there were 8 slave states and 5 free states. If there were no states rights in 1789, then the federal government might have said that slavery would have been legal in every state. If there was no such a thing as states rights in 1789, then free black men probably wouldn't even have been allowed to live anywhere in this country. The first time there were more free states than slave states, wasn't until 1858.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_and_free_states

What might those "slave states" have done while they had the power to impose their will on the free states?

No one wants to get rid of states rights when their views are a minority. People only hate states rights when they are the majority, and they want to impose their will on others.

I am not going to stand here and defend slavery, there is no defending it. But I will defend states rights, and if you had any consistent principles, so should you.

Last edited by Redshadowz; 11-10-2012 at 12:30 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 12:22 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,858 posts, read 8,166,057 times
Reputation: 4590
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigskydude View Post
I don't think a new Constitution would look too different from the one we have now .. I mention Secession only because there are those that will just flat leave .. nothing anyone can do about it.
I think there will be many states that will think about seceding, and will on numerous occasions threaten to secede. But they simply won't secede.

Let me explain. I am in real estate. The United States economy is heavily reliant on real estate. Businesses have factories and investments all over this country, and their clients are all over this country. What do you think would happen to Texas real estate values, if Texas actually seceded from this country? What would happen to the businesses that either produce or sell in Texas? Texas would also need a new currency, which would have its own exchange rate relative to the US dollar. And any debt that currently exists, would have to be repaid with the Texas dollar, which would probably be totally worthless after secession. Which means all of those loans will probably go into default. Which means the banks will be ****ed, and will cause an even bigger financial crisis than what happened in 2008.

The truth is, Texas' economy would be thrown into utter chaos if it was to secede. It simply cannot secede.

California is much the same. What would happen to California's real estate values if it seceded? What would happen to Hollywood if California was to secede?


While secession is certainly going to be something that will be thrown around by one state or another, it simply isn't going to happen. The coasts need the center, and the center needs the coasts.

What will happen is that, the only way to avoid a complete collapse of this country(which is in everyones best interests), will be to basically return to the same system that they created in 1787, one of states rights, and a very weak central government, that only does things that are absolutely necessary to maintain the nation. Such as those things in article 1 section 8 of the US constitution.

Last edited by Redshadowz; 11-10-2012 at 12:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 12:39 AM
 
Location: Great Falls, Montana
4,002 posts, read 3,895,961 times
Reputation: 1398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I think there will be many states that will think about seceding, and will on numerous occasions threaten to secede. But they simply won't secede.

Let me explain. I am in real estate. The United States economy is heavily reliant on real estate. Businesses have factories and investments all over this country, and their clients are all over this country. What do you think would happen to Texas real estate values, if Texas actually seceded from this country? What would happen to the businesses that either produce or sell in Texas? Texas would also need a new currency, which would have its own exchange rate relative to the US dollar.

The truth is, Texas' economy would be thrown into utter chaos if it was to secede. It simply cannot secede.

California is much the same. What would happen to California's real estate values if it seceded? What would happen to Hollywood if California was to secede?


While secession is certainly going to be something that will be thrown around by one state or another, it simply isn't going to happen. The coasts need the center, and the center needs the coasts.

What will happen is that, the only way to avoid a complete collapse of this country(which is in everyones best interests), will be to basically return to the same system that they created in 1787, one of states rights, and a very weak central government, that only does things that are absolutely necessary to maintain the nation. Such as those things in article 1 section 8 of the US constitution.

I suppose you could be right, but I just can't help but think of how much better California or Texas would do if they were allowed to establish their own import/exports directly without the US Government policies and middlemen (they could write and have their own treaties signed for the good of the people who reside inside of their boundaries) ... could be that in the end, they would carry their own just fine or even better as autonomous nations in the world. We can already see the what the big boat-anchor US Government has done to these places .. Maybe standing up for themselves on the world stage just might be the ticket that leads to their great success ... Maybe their property values will go thru the roof as a result of being set free from the tyranny ... one just never knows ... Texas and California may ... in the end ... end up with more money than they know what to do with.

Their new currencies won't be intentionally devalued to zero because of massive debt ... food and fuel would be much less expensive, and with direct foreign investment, the sky would be the limit on their new found economies ...

Last edited by bigskydude; 11-10-2012 at 12:57 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 12:53 AM
 
3,614 posts, read 3,494,090 times
Reputation: 911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
States rights didn't come out of "slavery".
The idea that the civil war was about states rights is definitely a myth--that was purely born of slavery.

Quote:
In my opinion, if we had a new constitution, it would not be the articles of confederation. In my opinion, the result of a new constitution would actually be practically exactly the constitution we created in 1787, at least in how it was intended to be back then. Except this time, we would make sure to clarify the wording to prevent future courts from interpreting it to mean new things.
It'd be hilariously archaic to ignore 230 years of human progress and just re-write the original Constitution.

Quote:
I do believe that this time though, we would tweak the election system, to allow for more political parties.
How?

Quote:
We would limit the president to a single term of six years.
The original had no limit. Why one term of six years?

Quote:
We would put in place a line-item veto.
Why? Don't just say what you will do, make your case.

Quote:
We would have what amounts to a "enumerated powers act". We would limit acts of Congress to single topics, to prevent earmarks and bribes from being slipped into bills.
You'll have to substantiate that your means to stop this would be effective. How would limit acts of congress to single topics stop bribery?

Quote:
We would toss out birthright citizenship.
Why? One of the hallmarks of American Idealism is the Land of Oppurunity. How do immigrant families move here from abroad so that their children can have a better life if their children are never citizens?

Quote:
We would clarify the commerce clause,
How and why?

Quote:
and clarify the powers of the federal government to tax, and for what purposes. I'm not sure what else, you would have to give me some time.
Again, how and why. You have to be more specific, we're writing a Constitution here not filling dead air.

Quote:
I like this kind of voting system... Probably the most practical for how this country works.

Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So you're sticking with elected officials? Which officials? How many? Why should we use this method of voting instead of any other others?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 01:01 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,858 posts, read 8,166,057 times
Reputation: 4590
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigskydude View Post
I suppose you could be right, but I just can't help but think of how much better California or Texas would do if they were allowed to establish their own import/exports directly without the US Government policies and middlemen (they could write and have their own treaties signed for the good of the people who reside inside of their boundaries) ... could be that in the end, they would carry their own just fine or even better as autonomous nations in the world. We can already see the what the big boat-anchor US Government has done to these places .. Maybe standing up for themselves on the world stage just might be the ticket that leads to their great success ... Maybe their property values will go thru the roof as a result of being set free from the tyranny ... one just never knows

Well, with a return to states rights, the federal government would largely get out of their way anyway. The major issue would be tariffs.


As for tariffs. I think we can learn a lot from the confederate constitution in regards to tariffs(and many other things).

The Free Market: The Confederate Constitution

Constitution of the Confederate States of America- what was changed?

US power to tax... The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Confederate power to tax..... To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.

US commerce clause... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Confederate commerce clause.... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 01:56 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,858 posts, read 8,166,057 times
Reputation: 4590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
It'd be hilariously archaic to ignore 230 years of human progress and just re-write the original Constitution.
Human progress? Are you really arguing that arbitrary reinterpretations of an intentionally static constitution by activist judges is a sign of human progress? Is universal healthcare a sign of progress? Would everyone agree? Is Roe v. Wade a sign of progress? Would everyone agree? Are Superpacs a sign of progress? Is a federal minimum wage a sign of progress? Is the federal reserve a sign of progress?

If these things truly are signs of progress, and people readily agree that they are good. Won't they be included, either in the new constitution, or the state constitutions?

Why is it that only the federal government can be an example of "progress"? Why can't the states progress independently of the federal government? If universal healthcare is better, then why did only two out of fifty states have a state healthcare system prior to "Obamacare"?

I always find it silly when someone says "We need to let the courts interpret the constitution in a modern context, because the framers couldn't have imagined a world like ours." And which I agree with that statement. But the framers also put in place a way to modify the constitution anytime we wanted to change it, it is called an amendment. If the constitution needed to be changed, we can change it anytime we want.

Your arguments are simply illogical.

Quote:
The original had no limit. Why one term of six years?
I don't believe that a president should serve more than one term. The president should not be out campaigning while he is president of the United States. I don't know how long the term should be. Maybe five years is more appropriate. I would say five or six years seems reasonable.

Quote:
Why? Don't just say what you will do, make your case.

You'll have to substantiate that your means to stop this would be effective. How would limit acts of congress to single topics stop bribery?
Ok, lets address the enumerated powers act, line-item veto, and the limit of an act to one topic.

The enumerated powers act, requires the Congress to put in any act of Congress, from where that act of Congress gains its constitutionality. Not only does it help prevent acts of Congress that are obviously unconstitutional. But at least would help the American public understand from which areas of the constitution an act of Congress is valid. Obviously the Congress could lie, but it at least is an attempt to limit abuses of Congress. And it can't make things any worse than they already are.

The second two really work in tandem. The problem we have with Congress, is that they tend to throw a whole lot of crap into bills, usually to benefit one special interest group or anything. A spending bill for instance, will generally have hundreds or thousands of provisions with hand out money all over the country. These kinds of provisions are generally called "earmarks", and I'm sure you have heard of them.

By limiting any act of Congress to a single topic, you prevent "omni-bus spending bills". A lot of times some members of Congress will basically insert some "Amendment" to that bill while people really aren't even looking. A lot of Congressmen don't even read the bills they are signing because they are so long. Secondly, the bills a lot of times are called all kinds of weird names, which have absolutely nothing to do with the bill itself. For instance, the patriot act, should be the "spying on Americans for the purpose of national security act". And with a line-item veto, I think the Congress will be more timid in trying to pass anything that isn't well thought-out, carefully worded, and popular with the American people. If a president veto's parts of a bill to the detriment of popular opinion on the matter, then his party and ideology will suffer in the future, and the next Congress will likely enact the parts omitted. So, the line-item veto isn't perfect by any means, but would certainly help to limit the Congress from trying to push through things that aren't very popular, or trying to throw into a bill any kinds of "special provisions" for "special interests".

Quote:
Why? One of the hallmarks of American Idealism is the Land of Oppurunity. How do immigrant families move here from abroad so that their children can have a better life if their children are never citizens?
Getting rid of birthright citizenship isn't meant to deny citizenship. Birthright citizenship hands people citizenship at birth. Those people can still apply for citizenship just like everyone else. Birthright citizenship in this country didn't even come into existence until 1868, no immigrant children were automatically given citizenship simply because they were born here before 1868. Yet, millions upon millions of people became citizens of this country during that time. There is no reason to allow immigrants to find ways to bypass and exploit our immigration system(anchor babies anyone?).

Quote:
How and why?

Again, how and why. You have to be more specific, we're writing a Constitution here not filling dead air.
I would limit the commerce clause to its original purpose. To make sure commerce was made regular between the states and foreign countries. Basically, to prevent states from intentionally putting up obstacles for the sole purpose of inhibiting trade. I would clarify the commerce clause to take away the concept of the "dormant commerce clause" theory.

A good example of court cases that never should have been, and which are obvious violations of the intent of the commerce clause, are Wickard v. Filburn, and Kassel v. Consolidated freightways. And also NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation.

Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kassel_...eightways_Corp.
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Quote:
So you're sticking with elected officials? Which officials? How many? Why should we use this method of voting instead of any other others?

The reason why I like the instant run-off system. Is that ultimately we are stuck with a system of proportional and disproportional representation, just like we have now. Basically, we will have a bicameral legislature, where one house is proportional, and one house is the same for each state. It is simply going to be impossible to have a parliamentary voting system, when the individual states vote for their representatives independently. We will also be stuck with a party system, because parties are necessary to organize campaigns properly.

The problem with our system isn't really the parties themselves, its that the two parties sort of hold an effective monopoly on the election system, because we have an all or nothing election system.

When people say "if you vote for a candidate who isn't a Republican or Democrat, you are wasting your vote". They are absolutely correct. All you end up doing if you are a libertarian, voting for a libertarian, is guaranteeing that the Republicans will lose.

Moreover, we can't overly complicate the election system by requiring people to vote multiple times. Voting should be a one-time thing, but we also want to have the ability for a third of fourth of fifth party, etc, to have a real shot at winning.

So, with all that said, what would be the best voting system that would work in this country?

The only system I could come up with is the instant run-off voting system. Which still allows the "first over the post", all or nothing system we have today. But it allows us to have several different parties, with different voices, and which wouldn't result in people feeling like they wasted their vote. Neither would it require people to vote more than once.

In an IRV voting system. Its based on an order of preference. For instance, this year I might have put my first preference as the libertarian candidate, then my second preference would be the republican candidate. If there were three candidates, libertarian, Republican, and democrat. And lets say 10,000 people voted.... And the 4,000 people had a first preference for the democrat, 3,500 for the Republican, and 2,500 for the libertarian. Then the libertarian candidate would be removed, and everyone who voted for the libertarian candidate would then apply their second voting preference. Lets say that in this case, of the 2,500 people who voted libertarian, 2,000 voted for the republican, and 500 voted for the democrat. Those votes then get applied to the two candidates remaining, which means the end result is that the democrat would have 4,000 + 500 votes = 4,500 votes, and the Republican would then have 3,500 + 2,000 votes or 5,500 votes.

And thus, in that system, I could vote libertarian and Republican at the same time, or libertarian and democrat, or even republican then democrat, and my vote wouldn't end up wasted.

Anyway, IRV or "prefential voting" seemed like the most practical voting system applicable to the American system of government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Last edited by Redshadowz; 11-10-2012 at 02:28 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 05:03 AM
 
Location: A safe distance from San Francisco
12,350 posts, read 9,660,433 times
Reputation: 13891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
You are right that it wasn't the state legislatures. But you are missing the point. The state legislatures are a reflection of the people of that state. If you take Oklahoma as an example, all 77 counties in Oklahoma voted for both McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Every county in Utah voted for Romney in 2012. While every single county in Vermont and Massachusetts voted for Obama in both 2008 and 2012.

The people of Oklahoma would be required to ratify the new constitution, and the people of Oklahoma simply will not agree to a constitution that guarantees the right to free abortion, or even the right to abortions for that matter. You can go down the list when it comes to issues and say, what will the people of Oklahoma and the people of Massachusetts agree to? Because they will have to agree in order for that issue to be included in the new constitution.

Whether or not it is the legislature or not, doesn't matter. The outcome will be exactly the same. And the people of Oklahoma will actually be less likely to compromise than our legislators.




I would agree with you that the individual states will not want to work together, and it would be nearly impossible for the any amount of the states to agree with each other on a new constitution. I think the fastest way for this country to fall apart, would be to try to force the new constitution on a simple majority of the states. To be practical, you would probably need support from 100% of the states, just like our original constitution only applied to the states who adopted it.

Like I said before, you might have several states who will threaten to secede, I don't believe it could actually happen. It is economically impractical to have secession, we are simply too integrated. Just like it is impractical to allow Greece to leave the Euro. Once the states really understand the implications of secession, they will back off. And they will be forced back to the table to work out something everyone can agree on.

And the only possible thing that could come out of a constitutional convention, would be effectively states rights.
A new Constitution is not the solution to the mess we've made of our country.

Why don't you just cut to the chase and focus on your real stated goal to break it up? That idea would probably get more traction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 07:08 AM
 
Location: New Jersey
16,871 posts, read 10,519,267 times
Reputation: 16404
We do not need a new convention and we do not need a new Constitution, but the Constitution could use a bit of a face-life. The Constitution needs the following:

1. A definitive privacy amendment that doesn't leave the privacy of citizens at the mercy of the "expectation of privacy test".
2. An addendum to the eminent domain clause that defines "public use" and overturns Kelo v. City of Londoner.
3. A prohibition of the use of private banks to create, loan or otherwise control the creation of public money (eliminating the "federal" reserve system)
4. An amendment that restricts the commerce clause to issues that directly affect interstate commerce (overturning Filburn). This would also apply to federal criminal laws against drugs, alcohol, tobacco and intra-state common law crimes.
5. An amendment clarifying that the Second Amendment is not for hunting, but for preserving the power of the People's Militia, and cannot be restrained by State or Federal government regulation.
6. A prohibition on the use of private donation money for federal races
7. A provision allowing the federal government to establish a public option health care system
8. An amendment that repeals the War Powers Act and requires Congressional approval for any deployment of US troops, along with a formal declaration of war.
9. An amendment that prohibits the government's use of the "states secrets" doctrine

Repeal the following: 

1. The Eleventh Amendment (state immunity)
2. The Sixteenth Amendment (never actually ratified in the first place)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 07:50 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,858 posts, read 8,166,057 times
Reputation: 4590
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
A new Constitution is not the solution to the mess we've made of our country.

Why don't you just cut to the chase and focus on your real stated goal to break it up? That idea would probably get more traction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey View Post
We do not need a new convention and we do not need a new Constitution, but the Constitution could use a bit of a face-life. The Constitution needs the following:

1. A definitive privacy amendment that doesn't leave the privacy of citizens at the mercy of the "expectation of privacy test".
2. An addendum to the eminent domain clause that defines "public use" and overturns Kelo v. City of Londoner.
3. A prohibition of the use of private banks to create, loan or otherwise control the creation of public money (eliminating the "federal" reserve system)
4. An amendment that restricts the commerce clause to issues that directly affect interstate commerce (overturning Filburn). This would also apply to federal criminal laws against drugs, alcohol, tobacco and intra-state common law crimes.
5. An amendment clarifying that the Second Amendment is not for hunting, but for preserving the power of the People's Militia, and cannot be restrained by State or Federal government regulation.
6. A prohibition on the use of private donation money for federal races
7. A provision allowing the federal government to establish a public option health care system
8. An amendment that repeals the War Powers Act and requires Congressional approval for any deployment of US troops, along with a formal declaration of war.
9. An amendment that prohibits the government's use of the "states secrets" doctrine

Repeal the following: 

1. The Eleventh Amendment (state immunity)
2. The Sixteenth Amendment (never actually ratified in the first place)


Let me explain my logic in regards to this recent request for a new constitution.


In my opinion, the constitution has been completely warped and twisted to mean whatever a few unelected, life-termed lawyers want it to mean, and we seem more worried about which political party gets to appoint the next judges, rather than recognizing the fact that the Supreme court is fundamentally broken, and thus the constitution itself is fundamentally broken.

This Congress continues to expand the role of the federal government, with practically no limitations whatsoever. The fundamental relationship between the federal government and the states has been completely undermined partly because of an automatic association of states rights with slavery, bigotry, racism, etc. We have an immigration situation that is simply impossible to solve, and the federal government refuses to even enforce its own immigration policy. The two main political parties have created an effective monopoly over the political landscape and public policy, where we constantly play the "us vs them" game, even at the detriment of ourselves, and this country.

We have more than 700 foreign military bases, we have hundreds of thousands of American troops stationed all over the world, and we can't seem to change our foreign policy of aggression, regardless of who is in charge. Nearly half of the people in prisons in this country are there because of the war on drugs. This country seems to slowly be tearing itself apart, as people seem to be moving further apart in their ideologies. We are obsessed with federal politics, because we are absolutely of the "other guys", and what they want to do to "change" this country.



At first I believed that we could fix our problems by maybe changing the election system. But that is a waste of time. You cannot change the election system, because the two parties who are in power, would have too much to lose if you changed the election system.

I thought maybe we could pass some amendments, to do something about the Supreme Court, and their perversions of the constitution. But the problem is that, we have been split up into two camps. And when our side "wins" in the Supreme Court, we tell the "losers" to stop whining about the Supreme Court. But then when our side "loses" in the Supreme Court, and we start whining, the other guys tells us to stop whining. And each time the dynamic changes, each side forgets all about the previous ruling that we thought was completely wrong.

I thought maybe some state like Texas or California could attempt to stand up to federal authority. But, how do they do that? In the end, if Texas unilaterally attempted to stop enforcing some kind of federal law or mandate, say even something simple like the federal speed limit, or seatbelt laws. The federal government would just strip highway funding, or some other kind of funding. Right now, the federal government holds the pursestrings in this country, and the states economies are just too dependent on federal spending. They just can't afford to lose any federal spending at all. So the states have basically been relegated to almost powerless beggars, looking for their next federal handout, rather than standing up for their rights.

I thought maybe Texas could secede, that might wake this country up to the fact that the divisions in this country are getting worse, and that state interests are greatly diverging away from each other, and something needed to change to address those issues. But, the more I thought about secession, it seemed simply impossible. It would wreak absolute havoc on the economy, and would create such chaos, it could only be possible, if this country was already in some kind of really severe economic crisis(I'm talking worse than the great depression).

I thought maybe I could limit the powers of the Supreme Court, and fix some issues regarding immigration, by attempting to get rid of the 14th amendment. Which seemed possible because the 14th amendment was actually illegally proposed and ratified. But the 14th amendment is just too associated with slavery, and whether or not it was legal or not, if a politician even uttered a desire to repeal the 14th amendment in full, he would be blasted as basically racist, and it would never go anywhere.


Any attempt to do any of the above things is a complete waste of time, and you might as well not even discuss it.


So I thought, what can be done? What might the people actually get behind? What could I propose that would make the people in this country want to come together to solve this nations problems? A single amendment will never be passed, because a single amendment is but one topic, and it would be proposed by one of this nations factions against the other faction. But if everyone was able to basically come together and propose all of their amendments at once, in a public discussion. Well, that might actually be possible.

And calling for a new constitution doesn't require Congress, it doesn't require your elected officials to go along with. It won't be about democrats or republicans. There doesn't need to be political posturing. It is something that could happen by just a general out-pouring of a desire for a new constitution by the people of this country, within their own states.

It doesn't need to be racist, it doesn't need to be bigoted, it doesn't need to be absolutely anything. It can be something that people from all affiliations can come together to propose together.

And the great thing about the new constitution, is that from the perspective of the individual states, there is no way they can lose. And from the perspective of the individual, the worst-case scenario is that we would just keep what we have.

It would seem like an innocent opportunity to empower the people of this country to determine what their government should be to them. And in a sense, that is exactly what will happen. And even if we did end up with a new constitution, everyone could walk away believing that they ended up better off as a result. And this country might have some peace for a time.


Why are you opposed to a new constitution?

Last edited by Redshadowz; 11-10-2012 at 08:00 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top