The Founding Fathers Screwed Up (polls, Obama, revolution, independence)
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.
If the American Founders "screwed up", it was by underestimating the factors of westward expansion and continued advances in technology, and with those factors in mind, by not articulating more specifically in the actual text of the Constitution how they expected it to be interpreted as time wore on.
First and foremost, many of the internal troubles the U.S. is experiencing now come down to the fact that it has far exceeded both the conditions in and for which the Constitution was written, and the Founders' vision for what could be.
When the Founding Fathers made up the Constitution and Bill of Rights and all the other founding documents, they forgot to set up a way to disband the arrangement if or when things didn't work out. Apparently the only way to reset the clock or to dissolve the government and start over is by armed insurrection. Which is of course illegal.
Or did I miss something?
Yep, you missed something, a lot actually.
The didn't forget because the concept put forth was:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
as a result there is no recognition, by the Framers of the Constitution, of any right explicit or implied for the disunion of the republic.
However, that dos not preclude the nations voluntary disunion and the Constitution can be invalidated in the very same manner in which it was created and the Articles of Confederation were dissolved by a constitutional convention and ratification by The People as a whole.
That's why we vote. That's why we get involved in politics.
Your problem is that if the majority of our elected officials don't do what YOU want, then they're not doing their job.
Why vote? IF I did vote it would be for a third party. Yet the way the system is set up there is NO way that someone from a third party can be elected. So yeah I can say I voted but, did it make any REAL difference? No. So until we change the way we vote my vote & other's who like the green, third party, etc. will never see someone we want in office. We have to change the system before any REAL change is able to take place. This will never happen.
Why vote? IF I did vote it would be for a third party. Yet the way the system is set up there is NO way that someone from a third party can be elected.
What part of the "system" needs to be changed and by whom? I really need to know because from my perspective all the chatter about the need for a third party comes from the people who don't seemed interested in actually building one. Political parties don't just appear out of the ether and there are dozens of political parties other than the Democrats and the GOP, pick one or start a new one, problem solved.
What part of the "system" needs to be changed and by whom? I really need to know because from my perspective all the chatter about the need for a third party comes from the people who don't seemed interested in actually building one. Political parties don't just appear out of the ether and there are dozens of political parties other than the Democrats and the GOP, pick one or start a new one, problem solved.
I don't see anyone from the two parties offering up anything new just the same crap. The entire system needs to be re-worked. The two party system is failing to do anything but make things worse. No one wants to really give the third party a shot they don't like their ideas but yet the ones we get from the two parties are not having any effect. I keep hearing you should vote even if your person doesn't win at least it you tried. I like my odds of playing the lottery & winning better.
I don't see anyone from the two parties offering up anything new just the same crap.
What the two parties are offering up is irrelevant to the discussion. The "system" isn't failing anyone, if anything it is the people who are failing the "system!" Nothing precludes "the people" from rising up, forming in any of the existing alternative parties or starting yet a new one. Yes, the "system" places some technical obstacles to ballot access for minor parties but they are not insurmountable. Regarding the issue of voting, I get your frustration, but party building is not about what you do on election day, it is what you do in between elections that is far more important.
I really do like your ideas. But not this one. Limiting offices to those who are U.S. born deprives us of the talents of those who were born elsewhere but who have come to our country and become American, not just on paper but in their hearts. (How many people were born elsewhere but came here as babies, and thus America is the only land they've ever known?)
What I would do is specify a minimum age (e.g. 30 years old, as you have here) and then say that the person must have been a United States citizen for at least that long. Thus, I would word your amendment as follows:
All members of any federal court must have been a citizen of the United States for at least 30 years.
I guess you might be right. I guess being an American citizen for a certain number of years should be enough, plus the age thing.
Limiting offices to those who are U.S. born deprives us of the talents of those who were born elsewhere but who have come to our country and become American,
The only offices limited to natural born citizens are the office of President and Vice-President.
I think it would do us all well to re-read Federalist #10, written by James Madison, under the name of "Publius". If you take the time to read this (i will not give it away), it may occur to you that what Madison feared most "factions" (political parties) has come to pass. But I don't think what he ever could have foreseen was the joining of the rich and poor into a single faction to advance the the self-interest of the rich in the two houses of Congress.
This unholy alliance could not have been predicted. At least that is my belief. But remember, the Founding Fathers also believed that the members of Congress would be a better sort of people, who would not promote the interests of factionalism.
Madison's own fears were quickly realized in the election of 1800 with the creation and victory of the Jeffersonian Democratic party in the Presidential election. (Thomas Jefferson beat John Adams). The irony of this was that Madison had become a member of this party by that time. The conflict between the Jeffersonian Democrats and, for want of a better term, the Federalists, (which actually was not a political party) also lead to the break-up of the close personal relationship between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, until later in the lives when they once more became close friends (as reflected in their letters). Their letters are well worth reading to gain insight into the intellectual currents of the period in which the Constitution was written and the era of the first political conflict after the Constitution was ratified.
What the two parties are offering up is irrelevant to the discussion. The "system" isn't failing anyone, if anything it is the people who are failing the "system!" Nothing precludes "the people" from rising up, forming in any of the existing alternative parties or starting yet a new one. Yes, the "system" places some technical obstacles to ballot access for minor parties but they are not insurmountable. Regarding the issue of voting, I get your frustration, but party building is not about what you do on election day, it is what you do in between elections that is far more important.
How are WE The People failing the system? What has the system done for us? Did you know that if NO ONE voted someone would still be elected? Now tell me again how it's the people's fault. The media is also to blame when it comes to giving those of the third party, they refuse to give them the time when it comes to debates, etc. Much of the third party member don't have the money that the two parties do, only because they are not under the thumb of big corporations. Which is another reason why the two party system isn't working. They are not serving the people anymore only themselves.
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.
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.
Reply
