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.
I still might go for a parliamentary form of government like England has...and I've never said that until lately. But basically the Constitution works EXCEPT for the way the Supreme Court is filled.
Trouble with a parliamentary form of government is that when one party holds the majority of Parliamentary seats there is effectively no check on the PM except his or her own party in caucus or the Queen. Both are "meltdown" scenarios and are rarely exercised. The last one was Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien being turfed by Paul Martin. Paul Martin was reduced to a minority in the next election, June 28 or 29, 2004 and defeated in the January 2006 elections. Thatcher was turfed in a leadership struggle by John Major in 1991. He was re-elected once and then defeated by Tony Blari's Labour Party.
Basically the same as the French Revolution and of the Enlightenment...and somewhat similar to where England was headed, but they had too much old history to change. They had the ideas, but could only go so far because of limited land and tradition and colonialism.
The French Revolution "ideas" were basically to create rivers of blood. I prefer the English and American models.
Don't lose your head over the French revolutionary ideals.
I do think the Constitution is working. Amendments have rectified most of the glaring problems. The fact that an election delivers a result you don't expect or like does not indicate non-functionality.
I am talking primarily about the ever-growing level of partisan strife by the two main "factions".
The portion of your post that most interested me was what I bolded. For some reason it triggered in me this somewhat ill-defined notion I have long held that it's ludicrous for us -- whether we are conservatives or liberals -- to think we have any real understanding of what the founders of our nation really had in mind. After all, to begin with, the Founding Fathers did not speak in one voice. There were radically different opinions about how our government should work.
Perhaps the best example of our inability to understand the time when the founding was beginning is an historical event that had nothing do with governing. Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings. It's clear Jefferson had a sexual relationship with Sally, but we know little about the long-lasting affair, know nothing about how either person was thinking, and we have very little ability to understand it as it occurred in its own time frame.
And I don't think that official white papers about our form of government by dozens of different Founding Fathers really matters much. It isn't the 1770s any more. Hell, I've seen many Americans flummoxed when they visit a foreign country day and can't survive in a slightly different modern culture. And unless one is prancing around in a long white powdering wig and wearing clothes that Dickens would have been comfortable in, any idea that we today understand the way Americans thought or even acted in the 1770s is absurd. Tom Jefferson had no concept of nuclear missiles. George Washington fell right in with the forces that would lead to the Civil War and Jim Crow and all the indignities that led to the Civil Rights Era (which we're still in).
I love history. Love visiting historical battlefields and homes and institutions. But rarely do I feel that we should exchange our own realities for the realities of two and a half centuries ago. It simply isn't logical.
You are right, there was diversity of opinion. My point of reference is the Federalist Papers. The Election of 1800 changed everything. Even Madison became a Jeffersonian Democrat!
I am talking primarily about the ever-growing level of partisan strife by the two main "factions".
Democracy in any form, and freedom, depend on a good deal of maturity and self-control. Both are based upon the idea of some self-abnegation for the public good. More paternalist, mercantilist or authoritarian systems, even European-style social democracy, is centered on people being told what to do.
It's not the Constitution that fails to work; its the people who shirk their responsibilities.
Only with great difficulty. The Constitution provides the plan for a limited government. It vest rights in the people, not the government. The Bill of Rights individual lists right the government may not infringe.
The Left is collective. The majority trumps the minority in all things. 50.1% is absolute rule in all matters. Equality trumps freedom, which is what the Constitution's amendments are all about. Equality, except before the law, in not of the Constitution.
So the Left, in its current and future form, has to stand on its head to reconcile the Constitution to itself.
Personally, I don’t think we should label ourselves by party affiliations. In taking various on line tests, it says I lean pretty hard libertarian. However I really don’t agree with many of the libertarian positions regarding such lax regulation of business, especially larger corporations. I hope we all evaluate each issue important to our lives as thoroughly as possible and which party supports that position only becomes important after doing that. I get the feeling now that, for whatever reason, people just seem to apply the label and support whatever agenda comes with it, many times not knowing whether it’s a sensible position, because they let someone else figure it out for them.
Maybe I’m just getting cynical in my old age but my values aren’t reflected in any major party. I’m a very strict constitutionalist, that means the second amendment too, but I’m probably a social liberal. I’d like to see drugs decriminalized and jails reserved for people who commit fraud or exercise violence again others. I support a woman’s decision regarding pregnancy, although I find abortion personally distasteful and late term abortions repugnant.
I think the federal government is a monstrosity grown far beyond what the founders’ worst nightmares could have envisioned. Some states are just as bad. I do not believe in the benevolence of private enterprise. I believe companies at the best, reflect the value of a person or family intent on serving the community and market they serve; at worst, they are psychpathic monstrosities that need to be chained to prevent them from plundering the world and it’s inhabitants.
Anyway, $0.02. I hope we all look carefully at each issue as it impacts ourselves, our family, friends and communities, not just because some group pushes a particular position on the issue.
Only with great difficulty. The Constitution provides the plan for a limited government. It vest rights in the people, not the government. The Bill of Rights individual lists right the government may not infringe.
The Left is collective. The majority Trumps the minority in all things. 50.1% is absolute rule in all matters. Equality Trumps freedom, which is what the Constitution's amendments are all about. Equality, except before the law, in not of the Constitution.
So the Left, in its current and future form, has to stand on its head to reconcile the Constitution to itself.
Well I consider myself such a liberal. And I highlighted my vocabulary question in view of modern meanings of that word.
It has always baffled me, as to why in the prevailing American consciousness, one speaks of laws and rights and principles as being Constitutional or Unconstitutional, rather than fundamentally right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable, useful or useless. There is such incredible veneration for the Constitution, as if it were written by a divine finger on stone tablets, such that the only remaining debate is about the interpretation of the Constitution, and not whether its essence is or is not sensible.
I am staunchly liberal, in that I believe that no document, no set of laws or mores or values, is immutable or an essential postulate. All laws and value-systems are conditional, tentative and situational. This does not mean that we ought to rewrite our laws annually, or hold a referendum on any conceivable matter, or agitate for change merely for change's sake. Traditions matter, and over time, workable traditions acquire a particular gravity and prestige. But even the most valued traditions are not holy. They are not infallible. They don't give us license to dispense with basic evaluation as to whether some law, some right or some privilege, should be judged on its own principles, as opposed to its concordance with said tradition.
By way of example, there is vehement debate regarding, say, abortion. Well, the question seems to be, as to whether abortion is or is not constitutional. Is there a constitutional right-to-life for the embryo/fetus? Is there a constitutional right for the prospective mother to deal with her body as she sees fit? And regardless of how we go on those questions, does the Constitution give the federal government the power to decide this things, or does that power devolve to the States? What about privacy - is that in the Constitution? And should what we think of the Constitution, change as medical science advances?
My point here isn't to advance either the pro-life or pro-choice cause, but to note, that the debate is invariably framed in terms of what the Constitution does or does not say. Both parties in the debate appeal to the Constitution to justify their position. I think that this is foolish and silly. The appeal should be to fundamental discussion of what it means to be human, and not to what the "founding fathers" managed to converge in their own debates. What the Constitution offers, is a background guide for framing the debate. But instead, the debate seems to be a kind of religious exegesis, into what the hallowed Text does or does not intend.
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.
