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.
The amendment process is sufficient for dealing with all of the perceived "negatives" that you cited.
It may be. The hypothesis hasn't yet been tested, obviously. But in the view of many of those who have given the matter serious thought (I cited a good range in a post above), it is unlikely.
Though, to be fair to the opinions of those scholars I cited above, most do not believe that a fix is possible, short of a major crisis. Most, in their concluding chapters, admit to a degree of pessimism about the possibility of an improved system.
Quote:
What liberals want to do is circumvent the constitution so that they can implement their socialist ideals without the consent of the several states, or the people.
You are obviously a fanatical reactionary, so I while I reply to you, I address others:
In the admittedly unlikely event that a new constitutional convention were ever assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the existing constitution or, as in 1787, in defiance of it out of necessity, it would inevitably require the participation and agreement of at least the moderate elements of both wings of the political spectrum. If defies logic to suppose that one party or political tendency would successfully be able to impose its will on the rest for the purpose of designing a new constitution. Inevitably, just as with the Madisonian construct, a third constitution would be the product of great compromise and greater good will.
In my opinion, while I believe a third constitution would be in the interests of the American people, I do not believe we will see such a thing in our lifetime. I think it's far more likely that the dysfunction of the Madisonian design will continue along the same path it's traveled for the last half-century or more: toward an ever-more imperial presidency out of sheer necessity.
Our constitution - meaning the actual system of government rather than the text of 1787 - has become a plebiscitary elective monarchy, checked only by the twin brakes of public opinion and the inefficiency of the legislative branch. This is exactly the opposite of what the Madisonian design intended. In short, we have already "given up our constitution" - the only question is whether we will continue to function under it's imperial replacement, or adopt a new model in order to restore the old intention.
What they didn't (could not have) expected, was that the confederation would increase from 13 to 50 units, and that gaining the agreement of 38 separate legislatures would therefore be vastly more difficult than gaining the consent of ten.
What?
Are you kidding me?
Do you honestly think that our founding fathers were ignorant about the size of the continent on which they founded the new republic, and did not forsee that it's people would eventually inhabit it?
Have you not read the provisions for the creation of new states, that is clearly prescribed in the constitution?
It's threads like this which make me realize that the hatred opposing parties have for one another is too blinding, and the people simply too stupid, for us to make progress on anything. Naturally, you all act this way without realizing that the elected representatives who can't get anything done are nothing more than a reflection of yourselves.
The logic of the entire thread is flawed to begin with. It starts with an over-reaction beleaguered further into a bunch of logical fallacies with a little bit of name-calling. I ask, "What purpose does this serve other to incite furor to the other side while satiating one's own narcissistic need for attention?"
The first logical fallacy is taking one "op-ed" article and then casting it as the thought of virtually every liberal, democrat, progressive, or person who didn't buy ammunition on Christmas week. Hasty generalizations are typically notorious for basing broad conclusions on some small piece of data. In this case, one article serves as the basis for the OP's sweeping generalization of anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh.
The more prevalent truth is that the Constitution is probably best considered something like Schrodinger's cat: Both alive and dead at the same time. Everyone with an agenda (left or right) wishes to manipulate it to their favor to get something they want. When convenient, they also like to think of the document as "Back when they wrote it, it meant...." as though the sweeping generalizations made were for the times and for those times only. But, oh yeah, they were also forward thinking enough to apply it to modern day (when convenient) and when there's something that one of us wants.
This is very noticeable in the Right's insistence that the "right to bear arms" (I always think of some guy with the arms of a grizzly bear when I hear that) means that any weapon one can get, regardless of destructive power, is their right to own as if Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were sitting around drawing DaVinci-esque portraits of SCUD missiles, nuclear weapons, and Apache helicopters as they wrote the Second Amendment.
On the other hand, the left has gone a little too far in its sense of duty to provide the population with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (this references the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution, but is probably the easiest way to define the philosophical purpose of government the Constitution was framed upon). I believe strongly that without government, the lawless and selfish would be free to do as they pleased to those who could not defend themselves or refused to sink to that level.
The general population seems to think the Constitution is a document in which we must go about looking at a two or three-hundred year old text (like it was the Bible - another ridiculously ancient text with little bearing on modern day) and filter through it for the exact answers to everything. The reality is that the Constitution is like a skeleton. It's the crude framework for a much more intricate and detailed work. The sooner we realize that not every answer lies in the bodies of work of ancient men, the quicker we can move on as a society.
This does not mean we should throw the Constitution out the window. It does not mean that we should abandon it totally or give up on it or forget about it. I simply mean that when we look at it, we need not look at it as this infallible piece of documentation that could never be changed because it was divinely written. It was written by men - as fallible and prone to error as any one of us.
Then, there's the whole issue of this name calling where anyone who disagrees with anyone is suddenly a "Nazi." First of all, it's probably very offensive to those still living and who experienced the great tragedies and horrors of having been victimized by the Nazi's to hear that every trivial matter on this planet has been relegated down to the level of the Nazi's. It's a weak argument and becomes more or less the same as someone using racial epithets because they don't have a real argument against a person. The truth is that if one looked hard enough, they could find some sort of similarity to the Nazi's in virtually everything. Have a house on a mountaintop??? Oh.... So did Hitler! Black mustache? Obviously a member of the Third Reich! Want to expand medical care? Yup. That's just the government's way of becoming more "Nazi-esque."
Again, those are arguments for those who cannot justify their rationale and they hide behind it in the same way that people used to hide behind "the devil." Don't like music or dancing? Just call it "of the devil" and that'll command everyone's attention. Don't like that man, woman, or child. Just call them "of the devil" and guess what? You've just given yourself the excuse not to ever associate yourself with that person. It's a cowardly way of arguing and is all too prevalent on irrational threads such as this.
But, go on throwing out the logical fallacies, calling people Nazi's when they're not, or finding communism/socialism beneath every branch, rock, and tree stump of the government. And when you throw up your hands in frustration at why our government can't get anything done, don't you dare look to yourself and ask, "Why are these people such idiots?" It's precisely because idiots seeing Nazi's in everything elected them. Our representatives in government are a very good reflecting tool of the general population and it's pretty sad and pathetic to see our Congress act the same way as the people on this forum and neither has any idea what's wrong.
This amendment, though probably not an issue today, could be someday. But more importantly, there is no practical reason to go through the amendment process to remove it. It is a waste of time, energy, and money. It causes no harm whatsoever to leave it as is.
This sounds like an excuse to circumvent the constitution without going through the proper channels(the amendment process).
Please tell me that I am wrong in perceiving your post as saying as much.
I would hope that you aren't an opponent of the constitution - which the adherence to, maintains our liberty.
It may be. The hypothesis hasn't yet been tested, obviously. But in the view of many of those who have given the matter serious thought (I cited a good range in a post above), it is unlikely.
Though, to be fair to the opinions of those scholars I cited above, most do not believe that a fix is possible, short of a major crisis. Most, in their concluding chapters, admit to a degree of pessimism about the possibility of an improved system.
You are obviously a fanatical reactionary, so I while I reply to you, I address others:
In the admittedly unlikely event that a new constitutional convention were ever assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the existing constitution or, as in 1787, in defiance of it out of necessity, it would inevitably require the participation and agreement of at least the moderate elements of both wings of the political spectrum. If defies logic to suppose that one party or political tendency would successfully be able to impose its will on the rest for the purpose of designing a new constitution. Inevitably, just as with the Madisonian construct, a third constitution would be the product of great compromise and greater good will.
In my opinion, while I believe a third constitution would be in the interests of the American people, I do not believe we will see such a thing in our lifetime. I think it's far more likely that the dysfunction of the Madisonian design will continue along the same path it's traveled for the last half-century or more: toward an ever-more imperial presidency out of sheer necessity.
Our constitution - meaning the actual system of government rather than the text of 1787 - has become a plebiscitary elective monarchy, checked only by the twin brakes of public opinion and the inefficiency of the legislative branch. This is exactly the opposite of what the Madisonian design intended. In short, we have already "given up our constitution" - the only question is whether we will continue to function under it's imperial replacement, or adopt a new model in order to restore the old intention.
I fully agree with your last paragraph, however i think that you misunderstand me in your discourse throughout the preceding paragraphs.
My post was meant to communicate the intentions of the Democrat Party - to subvert and ignore the constitution - and instead, pass legislation that is unconstitutional, but nonetheless, subscribes to their socialistic ideals.
A constitutional convention is not neccesary, only a return to constitutional adherence, and if the republic decides that the constitution is not sufficient - the amendment process is available, as is a call for a new constitutional convention.
Circumvention of the constitution by liberal Congressional, presidential, or Supreme Court fiat is NOT acceptable.
The first logical fallacy is taking one "op-ed" article and then casting it as the thought of virtually every liberal, democrat, progressive, or person who didn't buy ammunition on Christmas week. Hasty generalizations are typically notorious for basing broad conclusions on some small piece of data. In this case, one article serves as the basis for the OP's sweeping generalization of anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh.
Aren't you comitting a logical fallacy and making a hasty generalization right here in this paragraph, while at the same time denigrating the practice of such?
any system will work if there are morals on both sides of what is supposed to be an understood mutual advantage for finding a rational approach...not a feelings thing. So
There's very little evidence that they intended for constitutional amendment to require such an impossible consensus.
Little evidence except for the procedure in the written and signed and adopted Constitution itself, where said consensus is laid out in detail. But I guess them actually writing out the procedure and then signing off on it doesn't actually prove that they supported such a consensus?
And this "impossible" concensus has been achieved 27 times, which argues that it really isn't impossible at all, is it? Considering the most recent one was adopted in the 90s, which means it was adopted with 3/4 of the 50 states approval. So much for "impossible."
The general population seems to think the Constitution is a document in which we must go about looking at a two or three-hundred year old text (like it was the Bible - another ridiculously ancient text with little bearing on modern day) and filter through it for the exact answers to everything. The reality is that the Constitution is like a skeleton. It's the crude framework for a much more intricate and detailed work. The sooner we realize that not every answer lies in the bodies of work of ancient men, the quicker we can move on as a society.
My copy of the constitution sits right next to the Bible on my bookshelf.
What better texts could one consult?
The Qur'an or the Book of Mormon?
I own copies of both of those too.
I am not a Muslim nor a Mormon.
I did vote for a Mormon last year - based on his philosphy of governance - not because of his religion.
Mitt Romney would have been a great president.
Too bad 4 million(the population of Los Angeles) people chose wrongly.
On the other hand, the left has gone a little too far in its sense of duty to provide the population with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (this references the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution, but is probably the easiest way to define the philosophical purpose of government the Constitution was framed upon). I believe strongly that without government, the lawless and selfish would be free to do as they pleased to those who could not defend themselves or refused to sink to that level.
You are obviously describing liberals and other associates of the Democrat Party.
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.
