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.
Why should a 200yr old legal text restrain the will of the people today,in 2010..?
It doesn't, any part of that document can be changed. You only need to get 38 states to agree to those changes.
The reasons for this have already been explained. The founding Fathers were very much aware of the issues about a majority (The British) holding so much power over a minority (Americans). What you consider a flaw is working as intended.
THAT won't happen until we have one man, one vote.
If 38 states agree you are in business, there is a loophole here. How a state allocates it's eectoral votes is up to them, If states that have 272 electoral votes total all agree to go by the popular vote then you can get around that. That has potential pitfalls. There is far more Conservative voters sitting home on election day in California and New York than Democrats in Montana and Kansas.
As for those founding fathers,they expressed their times...Now it is ...2010,not 1776...
I don't think you've quite thought this through to its logical conclusion. If we were a pure democracy, as opposed to a republic, the civil rights advances of the 1950's and 1960's would never have happened. The majority of white people would not have voted for the total elimination of legal segregation nor for the enforcement of equal protections and rights of minorities. If we were a democracy, slavery might not have been eliminated until much later, or women given the right to vote when they did. You seem to think that the great mass of people are socially enlightened and altruistic. They're not.
I think we should make Puerto Rico a state, divide it in half, give one half to China, the other half to Japan and call it even. The national debt would probably be paid in full.
An even better idea would be to disenfranchise eight of the least populous redneck havens and put them in territorial status. Instead of getting four times as much representation in congress, as the productive and progressive blue states, they would get none. Many of them should never have been given statehood in the first place. Environmental disaster areas, like the Dakotas, come first to mind. Financially bankrupt states like Kansas and Oklahoma, would be better off, if the Federal Government ran them. Those in cowboy country, such as Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, would never be missed as states.
Let Alaska secede completely. They'd love that up there. It would take them a long time to completely destroy their environment, even though they would work hard doing it. Make them pay us back all that Seward paid for them to the Russians, adjusted for cost-of-living and 8% compound interest since 1867, on the $7.2 million purchase price then.
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.
Hey! I know!
