Imagine - A new Constitution

Actually, the meaning of the words which comprise our Constitution should be clearly understood to have but one meaning to both those who have been empowered to govern and those who have consented to be governed by the laws that THEY, the governed have consented to be governed by.

Yes, change takes place constantly, but the laws by which we are governed at the Federal, State, and local levels should emerge through a democratic process, beginning at the local levels, by the people who find them necessary, then also at the State level and more broadly defined allowing leeway in exercise to remain at the local level, also as the result of a democratic process by the governed, and only at the Federal level through the process of a Constitutional amendment, involving both the people and the States giving their consent.

It's unclear just how you intend the word "This", above to be interpreted. The colors, Red and Blue, are usually employed to represent which political party received a majority support, curiously with Republican as Red, and Democrat as Blue, while Rich versus Poor is irrationally implied to be equated to Republican Rich and Democrat Poor, and I assume you are also implying Local to Republican and Federal to Democrat.
Beyond that, I'm at a loss trying to determine what you are claiming to be phenomenal, although I do agree that a rift is and has been created by those who govern us by reinterpreting the words of the U.S. Constitution by appointing activist Supreme Court Justices who allow changes empowering government to occur without need of consent by the governed other than the election process which seldom, if ever, has provided a genuine mandate of the people relating to any single issue.

Constitutional amendments are the best way to achieve changes which are satisfactory to the greatest majority of those who are governed. But I do not propose a need for making numerous changes to the Constitution, but instead confining the Federal government to no more than what was allowed it under the Constitution. Government should not be allowed to become the new religion, with a democratically elected God-head.

 

You know, I really don,t know why I fucking bother !




:beatdeadhorse5:

 

Just exactly what is it you're trying to accomplish that you feel is not getting the acceptance you would like?

 

Indie

Oh hell Indie we have been through this thousands of times just ignoring criticism does not make it go away you know.

When the first constitution was written the ‘governed’ the ‘people’ had little input, with only about 10% of the ‘people’ having any vote.

Also you have suggested that wealth be given extra voting power so it could block the vote of the majority of ‘the people’.

But you have argued against even seemed contemptuous of ‘the democratic process’ and have suggested that wealth be given extra voting power so it could block the vote of the majority of ‘the people’

 

Bal,
Oh Hell, Bal, I have often tossed around some ideas in an attempt to get others to look beneath the surface of what they propose, not that I support the implementation. After all this time, you still seem to have no idea at all of how I see our government, that of the U.S.A., should work to the benefit of, and with the consent of, the governed.

When the Constitution was first written, the Federal government had very little involvement in the daily life of the citizens of each State that became a member of the United States.

Considering that much of government today involves taking money from some in order to provide for a growing number of others, more persons vote based on which parties candidate is offering them the most with someone else bearing the cost, we have seen Federal debt increase dramatically, with a devaluation of our currency and constantly rising cost of living as a consequence.

I have and will continue to argue against a democratic process being employed which allows a simple majority or even a small minority of the people to impose upon the population as a whole.

Why are you not arguing for Brussels to be the single source of laws and regulations applicable to all the European Union States, elimination of the British Pound and making the Euro the sole currency of EU States?

 

Indie

Oh Hell Indie we have been through this thousands of times – virtually all your ideas would increase the power and influence of wealth. You seem to work want to work for the benefit of wealth. A criticism you repeatedly deny but have so far been totally unable to refute.
As to the ‘consent of the governed’ you say that but the ideas that come into your head like the suggestion that wealth should have greater voting power so it can block the wishes of the majority.

I have done (although I also argue for reform and a different type of EU, and Brussels would not be the 'single source') and if you actually read my posts you’d know that I’ve often advocated the move toward world governance.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=2775208#post2775208

 

Oh Hell, Bal, you are just unwilling to learn from what my ideas, actually more or less the ideas of many of the founders of our Nation are, and they have nothing to do with increasing the power and influence of wealth, which I've yet to see a form of government where wealth is kept from having any influence.

If the wishes of the majority are simply to impose upon the minority, then yes, I feel that is a misuse of democracy.

Based on that, there appears to be little, if anything at all, we could mutually agree to or achieve a mutually acceptable compromise on.

 

Indie

LOL it’s not unwillingness, I’ve been trying to debate with you for over two years and you have spent 90% of that time evading debate, you are now. I’ve asked you to explain your views many times and they all end up with you wanting to vastly increase the power and influence of wealth.

As pointed out this may actually be in line with how the US was set up at the ‘founding’ with only around 10% of people having the vote (based on a property vilification) and entry into office in many places being reserved for only the very wealthy.

What minority are you talking about? As I’ve pointed out to you many times at the ‘founding’ slavery was normal in fact some ‘founders’ were slave owners. And as I’ve explained to you many times a political system dominated by wealth will rule in its own interests to the detriment of others. As I’ve told you many many times I advocate a system that is balanced but you seem to want one that would vastly favour wealth, I keep asking why you want that but all I’ve got in over two years is evasion.

I REPEAT for what seems the hundred thousandth time

I DON’T CARE IF YOU AGREE WITH ME OR NOT, I’M TRYING TO WORK OUT WHY YOU PROMOTE IDEAS THAT YOU SEEM COMPLETELY AND UNTTERLY UNABLE TO DEFEND FROM CRITICISM IN ANY RATIONAL OR REASONABLE WAY.

AGAIN I ASK WHY?

(and please don’t insult us with the old line about you having done so because we all know that’s bullshit).

 

Like I said Bal :beatdeadhorse5:LOL !

 

a new constitution cannot be imagined until we Rift into
a new context . i've suggested the New West as that context ,
allowing the historical U.S. constitution will carry on in the East .

line drawn . constitutional council convened . foreign relations is
the immediate organic concern .

in my turn to speak i'll say ' let us make no treaties so that no nation
be favored above another ' . commitments are just .

 

The thought of having our current "leaders" in the Senate and Congress drafting a new Constitution scares the shit out of me. I'd rather get nuked by North Korea.

 

now you want the West verses the East ?


no 'versus' about it . there is no
game .

eastward , there lives an eerie madness . west is irie .
the great river rises betwixt us , and it will serve for the
moment as national defense .

otherwisely ,
no tariffs no treaties no retribution . the U.S. Constitution gives
no positive guidence in international affairs . the relationship to
other nations is the first concern of a new nation .

do not use the U.S. Constitution as a template .

 

Just got frustrated at the lack of 'vision' or idealism among you and your other Posters . Seemed to me that you were all being too cautious in expessing what it is you each want to see in specific terms (content). The other issue was , apparent to me at least, a general fear of the process in progressing your cause , again from everyone discussing the Threads subject.

Given my ignorance of your constitution & political system I was trying to envisage a method by which content might evolve as you progressed it thru your existing political structure ,maybe using a popularist approach to encourage participation . I don't think Ive anything useful to contribute to this subject.

 

What I see is a growing human population, made up of individuals, who are similar in many ways yet different in many ways also. Governments work quite well when those they govern closely agree on the methods by which they are governed, which is why I began this thread with some words from George Mason. The U.S.A. in it's founding attempted to provide a basis for people to 'self govern' beginning with their local governments, which they could become most closely involved with. Disputes with adjacent local governments could be resolved most easily at the next higher level of government allowing the people more direct contact with those who would create the laws and regulations to be more mutually acceptable to all, and disputes between larger areas comprising larger populations would be resolved working WITH those governed and with their majority consent.

In my opinion there is no single vision or definition of idealism suitable or acceptable to govern a people who differ greatly in so many ways from one another, but also have to contend with and adapt to environments and available resources which are quite different.

No small group of elected politicians, centrally located, can be aware of, much less make rational decisions, related to all the variables that exist in each and every local community and create laws and regulations which are in the best interests of all in their application.

Sovereignty of a free people begins first and foremost with the individual, and NOT with the Federal government. A truly 'free' people are free not only to succeed, but also to fail, and a society is strongest and most unified when help is provided those who are experiencing difficulty, willingly from within the society and NOT through a central government agency.

 

Yep, I can Imagine a "new constitution" Just like I can imagine a new world order that will make Hitler's Germany & Stalinist Russia seem like Anarchy by comparison!

 

isn't truly free an idealism ? so , yes , let's dispense
with that notion ... well , half of it . would you prefer truly
or free ? or maybe freely true is a more applicable idea
when considering redesigning the purpose of govt . since the
sense of it is free to all and it's fundamental intent is relational
to all .

freely true opposes deception and manipulation .

 

Free, in the sense that they, the governed, hold the reins of power, and not those elected, or appointed, through interpretation of the powers granted them over the people.

 

a people will value good information and co-ordination . power
is not required to deliver it . power is employed for coercion .