Hi all, Senior in HS and trying to understand

[Boss]

So what is the Supreme Court for? Why did the founding fathers institute it as our highest court if not to interpret our rights, as laid out in the constitution? You act as if the court can just write law on a whim. Your disappointment at some of their rulings doesn't mean they operate contrary to the rules as laid out by the constitution.

I think they've been operating contrary to the rules laid out in the constitution since Marbury v. Madison. Yes, in many cases they do effectively write law from the bench and that's NOT what the framers ever intended. We have a legislative branch for that.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to settle disputes over conflicting constitutional rights. The framers realized there would be instances where this could happen and they felt the most fair way to settle it was through a supreme court of the land.

So you agree that they are the final arbiters of what the constitution says. Their opinion of what it says is the overruling authority for what is constitutional or not, regardless of any other opinions.

I don't agree they are supposed to "interpret" what the Constitution means. That has already been done and it can be found by reading the Federalist Papers. Their job is to APPLY the interpretation already determined by the framers. Their arbitration is supposed to be limited to determining which constitutional rights supersede others on a case-by-case basis. They have often overstepped their authority.

 

[Boss]

The federalist papers are nothing more than negotiating points before a contract is signed. The contract, or in this case, the Constitution is all that matters. Sorry someone told you different. They were wrong.

No sir. You are completely wrong. The Federalist Papers WERE the argument for the measures outlined in the Constitution. They are not subject to negotiation. At the time they were written a counter-argument was made by the Anti-Federalists and their arguments did not prevail. Sorry if someone told you different. THEY were wrong.

 

[norwegen]

Welcome, 18.

Just a note: don't read Emily's posts unless you have a pot of coffee and a big stogie.

 

[Boss]

Congress is certainly free to rewrite the laws any time they want, but those rewritten laws still have to pass the Supreme court's opinion if those laws are acceptable. Until they do rewrite those laws in a constitutionally acceptable way, The SC rulings are final. That's the way the founding fathers set it up. Sorry it doesn't work the way you want it to.

No they don't. There is absolutely NO provision for the SCOTUS to approve or disapprove legislation by Congress. Someone can challenge legislation and it can make it's way to the SCOTUS if the SCOTUS opts to hear the case. SCOTUS rulings are certainly NOT final, if they were, slaves would still be considered property and it would be perfectly okay to intern Japanese-Americans or any citizen without due process.

 

[BULLDOG]

So what is the Supreme Court for? Why did the founding fathers institute it as our highest court if not to interpret our rights, as laid out in the constitution? You act as if the court can just write law on a whim. Your disappointment at some of their rulings doesn't mean they operate contrary to the rules as laid out by the constitution.

I think they've been operating contrary to the rules laid out in the constitution since Marbury v. Madison. Yes, in many cases they do effectively write law from the bench and that's NOT what the framers ever intended. We have a legislative branch for that.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to settle disputes over conflicting constitutional rights. The framers realized there would be instances where this could happen and they felt the most fair way to settle it was through a supreme court of the land.

So you agree that they are the final arbiters of what the constitution says. Their opinion of what it says is the overruling authority for what is constitutional or not, regardless of any other opinions.

I don't agree they are supposed to "interpret" what the Constitution means. That has already been done and it can be found by reading the Federalist Papers. Their job is to APPLY the interpretation already determined by the framers. Their arbitration is supposed to be limited to determining which constitutional rights supersede others on a case-by-case basis. They have often overstepped their authority.

I completely understand that is what you believe. Unfortunately, for you, you are wrong. Which part of the constitution binds interpretation of the constitution, in any way, to the federalist papers? That document is self supporting and complete.

 

[BULLDOG]

The federalist papers are nothing more than negotiating points before a contract is signed. The contract, or in this case, the Constitution is all that matters. Sorry someone told you different. They were wrong.

No sir. You are completely wrong. The Federalist Papers WERE the argument for the measures outlined in the Constitution. They are not subject to negotiation. At the time they were written a counter-argument was made by the Anti-Federalists and their arguments did not prevail. Sorry if someone told you different. THEY were wrong.

OK. When I got a divorce, I wrote down what I wanted and she wrote down what she wanted. We negotiated and the final agreement is all that mattered. Neither of those lists mean anything. Same principle.

 

[Boss]

I completely understand that is what you believe. Unfortunately, for you, you are wrong. Which part of the constitution binds interpretation of the constitution, in any way, to the federalist papers? That document is self supporting and complete.

Well I'm not wrong and you've not proven me wrong. Nothing needs to "bind" the Constitution to the papers which define what it means. That's like arguing the Webster's Dictionary doesn't "bind" a word to what it means. If you're not going to adhere to what the Federalist Papers articulate as the meaning then the Constitution virtually has no meaning at all.

 

[Boss]

The federalist papers are nothing more than negotiating points before a contract is signed. The contract, or in this case, the Constitution is all that matters. Sorry someone told you different. They were wrong.

No sir. You are completely wrong. The Federalist Papers WERE the argument for the measures outlined in the Constitution. They are not subject to negotiation. At the time they were written a counter-argument was made by the Anti-Federalists and their arguments did not prevail. Sorry if someone told you different. THEY were wrong.

OK. When I got a divorce, I wrote down what I wanted and she wrote down what she wanted. We negotiated and the final agreement is all that mattered. Neither of those lists mean anything. Same principle.

No it's nowhere near the same principle.

 

[BULLDOG]

Congress is certainly free to rewrite the laws any time they want, but those rewritten laws still have to pass the Supreme court's opinion if those laws are acceptable. Until they do rewrite those laws in a constitutionally acceptable way, The SC rulings are final. That's the way the founding fathers set it up. Sorry it doesn't work the way you want it to.

No they don't. There is absolutely NO provision for the SCOTUS to approve or disapprove legislation by Congress. Someone can challenge legislation and it can make it's way to the SCOTUS if the SCOTUS opts to hear the case. SCOTUS rulings are certainly NOT final, if they were, slaves would still be considered property and it would be perfectly okay to intern Japanese-Americans or any citizen without due process.

You're just being silly now. Ask a junior high student if you can borrow his government textbook. Obviously you played hooky the week your teacher covered that.

 

[BULLDOG]

I completely understand that is what you believe. Unfortunately, for you, you are wrong. Which part of the constitution binds interpretation of the constitution, in any way, to the federalist papers? That document is self supporting and complete.

Well I'm not wrong and you've not proven me wrong. Nothing needs to "bind" the Constitution to the papers which define what it means. That's like arguing the Webster's Dictionary doesn't "bind" a word to what it means. If you're not going to adhere to what the Federalist Papers articulate as the meaning then the Constitution virtually has no meaning at all.

I doubt anyone could prove anything to you. Your mind is made up, and facts just confuse you. Believe what you want. I'm sure you will find lots of RWNJs that agree with your silly crap.

 

[Boss]

You're just being silly now. Ask a junior high student if you can borrow his government textbook. Obviously you played hooky the week your teacher covered that.

Well, I am not being silly and you are getting real close to violating the rules of this particular forum. If you want to argue about the Constitution, start a thread on it and we'll debate it. This forum is for us to cordially welcome newcomers and such.

 

[BULLDOG]

You're just being silly now. Ask a junior high student if you can borrow his government textbook. Obviously you played hooky the week your teacher covered that.

Well, I am not being silly and you are getting real close to violating the rules of this particular forum. If you want to argue about the Constitution, start a thread on it and we'll debate it. This forum is for us to cordially welcome newcomers and such.

Good advice for both of us. You'll note that I've done nothing but respond to your posts.

 

[Boss]

Good advice for both of us. You'll note that I've done nothing but respond to your posts.

Well... up until your last reply which was getting a bit personal. Yes, it's best if we both walk away now and save this debate for another forum and time.

 

[emilynghiem]

As you can see 18 and life, this isn't the place to look for fact. Unless you can weed through the derps who think opening a book is tantamount egging Jesus' house.

Yes and no IsaacNewton and 18 and Life
if you look at the thread Gay Marriage is not a Constitutional right
you will find Syriusly C_Clayton_Jones and Tennyson
both sorting through citing and comparing constitutional
law history and precedence. A lot of good arguments
and statements are being made on BOTH SIDES.

I recommend you start there, so you can see
a glimpse of what our Founding Fathers
argued about from federalists to antifederalists
pushing states rights to centralizing federal authority.

This is a microcosm of those same debates.
And all three are very fair and cite references worth looking into and learning.

 

[RWS]

Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
Here to learn!

Good for you! Are you going to school in a state that leans
towards states rights and away from dependence on federal govt?

The biggest split I see between liberals and conservatives,
Democrats and Republicans, is the difference in belief about the role of govt:

Conservative Constitutionalists tend toward the position that rights and responsibilities
belong with people first, then the state, and last the federal govt which
should only exercise authority within the limits of the Constitution,
and only gain more authority by amendment to the Constitution.
This notion of courts making laws by rulings, or executive orders to bypass the legislature,
is seen as abuse and overriding separation of powers and checks and balances.

People who don't put the Constitution first as the guideline and central standard,
can be more relative, and push for "any laws" passing as long as they go through
the given process through legislatures and courts --
i.e., pushing for govt to take on more responsibility for the people's welfare,
even at the expense of Constitutional restrictions, until and unless
the courts find otherwise, all that is needed is majority rule and it becomes law.

The worse problems with the two major parties is
exploiting the division in class between the poor (who
tend not to have experience or education in ownership so
that making and keeping them dependent on party or govt for help
makes them vulnerable to buy out their votes and lose their leverage to check govt),
and the rich who don't want to fund dependence on govt and massive bureaucracies
built around social programs poorly run by govt when private sector could do a better job.

So one is conditioned to fear corporate welfare and blame the rich for abusing govt,
while the other is conditioned to fear social welfare and blame the poor for abusing govt.

Both sides, instead of correcting these problems, deny them and try to push blame on the other
for political points.

Where we are today is between Occupy, the Tea Party, independent supporters of
Sanders and Trump trying to overcome career politicians hijacking both parties, etc.
people are rejecting the partisan politics of corporate buying and selling of agenda,
and people in both major parties are calling for reform and answering to the working
people instead of politicians kowtowing to corporate interests that buy out both parties.

The corporations, the media and the political parties are NOT regulated by the Constitution.

So all of that influence is a distraction from enforcing the Constitution to get govt back on track.

But what you will see, instead of people enforcing Constitutional corrections,
are people lobbying through the media to influence politicians and public policy.

That's where America is because we are not educating and empowering our citizenry
to learn and enforce the laws and process in the Constitution, but just teaching them
as Clinton and Trump are doing, that whatever we see in the media is what influences elections and power.

The true power and authority lies with people taking back charge and responsibility
for self-governance, but you won't see that taught in the media.

If you find the Constitutional and Tea Party and Libertarian groups that teach
Constitutional history and law, you will understand how far we have strayed.

So it may be hard to teach these principles, since very few people are following and enforcing them.
Most people go with the popular means today of using party and media to lobby for reforms.

It's not about consent of the governed, and defending equal protections of the laws for all.
It's about fighting for one's own beliefs, and getting caught in competition with other people doing the same.

It's very sad to me we don't use our resources to work out conflicts, find common solutions
and invest in those instead. Most people just pour money into campaigns to compete to hire
or elect the bigger bully to override the other party equally fighting for those beliefs and members
trying to defend their interests.

So party politics has become more important than sticking with common Constitutional principles,
and pushing help for people to solve their own problems and govern their own resources locally.

When this phase comes to a head, at some point we should figure it out we'd do better
working together to make sure all of America is equally represented, rather than parties
compete to dominate, each only representing half the nation, and taking turns undercutting each other.

The biggest difference is that everybody is going to disagree about one thing or the other. Never fails. Parties try to group as many of those disagreements as possible into one side or the other, to polarize us. Nobody is right, and nobody is wrong, yet they have to split us up in order to find a winner.

Once people believe that all Democrats are for their beliefs, or all Republicans represent their beliefs, is when American Politics becomes a "religion". We've been seeing that for a very long time, and it's time to understand how bad it is.

Because religion is the biggest horror story in human history, and why politics has to turn away from that mentality if we wish to betterment society.

Fuck the parties, let righteous people rule. Problem is how to figure it out... And we have 4 years before we go through this again! I'm working on figuring it out... I hope the OP and others do the same.

Dear RWS and 18 and Life
Good point, that people have different beliefs and are going to disagree.

That brings up another MAJOR point:
Since people in the distinct parties have their OWN political beliefs and platforms,
why not separate taxes and responsibilities for policies,
and let each govern their own members and resources through their own party?

What legislative changes or agreements between parties are necessary
to establish equal respect for political beliefs, as we argue to separate
religious beliefs from govt and keep them private?

Because political beliefs inherently involve govt,
such as gun rights and voting rights,
right to marriage and right to prayer through public institutions,
right to life and right to health care, etc.,
these are harder to separate from govt.
So the other way to treat them equally is to endorse them all
and include them all in govt as an equal choice.

I propose a third house of Congress that
allows representation by party, for the purpose of conflict resolution,
and mediation to reach a consensus on policy -- where the parties
agree shall be public policy and govt jurisdiction, and where the
parties disagree that is delegated to states or parties as needed.

Is an Amendment to the Constitution needed for this?
Since there is no mention or Amendment involving political parties
and beliefs, can such an agreement also be done through parties.

Where any reform touch tax policies and state-federal relations,
each issue of law would require its own revisions through
the given legislative process.

I would also suggest separating the powers of President
and Vice President into Internal/Domestic and External/Foreign Affairs.
So we can elect 2-4 people for these positions, divide the work,
and possibly employ leaders from more than one party instead
of competing for the same office. That would take a Constitutional
Amendment to change the rules on positions and elections.

In general, I believe we need parties to be represented in a
Constitutional conference to review judicial powers and interpretation
of the Constitution, because there is irreconcilable disagreement.

We do not agree on political beliefs, so how do we manage those
differences and respect equal protection and representation of interests?

If we cannot agree on the above suggested solutions,
I suggest having an agreement or amendment
that conflicts concerning political beliefs should be
resolved by mediation and consensus to protect the
equal interests and beliefs of all citizens. If people involved
in a conflict agree to majority rule to decide the law for them,
then the current process can be used; but where people do
not agree to compromise their political beliefs for majority rule
or court ruling, then those citizens can invoke the right to
conflict resolution, mediation and consensus until the issue
is settled to the satisfaction of all parties to the conflict.

This is an extension of both Amendment 1, 10 and 14,
and also addresses issues of discrimination by creed under
the Civil Rights movement to extend equal protection of
the laws to public institutions. I also suggest extending
equal protections and responsibility for the laws to all
citizens and corporations, including political religious
nonprofit partisan business educational media etc.,
to be equally responsible for enforcing the
Bill of Rights, and 14th Amendments on equal protections,
and the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, and redressing
any grievances, objections, or complaints of abuse or
conflicts infringing or threatening equal protection of laws.

Great ideas, let me just see if I've generally got this straight, on first read.

So we have a government that takes care of the running of the nation on a global scale. Military budget, taxes for global affairs, science for exploration, foreign policy, etc... Things that aren't tied to a religious point of view (though foreign policy is very inclined to that) or internal issues.

And another government that governs the human/internal issues within our country, like budget/taxes for internal affairs, abortion, human rights, immigration, gun rights, agriculture, infrastructure, etc...

An external and an internal government. Running under different control based on voter preferences, but still somehow working together.

I really like it! How that can work, and how it can be allowed to happen, are huge questions. First, of course, is figuring out how it can work in a limited budget for both governments to draw from. Then we can figure out how to make it happen. I think it is a great idea on how to separate the different issues that Dem/Rep parties isolate, to make our politicians more closely represent our wants and needs.

This is definitely a step in the right direction! Needs more people to think about it and share ideas.

 

[emilynghiem]

Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
Here to learn!

Good for you! Are you going to school in a state that leans
towards states rights and away from dependence on federal govt?

The biggest split I see between liberals and conservatives,
Democrats and Republicans, is the difference in belief about the role of govt:

Conservative Constitutionalists tend toward the position that rights and responsibilities
belong with people first, then the state, and last the federal govt which
should only exercise authority within the limits of the Constitution,
and only gain more authority by amendment to the Constitution.
This notion of courts making laws by rulings, or executive orders to bypass the legislature,
is seen as abuse and overriding separation of powers and checks and balances.

People who don't put the Constitution first as the guideline and central standard,
can be more relative, and push for "any laws" passing as long as they go through
the given process through legislatures and courts --
i.e., pushing for govt to take on more responsibility for the people's welfare,
even at the expense of Constitutional restrictions, until and unless
the courts find otherwise, all that is needed is majority rule and it becomes law.

The worse problems with the two major parties is
exploiting the division in class between the poor (who
tend not to have experience or education in ownership so
that making and keeping them dependent on party or govt for help
makes them vulnerable to buy out their votes and lose their leverage to check govt),
and the rich who don't want to fund dependence on govt and massive bureaucracies
built around social programs poorly run by govt when private sector could do a better job.

So one is conditioned to fear corporate welfare and blame the rich for abusing govt,
while the other is conditioned to fear social welfare and blame the poor for abusing govt.

Both sides, instead of correcting these problems, deny them and try to push blame on the other
for political points.

Where we are today is between Occupy, the Tea Party, independent supporters of
Sanders and Trump trying to overcome career politicians hijacking both parties, etc.
people are rejecting the partisan politics of corporate buying and selling of agenda,
and people in both major parties are calling for reform and answering to the working
people instead of politicians kowtowing to corporate interests that buy out both parties.

The corporations, the media and the political parties are NOT regulated by the Constitution.

So all of that influence is a distraction from enforcing the Constitution to get govt back on track.

But what you will see, instead of people enforcing Constitutional corrections,
are people lobbying through the media to influence politicians and public policy.

That's where America is because we are not educating and empowering our citizenry
to learn and enforce the laws and process in the Constitution, but just teaching them
as Clinton and Trump are doing, that whatever we see in the media is what influences elections and power.

The true power and authority lies with people taking back charge and responsibility
for self-governance, but you won't see that taught in the media.

If you find the Constitutional and Tea Party and Libertarian groups that teach
Constitutional history and law, you will understand how far we have strayed.

So it may be hard to teach these principles, since very few people are following and enforcing them.
Most people go with the popular means today of using party and media to lobby for reforms.

It's not about consent of the governed, and defending equal protections of the laws for all.
It's about fighting for one's own beliefs, and getting caught in competition with other people doing the same.

It's very sad to me we don't use our resources to work out conflicts, find common solutions
and invest in those instead. Most people just pour money into campaigns to compete to hire
or elect the bigger bully to override the other party equally fighting for those beliefs and members
trying to defend their interests.

So party politics has become more important than sticking with common Constitutional principles,
and pushing help for people to solve their own problems and govern their own resources locally.

When this phase comes to a head, at some point we should figure it out we'd do better
working together to make sure all of America is equally represented, rather than parties
compete to dominate, each only representing half the nation, and taking turns undercutting each other.

The biggest difference is that everybody is going to disagree about one thing or the other. Never fails. Parties try to group as many of those disagreements as possible into one side or the other, to polarize us. Nobody is right, and nobody is wrong, yet they have to split us up in order to find a winner.

Once people believe that all Democrats are for their beliefs, or all Republicans represent their beliefs, is when American Politics becomes a "religion". We've been seeing that for a very long time, and it's time to understand how bad it is.

Because religion is the biggest horror story in human history, and why politics has to turn away from that mentality if we wish to betterment society.

Fuck the parties, let righteous people rule. Problem is how to figure it out... And we have 4 years before we go through this again! I'm working on figuring it out... I hope the OP and others do the same.

Dear RWS and 18 and Life
Good point, that people have different beliefs and are going to disagree.

That brings up another MAJOR point:
Since people in the distinct parties have their OWN political beliefs and platforms,
why not separate taxes and responsibilities for policies,
and let each govern their own members and resources through their own party?

What legislative changes or agreements between parties are necessary
to establish equal respect for political beliefs, as we argue to separate
religious beliefs from govt and keep them private?

Because political beliefs inherently involve govt,
such as gun rights and voting rights,
right to marriage and right to prayer through public institutions,
right to life and right to health care, etc.,
these are harder to separate from govt.
So the other way to treat them equally is to endorse them all
and include them all in govt as an equal choice.

I propose a third house of Congress that
allows representation by party, for the purpose of conflict resolution,
and mediation to reach a consensus on policy -- where the parties
agree shall be public policy and govt jurisdiction, and where the
parties disagree that is delegated to states or parties as needed.

Is an Amendment to the Constitution needed for this?
Since there is no mention or Amendment involving political parties
and beliefs, can such an agreement also be done through parties.

Where any reform touch tax policies and state-federal relations,
each issue of law would require its own revisions through
the given legislative process.

I would also suggest separating the powers of President
and Vice President into Internal/Domestic and External/Foreign Affairs.
So we can elect 2-4 people for these positions, divide the work,
and possibly employ leaders from more than one party instead
of competing for the same office. That would take a Constitutional
Amendment to change the rules on positions and elections.

In general, I believe we need parties to be represented in a
Constitutional conference to review judicial powers and interpretation
of the Constitution, because there is irreconcilable disagreement.

We do not agree on political beliefs, so how do we manage those
differences and respect equal protection and representation of interests?

If we cannot agree on the above suggested solutions,
I suggest having an agreement or amendment
that conflicts concerning political beliefs should be
resolved by mediation and consensus to protect the
equal interests and beliefs of all citizens. If people involved
in a conflict agree to majority rule to decide the law for them,
then the current process can be used; but where people do
not agree to compromise their political beliefs for majority rule
or court ruling, then those citizens can invoke the right to
conflict resolution, mediation and consensus until the issue
is settled to the satisfaction of all parties to the conflict.

This is an extension of both Amendment 1, 10 and 14,
and also addresses issues of discrimination by creed under
the Civil Rights movement to extend equal protection of
the laws to public institutions. I also suggest extending
equal protections and responsibility for the laws to all
citizens and corporations, including political religious
nonprofit partisan business educational media etc.,
to be equally responsible for enforcing the
Bill of Rights, and 14th Amendments on equal protections,
and the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, and redressing
any grievances, objections, or complaints of abuse or
conflicts infringing or threatening equal protection of laws.

Great ideas, let me just see if I've generally got this straight, on first read.

So we have a government that takes care of the running of the nation on a global scale. Military budget, taxes for global affairs, science for exploration, foreign policy, etc... Things that aren't tied to a religious point of view (though foreign policy is very inclined to that) or internal issues.

And another government that governs the human/internal issues within our country, like budget/taxes for internal affairs, abortion, human rights, immigration, gun rights, agriculture, infrastructure, etc...

An external and an internal government. Running under different control based on voter preferences, but still somehow working together.

I really like it! How that can work, and how it can be allowed to happen, are huge questions. First, of course, is figuring out how it can work in a limited budget for both governments to draw from. Then we can figure out how to make it happen. I think it is a great idea on how to separate the different issues that Dem/Rep parties isolate, to make our politicians more closely represent our wants and needs.

This is definitely a step in the right direction! Needs more people to think about it and share ideas.

Dear RWS I think the best way is to call together members and leaders of all the
parties and states to take this idea and fill in the outline.

Hold Constitutional conferences on where their state and party members
agree or disagree with other states and parties where to draw the lines
and where to delegate which tasks. We have to work this out together.

It will empower the people to learn and share solutions and problems
why one thing works and something else doesn't. We will learn
the laws and process, by sharing notes and including all
objections and solutions in the answers.Not everyone will
adopt the same answers, but all should have equal choice
and access.

I think that is the best approach, to empower and include
people regardless which party they align with to express their beliefs
about govt. Then from there, we map out how to organize.
What is left to states or to party, what is national through
party or federal through govt. We all agree who is going to
be in charge of what, so all groups get their interests protected.

 

[RWS]

Graduating this up-coming year (yay!) and want to try and understand this thing we call our government...
Here to learn!

Good for you! Are you going to school in a state that leans
towards states rights and away from dependence on federal govt?

The biggest split I see between liberals and conservatives,
Democrats and Republicans, is the difference in belief about the role of govt:

Conservative Constitutionalists tend toward the position that rights and responsibilities
belong with people first, then the state, and last the federal govt which
should only exercise authority within the limits of the Constitution,
and only gain more authority by amendment to the Constitution.
This notion of courts making laws by rulings, or executive orders to bypass the legislature,
is seen as abuse and overriding separation of powers and checks and balances.

People who don't put the Constitution first as the guideline and central standard,
can be more relative, and push for "any laws" passing as long as they go through
the given process through legislatures and courts --
i.e., pushing for govt to take on more responsibility for the people's welfare,
even at the expense of Constitutional restrictions, until and unless
the courts find otherwise, all that is needed is majority rule and it becomes law.

The worse problems with the two major parties is
exploiting the division in class between the poor (who
tend not to have experience or education in ownership so
that making and keeping them dependent on party or govt for help
makes them vulnerable to buy out their votes and lose their leverage to check govt),
and the rich who don't want to fund dependence on govt and massive bureaucracies
built around social programs poorly run by govt when private sector could do a better job.

So one is conditioned to fear corporate welfare and blame the rich for abusing govt,
while the other is conditioned to fear social welfare and blame the poor for abusing govt.

Both sides, instead of correcting these problems, deny them and try to push blame on the other
for political points.

Where we are today is between Occupy, the Tea Party, independent supporters of
Sanders and Trump trying to overcome career politicians hijacking both parties, etc.
people are rejecting the partisan politics of corporate buying and selling of agenda,
and people in both major parties are calling for reform and answering to the working
people instead of politicians kowtowing to corporate interests that buy out both parties.

The corporations, the media and the political parties are NOT regulated by the Constitution.

So all of that influence is a distraction from enforcing the Constitution to get govt back on track.

But what you will see, instead of people enforcing Constitutional corrections,
are people lobbying through the media to influence politicians and public policy.

That's where America is because we are not educating and empowering our citizenry
to learn and enforce the laws and process in the Constitution, but just teaching them
as Clinton and Trump are doing, that whatever we see in the media is what influences elections and power.

The true power and authority lies with people taking back charge and responsibility
for self-governance, but you won't see that taught in the media.

If you find the Constitutional and Tea Party and Libertarian groups that teach
Constitutional history and law, you will understand how far we have strayed.

So it may be hard to teach these principles, since very few people are following and enforcing them.
Most people go with the popular means today of using party and media to lobby for reforms.

It's not about consent of the governed, and defending equal protections of the laws for all.
It's about fighting for one's own beliefs, and getting caught in competition with other people doing the same.

It's very sad to me we don't use our resources to work out conflicts, find common solutions
and invest in those instead. Most people just pour money into campaigns to compete to hire
or elect the bigger bully to override the other party equally fighting for those beliefs and members
trying to defend their interests.

So party politics has become more important than sticking with common Constitutional principles,
and pushing help for people to solve their own problems and govern their own resources locally.

When this phase comes to a head, at some point we should figure it out we'd do better
working together to make sure all of America is equally represented, rather than parties
compete to dominate, each only representing half the nation, and taking turns undercutting each other.

The biggest difference is that everybody is going to disagree about one thing or the other. Never fails. Parties try to group as many of those disagreements as possible into one side or the other, to polarize us. Nobody is right, and nobody is wrong, yet they have to split us up in order to find a winner.

Once people believe that all Democrats are for their beliefs, or all Republicans represent their beliefs, is when American Politics becomes a "religion". We've been seeing that for a very long time, and it's time to understand how bad it is.

Because religion is the biggest horror story in human history, and why politics has to turn away from that mentality if we wish to betterment society.

Fuck the parties, let righteous people rule. Problem is how to figure it out... And we have 4 years before we go through this again! I'm working on figuring it out... I hope the OP and others do the same.

Dear RWS and 18 and Life
Good point, that people have different beliefs and are going to disagree.

That brings up another MAJOR point:
Since people in the distinct parties have their OWN political beliefs and platforms,
why not separate taxes and responsibilities for policies,
and let each govern their own members and resources through their own party?

What legislative changes or agreements between parties are necessary
to establish equal respect for political beliefs, as we argue to separate
religious beliefs from govt and keep them private?

Because political beliefs inherently involve govt,
such as gun rights and voting rights,
right to marriage and right to prayer through public institutions,
right to life and right to health care, etc.,
these are harder to separate from govt.
So the other way to treat them equally is to endorse them all
and include them all in govt as an equal choice.

I propose a third house of Congress that
allows representation by party, for the purpose of conflict resolution,
and mediation to reach a consensus on policy -- where the parties
agree shall be public policy and govt jurisdiction, and where the
parties disagree that is delegated to states or parties as needed.

Is an Amendment to the Constitution needed for this?
Since there is no mention or Amendment involving political parties
and beliefs, can such an agreement also be done through parties.

Where any reform touch tax policies and state-federal relations,
each issue of law would require its own revisions through
the given legislative process.

I would also suggest separating the powers of President
and Vice President into Internal/Domestic and External/Foreign Affairs.
So we can elect 2-4 people for these positions, divide the work,
and possibly employ leaders from more than one party instead
of competing for the same office. That would take a Constitutional
Amendment to change the rules on positions and elections.

In general, I believe we need parties to be represented in a
Constitutional conference to review judicial powers and interpretation
of the Constitution, because there is irreconcilable disagreement.

We do not agree on political beliefs, so how do we manage those
differences and respect equal protection and representation of interests?

If we cannot agree on the above suggested solutions,
I suggest having an agreement or amendment
that conflicts concerning political beliefs should be
resolved by mediation and consensus to protect the
equal interests and beliefs of all citizens. If people involved
in a conflict agree to majority rule to decide the law for them,
then the current process can be used; but where people do
not agree to compromise their political beliefs for majority rule
or court ruling, then those citizens can invoke the right to
conflict resolution, mediation and consensus until the issue
is settled to the satisfaction of all parties to the conflict.

This is an extension of both Amendment 1, 10 and 14,
and also addresses issues of discrimination by creed under
the Civil Rights movement to extend equal protection of
the laws to public institutions. I also suggest extending
equal protections and responsibility for the laws to all
citizens and corporations, including political religious
nonprofit partisan business educational media etc.,
to be equally responsible for enforcing the
Bill of Rights, and 14th Amendments on equal protections,
and the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, and redressing
any grievances, objections, or complaints of abuse or
conflicts infringing or threatening equal protection of laws.

Great ideas, let me just see if I've generally got this straight, on first read.

So we have a government that takes care of the running of the nation on a global scale. Military budget, taxes for global affairs, science for exploration, foreign policy, etc... Things that aren't tied to a religious point of view (though foreign policy is very inclined to that) or internal issues.

And another government that governs the human/internal issues within our country, like budget/taxes for internal affairs, abortion, human rights, immigration, gun rights, agriculture, infrastructure, etc...

An external and an internal government. Running under different control based on voter preferences, but still somehow working together.

I really like it! How that can work, and how it can be allowed to happen, are huge questions. First, of course, is figuring out how it can work in a limited budget for both governments to draw from. Then we can figure out how to make it happen. I think it is a great idea on how to separate the different issues that Dem/Rep parties isolate, to make our politicians more closely represent our wants and needs.

This is definitely a step in the right direction! Needs more people to think about it and share ideas.

Dear RWS I think the best way is to call together members and leaders of all the
parties and states to take this idea and fill in the outline.

Hold Constitutional conferences on where their state and party members
agree or disagree with other states and parties where to draw the lines
and where to delegate which tasks. We have to work this out together.

It will empower the people to learn and share solutions and problems
why one thing works and something else doesn't. We will learn
the laws and process, by sharing notes and including all
objections and solutions in the answers.Not everyone will
adopt the same answers, but all should have equal choice
and access.

I think that is the best approach, to empower and include
people regardless which party they align with to express their beliefs
about govt. Then from there, we map out how to organize.
What is left to states or to party, what is national through
party or federal through govt. We all agree who is going to
be in charge of what, so all groups get their interests protected.

Well that's where it would fail, if we take the current members and leaders to try to make it happen. Because they definitely won't want to make it happen...

Because they lose their jobs.

It will take a revolution of ideas to make this happen. And a crack in the infrastructure of the Constitution to allow it.

But I think the stages are set. Whatever happens, I'm definitely down for that 2-stage gov't idea. I think it should iterate more than 2 stages, but that is the best idea I've heard, rather than voting Rep/Dem.

But seriously, it takes Trump to make this happen.... As sad as it seems...

 

[OldLady]

Point to the place on the teddy bear where the government touched you.

Dear Lewdog:

* If the bear was made in the US where workers had vacation and employment rights and protections,
were under OSHA safety regulations, and weren't child laborers (but they could be exploited prison labor),
and if the taxes from the sale of the bear goes to city, state or federal taxes,
and might pay for helpful or abusive things, that may or may not represent the taxpayers paying in
(or if the bear is made of materials that contribute to an environmental hazard or waste that is unsustainable, and the corporation profiting is not taking that into account as part of the cost of the production and their own costs to pay)

that's different from

* a bear made by illegal slave labor, children forced to work in unsafe conditions without breaks
or seeing the outdoors or their families, working for 50 cents a day, or to pay off rent in a dorm
that costs more than they make so they stay enslaved.
* or a bear made from homegrown materials by fair trade workers where the money
stays with the community and workers and isn't channeled into a larger corporation that neglects them

But again, if it's made by prison labor exploited by others for profit,
this could take place in the US or in other countries, and could still
involve "involuntary servitude" outside the legal conditions on restitution, penalty, or deprivation of liberty for crimes.

Emily, I've worked in a prison, and inmates FIGHT for those jobs. It is something to do besides sit around watching tv all day, AND it gives them a small "nest egg" for when they are released, or if they're not getting released during their lifetimes, it is money to spend on chips and books at the commissary. "Involuntary servitude?" Unless you're talking about a very different scenario than I'm aware of, the prisoners LOVE those jobs.

 

[emilynghiem]

Good for you! Are you going to school in a state that leans
towards states rights and away from dependence on federal govt?

The biggest split I see between liberals and conservatives,
Democrats and Republicans, is the difference in belief about the role of govt:

Conservative Constitutionalists tend toward the position that rights and responsibilities
belong with people first, then the state, and last the federal govt which
should only exercise authority within the limits of the Constitution,
and only gain more authority by amendment to the Constitution.
This notion of courts making laws by rulings, or executive orders to bypass the legislature,
is seen as abuse and overriding separation of powers and checks and balances.

People who don't put the Constitution first as the guideline and central standard,
can be more relative, and push for "any laws" passing as long as they go through
the given process through legislatures and courts --
i.e., pushing for govt to take on more responsibility for the people's welfare,
even at the expense of Constitutional restrictions, until and unless
the courts find otherwise, all that is needed is majority rule and it becomes law.

The worse problems with the two major parties is
exploiting the division in class between the poor (who
tend not to have experience or education in ownership so
that making and keeping them dependent on party or govt for help
makes them vulnerable to buy out their votes and lose their leverage to check govt),
and the rich who don't want to fund dependence on govt and massive bureaucracies
built around social programs poorly run by govt when private sector could do a better job.

So one is conditioned to fear corporate welfare and blame the rich for abusing govt,
while the other is conditioned to fear social welfare and blame the poor for abusing govt.

Both sides, instead of correcting these problems, deny them and try to push blame on the other
for political points.

Where we are today is between Occupy, the Tea Party, independent supporters of
Sanders and Trump trying to overcome career politicians hijacking both parties, etc.
people are rejecting the partisan politics of corporate buying and selling of agenda,
and people in both major parties are calling for reform and answering to the working
people instead of politicians kowtowing to corporate interests that buy out both parties.

The corporations, the media and the political parties are NOT regulated by the Constitution.

So all of that influence is a distraction from enforcing the Constitution to get govt back on track.

But what you will see, instead of people enforcing Constitutional corrections,
are people lobbying through the media to influence politicians and public policy.

That's where America is because we are not educating and empowering our citizenry
to learn and enforce the laws and process in the Constitution, but just teaching them
as Clinton and Trump are doing, that whatever we see in the media is what influences elections and power.

The true power and authority lies with people taking back charge and responsibility
for self-governance, but you won't see that taught in the media.

If you find the Constitutional and Tea Party and Libertarian groups that teach
Constitutional history and law, you will understand how far we have strayed.

So it may be hard to teach these principles, since very few people are following and enforcing them.
Most people go with the popular means today of using party and media to lobby for reforms.

It's not about consent of the governed, and defending equal protections of the laws for all.
It's about fighting for one's own beliefs, and getting caught in competition with other people doing the same.

It's very sad to me we don't use our resources to work out conflicts, find common solutions
and invest in those instead. Most people just pour money into campaigns to compete to hire
or elect the bigger bully to override the other party equally fighting for those beliefs and members
trying to defend their interests.

So party politics has become more important than sticking with common Constitutional principles,
and pushing help for people to solve their own problems and govern their own resources locally.

When this phase comes to a head, at some point we should figure it out we'd do better
working together to make sure all of America is equally represented, rather than parties
compete to dominate, each only representing half the nation, and taking turns undercutting each other.

The biggest difference is that everybody is going to disagree about one thing or the other. Never fails. Parties try to group as many of those disagreements as possible into one side or the other, to polarize us. Nobody is right, and nobody is wrong, yet they have to split us up in order to find a winner.

Once people believe that all Democrats are for their beliefs, or all Republicans represent their beliefs, is when American Politics becomes a "religion". We've been seeing that for a very long time, and it's time to understand how bad it is.

Because religion is the biggest horror story in human history, and why politics has to turn away from that mentality if we wish to betterment society.

Fuck the parties, let righteous people rule. Problem is how to figure it out... And we have 4 years before we go through this again! I'm working on figuring it out... I hope the OP and others do the same.

Dear RWS and 18 and Life
Good point, that people have different beliefs and are going to disagree.

That brings up another MAJOR point:
Since people in the distinct parties have their OWN political beliefs and platforms,
why not separate taxes and responsibilities for policies,
and let each govern their own members and resources through their own party?

What legislative changes or agreements between parties are necessary
to establish equal respect for political beliefs, as we argue to separate
religious beliefs from govt and keep them private?

Because political beliefs inherently involve govt,
such as gun rights and voting rights,
right to marriage and right to prayer through public institutions,
right to life and right to health care, etc.,
these are harder to separate from govt.
So the other way to treat them equally is to endorse them all
and include them all in govt as an equal choice.

I propose a third house of Congress that
allows representation by party, for the purpose of conflict resolution,
and mediation to reach a consensus on policy -- where the parties
agree shall be public policy and govt jurisdiction, and where the
parties disagree that is delegated to states or parties as needed.

Is an Amendment to the Constitution needed for this?
Since there is no mention or Amendment involving political parties
and beliefs, can such an agreement also be done through parties.

Where any reform touch tax policies and state-federal relations,
each issue of law would require its own revisions through
the given legislative process.

I would also suggest separating the powers of President
and Vice President into Internal/Domestic and External/Foreign Affairs.
So we can elect 2-4 people for these positions, divide the work,
and possibly employ leaders from more than one party instead
of competing for the same office. That would take a Constitutional
Amendment to change the rules on positions and elections.

In general, I believe we need parties to be represented in a
Constitutional conference to review judicial powers and interpretation
of the Constitution, because there is irreconcilable disagreement.

We do not agree on political beliefs, so how do we manage those
differences and respect equal protection and representation of interests?

If we cannot agree on the above suggested solutions,
I suggest having an agreement or amendment
that conflicts concerning political beliefs should be
resolved by mediation and consensus to protect the
equal interests and beliefs of all citizens. If people involved
in a conflict agree to majority rule to decide the law for them,
then the current process can be used; but where people do
not agree to compromise their political beliefs for majority rule
or court ruling, then those citizens can invoke the right to
conflict resolution, mediation and consensus until the issue
is settled to the satisfaction of all parties to the conflict.

This is an extension of both Amendment 1, 10 and 14,
and also addresses issues of discrimination by creed under
the Civil Rights movement to extend equal protection of
the laws to public institutions. I also suggest extending
equal protections and responsibility for the laws to all
citizens and corporations, including political religious
nonprofit partisan business educational media etc.,
to be equally responsible for enforcing the
Bill of Rights, and 14th Amendments on equal protections,
and the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, and redressing
any grievances, objections, or complaints of abuse or
conflicts infringing or threatening equal protection of laws.

Great ideas, let me just see if I've generally got this straight, on first read.

So we have a government that takes care of the running of the nation on a global scale. Military budget, taxes for global affairs, science for exploration, foreign policy, etc... Things that aren't tied to a religious point of view (though foreign policy is very inclined to that) or internal issues.

And another government that governs the human/internal issues within our country, like budget/taxes for internal affairs, abortion, human rights, immigration, gun rights, agriculture, infrastructure, etc...

An external and an internal government. Running under different control based on voter preferences, but still somehow working together.

I really like it! How that can work, and how it can be allowed to happen, are huge questions. First, of course, is figuring out how it can work in a limited budget for both governments to draw from. Then we can figure out how to make it happen. I think it is a great idea on how to separate the different issues that Dem/Rep parties isolate, to make our politicians more closely represent our wants and needs.

This is definitely a step in the right direction! Needs more people to think about it and share ideas.

Dear RWS I think the best way is to call together members and leaders of all the
parties and states to take this idea and fill in the outline.

Hold Constitutional conferences on where their state and party members
agree or disagree with other states and parties where to draw the lines
and where to delegate which tasks. We have to work this out together.

It will empower the people to learn and share solutions and problems
why one thing works and something else doesn't. We will learn
the laws and process, by sharing notes and including all
objections and solutions in the answers.Not everyone will
adopt the same answers, but all should have equal choice
and access.

I think that is the best approach, to empower and include
people regardless which party they align with to express their beliefs
about govt. Then from there, we map out how to organize.
What is left to states or to party, what is national through
party or federal through govt. We all agree who is going to
be in charge of what, so all groups get their interests protected.

Well that's where it would fail, if we take the current members and leaders to try to make it happen. Because they definitely won't want to make it happen...

Because they lose their jobs.

It will take a revolution of ideas to make this happen. And a crack in the infrastructure of the Constitution to allow it.

But I think the stages are set. Whatever happens, I'm definitely down for that 2-stage gov't idea. I think it should iterate more than 2 stages, but that is the best idea I've heard, rather than voting Rep/Dem.

But seriously, it takes Trump to make this happen.... As sad as it seems...

Dear RWS no they don't lose their jobs, the jobs would double.
For each office there would be now an internal and external office.

To afford this split, such as splitting the salary between the two,
that would mean each office holder works an outside job to support themselves
and works with the partner office to split that work.

I think that's better anywyay, and most people are making money on the side,
so this just cuts their job duties in half so they can work another job.

I've had to work two jobs to pay for damage done by govt abuses in two districts
I was trying to help recover and rebuild their community plans destroyed by govt corruption.

And with the policies passed by Congress, lots of other citizens are having to
work two part time or full time jobs because of the economic restructuring by companies to adjust as well.

So isn't it fair to ask people in govt, that if we're having to pay these costs
by working two jobs, so should they. And split the duties in half so they can manage both.

I think we could find the political leaders who already work two jobs
and can consult on public policy at the same time. Maybe that level
of leadership would rise to the top who can do the work, while
supporting themselves so they aren't a burden on taxpayers,
and don't ask citizens to work any harder than they have to!

What do you think? Shall we consult with the Greens
and Workers unions on this idea to lobby the officials
to work two jobs like everyone else has to, and start job sharing?

 

[emilynghiem]

Point to the place on the teddy bear where the government touched you.

Dear Lewdog:

* If the bear was made in the US where workers had vacation and employment rights and protections,
were under OSHA safety regulations, and weren't child laborers (but they could be exploited prison labor),
and if the taxes from the sale of the bear goes to city, state or federal taxes,
and might pay for helpful or abusive things, that may or may not represent the taxpayers paying in
(or if the bear is made of materials that contribute to an environmental hazard or waste that is unsustainable, and the corporation profiting is not taking that into account as part of the cost of the production and their own costs to pay)

that's different from

* a bear made by illegal slave labor, children forced to work in unsafe conditions without breaks
or seeing the outdoors or their families, working for 50 cents a day, or to pay off rent in a dorm
that costs more than they make so they stay enslaved.
* or a bear made from homegrown materials by fair trade workers where the money
stays with the community and workers and isn't channeled into a larger corporation that neglects them

But again, if it's made by prison labor exploited by others for profit,
this could take place in the US or in other countries, and could still
involve "involuntary servitude" outside the legal conditions on restitution, penalty, or deprivation of liberty for crimes.

Emily, I've worked in a prison, and inmates FIGHT for those jobs. It is something to do besides sit around watching tv all day, AND it gives them a small "nest egg" for when they are released, or if they're not getting released during their lifetimes, it is money to spend on chips and books at the commissary. "Involuntary servitude?" Unless you're talking about a very different scenario than I'm aware of, the prisoners LOVE those jobs.

Dear OldLady
1. Are the workers keeping the income from their own labor?
There needs to be accountability of what are the costs of restitution they owe proportionally for crimes,
and what are their costs. And make sure they are working off their own debt so they have goals
and can track progress.
2. Are they working for private corporations that are using cheap prison labor to profit others?
This is what I heard was going on. (previously I heard that phone companies were caught abusing prison labor to do sales or service calls, now I've heard high end dept stores use prison labor to make their goods, and one
activist told me of a unit where the inmates are being abused and enslaved even trafficked there and he
wants to free them from that mess.)

3. IF THERE IS ABUSE GOING ON that could count as "racketeering" or trafficking of labor under RICO
why not allow these abuse victims to TAKE BACK the prison programs as restitution
and turn it into microlending and business building where they learn management skills
and the money DOES go into paying off restitution they owe and paying their costs
instead of paying private profit?

Just police it and make sure it isn't being exploited, but is run more like a "work-study" program
where inmates are treated equally as students who can pay for their education and housing by working onsite
like a campus.

Why not turn sweatshops and prisons into schools and make sure the labor is managed safely without abuses:
www.rightsfortheworkers.org