CDZ What is the solution to the "illegal" American system?

[Procrustes Stretched]

There are persons or person who feel the American system of government have been taken over by "criminal persons or entities" by moving from a Confederation of States to a Federation of United States. Since my understanding of the subject is unclear, I ask for assistance from the readers and responders of the "Clean Debate Zone", what they feel is needed to reverse or correct, or replace this flaw, should it exist. Please be as concise as possible.

It is understood, by most (I believe) such an effort, that of changing a form of government is not a "walk in the park".

However, simple analogies are often helpful in portraying ones thoughts.

This is an honest appeal for I am often adrift in a sea of statements, quotations and wording from 230 years ago ect, ect, etc.

Why are certain elements of government cited as "criminal" for working within the constraints of accepted practice or law, should that law exist, in it's accepted form? I am truly trying to understand what the issue is and what is needed to correct it.

No insult intended. I know schools have changed how they educate people. The process of creating and ratifying the US Constitution was not a 'walk in the park' not by any definition.

Junior High School Civic Class 101:

For 2 days, September 26 and 27, Congress debated whether to censure the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for exceeding their authority by creating a new form of government instead of simply revising the Articles of Confederation. They decided to drop the matter. Instead, on September 28, Congress directed the state legislatures to call ratification conventions in each state. Article VII stipulated that nine states had to ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect.

Article VI Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
​

Now, you end with "I am truly trying to understand what the issue is and what is needed to correct it." so, you jump from asking if there is a problem to stating there is a problem.

I amso IR responds;

Thank you for the response and we would like for you to know we value your input. It will be forwarded to the Office of Evaluation for usable content.

Troll much Dante? You must live a horrible and lonely life! You bemoaned thread take over in another area of interest, earlier, and left the thread at least three times, only to keep blabbing. Is that your game here? Won't work Oh Great Italian Impostor! See you around.

So you haven't a clue about what you are talking about? Seems to be a common dis-ease in the Clean Debate Zone

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

the origin of this issue is the our two party system. our government has become a contest between two groups that is not focused on helping the country, but rather on becoming more powerful than the other. you asked for brevity, so I'm not going to go into more detail unless someone asks, but be warned: it is very difficult to talk about this issue without bashing the republican party.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the origin of this issue is the our two party system. our government has become a contest between two groups that is not focused on helping the country, but rather on becoming more powerful than the other. you asked for brevity, so I'm not going to go into more detail unless someone asks, but be warned: it is very difficult to talk about this issue without bashing the republican party.

how long has the USA had a two party system? And I mean what resembles the one we have today. Doesn't it date back to Monroe?

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

Ok, so to this point in time, the founding of the Nation allowed the money folks to accumulate the bulk of the wealth to the tune of roughly 60%. Since the forming of this Nation is the tool which allowed 1% to hold the bulk of the wealth, how is that reversed to allow more money to flow back to the people. Is that a function of the people, the government, exactly what is the path to righting this wrong? Do we chalk it up to, let the wealthy who have the means to formulate change, throw bits and pieces to the population hoping to appease them. How is this situation mediated? To my way of thinking, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Do the people demand more anti monopoly legislation? One thing seems certain. The wealthy have the means to defend and manipulate. On the other hand the people have the numbers of and in the population. Is this a matter of the size of the 1% holdings trumps the people's numbers in terms of population? Should that be the actual situation, what is the solution? And in addition has this accumulation of massive wealth, by 1% of the of the population, if that is in fact truth, has it been a criminal act? Were the founders engaged in criminal activities insisting that this form of government be accepted. Was their goal to create a wealthy base while regulating the majority into a "caste" system, with the wealthy calling the shots and the masses following behind in the Pied Piper frame of mind? I tend to feel that is not the case, but what do I know? My belief is that anyone, depending upon their personal motivation and ability, may within the system, go up or down. It is one's motivation which dictates their position in life. And many folks simply do not place a priority on being wealthy.

first off, I do not believe that our government is nothing but a system setup by the wealthy to keep us lowly commoners under control (most of the people who pretend to think this are just trying to get attention by appearing to have radical views).
summaries of points will be bolded

1.) Something that must be addressed here is the difference between criminal actions and general wrongdoing. for the most part, the 1% has not engaged in criminal activity, because they are not breaking any laws. they are, however, in many cases guilty of wrongdoing. take political lobbying, for example. it is not much more than official bribery. large corporations and the wealthy 1% have the ability to do this, but ordinary people do not. so no, the practices leading to this wealth gap are not criminal, but they are immoral. "illegal" is not the same as "immoral"

2.) you say that "My belief is that anyone, depending upon their personal motivation and ability, may within the system, go up or down. It is one's motivation which dictates their position in life. And many folks simply do not place a priority on being wealthy" and while this is true to an extent, some people are at a huge disadvantage. while a person from the middle class can move up if they have the intelligence and drive, a person from the lower class will find it much harder, as it is easy to get stuck in the vicious cycle of poverty. it is harder than you might think to move an the socioeconomic ladder

3.) while it is nice to imagine a world where everyone has a college education and has a good, well paying job and lives comfortable in the middle class, this is impossible, simply because someone needs to do the "dirty jobs". maybe someday, if all the manual labor and "grunt work" is done by machinery, this could happen,but the fact of the matter is, some people will always be wealthier than others because some people are smarter and work harder. after all, that is the entire point of capitalism: socioeconomic mobility, which always means an income gap (i'm not saying that our growing one is not a problem: it is). the problem we have is that it is hard to move up from the bottom or down from the top. the only place it is easy to move from is the middle if this was fixed, everything would be peachy. easier said than done. it is a very complicated issue that many experts and non experts (myself included) are working on. a world where there is no income gap is impossible with capitalism, where socioeconomic mobility is the ideal

if you have any questions of want me to go into more detail about anything, just ask.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

There are persons or person who feel the American system of government have been taken over by "criminal persons or entities" by moving from a Confederation of States to a Federation of United States. Since my understanding of the subject is unclear, I ask for assistance from the readers and responders of the "Clean Debate Zone", what they feel is needed to reverse or correct, or replace this flaw, should it exist. Please be as concise as possible.

It is understood, by most (I believe) such an effort, that of changing a form of government is not a "walk in the park".

However, simple analogies are often helpful in portraying ones thoughts.

This is an honest appeal for I am often adrift in a sea of statements, quotations and wording from 230 years ago ect, ect, etc.

Why are certain elements of government cited as "criminal" for working within the constraints of accepted practice or law, should that law exist, in it's accepted form? I am truly trying to understand what the issue is and what is needed to correct it.

No insult intended. I know schools have changed how they educate people. The process of creating and ratifying the US Constitution was not a 'walk in the park' not by any definition.

Junior High School Civic Class 101:

For 2 days, September 26 and 27, Congress debated whether to censure the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for exceeding their authority by creating a new form of government instead of simply revising the Articles of Confederation. They decided to drop the matter. Instead, on September 28, Congress directed the state legislatures to call ratification conventions in each state. Article VII stipulated that nine states had to ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect.

Article VI Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
​

Now, you end with "I am truly trying to understand what the issue is and what is needed to correct it." so, you jump from asking if there is a problem to stating there is a problem.

trying to catch people in their words is a tactic that is only used be people who are a.) not intelligent enough to understand the point or b.) trying to manipulate people who are not intelligent enough to understand the point

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

the origin of this issue is the our two party system. our government has become a contest between two groups that is not focused on helping the country, but rather on becoming more powerful than the other. you asked for brevity, so I'm not going to go into more detail unless someone asks, but be warned: it is very difficult to talk about this issue without bashing the republican party.

how long has the USA had a two party system? And I mean what resembles the one we have today. Doesn't it date back to Monroe?

political parties have existed as long as representative democracy.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There are persons or person who feel the American system of government have been taken over by "criminal persons or entities" by moving from a Confederation of States to a Federation of United States. Since my understanding of the subject is unclear, I ask for assistance from the readers and responders of the "Clean Debate Zone", what they feel is needed to reverse or correct, or replace this flaw, should it exist. Please be as concise as possible.

It is understood, by most (I believe) such an effort, that of changing a form of government is not a "walk in the park".

However, simple analogies are often helpful in portraying ones thoughts.

This is an honest appeal for I am often adrift in a sea of statements, quotations and wording from 230 years ago ect, ect, etc.

Why are certain elements of government cited as "criminal" for working within the constraints of accepted practice or law, should that law exist, in it's accepted form? I am truly trying to understand what the issue is and what is needed to correct it.

No insult intended. I know schools have changed how they educate people. The process of creating and ratifying the US Constitution was not a 'walk in the park' not by any definition.

Junior High School Civic Class 101:

For 2 days, September 26 and 27, Congress debated whether to censure the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for exceeding their authority by creating a new form of government instead of simply revising the Articles of Confederation. They decided to drop the matter. Instead, on September 28, Congress directed the state legislatures to call ratification conventions in each state. Article VII stipulated that nine states had to ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect.

Article VI Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
​

Now, you end with "I am truly trying to understand what the issue is and what is needed to correct it." so, you jump from asking if there is a problem to stating there is a problem.

trying to catch people in their words is a tactic that is only used be people who are a.) not intelligent enough to understand the point or b.) trying to manipulate people who are not intelligent enough to understand the point

"Trying to catch people in their words" ??? Huh??

Read the posts. Dante was on point, but the Poster-with-caught-words was being disingenuous and regurgitating talking points that failed the smell test

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the origin of this issue is the our two party system. our government has become a contest between two groups that is not focused on helping the country, but rather on becoming more powerful than the other. you asked for brevity, so I'm not going to go into more detail unless someone asks, but be warned: it is very difficult to talk about this issue without bashing the republican party.

how long has the USA had a two party system? And I mean what resembles the one we have today. Doesn't it date back to Monroe?

political parties have existed as long as representative democracy.

Really? You do know when the founding generation was arguing about parties and factions, political parties as we know them did not exist?

No you don't know that fact.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

first off, I do not believe that our government is nothing but a system setup by the wealthy to keep us lowly commoners under control...

...

if you have any questions of want me to go into more detail about anything, just ask.

It would be fascinating to hear what you believe our government is

 

[I amso IR]

There are persons or person who feel the American system of government have been taken over by "criminal persons or entities" by moving from a Confederation of States to a Federation of United States. Since my understanding of the subject is unclear, I ask for assistance from the readers and responders of the "Clean Debate Zone", what they feel is needed to reverse or correct, or replace this flaw, should it exist. Please be as concise as possible.

It is understood, by most (I believe) such an effort, that of changing a form of government is not a "walk in the park".

However, simple analogies are often helpful in portraying ones thoughts.

This is an honest appeal for I am often adrift in a sea of statements, quotations and wording from 230 years ago ect, ect, etc.

Why are certain elements of government cited as "criminal" for working within the constraints of accepted practice or law, should that law exist, in it's accepted form? I am truly trying to understand what the issue is and what is needed to correct it.

No insult intended. I know schools have changed how they educate people. The process of creating and ratifying the US Constitution was not a 'walk in the park' not by any definition.

Junior High School Civic Class 101:

For 2 days, September 26 and 27, Congress debated whether to censure the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for exceeding their authority by creating a new form of government instead of simply revising the Articles of Confederation. They decided to drop the matter. Instead, on September 28, Congress directed the state legislatures to call ratification conventions in each state. Article VII stipulated that nine states had to ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect.

Article VI Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
​

Now, you end with "I am truly trying to understand what the issue is and what is needed to correct it." so, you jump from asking if there is a problem to stating there is a problem.

I amso IR responds;

Thank you for the response and we would like for you to know we value your input. It will be forwarded to the Office of Evaluation for usable content.

Troll much Dante? You must live a horrible and lonely life! You bemoaned thread take over in another area of interest, earlier, and left the thread at least three times, only to keep blabbing. Is that your game here? Won't work Oh Great Italian Impostor! See you around.

So you haven't a clue about what you are talking about? Seems to be a common dis-ease in the Clean Debate Zone

I amso IR responds;

SIGH !!

 

[Moonglow]

Are you gonna go fishing?
Cause you are opening a can o' worms....

Another civil war may help reestablish the "confederation" but it was not a confederation after the Articles of Confederation failed as a form of govt....

I amso IR responds;

I am aware of that point and thought I opened with that in mind. However, my question is and remains, what action is needed should our current system actually be faulty?

review by a Constitutional Convention

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There are persons or person who feel the American system of government have been taken over by "criminal persons or entities" by moving from a Confederation of States to a Federation of United States. Since my understanding of the subject is unclear, I ask for assistance from the readers and responders of the "Clean Debate Zone", what they feel is needed to reverse or correct, or replace this flaw, should it exist. Please be as concise as possible.

It is understood, by most (I believe) such an effort, that of changing a form of government is not a "walk in the park".

However, simple analogies are often helpful in portraying ones thoughts.

This is an honest appeal for I am often adrift in a sea of statements, quotations and wording from 230 years ago ect, ect, etc.

Why are certain elements of government cited as "criminal" for working within the constraints of accepted practice or law, should that law exist, in it's accepted form? I am truly trying to understand what the issue is and what is needed to correct it.

No insult intended. I know schools have changed how they educate people. The process of creating and ratifying the US Constitution was not a 'walk in the park' not by any definition.

Junior High School Civic Class 101:

For 2 days, September 26 and 27, Congress debated whether to censure the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for exceeding their authority by creating a new form of government instead of simply revising the Articles of Confederation. They decided to drop the matter. Instead, on September 28, Congress directed the state legislatures to call ratification conventions in each state. Article VII stipulated that nine states had to ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect.

Article VI Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
​

Now, you end with "I am truly trying to understand what the issue is and what is needed to correct it." so, you jump from asking if there is a problem to stating there is a problem.

I amso IR responds;

Thank you for the response and we would like for you to know we value your input. It will be forwarded to the Office of Evaluation for usable content.

Troll much Dante? You must live a horrible and lonely life! You bemoaned thread take over in another area of interest, earlier, and left the thread at least three times, only to keep blabbing. Is that your game here? Won't work Oh Great Italian Impostor! See you around.

So you haven't a clue about what you are talking about? Seems to be a common dis-ease in the Clean Debate Zone

I amso IR responds;

SIGH !!

yet you ignore every post that challenges you with facts and information

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Are you gonna go fishing?
Cause you are opening a can o' worms....

Another civil war may help reestablish the "confederation" but it was not a confederation after the Articles of Confederation failed as a form of govt....

I amso IR responds;

I am aware of that point and thought I opened with that in mind. However, my question is and remains, what action is needed should our current system actually be faulty?

review by a Constitutional Convention

The system was NEVER designed to be perfect. Even the AoC were about a more perfect union, not a perfect one

Saying a system has faults is meaning less without a context for how it is being used: as an example of why we should have a revolution - as an example of how since it isn't perfect it really doesn't carry the weight of the people who ratified it?

crazy stuff on many levels

 

[ScienceRocks]

Our system is a good one and doesn't need to be changed.

Social-democracy is by far the best system on earth and has thousands of years of successful civilizations to back it up.

 

[I amso IR]

Ok, so to this point in time, the founding of the Nation allowed the money folks to accumulate the bulk of the wealth to the tune of roughly 60%. Since the forming of this Nation is the tool which allowed 1% to hold the bulk of the wealth, how is that reversed to allow more money to flow back to the people. Is that a function of the people, the government, exactly what is the path to righting this wrong? Do we chalk it up to, let the wealthy who have the means to formulate change, throw bits and pieces to the population hoping to appease them. How is this situation mediated? To my way of thinking, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Do the people demand more anti monopoly legislation? One thing seems certain. The wealthy have the means to defend and manipulate. On the other hand the people have the numbers of and in the population. Is this a matter of the size of the 1% holdings trumps the people's numbers in terms of population? Should that be the actual situation, what is the solution? And in addition has this accumulation of massive wealth, by 1% of the of the population, if that is in fact truth, has it been a criminal act? Were the founders engaged in criminal activities insisting that this form of government be accepted. Was their goal to create a wealthy base while regulating the majority into a "caste" system, with the wealthy calling the shots and the masses following behind in the Pied Piper frame of mind? I tend to feel that is not the case, but what do I know? My belief is that anyone, depending upon their personal motivation and ability, may within the system, go up or down. It is one's motivation which dictates their position in life. And many folks simply do not place a priority on being wealthy.

first off, I do not believe that our government is nothing but a system setup by the wealthy to keep us lowly commoners under control (most of the people who pretend to think this are just trying to get attention by appearing to have radical views).
summaries of points will be bolded

1.) Something that must be addressed here is the difference between criminal actions and general wrongdoing. for the most part, the 1% has not engaged in criminal activity, because they are not breaking any laws. they are, however, in many cases guilty of wrongdoing. take political lobbying, for example. it is not much more than official bribery. large corporations and the wealthy 1% have the ability to do this, but ordinary people do not. so no, the practices leading to this wealth gap are not criminal, but they are immoral. "illegal" is not the same as "immoral"

2.) you say that "My belief is that anyone, depending upon their personal motivation and ability, may within the system, go up or down. It is one's motivation which dictates their position in life. And many folks simply do not place a priority on being wealthy" and while this is true to an extent, some people are at a huge disadvantage. while a person from the middle class can move up if they have the intelligence and drive, a person from the lower class will find it much harder, as it is easy to get stuck in the vicious cycle of poverty. it is harder than you might think to move an the socioeconomic ladder

3.) while it is nice to imagine a world where everyone has a college education and has a good, well paying job and lives comfortable in the middle class, this is impossible, simply because someone needs to do the "dirty jobs". maybe someday, if all the manual labor and "grunt work" is done by machinery, this could happen,but the fact of the matter is, some people will always be wealthier than others because some people are smarter and work harder. after all, that is the entire point of capitalism: socioeconomic mobility, which always means an income gap (i'm not saying that our growing one is not a problem: it is). the problem we have is that it is hard to move up from the bottom or down from the top. the only place it is easy to move from is the middle if this was fixed, everything would be peachy. easier said than done. it is a very complicated issue that many experts and non experts (myself included) are working on. a world where there is no income gap is impossible with capitalism, where socioeconomic mobility is the ideal

if you have any questions of want me to go into more detail about anything, just ask.

I amso IR Responds

Thank you for responding in the fashion you have. I asked this question and asked for input as at the time I was corresponding with a former member who was using terms and expressing thought which troubled me. He was obviously well versed and in truth opened my eyes to insights which I had not encountered before. I have never and never will consider our form of government "criminal" but feel with certainly there are "criminals" within the government. Your point of immorality certainly applies. I am aware of the difficulty of growing a competitive enterprise and the problems involved with the socioeconomic ladder. For the sake of clearing the air with regards to my original question, which I considered fairly straight forward and not too horribly complex, if the Federation of The United States is the problem, creating criminality,what is the fix for that particular issue. If there is no problem then obviously there is no fix needed. The person I was corresponding with felt there was and I am assuming he felt a return to the Articles of Confederacy would lead to healing the perceived grievance. Again, I am not inclined to not agree with that assessment and can see serious problems with that position. I hope that will satisfy the need to explain myself to another person who seems confused at best.

I thank you again for the thoughtful manner with which you have involved yourself in this discussion. I amso IR

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I am so over the phony OP and his phony pals-a-posting alike crap

 

[I amso IR]

I am so over the phony OP and his phony pals-a-posting alike crap

I amso IR replies

You are most welcome, I'm sure! Please do not go away mad, simply go away!

 

[I amso IR]

Are you gonna go fishing?
Cause you are opening a can o' worms....

Another civil war may help reestablish the "confederation" but it was not a confederation after the Articles of Confederation failed as a form of govt....

I amso IR responds;

I am aware of that point and thought I opened with that in mind. However, my question is and remains, what action is needed should our current system actually be faulty?

review by a Constitutional Convention

I amso IR responds

Thank you Moonglow. Now why did I not think of that, not to mention Dante! I wonder what his thoughts would be on that idea? Maybe I will do a little research on that. Let's face it, after 229 years since Philly perhaps the people have a few thoughts on that. Not to mention that a little massaging of the old document might do it and we the people, some good. Thanks again.

 

[I amso IR]

Moonglow suggested suggested a Constitutional Convention as the method of changing the Constitution of The United. It seems that the Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force (bba4usa.org) is attempting to do just that. They are working to get the 34 states needed to petition the Congress for an 5th Amendment Constitutional review. 27 States have submitted petitions with 7 more needed which require the U.S. Congress to act. 13 States are identified as States to be contacted by bba4usa during 2015 and 2016. That means that as soon as 2016, and should the bba4usa be successful, an Article 5 constitutional convention could become reality as then Congress would be required by Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution to form such a convention. All of the federal governmental foot dragging would be a thing of the past. Congress would have zero authority to not respond to the request of the 34 States. States being asked to petition for the 5th Amendment Constitutional Congress, (2015/2016) are; Washington, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Arizona. This would be the first time in the history of the USA that the people have forced a Constitutional Convention using Article 5 authority. Time will tell.