American democracy...is there such a thing...

[Dante]

It should also be pointed out that we've taken steps closer to a more direct democracy by essentially abolishing federalism and with the 17th Amendment.

How do you think we abolished Federalism with the 17th? and was it the 17th alone that leads you to believe this??

Certainly not. We essentially abolished federalism with the Civil War. That's the time where you can see the states taking a backseat to the centralization of power by the federal government. The 17th Amendment is simply an example of abolishing federalism. The Senators were supposed to represent the interests of the individual state governments not the people directly. By taking that power away from the states you move closer to democracy and further away from federalism.

So you are more for Federalism than anything else?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How do you think we abolished Federalism with the 17th? and was it the 17th alone that leads you to believe this??

Certainly not. We essentially abolished federalism with the Civil War. That's the time where you can see the states taking a backseat to the centralization of power by the federal government. The 17th Amendment is simply an example of abolishing federalism. The Senators were supposed to represent the interests of the individual state governments not the people directly. By taking that power away from the states you move closer to democracy and further away from federalism.

So you are more for Federalism than anything else?

I don't know if I'm more for it than individual rights, but I believe federalism is one of the most important aspects to our system of governance.

 

[Dante]

Certainly not. We essentially abolished federalism with the Civil War. That's the time where you can see the states taking a backseat to the centralization of power by the federal government. The 17th Amendment is simply an example of abolishing federalism. The Senators were supposed to represent the interests of the individual state governments not the people directly. By taking that power away from the states you move closer to democracy and further away from federalism.

So you are more for Federalism than anything else?

I don't know if I'm more for it than individual rights, but I believe federalism is one of the most important aspects to our system of governance.

Aren't you laying out a false choice between Federalism and individual rights?

Would you agree with me that we have a pretty good, yet flawed system and that most of the current proposed alternatives proposed by credible people ([ame="http://www.amazon.com/More-Perfect-Constitution-Revised-Generation/product-reviews/0802716830"]Sabato[/ame], and others) are found lacking?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you are more for Federalism than anything else?

I don't know if I'm more for it than individual rights, but I believe federalism is one of the most important aspects to our system of governance.

Aren't you laying out a false choice between Federalism and individual rights?

Would you agree with me that we have a pretty good, yet flawed system and that most of the current proposed alternatives proposed by credible people ([ame="http://www.amazon.com/More-Perfect-Constitution-Revised-Generation/product-reviews/0802716830"]Sabato[/ame], and others) are found lacking?

Well you asked me if I'm more for Federalism than anything else, so I brought up something else I believe strongly in to compare and contrast. I don't think I'm for one particular thing more than any other, would probably have been a better answer to your question.

I think we have a good system, and that it certainly is flawed. I'm not familiar with Sabato but reading some of his suggestions in the review of his books I'd say I agree with some and oppose others. I think a bigger House of Representatives is necessary as each Representative has far too many constituents to possibly be able to represent them adequately. His idea of a Bill of Responsibilities I'd look at as slavery. The government doesn't have the right to force people into any kind of civilian or military service. His underlying premise of a Constitution to change with the times I disagree with as well. The founders gave us the ability to amend the Constitution, which means that they didn't intend for the Constitution's meaning to change with the times unless it was officially amended.

 

[editec]

Direct Democracy leads to the tyranny of the majority. That is why the FF rejected it. Unfortunately, we see the rise of a different breed of tyranny- that of the de facto oligarchy what buys political power without the slightest hint of real concern for either nation or its people. Most Americans, however, don't challenge it.

There's just no escaping the fact that bad monkeys make bad governments.

Americans who throw shit at their keepers don't get many bananas.

 

[Citizen]

Direct Democracy leads to the tyranny of the majority. That is why the FF rejected it. Unfortunately, we see the rise of a different breed of tyranny- that of the de facto oligarchy what buys political power without the slightest hint of real concern for either nation or its people. Most Americans, however, don't challenge it.

There's just no escaping the fact that bad monkeys make bad governments.

Americans who throw shit at their keepers don't get many bananas.

The big problem is that they are not supposed to be our keepers, but our servants.

 

[Dante]

I don't know if I'm more for it than individual rights, but I believe federalism is one of the most important aspects to our system of governance.

Aren't you laying out a false choice between Federalism and individual rights?

Would you agree with me that we have a pretty good, yet flawed system and that most of the current proposed alternatives proposed by credible people ([ame="http://www.amazon.com/More-Perfect-Constitution-Revised-Generation/product-reviews/0802716830"]Sabato[/ame], and others) are found lacking?

Well you asked me if I'm more for Federalism than anything else, so I brought up something else I believe strongly in to compare and contrast. I don't think I'm for one particular thing more than any other, would probably have been a better answer to your question.

I think we have a good system, and that it certainly is flawed. I'm not familiar with Sabato but reading some of his suggestions in the review of his books I'd say I agree with some and oppose others. I think a bigger House of Representatives is necessary as each Representative has far too many constituents to possibly be able to represent them adequately.

A bigger house sounds like a good idea, but my only pause is have the great minds looked at the law of unintended consequences closely enough.

His idea of a Bill of Responsibilities I'd look at as slavery. The government doesn't have the right to force people into any kind of civilian or military service. His underlying premise of a Constitution to change with the times I disagree with as well. The founders gave us the ability to amend the Constitution, which means that they didn't intend for the Constitution's meaning to change with the times unless it was officially amended.

The government can force people into military service and as far as civillian service---the courts do do all the time.

Reading the founders intentions are akin to reading tarot cards.

Madison and Hamilton were both all over the place on this one. The drafters of the Constitution were exacting in words in some parts and vague in others. Looks like they left some things open to interpretation. They were very liberal men.

Truth is the Constitution is a road map more than a bible.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Aren't you laying out a false choice between Federalism and individual rights?

Would you agree with me that we have a pretty good, yet flawed system and that most of the current proposed alternatives proposed by credible people (Sabato, and others) are found lacking?

Well you asked me if I'm more for Federalism than anything else, so I brought up something else I believe strongly in to compare and contrast. I don't think I'm for one particular thing more than any other, would probably have been a better answer to your question.

I think we have a good system, and that it certainly is flawed. I'm not familiar with Sabato but reading some of his suggestions in the review of his books I'd say I agree with some and oppose others. I think a bigger House of Representatives is necessary as each Representative has far too many constituents to possibly be able to represent them adequately.

A bigger house sounds like a good idea, but my only pause is have the great minds looked at the law of unintended consequences closely enough.

His idea of a Bill of Responsibilities I'd look at as slavery. The government doesn't have the right to force people into any kind of civilian or military service. His underlying premise of a Constitution to change with the times I disagree with as well. The founders gave us the ability to amend the Constitution, which means that they didn't intend for the Constitution's meaning to change with the times unless it was officially amended.

The government can force people into military service and as far as civillian service---the courts do do all the time.

Reading the founders intentions are akin to reading tarot cards.

Madison and Hamilton were both all over the place on this one. The drafters of the Constitution were exacting in words in some parts and vague in others. Looks like they left some things open to interpretation. They were very liberal men.

Truth is the Constitution is a road map more than a bible.

Well I don't see many downsides to having a larger House of Representatives, but I suppose that's why it's called unintended consequences.

Yes, the government can force somebody into military service in the sense that it has enough coercive authority to pull that off. However, the Constitution clearly makes a draft illegal.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." - 13th Amendment

What is a draft if not involuntary servitude? Therefore, I think it's safe to equate the draft with slavery, as forcing someone to do something against their will would be a definition of slavery.

Yes, reading their intentions can be a good lesson in contradictions. However, it is my opinion that it is best, in reference to the Constitution, to follow the intentions of the founders before the Constitution was actually ratified. It is only after the Constitution was safely ratified that some of the founders decided that there were so-called "implied powers" in the Constitution that nobody present during the actual Constitutional Convention would have been able to identify at the time.

 

[Dante]

Well you asked me if I'm more for Federalism than anything else, so I brought up something else I believe strongly in to compare and contrast. I don't think I'm for one particular thing more than any other, would probably have been a better answer to your question.

I think we have a good system, and that it certainly is flawed. I'm not familiar with Sabato but reading some of his suggestions in the review of his books I'd say I agree with some and oppose others. I think a bigger House of Representatives is necessary as each Representative has far too many constituents to possibly be able to represent them adequately.

A bigger house sounds like a good idea, but my only pause is have the great minds looked at the law of unintended consequences closely enough.

His idea of a Bill of Responsibilities I'd look at as slavery. The government doesn't have the right to force people into any kind of civilian or military service. His underlying premise of a Constitution to change with the times I disagree with as well. The founders gave us the ability to amend the Constitution, which means that they didn't intend for the Constitution's meaning to change with the times unless it was officially amended.

The government can force people into military service and as far as civillian service---the courts do do all the time.

Reading the founders intentions are akin to reading tarot cards.

Madison and Hamilton were both all over the place on this one. The drafters of the Constitution were exacting in words in some parts and vague in others. Looks like they left some things open to interpretation. They were very liberal men.

Truth is the Constitution is a road map more than a bible.

Well I don't see many downsides to having a larger House of Representatives, but I suppose that's why it's called unintended consequences.

Yes, the government can force somebody into military service in the sense that it has enough coercive authority to pull that off. However, the Constitution clearly makes a draft illegal.

not so clear to most of us. there you go again.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." - 13th Amendment

an amendment out of context. ( certain things in the Constitution are misconstrued when taken out of the context of the whole document. some things are based on the wordings of others.)

What is a draft if not involuntary servitude? Therefore, I think it's safe to equate the draft with slavery, as forcing someone to do something against their will would be a definition of slavery.

your opinion is contrary to judicial ones. or has this never been ruled on?

Yes, reading their intentions can be a good lesson in contradictions. However, it is my opinion that it is best, in reference to the Constitution, to follow the intentions of the founders before the Constitution was actually ratified.

yet we have examples of the founders themselves disagreeing with your opinion.

It is only after the Constitution was safely ratified that some of the founders decided that there were so-called "implied powers" in the Constitution that nobody present during the actual Constitutional Convention would have been able to identify at the time.

weak argument at best. but we are on an internet forum where we sometimes give in to laziness.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A bigger house sounds like a good idea, but my only pause is have the great minds looked at the law of unintended consequences closely enough.


The government can force people into military service and as far as civillian service---the courts do do all the time.

Reading the founders intentions are akin to reading tarot cards.

Madison and Hamilton were both all over the place on this one. The drafters of the Constitution were exacting in words in some parts and vague in others. Looks like they left some things open to interpretation. They were very liberal men.

Truth is the Constitution is a road map more than a bible.

Well I don't see many downsides to having a larger House of Representatives, but I suppose that's why it's called unintended consequences.

Yes, the government can force somebody into military service in the sense that it has enough coercive authority to pull that off. However, the Constitution clearly makes a draft illegal.

not so clear to most of us. there you go again.

an amendment out of context. ( certain things in the Constitution are misconstrued when taken out of the context of the whole document. some things are based on the wordings of others.)

your opinion is contrary to judicial ones. or has this never been ruled on?

Yes, reading their intentions can be a good lesson in contradictions. However, it is my opinion that it is best, in reference to the Constitution, to follow the intentions of the founders before the Constitution was actually ratified.

yet we have examples of the founders themselves disagreeing with your opinion.

It is only after the Constitution was safely ratified that some of the founders decided that there were so-called "implied powers" in the Constitution that nobody present during the actual Constitutional Convention would have been able to identify at the time.

weak argument at best. but we are on an internet forum where we sometimes give in to laziness.

The wording of the Constitution makes a draft illegal, as I already showed with the 13th Amendment. However, the government doesn't like anything that limits their power so they'll simply ignore it.

The founders all believed in a limited constitutional government. Saying that certain people suddenly found powers that the Constitutional Convention never put forth in the Constitution after the Constitution was ratified isn't a weak argument, it's a fact.

 

[Dante]

The wording of the Constitution makes a draft illegal, as I already showed with the 13th Amendment. However, the government doesn't like anything that limits their power so they'll simply ignore it.

No, ratification make it legal. Wordings of parts of the Constitution are exact and some are vague. Why is that?

The founders all believed in a limited constitutional government. Saying that certain people suddenly found powers that the Constitutional Convention never put forth in the Constitution after the Constitution was ratified isn't a weak argument, it's a fact.

I guess it all comes down to interpretations of the word 'limited' with you. The foundesr believed in many things, but agreed to a compromise on particular things. What the documents itself says, the Constitution, is what they all agreed top as a compromise. So pelase do not keep going back tow hat individuals believed as what they may have believed is almost irrelevant in some ways.

 

[Dante]

The wording of the Constitution makes a draft illegal, as I already showed with the 13th Amendment. However, the government doesn't like anything that limits their power so they'll simply ignore it.

No, ratification make it legal. Wordings of parts of the Constitution are exact and some are vague. Why is that?

The founders all believed in a limited constitutional government. Saying that certain people suddenly found powers that the Constitutional Convention never put forth in the Constitution after the Constitution was ratified isn't a weak argument, it's a fact.

I guess it all comes down to interpretations of the word 'limited' with you. The foundesr believed in many things, but agreed to a compromise on particular things. What the documents itself says, the Constitution, is what they all agreed top as a compromise. So pelase do not keep going back to what individuals believed as what they may have believed is almost irrelevant in some ways.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The wording of the Constitution makes a draft illegal, as I already showed with the 13th Amendment. However, the government doesn't like anything that limits their power so they'll simply ignore it.

No, ratification make it legal. Wordings of parts of the Constitution are exact and some are vague. Why is that?

The founders all believed in a limited constitutional government. Saying that certain people suddenly found powers that the Constitutional Convention never put forth in the Constitution after the Constitution was ratified isn't a weak argument, it's a fact.

I guess it all comes down to interpretations of the word 'limited' with you. The foundesr believed in many things, but agreed to a compromise on particular things. What the documents itself says, the Constitution, is what they all agreed top as a compromise. So pelase do not keep going back to what individuals believed as what they may have believed is almost irrelevant in some ways.

Yes, they compromised in the Constitution, no doubt about that. However, they didn't agree in the Constitutional Convention that the Constitution had any "implied powers." They never would have given the federal government unlimited power like that.

 

[Dante]

The wording of the Constitution makes a draft illegal, as I already showed with the 13th Amendment. However, the government doesn't like anything that limits their power so they'll simply ignore it.

No, ratification make it legal. Wordings of parts of the Constitution are exact and some are vague. Why is that?

The founders all believed in a limited constitutional government. Saying that certain people suddenly found powers that the Constitutional Convention never put forth in the Constitution after the Constitution was ratified isn't a weak argument, it's a fact.

I guess it all comes down to interpretations of the word 'limited' with you. The foundesr believed in many things, but agreed to a compromise on particular things. What the documents itself says, the Constitution, is what they all agreed top as a compromise. So pelase do not keep going back to what individuals believed as what they may have believed is almost irrelevant in some ways.

Yes, they compromised in the Constitution, no doubt about that. However, they didn't agree in the Constitutional Convention that the Constitution had any "implied powers." They never would have given the federal government unlimited power like that.

Of course there are implied powers.

[lied does not equate unlimited except in your unlimited imagination.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, ratification make it legal. Wordings of parts of the Constitution are exact and some are vague. Why is that?



I guess it all comes down to interpretations of the word 'limited' with you. The foundesr believed in many things, but agreed to a compromise on particular things. What the documents itself says, the Constitution, is what they all agreed top as a compromise. So pelase do not keep going back to what individuals believed as what they may have believed is almost irrelevant in some ways.

Yes, they compromised in the Constitution, no doubt about that. However, they didn't agree in the Constitutional Convention that the Constitution had any "implied powers." They never would have given the federal government unlimited power like that.

Of course there are implied powers.

[lied does not equate unlimited except in your unlimited imagination.

The 10th Amendment makes clear that there are no implied powers. That was nonsense made up by Alexander Hamilton after the Constitution had already been ratified. If there was such a thing as implied powers then there's no reason to have the Constitution in the first place.

 

[Dante]

Yes, they compromised in the Constitution, no doubt about that. However, they didn't agree in the Constitutional Convention that the Constitution had any "implied powers." They never would have given the federal government unlimited power like that.

Of course there are implied powers.

[lied does not equate unlimited except in your unlimited imagination.

The 10th Amendment makes clear that there are no implied powers. That was nonsense made up by Alexander Hamilton after the Constitution had already been ratified. If there was such a thing as implied powers then there's no reason to have the Constitution in the first place.

The 10th Amendment makes clear that there are no implied powers. That was nonsense made up by Alexander Hamilton after the Constitution had already been ratified. If there was such a thing as implied powers then there's no reason to have the Constitution in the first place

Your reasoning is flawed in the extreme. But you are entitled to your opinion no matter how in error it may be.

 

[Dr Grump]

As far as democratic principles go, I think the US in practice would be great. The reality is much less so. As it stands, I think your current political system is one of the worst in the Western World....maybe even worse than the FFP system we used to have (and Britain still has)....

 

[Dante]

As far as democratic principles go, I think the US in practice would be great. The reality is much less so. As it stands, I think your current political system is one of the worst in the Western World....maybe even worse than the FFP system we used to have (and Britain still has)....

Nothing really that wrong with the system ... it's the people. Sure then system needs work, but I would n-e-v-e-r support a constitutional convention during times like these.

 

[Citizen]

The wording of the Constitution makes a draft illegal, as I already showed with the 13th Amendment. However, the government doesn't like anything that limits their power so they'll simply ignore it.

No, ratification make it legal. Wordings of parts of the Constitution are exact and some are vague. Why is that?

The founders all believed in a limited constitutional government. Saying that certain people suddenly found powers that the Constitutional Convention never put forth in the Constitution after the Constitution was ratified isn't a weak argument, it's a fact.

I guess it all comes down to interpretations of the word 'limited' with you. The foundesr believed in many things, but agreed to a compromise on particular things. What the documents itself says, the Constitution, is what they all agreed top as a compromise. So pelase do not keep going back to what individuals believed as what they may have believed is almost irrelevant in some ways.

Yes, they compromised in the Constitution, no doubt about that. However, they didn't agree in the Constitutional Convention that the Constitution had any "implied powers." They never would have given the federal government unlimited power like that.

Here are a few quotes that indicate the feelings of those that should know what was the intention of our constitution.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." - James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 25, 1788 - considered the 'father of the Constitution'

"On every question of construction (of The Constitution), let us carry ourselves back to the time when The Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson

"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

"There is in the nature of government an impatience of control that disposes those invested with power to look with an evil eye upon all external attempts to restrain or direct its operations. This has its origin in the love of power. Representatives of the people are not superior to the people themselves." - Alexander Hamilton - Federalist Paper No.15, 1787.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." Alexander Tyler

"Aided by a little sophistry on the words 'general welfare', [they claim] a right to do not only the acts to effect that which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will be for the general welfare." --- Thomas Jefferson 1825 to W. Giles.

"...There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. ... Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing." - Daniel Webster, June 1, 1837

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt (1759-1806)

 

[Dante]

Here are a few quotes that indicate the feelings of those that should know what was the intention of our constitution.

...

hello? quotes out of context will not suffice here.

STFU.