Irreconcilable Differences?

[jwoodie]

It is pretty clear that, politically, our nation is split into two camps with antithetical views about the role of government. As a result, we are moving towards a system where whichever side gains a temporary majority can dictate its views without any regard for the minority. This, in turn, creates a feeling of disenfranchisement which undermines confidence in our democracy and leads to civil unrest, which can be expressed in many ways.

One way to avoid this developing situation is to return to the concept of State Sovereignty as envisioned by our Founders in the Constitution. (I avoid the term "States Rights" because of its association with the obviously unconstitutional practice of racial segregation.) This concept, specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, limited the Federal government's authority to impose its will on the various States without their consent. It was the basis upon which 13 political entities, with widely divergent views, were able to join together to create an exceptional new country. The beauty of this system is that it allows people to agree to disagree without infringing on each others' rights.

Why can't we return to that concept for the future? Why must one side impose its will on the other side on an increasing variety of social and moral issues? Why can't the people of individual states decide for themselves? We are all free to express our views with our ballots (and our feet, if necessary). What ever happened to tolerance for opposing viewpoints?

Zealots on both sides should reconsider their authoritarian positions, lest they reap what they have sown.

 

[Rotagilla]

I think proportional representation would be an improvement over what we have now.
Both parties are corrupt beyond redemption and the whole thing is political theater and charade.

With proportional representation you can have several parties all with some amount of say in gvt affairs/policies.

Some of the parties would always be minority (not race.... amount of support) and they may never take power but their function would mainly be to represent their constituents so they don't get bulldozed or ignored by the majority..and as such they would serve as "watchdogs" to make sure the majority follows the law.

The 2 party electoral system is a failure due to both sides being corrupt.

After this nation collapses and is partitioned, during the reconstruction period proportional representation might be able to be implemented in one of the resulting smaller countries that emerge from the rubble.

 

[Valerie]

not really... only extremists want to drown our government in the bathtub.



The Goal: To Drown Government in the Bathtub
"Despite its populist rhetoric, the anti-government movement is clearly working to promote the agenda of some of the most powerful and moneyed interests in American society."
Government is Good - The Anti-Government Campaign

An Unapologetic Defense of a Vital Institution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


From the outset, the American government was primarily seen as an indispensable means of establishing and promoting certain universally recognized public values, such as justice, tranquility, and liberty. And today, as citizens, we need to recognize in government what the founding fathers saw in it: that it is the only institution we can rely on to nourish and protect these kinds of values in our society.

Government is Good - Government as the Champion of Justice Equality Freedom and Security

 

[konradv]

Why can't we return to that concept for the future? Why must one side impose its will on the other side on an increasing variety of social and moral issues? Why can't the people of individual states decide for themselves? We are all free to express our views with our ballots (and our feet, if necessary). What ever happened to tolerance for opposing viewpoints?

That's two different questions. Often the two sides are in the SAME state. Your solution does nothing to stop that. What you advocate is the balkanization of America. If we're to be one country, we need a common framework, not 50. One problem comes when people insist on a concept that I believe never existed, i.e. "original intent". It's a statistical and logical impossibility that all the framers had the same intent. The Constitution should be regarded as a living document that's read in view of the times we live in, NOT the views of 18th century gentry. The Canadians have this concept as a fundamental part of their constitutional law called the Living Tree Doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_tree_doctrine

 

[Rotagilla]

not really... only extremists want to drown our government in the bathtub.



The Goal: To Drown Government in the Bathtub
"Despite its populist rhetoric, the anti-government movement is clearly working to promote the agenda of some of the most powerful and moneyed interests in American society."
Government is Good - The Anti-Government Campaign

An Unapologetic Defense of a Vital Institution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


From the outset, the American government was primarily seen as an indispensable means of establishing and promoting certain universally recognized public values, such as justice, tranquility, and liberty. And today, as citizens, we need to recognize in government what the founding fathers saw in it: that it is the only institution we can rely on to nourish and protect these kinds of values in our society.

Government is Good - Government as the Champion of Justice Equality Freedom and Security

Who "wants to drown our....etc..."?
I didn't see that part?

 

[Foxfyre]

It is pretty clear that, politically, our nation is split into two camps with antithetical views about the role of government. As a result, we are moving towards a system where whichever side gains a temporary majority can dictate its views without any regard for the minority. This, in turn, creates a feeling of disenfranchisement which undermines confidence in our democracy and leads to civil unrest, which can be expressed in many ways.

One way to avoid this developing situation is to return to the concept of State Sovereignty as envisioned by our Founders in the Constitution. (I avoid the term "States Rights" because of its association with the obviously unconstitutional practice of racial segregation.) This concept, specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, limited the Federal government's authority to impose its will on the various States without their consent. It was the basis upon which 13 political entities, with widely divergent views, were able to join together to create an exceptional new country. The beauty of this system is that it allows people to agree to disagree without infringing on each others' rights.

Why can't we return to that concept for the future? Why must one side impose its will on the other side on an increasing variety of social and moral issues? Why can't the people of individual states decide for themselves? We are all free to express our views with our ballots (and our feet, if necessary). What ever happened to tolerance for opposing viewpoints?

Zealots on both sides should reconsider their authoritarian positions, lest they reap what they have sown.

I have long been beating the drum for this concept. The original intent of the Founders, however they might have disagreed on HOW best to achieve it, was to create a nation in which the people would be subject to no dictator, feudal lord, dictator, monarch, pope, or other totalitarian form of government.

The Constitution was intended to allow for sufficient regulation to secure and defend the rights of the people and allow the various states to function as one nation, and then it was intended that the federal government would leave the people strictly alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

The divided government with executive, legislative, and judicial branches, each assigned its own powers, was intended to protect against any form of totalitarianism.

But power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth are heady temptations for the best of people, and over time a permanent political class, something the Founders would have abhorred, has developed blurring the lines between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches and has given away to an increasing totalitarianism that the Constitution was supposed to prevent.

The only difference between Republicans and Democrats, both populated with the permanent political class these days, is that they represent different constituencies and each throws enough bones to their own base to keep the people voting them into office. When that no longer works for them, I'm pretty sure they would figure out a way to do away with the vote.

Returning all the power and resources to the states other than that necessary for the states to function as one nation would remedy the whole thing.

 

[konradv]

It is pretty clear that, politically, our nation is split into two camps with antithetical views about the role of government. As a result, we are moving towards a system where whichever side gains a temporary majority can dictate its views without any regard for the minority. This, in turn, creates a feeling of disenfranchisement which undermines confidence in our democracy and leads to civil unrest, which can be expressed in many ways.

One way to avoid this developing situation is to return to the concept of State Sovereignty as envisioned by our Founders in the Constitution. (I avoid the term "States Rights" because of its association with the obviously unconstitutional practice of racial segregation.) This concept, specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, limited the Federal government's authority to impose its will on the various States without their consent. It was the basis upon which 13 political entities, with widely divergent views, were able to join together to create an exceptional new country. The beauty of this system is that it allows people to agree to disagree without infringing on each others' rights.

Why can't we return to that concept for the future? Why must one side impose its will on the other side on an increasing variety of social and moral issues? Why can't the people of individual states decide for themselves? We are all free to express our views with our ballots (and our feet, if necessary). What ever happened to tolerance for opposing viewpoints?

Zealots on both sides should reconsider their authoritarian positions, lest they reap what they have sown.

I have long been beating the drum for this concept. The original intent of the Founders, however they might have disagreed on HOW best to achieve it, was to create a nation in which the people would be subject to no dictator, feudal lord, dictator, monarch, pope, or other totalitarian form of government.

The Constitution was intended to allow for sufficient regulation to secure and defend the rights of the people and allow the various states to function as one nation, and then it was intended that the federal government would leave the people strictly alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

The divided government with executive, legislative, and judicial branches, each assigned its own powers, was intended to protect against any form of totalitarianism.

But power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth are heady temptations for the best of people, and over time a permanent political class, something the Founders would have abhorred, has developed blurring the lines between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches and has given away to an increasing totalitarianism that the Constitution was supposed to prevent.

The only difference between Republicans and Democrats, both populated with the permanent political class these days, is that they represent different constituencies and each throws enough bones to their own base to keep the people voting them into office. When that no longer works for them, I'm pretty sure they would figure out a way to do away with the vote.

Returning all the power and resources to the states other than that necessary for the states to function as one nation would remedy the whole thing.

Nice read, but your thesis is still all about what the "Founders" wanted. What matters is what "we the people" want. That means today's people, NOT those of the late 18th century.

 

[jwoodie]

Why can't we return to that concept for the future? Why must one side impose its will on the other side on an increasing variety of social and moral issues? Why can't the people of individual states decide for themselves? We are all free to express our views with our ballots (and our feet, if necessary). What ever happened to tolerance for opposing viewpoints?

That's two different questions. Often the two sides are in the SAME state. Your solution does nothing to stop that. What you advocate is the balkanization of America. If we're to be one country, we need a common framework, not 50. One problem comes when people insist on a concept that I believe never existed, i.e. "original intent". It's a statistical and logical impossibility that all the framers had the same intent. The Constitution should be regarded as a living document that's read in view of the times we live in, NOT the views of 18th century gentry. The Canadians have this concept as a fundamental part of their constitutional law called the Living Tree Doctrine.

Living tree doctrine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1. This is the USA, not Canada. We have a Constitution that can be AMENDED by a SPECIFIED PROCESS. Your "living document" BS is nothing more than an excuse for circumventing this process for your own ends.

2. Differences within a State should be resolved through the political process, not federal judicial fiat.

3. Re "balkanization" - Do you object to States having their own laws? Why do you feel the need to force your opinion on others?

4. Re "original intent" - Why do you oppose the plain wording of original documents? Do you think a party (e.g., federal government) to a contract (e.g., Constitution) has a unilateral right to void any provisions it deems inconvenient? (See #1 above.)

 

[konradv]

1. This is the USA, not Canada. We have a Constitution that can be AMENDED by a SPECIFIED PROCESS. Your "living document" BS is nothing more than an excuse for circumventing this process for your own ends.

2. Differences within a State should be resolved through the political process, not federal judicial fiat.

3. Re "balkanization" - Do you object to States having their own laws? Why do you feel the need to force your opinion on others?

4. Re "original intent" - Why do you oppose the plain wording of original documents? Do you think a party (e.g., federal government) to a contract (e.g., Constitution) has a unilateral right to void any provisions it deems inconvenient? (See #1 above.)

1. So what if this isn't Canada, it's a general Politics board and I'm free to talk about any system I care to. The "living document" idea is not BS or you wouldn't be complaining and the SC would have ruled against many of the laws you dislike.

2. You've changed your tone here. I thought it was about imposing one's will on others. The federal government is there to make sure that doesn't happen within a state, too.

3. I don't object to states having their own laws, but that has to be balanced with the "equal protection" portion of the Constitution.

4. I don't agree that's there's necessarily "plain wording" in the entire Constitution. There are parts that are vague and/or contradictory. If it were plain, there would be no need for the SC to rule.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Our differences are reconcilable. Common sense, campaign finance reform and truth in media and advertising would help much more than some weird state-by-state BS.

 

[jwoodie]

1. This is the USA, not Canada. We have a Constitution that can be AMENDED by a SPECIFIED PROCESS. Your "living document" BS is nothing more than an excuse for circumventing this process for your own ends.

2. Differences within a State should be resolved through the political process, not federal judicial fiat.

3. Re "balkanization" - Do you object to States having their own laws? Why do you feel the need to force your opinion on others?

4. Re "original intent" - Why do you oppose the plain wording of original documents? Do you think a party (e.g., federal government) to a contract (e.g., Constitution) has a unilateral right to void any provisions it deems inconvenient? (See #1 above.)

1. So what if this isn't Canada, it's a general Politics board and I'm free to talk about any system I care to. The "living document" idea is not BS or you wouldn't be complaining and the SC would have ruled against many of the laws you dislike.

2. You've changed your tone here. I thought it was about imposing one's will on others. The federal government is there to make sure that doesn't happen within a state, too.

3. I don't object to states having their own laws, but that has to be balanced with the "equal protection" portion of the Constitution.

4. I don't agree that's there's necessarily "plain wording" in the entire Constitution. There are parts that are vague and/or contradictory. If it were plain, there would be no need for the SC to rule.

1. This is the Clean Debate Zone not the Politics Forum.

2. That is the job of the Constitution and SCOTUS.

3. Equal Protection prohibits discrimination. I already covered that.

4. How about clarifying them by AMENDMENT?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“One way to avoid this developing situation is to return to the concept of State Sovereignty as envisioned by our Founders in the Constitution.”

Incorrect.

'State sovereignty' was never the intent of the Framers – quite the opposite, actually. It was the clear intent of the Framers that the Federal Constitution, its case law, acts of Congress, and the Federal courts were to be supreme (see: US Constitution Article VI, Cooper v. Aaron (1958), US Term Limits v. Thorton (1995)).

Consequently, there's nothing to 'return to,' as the Constitution exists today as intended by the Founding Generation.

The American people residing in the states are first and foremost citizens of the United States, where their civil liberties are not subject to the 'majority rule' of a given state or jurisdiction, and where the rights of the states are subordinate to the inalienable rights of citizens.

The resolution to this conflict is for the states to cease seeking to violate the civil rights of American citizens – to allow same sex couples access to marriage law, to allow minority voters access to the polls absent undue burdens, and to respect the privacy rights of women.

“Why can't the people of individual states decide for themselves?”

They may decide for themselves to the extent that they recognize the supremacy of the Constitution and its case law, where the people of the individual states may not decide to disadvantage a class of persons absent a rational basis and a proper legislative end. As long as the people of the individual states decide to respect the rights of their fellow citizens, they're at liberty to decide whatever issue they wish for themselves.

Unfortunately that resolution is currently not at hand, as many states continue to seek to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights and women their privacy rights.

 

[konradv]

1. This is the USA, not Canada. We have a Constitution that can be AMENDED by a SPECIFIED PROCESS. Your "living document" BS is nothing more than an excuse for circumventing this process for your own ends.

2. Differences within a State should be resolved through the political process, not federal judicial fiat.

3. Re "balkanization" - Do you object to States having their own laws? Why do you feel the need to force your opinion on others?

4. Re "original intent" - Why do you oppose the plain wording of original documents? Do you think a party (e.g., federal government) to a contract (e.g., Constitution) has a unilateral right to void any provisions it deems inconvenient? (See #1 above.)

1. So what if this isn't Canada, it's a general Politics board and I'm free to talk about any system I care to. The "living document" idea is not BS or you wouldn't be complaining and the SC would have ruled against many of the laws you dislike.

2. You've changed your tone here. I thought it was about imposing one's will on others. The federal government is there to make sure that doesn't happen within a state, too.

3. I don't object to states having their own laws, but that has to be balanced with the "equal protection" portion of the Constitution.

4. I don't agree that's there's necessarily "plain wording" in the entire Constitution. There are parts that are vague and/or contradictory. If it were plain, there would be no need for the SC to rule.

1. This is the Clean Debate Zone not the Politics Forum.

2. That is the job of the Constitution and SCOTUS.

3. Equal Protection prohibits discrimination. I already covered that.

4. How about clarifying them by AMENDMENT?

1. So what? A distinction without a difference. We can discuss politics in the CDZ and I wasn't being disrespectful.

2. The Constitution doesn't have a job. It's a piece of paper. The SC does have a job and so far they've said you're wrong.

3. I know and good for you.

4. The main example is the enumeration of powers and the vagueness of "general welfare". Please don't tell us what it means, that's the USSC's job.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

1. This is the USA, not Canada. We have a Constitution that can be AMENDED by a SPECIFIED PROCESS. Your "living document" BS is nothing more than an excuse for circumventing this process for your own ends.

2. Differences within a State should be resolved through the political process, not federal judicial fiat.

3. Re "balkanization" - Do you object to States having their own laws? Why do you feel the need to force your opinion on others?

4. Re "original intent" - Why do you oppose the plain wording of original documents? Do you think a party (e.g., federal government) to a contract (e.g., Constitution) has a unilateral right to void any provisions it deems inconvenient? (See #1 above.)

1. So what if this isn't Canada, it's a general Politics board and I'm free to talk about any system I care to. The "living document" idea is not BS or you wouldn't be complaining and the SC would have ruled against many of the laws you dislike.

2. You've changed your tone here. I thought it was about imposing one's will on others. The federal government is there to make sure that doesn't happen within a state, too.

3. I don't object to states having their own laws, but that has to be balanced with the "equal protection" portion of the Constitution.

4. I don't agree that's there's necessarily "plain wording" in the entire Constitution. There are parts that are vague and/or contradictory. If it were plain, there would be no need for the SC to rule.

1. This is the Clean Debate Zone not the Politics Forum.

2. That is the job of the Constitution and SCOTUS.

3. Equal Protection prohibits discrimination. I already covered that.

4. How about clarifying them by AMENDMENT?

1. So what? A distinction without a difference. We can discuss politics in the CDZ and I wasn't being disrespectful.

2. The Constitution doesn't have a job. It's a piece of paper. The SC does have a job and so far they've said you're wrong.

3. I know and good for you.

4. The main example is the enumeration of powers and the vagueness of "general welfare". Please don't tell us what it means, that's the USSC's job.

Correct.


The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the US Constitution.


This is a fundamental, settled, and accepted fact of Constitutional jurisprudence, acknowledged by jurist on every point of the political spectrum.

 

[jwoodie]

Why are you so afraid of AMENDING the Constitution as needed rather than by judicial fiat? That power is SPECIFICALLY granted to the STATES. Or do you consider that process "vague?" The answer, of course, is that you and your ilk want to impose your will on other people without their assent or recourse. How admirable.

 

[Rotagilla]

1. This is the USA, not Canada. We have a Constitution that can be AMENDED by a SPECIFIED PROCESS. Your "living document" BS is nothing more than an excuse for circumventing this process for your own ends.

2. Differences within a State should be resolved through the political process, not federal judicial fiat.

3. Re "balkanization" - Do you object to States having their own laws? Why do you feel the need to force your opinion on others?

4. Re "original intent" - Why do you oppose the plain wording of original documents? Do you think a party (e.g., federal government) to a contract (e.g., Constitution) has a unilateral right to void any provisions it deems inconvenient? (See #1 above.)

1. So what if this isn't Canada, it's a general Politics board and I'm free to talk about any system I care to. The "living document" idea is not BS or you wouldn't be complaining and the SC would have ruled against many of the laws you dislike.

2. You've changed your tone here. I thought it was about imposing one's will on others. The federal government is there to make sure that doesn't happen within a state, too.

3. I don't object to states having their own laws, but that has to be balanced with the "equal protection" portion of the Constitution.

4. I don't agree that's there's necessarily "plain wording" in the entire Constitution. There are parts that are vague and/or contradictory. If it were plain, there would be no need for the SC to rule.

1. This is the Clean Debate Zone not the Politics Forum.

2. That is the job of the Constitution and SCOTUS.

3. Equal Protection prohibits discrimination. I already covered that.

4. How about clarifying them by AMENDMENT?

1. So what? A distinction without a difference. We can discuss politics in the CDZ and I wasn't being disrespectful.

2. The Constitution doesn't have a job. It's a piece of paper. The SC does have a job and so far they've said you're wrong.

3. I know and good for you.

4. The main example is the enumeration of powers and the vagueness of "general welfare". Please don't tell us what it means, that's the USSC's job.

Correct.


The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the US Constitution.


This is a fundamental, settled, and accepted fact of Constitutional jurisprudence, acknowledged by jurist on every point of the political spectrum.

"Settled" is meaningless.
Prohibition was "settled law", too.

 

[oldfart]

I take it that advocates of state sovereignty have no problem with states limiting second amendment rights?

So exactly who decides which rights in the Constitution are immune from state action, and how does that differ from what we have now?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Irreconcilable Differences?

Yes.


Obviously with the minority on the extreme and recalcitrant right who refuse to accept these fundamental facts of Constitutional law:


That the Supreme Court has the authority to determine what the Constitution means, as authorized by the Constitution and the doctrine of judicial review, practiced in Colonial America since before the advent of the Foundation Era (Marbury v. Madison (1803)).


That the Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).


And that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land, as are acts of Congress, and the rulings of the Federal courts (Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), Cooper v. Aaron (1858)).


Consequently, and unfortunately, it becomes impossible to engage in any meaningful discussion as to the Constitution and it case law with such individuals who refuse to acknowledge these settled and accepted facts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why are you so afraid of AMENDING the Constitution as needed rather than by judicial fiat? That power is SPECIFICALLY granted to the STATES. Or do you consider that process "vague?" The answer, of course, is that you and your ilk want to impose your will on other people without their assent or recourse. How admirable.

It has nothing to do with being 'afraid' of anything.

It has to do with the fact that the Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition that is as much a part of the Constitution as its text and its case law, where the Constitution exists solely in the context of this case law, and where the centuries of judicial tradition afford the Constitution its authority as the supreme law of the land.

It has to do with the fact that the many conflicts and controversies of the day, as adjudicated by state and Federal courts, and that may be subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court, cannot be resolved through the amendment process as to do so would undermine the authority of the Constitution itself, where the 'amendments' would be in turn subject to judicial review for interpretation and application, and where the Constitution – cluttered over time with thousands of 'amendments' would cease to function as a viable source of legal authority.

Last, it has to do with the fact that the Constitution itself mandates that the conflicts and controversies of the day be within the purview of the judiciary, as authorized by Article III, where “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution[...]the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact[.]” And where Article VI mandates that the Constitution “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Given the centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition, the doctrine of judicial review authorized by that tradition and practiced in Colonial America for well over a century, and the text of the Constitution itself, it's clear that the Founding Generation expected the courts to continue to review acts of government and invalidate those acts repugnant to the Constitution in accordance with the Founding Document the people created and codified themselves.

 

[konradv]

Why are you so afraid of AMENDING the Constitution as needed rather than by judicial fiat? That power is SPECIFICALLY granted to the STATES. Or do you consider that process "vague?" The answer, of course, is that you and your ilk want to impose your will on other people without their assent or recourse. How admirable.

All that matters is, is it Constitutional? That's determined by the SC. So, it's impossible for anyone to "impose their will". If the SC says it's OK, it isn't an imposition. If the SC says it isn't OK, the law is void. Sure you can amend the Constitution, but that's a long and tedious process. Why go through all that, if there's an easier way? If the SC says no, THEN think about the amendment route.