CDZ Is the Republic worth saving?

[oldsoul]

Simple question. State your case and discuss if you wish.

 

[MarathonMike]

The country IMO is not at a point that it requires saving. It's true that we are as divided as we have been possibly since the Civil War. But if we made it through that we can make it through this.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Republic is well worth saving.

Those citizens associated with the Democratic Party, however, are not. They sold their birthright for a bag of Doritos, and ate them.

Now they want your Tostitos.

Cast them out.



Changes would include clarifying birthright citizenship and repealing the 17th Amendment.

 

[well named]

It seems clear that the cost (in terms of human well-being, not just for Americans but across the globe) of the collapse of the US would be dramatically worse than the status quo or any reasonable extrapolation of the present into the near-to-medium-term future, even if you hold that the status quo is bad in a lot of ways.

So I think it's clearly worth saving. On the other hand, I've never been less confident of our future stability, and just because it's worth saving doesn't mean it will be saved. But prediction is difficult. Especially of the future.

 

[Tax Man]

I believe it should be revolted and a new un conservative nation established.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I believe it should be revolted and a new un conservative nation established.

Are you willing to give your life for such a goal?

 

[task0778]

I think COTUS is referring to the Constitution, so the OP is talking about getting rid of that. IOW, should we ditch or change our current form of gov't and the basis for our laws Coulda been a bit clearer there, either way; the poll is somewhat inconsistent with the thread title.

My vote is to pretty much leave things the way they are. Any form of gov't or constitution depends on the people to make it work, if the citizens are not involved, knowledgeable, and participating then you're gonna have problems like what we have now. Plus our media and academia are a little bit less than honorable and truthful IMHO, and that isn't helping.

 

[well named]

I thought it meant country, but I wasn't sure, so I went with "saving the Republic" instead.

Constitution makes more sense. Amusingly the answer I chose more accurately reflects my opinion if it means constitution, so that's nice...

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Yes, COTUS = Constitution of the United States.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The republic is worth saving ONLY if we get rid of the enemy democrats

 

[jwoodie]

Not anticipating partisan political parties was the Constitution's biggest omission. Otherwise it was brilliant.

We need a Constitutional Convention to restore its original intentions and defend it against "activist" judges.

 

[toobfreak]

Simple question. State your case and discuss if you wish.

If nothing else, I'd like to see some ambiguity taken out of it such as making to clear once and for all absolutely that the 2A means a free and unrestricted militia of the people with the right to own and bear arms with the purpose of defending the country from ALL enemies from without and within ---- any damn thing they can afford to buy, so long as they are in good standing and uphold the law. I might also limit congresspeople to not more than two terms. I'm fed up with these career, lifetime appointments. One more thing: that elected officials must be held to the highest standards of the law rather than the lowest. And they get paid according to their performance, to be voted on by the people.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not anticipating partisan political parties was the Constitution's biggest omission. Otherwise it was brilliant.

We need a Constitutional Convention to restore its original intentions and defend it against "activist" judges.

While I do not support a convention to alter the Constitution, you are spot on about judges.

1.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.


2.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Simple question. State your case and discuss if you wish.

The correct question should be: should we allow our Constitutional Republic to be destroyed.

Unfortunately its destruction is imminent the consequence of the bane of conservativism.

We can only hope that a future generation will re-establish the Republic.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Simple question. State your case and discuss if you wish.

The correct question should be: should we allow our Constitutional Republic to be destroyed.

No, and I believe you missed your opportunity to destroy it in 2016.

 

[Anathema]

Yes, but only with major changes to the Constitution. We need a document that expresses the responsibilities and duties of a citizen as much as the rights there of. We need to ensure that it is understood the only way to change the meaning of anything in it is via amendment, not simply deciding we don’t like that part anymore. A DEFINITIVE and exclusive list of Congressional powers must be included as well. Lastly, a direct and definitive assertion of the morals and values REQUIRED of all US citizens and the inmediate fatal consequences for violating them must be included.

 

[jwoodie]

The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.

How else could Constitutional violations be enforced?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Simple question. State your case and discuss if you wish.

The correct question should be: should we allow our Constitutional Republic to be destroyed.

Unfortunately its destruction is imminent the consequence of the bane of conservativism.

We can only hope that a future generation will re-establish the Republic.

This, C_Chamber_Pot, is what the Founders memorialized in our founding documents, and what classical liberal....known today as conservatives....still stand for:

Individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Seems you can't understand this.....you must be a government school grad, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.

How else could Constitutional violations be enforced?

What is often forgotten is that all three branches are missioned with viewing the constitutionality of any law....the Congress when they write it, as well as the President when he signs it.


The opinion of the Court falls in the same vein.
There is no requirement to find the Court as superior to the other branches.


Where does the Constitution state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word?????

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



It is well past time to rein in this loose cannon, these self-anointed ayatollahs.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Not anticipating partisan political parties was the Constitution's biggest omission. Otherwise it was brilliant.

We need a Constitutional Convention to restore its original intentions and defend it against "activist" judges.

While I do not support a convention to alter the Constitution, you are spot on about judges.

1.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.

The Marshall Court found such authority in Marbury v. Madison (1803), expanding the Court's authority beyond that found in the Constitution without an amendment to do so.

It was an early distortion of the constitutional model. It essentially made the Court the extra-equal branch of government.