Once and for all, to fix the Federal Government. . . .

[Foxfyre]

you want to "fix" government? get rid of the need for corporate donors. set a given amount for each candidate who obtains a minimum number of signatures and gets on the ballot. no candidate could use their own money or money from donations to supplement the federal funds.

of course, citizens united pretty well screwed any chance of that happening.

Don't you think several items on the suggested list of reforms would take away incentive for corporations, as much as anybody else, to attempt to 'buy' favors from Congress or the President through donations? If you eliminate government power to reward or punish any particular person, group, or entity without extending the same policy to all, you largely eliminate motive to try to use money as influence.

 

[Oddball]

you want to "fix" government? get rid of the need for corporate donors. set a given amount for each candidate who obtains a minimum number of signatures and gets on the ballot. no candidate could use their own money or money from donations to supplement the federal funds.

of course, citizens united pretty well screwed any chance of that happening.

Don't you think several items on the suggested list of reforms would take away incentive for corporations, as much as anybody else, to attempt to 'buy' favors from Congress or the President through donations? If you eliminate government power to reward or punish any particular person, group, or entity without extending the same policy to all, you largely eliminate motive to try to use money as influence.

Or: If you want politicians not to be bought, it only makes sense to take away what they're selling.

 

[Foxfyre]

you want to "fix" government? get rid of the need for corporate donors. set a given amount for each candidate who obtains a minimum number of signatures and gets on the ballot. no candidate could use their own money or money from donations to supplement the federal funds.

of course, citizens united pretty well screwed any chance of that happening.

Don't you think several items on the suggested list of reforms would take away incentive for corporations, as much as anybody else, to attempt to 'buy' favors from Congress or the President through donations? If you eliminate government power to reward or punish any particular person, group, or entity without extending the same policy to all, you largely eliminate motive to try to use money as influence.

Or: If you want politicians not to be bought, it only makes sense to take away what they're selling.

Exactly. Take away the Federal government's power to reward the power seekers, and all that will be left is the incentive to vote people in who will benefit the entire country rather than those who would buy power and profit for themselves.

 

[Nosmo King]

The military is a specific constitutional function/requirement for the Federal Government. That is what makes it different from almost all other administrative functions. For that reason, I have no problem seeing the military as something different from other government functions that are not specific constitutional requirements.

I agree that the way we TREAT (not care for) the least able in our society is a barameter of what sort of society we are. We are the only nation on Earth that is founded on a concept of freedom and unalienable rights of the people; a nation in which it was intended that the government secure our rights and then the people would govern themselves and form whatever society they wished to have.

The difference between you and me, I think, is you seem to be suggesting what I, for want of a better term, refer to as the 'king' mentality. As the people of the Bible did, you clamor for a king to rule and protect and provide for and look after the people. It didn't work out too well for them, and it hasn't worked out too well for us. I don't want functions such as charity handled at the Federal level because, as the Founders knew it would be, it is corrupting both to those in the Federal government and the recipients of the charity. And that is not my definition of compassion.

I don't want a "King" or the state to be solely responsible for caring for the poor. I do want the state to recognize that, while bending over to care for the rich, the poor have slipped through the net.

I wouldn't want to return to the days before Social Security when the elderly could not retire with some degree of dignity and comfort after a lifetime of working to enrich some robber baron. I would not like to return to the days when the cities were choked with over crowded slums and the countryside featured floor less shacks without plumbing or electricity.

I believe that a vibrant working class provides the customers for the bankers, businessmen and powerful elite that are consolidating more and more wealth. They, in their avarice, are killing off the very people they want to sell their goods to.

Compassion surely isn't turning our backs as a nation on those, through no fault of their own, who cannot succeed. Surely there isn't anyone who expects every citizen to become Bill Gates or Thomas Edison. Why are those people revered? Because they are geniuses, the exceptional, the golden boys of society. Why does every Conservative seem to think that the only reason we don't have 300,000,000 billionaires is that 299,950,000 of us are fat, lazy and coddled by government assistance?

 

[Foxfyre]

Fix the federal government FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL? It ain't broken. God help us if we think we can fix government for once and for all. The Founding Fathers understood that there would be nut cases who wanted to "fix the federal government" and they created checks and balances in the greatest system of government ever to appear on the globe. The problem is that the teachers union stopped teaching American history to kids so they grew up thinking they could fix politics for once and for all. All you have to do is recognize that the people hire and fire the politicians, pay attention to the issues and vote your conscience.

I'm sorry but I think it IS broken and it is time to fix it. I am a pretty pragmatic person in almost all things and I put the rose colored glasses away a long time ago. But I also think the very worst reason to not try to accomplish something is because some say it can't be done.

 

[CountofTuscany]

I didn't vote for make sure that congress and the President are separate parties. While I think it worked well under Clinton, the parties have become too partisan and the lines in the sand too rigid. I would like to add spending limits for elections and number of adds that can be utilized. If we minimize the number of adds, hopefully the ones they place will be less about attacking and dirty politics and more about conveying their stance on issues.

Also do away with campaign contributions. Do away with lobbyists throwing money at congress. Let lobbyists present their cases but with out wining and dinning and cash contributions.

 

[Foxfyre]

I didn't vote for make sure that congress and the President are separate parties. While I think it worked well under Clinton, the parties have become too partisan and the lines in the sand too rigid. I would like to add spending limits for elections and number of adds that can be utilized. If we minimize the number of adds, hopefully the ones they place will be less about attacking and dirty politics and more about conveying their stance on issues.

Also do away with campaign contributions. Do away with lobbyists throwing money at congress. Let lobbyists present their cases but with out wining and dinning and cash contributions.

But that would take away some of our First Amendment rights so I would oppose that.

But take away Congress or the President's ability to reward people throwing the money, and the problem is solved. Those with money are likely to use it to elect the best possible people rather than fund the people that will benefit them.

 

[Foxfyre]

I see that as the federal government getting out of benefits programs entirely. The federal government could not use the people's treasury to benefit any person, group, or entity unless all, rich or poor alike, are benefitted equally. The federal government would be prevented from sending foreign aid of any kind. Government installations would be equally spread among the various states according to population. The Federal government would provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare without prejudice), and respect the unalienable rights of the people to pursue their own happiness.

That is how the founding fathers envisioned the federal government they wrote into the Constitution.

With respect, in your opinion.

This does not, however, comport to current Constitutional case law:

United States v. Butler (1936):

By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the “general welfare.” The Court accords great deference to Congress’s decision that a spending program advances the general welfare, and has even questioned whether the restriction is judicially enforceable. Dispute, such as it is, turns on the conditioning of funds.

As with its other powers, Congress may enact legislation “necessary and proper” to effectuate its purposes in taxing and spending. In upholding a law making it a crime to bribe state and local officials who administer programs that receive federal funds, the Court declared that Congress has authority “to see to it that taxpayer dollars . . . are in fact spent for the general welfare, and not frittered away in graft or on projects undermined when funds are siphoned off or corrupt public officers are derelict about demanding value for dollars.” Congress’ failure to require proof of a direct connection between the bribery and the federal funds was permissible, the Court concluded, because “corruption does not have to be that limited to affect the federal interest. Money is fungible, bribed officials are untrustworthy stewards of federal funds, and corrupt contractors do not deliver dollar-for-dollar value.”

Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980):

The general principle is firmly established. “Congress has frequently employed the Spending Power to further broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative directives. This Court has repeatedly upheld against constitutional challenge the use of this technique to induce governments and private parties to cooperate voluntarily with federal policy.”

See also South Dakota v. Dole (1987), where the Court upheld Congress’ authority to withhold highway development funds for states that refused to increase the legal drinking age to 21. It was ‘necessary and proper’ for Congress to ‘promote the general welfare’ by advancing safe interstate travel.

It is exceedingly unlikely that these or a score of similar cases will be overturned anytime soon – or ever, for that matter – as this is considered settled law.

And any amendment to the Constitution, in an attempt to nullify this body of case law, would need to be tens of thousands of pages long to address the manifold possibilities that encompass Congressional taxing and spending authority, such an amendment would soon itself be subject to judicial review, experiencing much the same outcome.

You put a lot of effort into this post and I did not want it to go unacknowledged.

But I am sick to death of government being managed by court decision. The courts should be restricted to interpreting the letter and INTENT of the laws passed by government and should do no more. No court should be writing opinion into case law that expands the letter and INTENT of the original law and thus the court is actually assuming the function of legislation.

Limit the Federal government's ability to benefit or reward or bestow favors on any person, entity, or group, however, and you fix a whole lot of the ability of the courts to pick winners and losers too.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

I see that as the federal government getting out of benefits programs entirely. The federal government could not use the people's treasury to benefit any person, group, or entity unless all, rich or poor alike, are benefitted equally. The federal government would be prevented from sending foreign aid of any kind. Government installations would be equally spread among the various states according to population. The Federal government would provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare without prejudice), and respect the unalienable rights of the people to pursue their own happiness.

That is how the founding fathers envisioned the federal government they wrote into the Constitution.

With respect, in your opinion.

This does not, however, comport to current Constitutional case law:

Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980):

The general principle is firmly established. “Congress has frequently employed the Spending Power to further broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative directives. This Court has repeatedly upheld against constitutional challenge the use of this technique to induce governments and private parties to cooperate voluntarily with federal policy.”

See also South Dakota v. Dole (1987), where the Court upheld Congress’ authority to withhold highway development funds for states that refused to increase the legal drinking age to 21. It was ‘necessary and proper’ for Congress to ‘promote the general welfare’ by advancing safe interstate travel.

It is exceedingly unlikely that these or a score of similar cases will be overturned anytime soon – or ever, for that matter – as this is considered settled law.

And any amendment to the Constitution, in an attempt to nullify this body of case law, would need to be tens of thousands of pages long to address the manifold possibilities that encompass Congressional taxing and spending authority, such an amendment would soon itself be subject to judicial review, experiencing much the same outcome.

You put a lot of effort into this post and I did not want it to go unacknowledged.

But I am sick to death of government being managed by court decision. The courts should be restricted to interpreting the letter and INTENT of the laws passed by government and should do no more. No court should be writing opinion into case law that expands the letter and INTENT of the original law and thus the court is actually assuming the function of legislation.

Limit the Federal government's ability to benefit or reward or bestow favors on any person, entity, or group, however, and you fix a whole lot of the ability of the courts to pick winners and losers too.

If we implemented the bolded part, Congress would be free to pass flagrantly unconstitutional laws, and the SCOTUS would be powerless to stop them.

 

[Foxfyre]

With respect, in your opinion.

This does not, however, comport to current Constitutional case law:





See also South Dakota v. Dole (1987), where the Court upheld Congress’ authority to withhold highway development funds for states that refused to increase the legal drinking age to 21. It was ‘necessary and proper’ for Congress to ‘promote the general welfare’ by advancing safe interstate travel.

It is exceedingly unlikely that these or a score of similar cases will be overturned anytime soon – or ever, for that matter – as this is considered settled law.

And any amendment to the Constitution, in an attempt to nullify this body of case law, would need to be tens of thousands of pages long to address the manifold possibilities that encompass Congressional taxing and spending authority, such an amendment would soon itself be subject to judicial review, experiencing much the same outcome.

You put a lot of effort into this post and I did not want it to go unacknowledged.

But I am sick to death of government being managed by court decision. The courts should be restricted to interpreting the letter and INTENT of the laws passed by government and should do no more. No court should be writing opinion into case law that expands the letter and INTENT of the original law and thus the court is actually assuming the function of legislation.

Limit the Federal government's ability to benefit or reward or bestow favors on any person, entity, or group, however, and you fix a whole lot of the ability of the courts to pick winners and losers too.

If we implemented the bolded part, Congress would be free to pass flagrantly unconstitutional laws, and the SCOTUS would be powerless to stop them.

Nope. The letter and intent of the Constitution is the primary law and would still apply.

 

[candycorn]

Look,

I'll use a 21st century example; how would you like to be running your business using Windows ME?

I don't think anybody would argue that the Windows prodcuct was revolutionary; that the face of the world would be 100% different without it, that there was nothing like it prior to Windows...

But if you were to say, "Hey, I have the ME edition (or Win95 or Win 2000), I'm set for life" you'd be set alright; set up for failure.

Our coding--the Constitution--was revolutionary, the face of the world would be 100% different without it, and there was nothing like it prior...except it has outlived it's worthiness (not usefulness). It needs to be revisited to be compatible with 21st century realities;

The realities that not the best and the brightest yearn to serve; that people have private agendas; that the old adage that "politics stops at the water's edge" is definitely not the case.

I'll leave with 2 thoughts; one I'll flub and the other I'll get right on the money;

Someone said the Constitution was "Written by giants to be used by pygmies" I'm not sure thats the case but nowadays we have pygmies that can't agree on what the damn thing says. This is a problem.

Secondly...someone once said that if you try to make something idiot proof, someone someday will build a stronger idiot. That day is here.

We get the government we deserve--I have always said that. However the government we deserve is in danger of wrecking the entire country. Apathetic voters and idle citizens (me included) who elect these morons and allow these morons to be elected of all political and ideological stripes are to blame but our survival is at stake more now than at any point in the last century.

I firmly believe that there will be a watershed moment in the very near future where people will wake up and we will decide to actually update the damn program.

It can't happen soon enough.

 

[Foxfyre]

Look,

I'll use a 21st century example; how would you like to be running your business using Windows ME?

I don't think anybody would argue that the Windows prodcuct was revolutionary; that the face of the world would be 100% different without it, that there was nothing like it prior to Windows...

But if you were to say, "Hey, I have the ME edition (or Win95 or Win 2000), I'm set for life" you'd be set alright; set up for failure.

Our coding--the Constitution--was revolutionary, the face of the world would be 100% different without it, and there was nothing like it prior...except it has outlived it's worthiness (not usefulness). It needs to be revisited to be compatible with 21st century realities;

The realities that not the best and the brightest yearn to serve; that people have private agendas; that the old adage that "politics stops at the water's edge" is definitely not the case.

I'll leave with 2 thoughts; one I'll flub and the other I'll get right on the money;

Someone said the Constitution was "Written by giants to be used by pygmies" I'm not sure thats the case but nowadays we have pygmies that can't agree on what the damn thing says. This is a problem.

Secondly...someone once said that if you try to make something idiot proof, someone someday will build a stronger idiot. That day is here.

We get the government we deserve--I have always said that. However the government we deserve is in danger of wrecking the entire country. Apathetic voters and idle citizens (me included) who elect these morons and allow these morons to be elected of all political and ideological stripes are to blame but our survival is at stake more now than at any point in the last century.

I firmly believe that there will be a watershed moment in the very near future where people will wake up and we will decide to actually update the damn program.

It can't happen soon enough.

Yes, we do have the government we deserve because we let down our guard and chose not to defend the principles, concepts, and intent that went into the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is not a program though. It is a principle, a concept, an intent. And THAT is what we need to return to.

I have confidence in the infinate capacity of humankind to recognize its flaws, mistakes, error, and sins, to confess and accept the consequences for them, and learn how to get it right.

And I am hoping for a positive and righteous reform spirit to take over the conscience of our nation. Maybe a thread like this will be a tiny spark to contribute to that.

Somewhere in there are two important principles:

1) You cannot fix a bad system by changing people.

2) You cannot fix bad people by changing the system.

I think those two principles must be factored into any reforms we push for.

 

[candycorn]

Don't you think several items on the suggested list of reforms would take away incentive for corporations, as much as anybody else, to attempt to 'buy' favors from Congress or the President through donations? If you eliminate government power to reward or punish any particular person, group, or entity without extending the same policy to all, you largely eliminate motive to try to use money as influence.

Or: If you want politicians not to be bought, it only makes sense to take away what they're selling.

Exactly. Take away the Federal government's power to reward the power seekers, and all that will be left is the incentive to vote people in who will benefit the entire country rather than those who would buy power and profit for themselves.[/QUOTE]

That isn't going to happen; the 2nd District of North Carolina, for example, has a moron representing it. She was voted in because she was preferred to other people whose name was on the ballot.

That can't be legislated out of existence. The best and the brightest need not choose to serve and drafting them isn't the American way. While I think the idea of just nominating them to serve is interesting, I know that if in some bizarro world, I was nominated and won the election, I would not want to go to Phoenix or Washington and serve.

I think it is foolish to expect the technicians (politicians) to change. Ambitious people will still gravitate to positions of power be it in the public or private sectors. What you need to do is limit severely the tools at their disposal.

One Senator can block legislation. Very bad idea.

One Senator can place riders onto bills that would, in fact, kill those bills. Very bad idea.

Parties draw congressional districts to keep their members safe. Extremely bad idea.

Elections are held on one day in November regardless of weather conditions and with no way to address any irregularities until well after the election is decided. Very bad idea for a 300M+ population.

There is nothing in the Constitution that ties spending to any measure of GDP. Are you kidding me?

Argue all you wish about the document's intent but until you put numbers into the Constitution, it's nothing but argument. In the meantime, only the most politically digestable legislation passes. And you end up with half measures that address nothing. For example, I loved those who argued it was "morally important" to pass Obamacare...yet somehow it wasn't "morally important" to include dental care? Ehhh..

 

[candycorn]

Look,

I'll use a 21st century example; how would you like to be running your business using Windows ME?

I don't think anybody would argue that the Windows prodcuct was revolutionary; that the face of the world would be 100% different without it, that there was nothing like it prior to Windows...

But if you were to say, "Hey, I have the ME edition (or Win95 or Win 2000), I'm set for life" you'd be set alright; set up for failure.

Our coding--the Constitution--was revolutionary, the face of the world would be 100% different without it, and there was nothing like it prior...except it has outlived it's worthiness (not usefulness). It needs to be revisited to be compatible with 21st century realities;

The realities that not the best and the brightest yearn to serve; that people have private agendas; that the old adage that "politics stops at the water's edge" is definitely not the case.

I'll leave with 2 thoughts; one I'll flub and the other I'll get right on the money;

Someone said the Constitution was "Written by giants to be used by pygmies" I'm not sure thats the case but nowadays we have pygmies that can't agree on what the damn thing says. This is a problem.

Secondly...someone once said that if you try to make something idiot proof, someone someday will build a stronger idiot. That day is here.

We get the government we deserve--I have always said that. However the government we deserve is in danger of wrecking the entire country. Apathetic voters and idle citizens (me included) who elect these morons and allow these morons to be elected of all political and ideological stripes are to blame but our survival is at stake more now than at any point in the last century.

I firmly believe that there will be a watershed moment in the very near future where people will wake up and we will decide to actually update the damn program.

It can't happen soon enough.

Yes, we do have the government we deserve because we let down our guard and chose not to defend the principles, concepts, and intent that went into the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is not a program though. It is a principle, a concept, an intent. And THAT is what we need to return to.

I have confidence in the infinate capacity of humankind to recognize its flaws, mistakes, error, and sins, to confess and accept the consequences for them, and learn how to get it right.

And I am hoping for a positive and righteous reform spirit to take over the conscience of our nation. Maybe a thread like this will be a tiny spark to contribute to that.

Somewhere in there are two important principles:

1) You cannot fix a bad system by changing people.

2) You cannot fix bad people by changing the system.

I think those two principles must be factored into any reforms we push for.

I have to get back to the office...if you can't fix it by changing people and chan't fix it by changing the system...what else is there?

 

[Foxfyre]

Look,

I'll use a 21st century example; how would you like to be running your business using Windows ME?

I don't think anybody would argue that the Windows prodcuct was revolutionary; that the face of the world would be 100% different without it, that there was nothing like it prior to Windows...

But if you were to say, "Hey, I have the ME edition (or Win95 or Win 2000), I'm set for life" you'd be set alright; set up for failure.

Our coding--the Constitution--was revolutionary, the face of the world would be 100% different without it, and there was nothing like it prior...except it has outlived it's worthiness (not usefulness). It needs to be revisited to be compatible with 21st century realities;

The realities that not the best and the brightest yearn to serve; that people have private agendas; that the old adage that "politics stops at the water's edge" is definitely not the case.

I'll leave with 2 thoughts; one I'll flub and the other I'll get right on the money;

Someone said the Constitution was "Written by giants to be used by pygmies" I'm not sure thats the case but nowadays we have pygmies that can't agree on what the damn thing says. This is a problem.

Secondly...someone once said that if you try to make something idiot proof, someone someday will build a stronger idiot. That day is here.

We get the government we deserve--I have always said that. However the government we deserve is in danger of wrecking the entire country. Apathetic voters and idle citizens (me included) who elect these morons and allow these morons to be elected of all political and ideological stripes are to blame but our survival is at stake more now than at any point in the last century.

I firmly believe that there will be a watershed moment in the very near future where people will wake up and we will decide to actually update the damn program.

It can't happen soon enough.

Yes, we do have the government we deserve because we let down our guard and chose not to defend the principles, concepts, and intent that went into the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is not a program though. It is a principle, a concept, an intent. And THAT is what we need to return to.

I have confidence in the infinate capacity of humankind to recognize its flaws, mistakes, error, and sins, to confess and accept the consequences for them, and learn how to get it right.

And I am hoping for a positive and righteous reform spirit to take over the conscience of our nation. Maybe a thread like this will be a tiny spark to contribute to that.

Somewhere in there are two important principles:

1) You cannot fix a bad system by changing people.

2) You cannot fix bad people by changing the system.

I think those two principles must be factored into any reforms we push for.

I have to get back to the office...if you can't fix it by changing people and chan't fix it by changing the system...what else is there?

You change the system so that bad people cannot misuse or benefit from it.

You change the people to those who want to work within such a system.

 

[candycorn]

Yes, we do have the government we deserve because we let down our guard and chose not to defend the principles, concepts, and intent that went into the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is not a program though. It is a principle, a concept, an intent. And THAT is what we need to return to.

I have confidence in the infinate capacity of humankind to recognize its flaws, mistakes, error, and sins, to confess and accept the consequences for them, and learn how to get it right.

And I am hoping for a positive and righteous reform spirit to take over the conscience of our nation. Maybe a thread like this will be a tiny spark to contribute to that.

Somewhere in there are two important principles:

1) You cannot fix a bad system by changing people.

2) You cannot fix bad people by changing the system.

I think those two principles must be factored into any reforms we push for.

I have to get back to the office...if you can't fix it by changing people and chan't fix it by changing the system...what else is there?

You change the system so that bad people cannot misuse or benefit from it.

You change the people to those who want to work within such a system.

Good luck with the latter; the former is the only thing that matters and makes the latter irrelevant.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Get the money and special interest influence out of politics (Impossible, you betcha). However, the Senate and House could enforce real and strict ethics rules with severe consequences ... that' as likely as campaign and election finance reform.

The Justice Dept might enforce the laws on bribery, but how likely is that? Even if it would crete a seperaton of powers conflict, see the controversy and inaction regarding Mr. Justice Thomas.

We might pass a Constitutional Amendment providing the line-item veto to the POTUS. If so a single six year term for POTUS would make some sense.

Giving the same rights of defense to public officals in terms of civil and criminal protection against libel and slander makes sense to me, I'm sure the 4th estate would not agree, blogers and the echo chamber will disagree.

Repeal of Citizens United v. FEC would be a step in the right direction, of course Mr. Justice Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Chief Roberts clearly disagree.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have to get back to the office...if you can't fix it by changing people and chan't fix it by changing the system...what else is there?

You change the system so that bad people cannot misuse or benefit from it.

You change the people to those who want to work within such a system.

Good luck with the latter; the former is the only thing that matters and makes the latter irrelevant.

No, the latter is critical too. It is imperative to elect public servants to administer the laws and functions of government and who know how important it is to secure and defend the rights of the people. Elections will be as important as ever, but if we have the right system in place--that which was in place for the first hundred years of the Republic--we will elect public servants again instead of opportunistic career politicians.

 

[editec]

Our governments are a reflection of the shit-for-brains philosophical value system we've allowed to take it over.

We have to fix ourselves before our government is going to get better.

 

[idb]

Yes, we do have the government we deserve because we let down our guard and chose not to defend the principles, concepts, and intent that went into the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is not a program though. It is a principle, a concept, an intent. And THAT is what we need to return to.

I have confidence in the infinate capacity of humankind to recognize its flaws, mistakes, error, and sins, to confess and accept the consequences for them, and learn how to get it right.

And I am hoping for a positive and righteous reform spirit to take over the conscience of our nation. Maybe a thread like this will be a tiny spark to contribute to that.

Somewhere in there are two important principles:

1) You cannot fix a bad system by changing people.

2) You cannot fix bad people by changing the system.

I think those two principles must be factored into any reforms we push for.

I have to get back to the office...if you can't fix it by changing people and chan't fix it by changing the system...what else is there?

You change the system so that bad people cannot misuse or benefit from it.

You change the people to those who want to work within such a system.

You're talking in circles Foxy.

As far as the Constitution simply being a statement of intent, why are parts of it interpreted literally - or at least argued so by interest groups?
The Second Amendment being an example.