Outline of a new Constitution

[Little-Acorn]

Stat came up with a House with a 1000 representatives. The population would be divided by a thousand and then districts would be drawn nationally based on the census to accommodate 1/1000 of the population irrespective of state borders.

This is part of an effort, of course, to take more power away from the states and give it to the central (Federal) government, thus undermining one of the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

The Constitution originally provided a two-house legislature, to accommodate two groups that had very different needs and goals.

The House was to represent the people directly, and so it was elected by the people directly, and the people had the right to throw out their representative if he didn't do what they wanted.

The Senate's purpose was to represent the state governments, and si its members were appointed by the state government directly. And the state govt had the right ot throw out its senator(s) if they didn't do what the state government wanted. The reason for this, was because the Senate's main job was to make sure the Federal government couldn't take powers away from the separate states if the states didn't want them to.

Inevitably, the leftists' first move when they wanted to dismantle our free government, was to attack the Senate. They sponsored an amendment taking away the power of state govts to appoint their Senator, and basically turned the Senate into a weak version of the House. Then nobody was left to resist the leftists' attempt to strip powers from the States and turn it over to the Federal govt.

Now I see they are trying to weaken it even further, and even dissolve it and form a one-body legislature with no desire to protect state sovereignity at all.

It's not more than I expect from the big-govt liberals on the forum. They have had no other goal from the very beginning.

 

[dcraelin]

Not sure what you mean with your first sentence, stat? I envisioned house members still within state borders but what you outline would also work....there is a provision in Constitution about every state having at least one...which might cause problems...not sure....I also figured around 10 times as many representatives....so over 4000 which would surely even things out regarding state differentials in population per rep.

Statistikhengst can you provide a link to your thread on having 1000 House Reps?

This thread, from December, 2013:

Electioneering

The info about the legislative is in posting no. 2:



Electioneering US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

only part way thru the post but like some thing s dislike others.....Senators based on population is akin to house....different term lengths....yes...but I think close enough that maybe just eliminate Senate if your going down that route....like the idea of "national" senators......or senators from larger than state regions perhaps.

my idea of senators based on renewable economic base approaches what we have now except for large discrepancies like California and the small new england states.

It is kind of an epic thread and only makes sense when you read ALL of it. All five postings that comprise the OP.

Like almost all of SC proposals, instead of having the voters decide however....I would take the credentialed candidates and have them chosen by lot. ...similar to how courts were set up in the Articles of Confederation.

mixed feelings on the election rules section.....taxpayer paid primaries are really a service for the parties. If you go down that route....you should guarantee openness and accessibility to smaller third parties, for one....then I'm hesitant on regional primaries as larger area seems to favor well-funded candidates.

going back to presidential part....I am more and more favoring idea of a kind of prime minister ...chosen by the Congress and eliminating presidential election entirely. Franklin wanted a executive council not a president.....that could maybe work with regional elections along the lines of your national Senators and a prime minister chosen by all the Congress

 

[Statistikhengst]

Glad you are taking the time to read the entire OP.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Stat came up with a House with a 1000 representatives. The population would be divided by a thousand and then districts would be drawn nationally based on the census to accommodate 1/1000 of the population irrespective of state borders.

This is part of an effort, of course, to take more power away from the states and give it to the central (Federal) government.

well, how stupid can you possibly be, asswipe.

The idea of a 1,000 member HOR was a REPUBLICAN idea.

 

[dcraelin]

Stat came up with a House with a 1000 representatives. The population would be divided by a thousand and then districts would be drawn nationally based on the census to accommodate 1/1000 of the population irrespective of state borders.

This is part of an effort, of course, to take more power away from the states and give it to the central (Federal) government, thus undermining one of the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

The Constitution originally provided a two-house legislature, to accommodate two groups that had very different needs and goals.

The House was to represent the people directly, and so it was elected by the people directly, and the people had the right to throw out their representative if he didn't do what they wanted.

The Senate's purpose was to represent the state governments, and si its members were appointed by the state government directly. And the state govt had the right ot throw out its senator(s) if they didn't do what the state government wanted. The reason for this, was because the Senate's main job was to make sure the Federal government couldn't take powers away from the separate states if the states didn't want them to.

Inevitably, the leftists' first move when they wanted to dismantle our free government, was to attack the Senate. They sponsored an amendment taking away the power of state govts to appoint their Senator, and basically turned the Senate into a weak version of the House. Then nobody was left to resist the leftists' attempt to strip powers from the States and turn it over to the Federal govt.

not necessarily

 

[Derideo_Te]

Statistikhengst can you provide a link to your thread on having 1000 House Reps?

This thread, from December, 2013:

Electioneering

The info about the legislative is in posting no. 2:



Electioneering US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

only part way thru the post but like some thing s dislike others.....Senators based on population is akin to house....different term lengths....yes...but I think close enough that maybe just eliminate Senate if your going down that route....like the idea of "national" senators......or senators from larger than state regions perhaps.

my idea of senators based on renewable economic base approaches what we have now except for large discrepancies like California and the small new england states.

It is kind of an epic thread and only makes sense when you read ALL of it. All five postings that comprise the OP.

Like almost all of SC proposals, instead of having the voters decide however....I would take the credentialed candidates and have them chosen by lot. ...similar to how courts were set up in the Articles of Confederation.

mixed feelings on the election rules section.....taxpayer paid primaries are really a service for the parties. If you go down that route....you should guarantee openness and accessibility to smaller third parties, for one....then I'm hesitant on regional primaries as larger area seems to favor well-funded candidates.

going back to presidential part....I am more and more favoring idea of a kind of prime minister ...chosen by the Congress and eliminating presidential election entirely. Franklin wanted a executive council not a president.....that could maybe work with regional elections along the lines of your national Senators and a prime minister chosen by all the Congress

Funding for candidates should only come from the Feds and be provided if the prospective candidate can gather a minimum number of signatures. No parties are allowed to receive any funding, only individuals and everyone who meets the signature requirement gets the exact same funding. No outside funding or individuals funding themselves.

That levels the playing field.

 

[Little-Acorn]

well, how stupid can you possibly be, asswipe.

As usual, when the leftists' plans are exposed to the light of day and they cannot refute what was said, they recoil and lapse into their usual profanity and namecalling.

 

[dcraelin]

This thread, from December, 2013:

Electioneering

The info about the legislative is in posting no. 2:



Electioneering US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

only part way thru the post but like some thing s dislike others.....Senators based on population is akin to house....different term lengths....yes...but I think close enough that maybe just eliminate Senate if your going down that route....like the idea of "national" senators......or senators from larger than state regions perhaps.

my idea of senators based on renewable economic base approaches what we have now except for large discrepancies like California and the small new england states.

It is kind of an epic thread and only makes sense when you read ALL of it. All five postings that comprise the OP.

Like almost all of SC proposals, instead of having the voters decide however....I would take the credentialed candidates and have them chosen by lot. ...similar to how courts were set up in the Articles of Confederation.

mixed feelings on the election rules section.....taxpayer paid primaries are really a service for the parties. If you go down that route....you should guarantee openness and accessibility to smaller third parties, for one....then I'm hesitant on regional primaries as larger area seems to favor well-funded candidates.

going back to presidential part....I am more and more favoring idea of a kind of prime minister ...chosen by the Congress and eliminating presidential election entirely. Franklin wanted a executive council not a president.....that could maybe work with regional elections along the lines of your national Senators and a prime minister chosen by all the Congress

Funding for candidates should only come from the Feds and be provided if the prospective candidate can gather a minimum number of signatures. No parties are allowed to receive any funding, only individuals and everyone who meets the signature requirement gets the exact same funding. No outside funding or individuals funding themselves.

That levels the playing field.

I'm not entirely against idea of parties receiving funding......otherwise I thin I agree

 

[Statistikhengst]

well, how stupid can you possibly be, asswipe.

As usual, when the leftists' plans are exposed to the light of day and they cannot refute what was said, they recoil and lapse into their usual profanity and namecalling.

Only because total asswipes who are completely uniformed deserve it. So, go fuck yourself, you worthless piece of human excrement.


Larry Sabato is a REPUBLICAN:

Larry Sabato for Democracy Journal Expand the House of Representatives

And HOTAIR is a Right-leaning publication:

On expanding the House of Representatives Hot Air

There is no real reason to only have 435 members of the House. We came up with this number through a hodge-podge of historical events, nothing less and nothing more. No exact number for the HOR is enumerated in the Constitution.

So, like I said, go fuck yourself. The days of cons trying to bully anyone who disagrees with them are permanently over.

OH, and in case I didn't say it already, go fuck yourself, you twat.

 

[dcraelin]

Stat came up with a House with a 1000 representatives. The population would be divided by a thousand and then districts would be drawn nationally based on the census to accommodate 1/1000 of the population irrespective of state borders.

This is part of an effort, of course, to take more power away from the states and give it to the central (Federal) government, thus undermining one of the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

The Constitution originally provided a two-house legislature, to accommodate two groups that had very different needs and goals.

The House was to represent the people directly, and so it was elected by the people directly, and the people had the right to throw out their representative if he didn't do what they wanted.

The Senate's purpose was to represent the state governments, and si its members were appointed by the state government directly. And the state govt had the right ot throw out its senator(s) if they didn't do what the state government wanted. The reason for this, was because the Senate's main job was to make sure the Federal government couldn't take powers away from the separate states if the states didn't want them to.

Inevitably, the leftists' first move when they wanted to dismantle our free government, was to attack the Senate. They sponsored an amendment taking away the power of state govts to appoint their Senator, and basically turned the Senate into a weak version of the House. Then nobody was left to resist the leftists' attempt to strip powers from the States and turn it over to the Federal govt.

not necessarily

I like the idea that the states could recall Senators...not sure its true..but like the idea.....
but your idea of the motivations is I think off. The motivation was simply to take the power of choosing Senators away from corrupt state legislatures.....I;ve read the history....you can argue it was wrong...but I thin that was the motivation.

 

[Little-Acorn]

----------------------------------------------------------
This is part of an effort, of course, to take more power away from the states and give it to the central (Federal) government, thus undermining one of the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

The Constitution originally provided a two-house legislature, to accommodate two groups that had very different needs and goals.

The House was to represent the people directly, and so it was elected by the people directly, and the people had the right to throw out their representative if he didn't do what they wanted.

The Senate's purpose was to represent the state governments, and si its members were appointed by the state government directly. And the state govt had the right ot throw out its senator(s) if they didn't do what the state government wanted. The reason for this, was because the Senate's main job was to make sure the Federal government couldn't take powers away from the separate states if the states didn't want them to.

Inevitably, the leftists' first move when they wanted to dismantle our free government, was to attack the Senate. They sponsored an amendment taking away the power of state govts to appoint their Senator, and basically turned the Senate into a weak version of the House. Then nobody was left to resist the leftists' attempt to strip powers from the States and turn it over to the Federal govt.

Now I see they are trying to weaken it even further, and even dissolve it and form a one-body legislature with no desire to protect state sovereignity at all.

It's not more than I expect from the big-govt liberals on the forum. They have had no other goal from the very beginning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the leftists began to attack the Senate, they didn't give their real reasons for doing so, of course. They merely complained about the usual corruption that always accompanies government (especially when govt doesn't do its job of fighting corruption)... and they even complained that the Senate was making it to difficult to pass laws.

This latter whine was especially comical, since one of the main reasons the Founders set up the govt the way they did, was expressly to make it difficult to pass laws.

The Founders knew that the American people didn't need an overbearing, micromanaging government over them. The knew that only the laws that many diverse groups would all agree to, were needed, and that all else should be handled by lower, more local governments.

The leftists, of course, completely disagreed with that sentiment. They wanted an ever-expanding central (Federal) government, with constantly-enroaching power and authority. And they still do.

So they started by working to eliminate the Senate's role as a guardian of state sovereignity. The bastardized, weak Senate we have today, is a direct result.

Now the leftists don't even want that, and are trying to dissolve it completely, just as Caesar did a few thousand years ago when trying to take all power to himself.

 

[dcraelin]

----------------------------------------------------------
This is part of an effort, of course, to take more power away from the states and give it to the central (Federal) government, thus undermining one of the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

The Constitution originally provided a two-house legislature, to accommodate two groups that had very different needs and goals.

The House was to represent the people directly, and so it was elected by the people directly, and the people had the right to throw out their representative if he didn't do what they wanted.

The Senate's purpose was to represent the state governments, and si its members were appointed by the state government directly. And the state govt had the right ot throw out its senator(s) if they didn't do what the state government wanted. The reason for this, was because the Senate's main job was to make sure the Federal government couldn't take powers away from the separate states if the states didn't want them to.

Inevitably, the leftists' first move when they wanted to dismantle our free government, was to attack the Senate. They sponsored an amendment taking away the power of state govts to appoint their Senator, and basically turned the Senate into a weak version of the House. Then nobody was left to resist the leftists' attempt to strip powers from the States and turn it over to the Federal govt.

Now I see they are trying to weaken it even further, and even dissolve it and form a one-body legislature with no desire to protect state sovereignity at all.

It's not more than I expect from the big-govt liberals on the forum. They have had no other goal from the very beginning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the leftists began to attack the Senate, they didn't give their real reasons for doing so, of course. They merely complained about the usual corruption that always accompanies government (especially when govt doesn't do its job of fighting corruption)... and they even complained that the Senate was making it to difficult to pass laws.

This latter whine was especially comical, since one of the main reasons the Founders set up the govt the way they did, was expressly to make it difficult to pass laws.

The Founders knew that the American people didn't need an overbearing, micromanaging government over them. The knew that only the laws that many diverse groups would all agree to, were needed, and that all else should be handled by lower, more local governments.

The leftists, of course, completely disagreed with that sentiment. They wanted an ever-expanding central (Federal) government, with constantly-enroaching power and authority. And they still do.

So they started by working to eliminate the Senate's role as a guardian of state sovereignity. The bastardized, weak Senate we have today, is a direct result.

Now the leftists don't even want that, and are trying to dissolve it completely, just as Caesar did a few thousand years ago when trying to take all power to himself.

The change from legislatures choosing Senators to voters in states doing so....did not help expand government...I doubt any fair study would show that....and it didnt weaken state sovereignty, state voters want that as much if not more so than state legislatures who are always trying to get the federal government to pay for things. ...... State legislatures were corrupt...still are to a large extent I think....the change was probably slightly for the good. .....

The Senate didnt make much sense right from the beginning..Madison and Wilson argued against the way it was set up...Franklin didnt want one at all. ..We dont have a weak Senate...we have one to strong...that gives to much influence to corrupt interests.....one that makes no rational sense in it gives equal voting power to teeny Delaware as it gives to Texas and California.....

its a stupid relic of state lines drawn up on the basis of religious differences...even tho that nation was supposed to have separation of church and state.

 

[dcraelin]

These are needed important changes.

Perhaps should concentrate on the expansion of representation as that was something the founders envisioned that probably everybody can get behind. Expansion with new technology I think would be relatively easy.

Changing the irrational Senate would be tough to do, but I think as time goes on people will see it as it truly is, an irrational body which should have little impact on national decision making.

 

[emilynghiem]

a national initiative and referendum option such as many US states already have.

an expanded body of representatives more in line with the representative-to-citizen ratio we had at our founding. These would be "stay-at-home" representatives and vote on issues either in designated areas in states or by electronic/online/phone methods.

yearly for-party elections on a proportional representation basis. At the time of the founding there was a saying,'where yearly elections end tyranny begins"

The Senate would be modified so states would have voting power based on renewable resource base....the irrational current system, where Rhode Island has the same power as California would be corrected. Remember Ben Franklin didn't want a Senate at all.

The last stage of choosing Supreme Court justices would be a random selection from a pool of qualified candidates. Designated replacements would also be chosen for when Current members should recuse themselves.

In presidential elections a group of small states would vote a few weeks ahead of the others. This group would change on a rotating basis. States could not award electors in presidential elections on a winner-take-all basis.

No agreement between the US and other nations could be called anything but a treaty

Dear dcraelin With all due respect, if we are going to experiment with fundamental changes,
we can make changes by adding unofficial organizational structures, to what we already have, troubleshoot the process
and make sure these new systems work to represent everyone BEFORE changing the Constitution to include those.

And when we AGREE what to change then we can add those changes to the system.

Otherwise, I have already run across too many people and groups who distrust change as a power grab.

These changes cannot take place in an environment where parties dont recognize political beliefs
and are pushing to force changes without taking beliefs into consideration.

We need to address the political environment first, get on the same page,
and THEN study and propose changes before making anything permanent.

If a couple is going through a nasty fight and divorce over longterm issues,
you don't go into the middle of this fight and impose changes to the contract between them.

The first step is to calm down both sides, work out the existing issues,
and then when everyone is level headed and can maintain civil discussion and dialogue
you can talk about long term planning.

If you bring this up now when people are talking about secession and
rejecting federal govt, you can't even have a civil conversation.

I am being called names, and assumed to be bigot and a crazy person
just for standing up for inclusion of all political views and beliefs if we are going to have
truly public policy that represents people equally without all this politicking and bullying skewing the lines of communication.

If you want to start setting up means for the parties to separate out their issues,
the Libertarians and Progressives with the Greens have been hosting meetings
and the Greens I know have more experience mediating forums to be inclusive and to answer objections
instead of just overruling people.

We need to be able to even sit in the same room and discuss the conflicts between parties
before we take on a Constitutional Convention or the whole process will be shot to hell.

I support the process, but it is going to take careful work to set up so it doesn't become more
of the same political bulldogging, bulldozing and coercion/exclusion games that doesn't allow free and full representation.

I believe a lot of the changes we really need are about shifting programs currently under federal govt
back to states, parties and people and then we don't have to keep amending and revising federal laws
if the social programming is under localized groups anyway. That should solve 80-90% of the problems we
have from sticking things under federal govt that it was not designed to handle.

If you remove the bulk of the bureaucracy that doesn't even BELONG there,
then you can see clearly the very minimal needed to reform the rest.

If you are going to remodel the house, you empty it of all the extra stuff that wasn't supposed to be
stored there in the first place. You might have more room and function in this house if it weren't abused for storage
and office space for school and charity activities that could better be delegated elsewhere and not
umbrella'd all under one roof that was never designed to micromanage all these other pet projects.

 

[emilynghiem]

----------------------------------------------------------
This is part of an effort, of course, to take more power away from the states and give it to the central (Federal) government, thus undermining one of the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

The Constitution originally provided a two-house legislature, to accommodate two groups that had very different needs and goals.

The House was to represent the people directly, and so it was elected by the people directly, and the people had the right to throw out their representative if he didn't do what they wanted.

The Senate's purpose was to represent the state governments, and si its members were appointed by the state government directly. And the state govt had the right ot throw out its senator(s) if they didn't do what the state government wanted. The reason for this, was because the Senate's main job was to make sure the Federal government couldn't take powers away from the separate states if the states didn't want them to.

Inevitably, the leftists' first move when they wanted to dismantle our free government, was to attack the Senate. They sponsored an amendment taking away the power of state govts to appoint their Senator, and basically turned the Senate into a weak version of the House. Then nobody was left to resist the leftists' attempt to strip powers from the States and turn it over to the Federal govt.

Now I see they are trying to weaken it even further, and even dissolve it and form a one-body legislature with no desire to protect state sovereignity at all.

It's not more than I expect from the big-govt liberals on the forum. They have had no other goal from the very beginning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the leftists began to attack the Senate, they didn't give their real reasons for doing so, of course. They merely complained about the usual corruption that always accompanies government (especially when govt doesn't do its job of fighting corruption)... and they even complained that the Senate was making it to difficult to pass laws.

This latter whine was especially comical, since one of the main reasons the Founders set up the govt the way they did, was expressly to make it difficult to pass laws.

The Founders knew that the American people didn't need an overbearing, micromanaging government over them. The knew that only the laws that many diverse groups would all agree to, were needed, and that all else should be handled by lower, more local governments.

The leftists, of course, completely disagreed with that sentiment. They wanted an ever-expanding central (Federal) government, with constantly-enroaching power and authority. And they still do.

So they started by working to eliminate the Senate's role as a guardian of state sovereignity. The bastardized, weak Senate we have today, is a direct result.

Now the leftists don't even want that, and are trying to dissolve it completely, just as Caesar did a few thousand years ago when trying to take all power to himself.

The change from legislatures choosing Senators to voters in states doing so....did not help expand government...I doubt any fair study would show that....and it didnt weaken state sovereignty, state voters want that as much if not more so than state legislatures who are always trying to get the federal government to pay for things. ...... State legislatures were corrupt...still are to a large extent I think....the change was probably slightly for the good. .....

The Senate didnt make much sense right from the beginning..Madison and Wilson argued against the way it was set up...Franklin didnt want one at all. ..We dont have a weak Senate...we have one to strong...that gives to much influence to corrupt interests.....one that makes no rational sense in it gives equal voting power to teeny Delaware as it gives to Texas and California.....

its a stupid relic of state lines drawn up on the basis of religious differences...even tho that nation was supposed to have separation of church and state.

Dear dcraelin if we create independent commissions per State of people experienced with mediating and facilitating consensus over church-state issues and political beliefs, then by making CONSENSUS the standard of law on issues of beliefs, then these will not burden or backlog the Courts, States Senate, and every other level or branch of govt.

We equally need to check Corporations against bypassing due process and equal protection of the laws
when that collective power gets abused to oppress the petitions of individuals. So the same Ethics commission that I propose would offer assistance to citizens to check ALL levelsof interaction with govt, including abuses by people and groups and even media, any complaints of obstructing justice and democratic process, not just govt, with a focus on Constitutional issues of due process, equal protection of the laws, and discrimination by creed/abuse of authority.

Most of the work right now seems to be stopping the abuse of media and political parties as lobbies, mixed with corporate resources, to establish private agenda while excluding or penalizing others. This problem needs to be solved, period, which is already outside Constitutional laws, before attempting to address what needs to be changed within the given laws. The extra-govt influences of corporate media and parties has OVERRIDDEN the check and balances because Corporations aren't checked by Constitutional laws. the people are goin to have to enforce those standards directly in the private sector to reach the media and corporate interests that are SKEWING the process.

We can use the same process to check for religious abuses, cult and fraud practices, corporate and legal abuses, but I recommend this be conducted independently outside the govt as a neutral check until it can be developed and integrated, possibly under the Justice system or Senate Judiciary committee to check against legal and judicial abuses.

The political conflicts of interest are so embedded into all levels of democratic and legislative/govt process, even the MEDIA,
that all people are held suspect now of operating under "AGENDA" and aren't seen as neutral facilitators.

This perception is going to SKEW any attempt to set up a Constitutional Convention
until all parties feel equally represented and feel safe that no policy is going to be passed by overriding their consent.

This has to be set up right, just like mediation cannot be set up under a party
that has a conflict of interest. It will prevent any productive communication and pit the sides competing against each
other to hijack or blackball the mediation process.

I've seen this fail for those reasons. It needs to be set up right, with moderators who carn manage
diverse groups and make sure the agreed standard is CONSENSUS and including and resolving all conflicts and objections.

Not overruling people for sake of political expedience.

 

[emilynghiem]

These are needed important changes.

Perhaps should concentrate on the expansion of representation as that was something the founders envisioned that probably everybody can get behind. Expansion with new technology I think would be relatively easy.

Changing the irrational Senate would be tough to do, but I think as time goes on people will see it as it truly is, an irrational body which should have little impact on national decision making.

I would add a third unofficial body to interact between Congress and the Media
where there is representation by Party. I would keep this outside govt just like Media is outside govt.
Parties are where the political beliefs are represented and being expressed and defended.
So beliefs technically should not be regulated by govt.

Right now if we don't recognize the Parties as representing Political Beliefs, these are being
pushed through Govt in ways that Religious Beliefs would not be allowed.

If we even had a public agreement to separate parties and political BELIEFS from govt,
we could restructure national networks of resources through the PARTIES and states
to take back much of the divisive social legislation and disputed funding of policies and programs
and get this out of the federal level where it doesn't belong since people don't agree by their political CREEDS.

 

[emilynghiem]

The one we have is fine, leave it alone

Dear SassyIrishLass
By dividing Political Beliefs by party, then you and others can keep the Constitution as is,
Other groups can organize their programs under their own Parties, and everyone can manage
their representation in a way that works for them.

It does not have to be either/or. We do not all need to agree on all principles,
we just need to manage where we disagree and separate that by party instead of imposing.

By organizing by Party, we can have "all of the above" without conflicting with each other.

The media and parties (and corporations) already act outside of govt checks and balances.
The issues of checking those institutions against abuses and corruption
thus requires something outside govt, but based on enforcing the same Constitutional principles and ethics.

SEE ethics-commission.net
for the minimal policies I would recommend
for education and training so all people and institutions can enforce equal Constitutional standards
and equal protection under law of all people's consent, interests and beliefs from discrimination or abuse.

 

[dcraelin]

a national initiative and referendum option such as many US states already have.

an expanded body of representatives more in line with the representative-to-citizen ratio we had at our founding. These would be "stay-at-home" representatives and vote on issues either in designated areas in states or by electronic/online/phone methods.

yearly for-party elections on a proportional representation basis. At the time of the founding there was a saying,'where yearly elections end tyranny begins"

The Senate would be modified so states would have voting power based on renewable resource base....the irrational current system, where Rhode Island has the same power as California would be corrected. Remember Ben Franklin didn't want a Senate at all.

The last stage of choosing Supreme Court justices would be a random selection from a pool of qualified candidates. Designated replacements would also be chosen for when Current members should recuse themselves.

In presidential elections a group of small states would vote a few weeks ahead of the others. This group would change on a rotating basis. States could not award electors in presidential elections on a winner-take-all basis.

No agreement between the US and other nations could be called anything but a treaty

Dear dcraelin With all due respect, if we are going to experiment with fundamental changes,
we can make changes by adding unofficial organizational structures, to what we already have, troubleshoot the process
and make sure these new systems work to represent everyone BEFORE changing the Constitution to include those.

And when we AGREE what to change then we can add those changes to the system.

Otherwise, I have already run across too many people and groups who distrust change as a power grab.

These changes cannot take place in an environment where parties dont recognize political beliefs
and are pushing to force changes without taking beliefs into consideration.

We need to address the political environment first, get on the same page,
and THEN study and propose changes before making anything permanent.

If a couple is going through a nasty fight and divorce over longterm issues,
you don't go into the middle of this fight and impose changes to the contract between them.

The first step is to calm down both sides, work out the existing issues,
and then when everyone is level headed and can maintain civil discussion and dialogue
you can talk about long term planning.

If you bring this up now when people are talking about secession and
rejecting federal govt, you can't even have a civil conversation.

I am being called names, and assumed to be bigot and a crazy person
just for standing up for inclusion of all political views and beliefs if we are going to have
truly public policy that represents people equally without all this politicking and bullying skewing the lines of communication.

If you want to start setting up means for the parties to separate out their issues,
the Libertarians and Progressives with the Greens have been hosting meetings
and the Greens I know have more experience mediating forums to be inclusive and to answer objections
instead of just overruling people.

We need to be able to even sit in the same room and discuss the conflicts between parties
before we take on a Constitutional Convention or the whole process will be shot to hell.

I support the process, but it is going to take careful work to set up so it doesn't become more
of the same political bulldogging, bulldozing and coercion/exclusion games that doesn't allow free and full representation.

I believe a lot of the changes we really need are about shifting programs currently under federal govt
back to states, parties and people and then we don't have to keep amending and revising federal laws
if the social programming is under localized groups anyway. That should solve 80-90% of the problems we
have from sticking things under federal govt that it was not designed to handle.

If you remove the bulk of the bureaucracy that doesn't even BELONG there,
then you can see clearly the very minimal needed to reform the rest.

If you are going to remodel the house, you empty it of all the extra stuff that wasn't supposed to be
stored there in the first place. You might have more room and function in this house if it weren't abused for storage
and office space for school and charity activities that could better be delegated elsewhere and not
umbrella'd all under one roof that was never designed to micromanage all these other pet projects.

I dont know what you mean by "adding unofficial organizational structures"

The Constitution outlines the ways it allows for amendment...the state initiated one is the one I propose, a convention of the states. The debate over such proposed amendments and the ratification process itself will
form a consensus of sorts.

While you propose slow work to consensus you propose massive changes to the system ....that I think would be unnecessarily disruptive. But regardless any hope for such change will not come form the structure of government we have now.

 

[dcraelin]

----------------------------------------------------------
This is part of an effort, of course, to take more power away from the states and give it to the central (Federal) government, thus undermining one of the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

The Constitution originally provided a two-house legislature, to accommodate two groups that had very different needs and goals.

The House was to represent the people directly, and so it was elected by the people directly, and the people had the right to throw out their representative if he didn't do what they wanted.

The Senate's purpose was to represent the state governments, and si its members were appointed by the state government directly. And the state govt had the right ot throw out its senator(s) if they didn't do what the state government wanted. The reason for this, was because the Senate's main job was to make sure the Federal government couldn't take powers away from the separate states if the states didn't want them to.

Inevitably, the leftists' first move when they wanted to dismantle our free government, was to attack the Senate. They sponsored an amendment taking away the power of state govts to appoint their Senator, and basically turned the Senate into a weak version of the House. Then nobody was left to resist the leftists' attempt to strip powers from the States and turn it over to the Federal govt.

Now I see they are trying to weaken it even further, and even dissolve it and form a one-body legislature with no desire to protect state sovereignity at all.

It's not more than I expect from the big-govt liberals on the forum. They have had no other goal from the very beginning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the leftists began to attack the Senate, they didn't give their real reasons for doing so, of course. They merely complained about the usual corruption that always accompanies government (especially when govt doesn't do its job of fighting corruption)... and they even complained that the Senate was making it to difficult to pass laws.

This latter whine was especially comical, since one of the main reasons the Founders set up the govt the way they did, was expressly to make it difficult to pass laws.

The Founders knew that the American people didn't need an overbearing, micromanaging government over them. The knew that only the laws that many diverse groups would all agree to, were needed, and that all else should be handled by lower, more local governments.

The leftists, of course, completely disagreed with that sentiment. They wanted an ever-expanding central (Federal) government, with constantly-enroaching power and authority. And they still do.

So they started by working to eliminate the Senate's role as a guardian of state sovereignity. The bastardized, weak Senate we have today, is a direct result.

Now the leftists don't even want that, and are trying to dissolve it completely, just as Caesar did a few thousand years ago when trying to take all power to himself.

The change from legislatures choosing Senators to voters in states doing so....did not help expand government...I doubt any fair study would show that....and it didnt weaken state sovereignty, state voters want that as much if not more so than state legislatures who are always trying to get the federal government to pay for things. ...... State legislatures were corrupt...still are to a large extent I think....the change was probably slightly for the good. .....

The Senate didnt make much sense right from the beginning..Madison and Wilson argued against the way it was set up...Franklin didnt want one at all. ..We dont have a weak Senate...we have one to strong...that gives to much influence to corrupt interests.....one that makes no rational sense in it gives equal voting power to teeny Delaware as it gives to Texas and California.....

its a stupid relic of state lines drawn up on the basis of religious differences...even tho that nation was supposed to have separation of church and state.

Dear dcraelin if we create independent commissions per State of people experienced with mediating and facilitating consensus over church-state issues and political beliefs, then by making CONSENSUS the standard of law on issues of beliefs, then these will not burden or backlog the Courts, States Senate, and every other level or branch of govt.

We equally need to check Corporations against bypassing due process and equal protection of the laws
when that collective power gets abused to oppress the petitions of individuals. So the same Ethics commission that I propose would offer assistance to citizens to check ALL levelsof interaction with govt, including abuses by people and groups and even media, any complaints of obstructing justice and democratic process, not just govt, with a focus on Constitutional issues of due process, equal protection of the laws, and discrimination by creed/abuse of authority.

Most of the work right now seems to be stopping the abuse of media and political parties as lobbies, mixed with corporate resources, to establish private agenda while excluding or penalizing others. This problem needs to be solved, period, which is already outside Constitutional laws, before attempting to address what needs to be changed within the given laws. The extra-govt influences of corporate media and parties has OVERRIDDEN the check and balances because Corporations aren't checked by Constitutional laws. the people are goin to have to enforce those standards directly in the private sector to reach the media and corporate interests that are SKEWING the process.

We can use the same process to check for religious abuses, cult and fraud practices, corporate and legal abuses, but I recommend this be conducted independently outside the govt as a neutral check until it can be developed and integrated, possibly under the Justice system or Senate Judiciary committee to check against legal and judicial abuses.

The political conflicts of interest are so embedded into all levels of democratic and legislative/govt process, even the MEDIA,
that all people are held suspect now of operating under "AGENDA" and aren't seen as neutral facilitators.

This perception is going to SKEW any attempt to set up a Constitutional Convention
until all parties feel equally represented and feel safe that no policy is going to be passed by overriding their consent.

This has to be set up right, just like mediation cannot be set up under a party
that has a conflict of interest. It will prevent any productive communication and pit the sides competing against each
other to hijack or blackball the mediation process.

I've seen this fail for those reasons. It needs to be set up right, with moderators who carn manage
diverse groups and make sure the agreed standard is CONSENSUS and including and resolving all conflicts and objections.

Not overruling people for sake of political expedience.

I share some of your skepticism about parties not trusting each other, and of the media etc. But see no real alternative.
My proposed changes are neutral enough I think they could be supported by both sides.

 

[dcraelin]

These are needed important changes.

Perhaps should concentrate on the expansion of representation as that was something the founders envisioned that probably everybody can get behind. Expansion with new technology I think would be relatively easy.

Changing the irrational Senate would be tough to do, but I think as time goes on people will see it as it truly is, an irrational body which should have little impact on national decision making.

I would add a third unofficial body to interact between Congress and the Media
where there is representation by Party. I would keep this outside govt just like Media is outside govt.
Parties are where the political beliefs are represented and being expressed and defended.
So beliefs technically should not be regulated by govt.

Right now if we don't recognize the Parties as representing Political Beliefs, these are being
pushed through Govt in ways that Religious Beliefs would not be allowed.

If we even had a public agreement to separate parties and political BELIEFS from govt,
we could restructure national networks of resources through the PARTIES and states
to take back much of the divisive social legislation and disputed funding of policies and programs
and get this out of the federal level where it doesn't belong since people don't agree by their political CREEDS.

the political parties ARE outside government in a way, they do get subsidized in a way with government sponsored primaries and Im sure in other ways.

Dont understand what you talking about with unofficial body to interact between Congress and the Media.