• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mandated Burial Plot

Should the government be able to regulate this market in advance as stated below?


  • Total voters
    21
We live on a little ranch,
WAY out in the middle of nowhere,

and as abhorrent as this is going to sound,

I'd like to be "recycled."

Dig a trough,
lay my body in
and let God's creatures be nourished.
 
This 2,700 page joke that the supremes are going to throw in the trash never had to happen if Dem's could just be honest about what they want and that is single payer. Our health care system is a mess and in a civilized country health care should be a right not a privilege of wealth at least on an intellectual level. If obama and Dem's would have said we want single payer and here is how much your taxes will go up and here is how it will work I would have listened. That way we could have had an honest debate and been able to weigh what we currently pay for health insurance against how much our taxes would go up to fund a single payer system. Instead they chose this back door smoke and mirrors back room deal making mess that wasted 4 years of our time and money.

So if "Obama and the Dems" would have wasted their time pushing a bill that both you and they knew perfectly well couldn't have passed, you would have "listened." Wow, are you not generous. Somehow I think they were less concerned with whether or not you personally would "listen" for five minutes than they were with creating actual health care reform that could actually pass. :roll:

Unfortunately it's now clear that ANY workable health care reform was going to be challenged in court. It didn't matter what it contained, how flimsy the legal ground, or what precedent would indicate. Republicans were hellbent on preventing health care reform, period, and would stop at nothing to achieve it. And unfortunately it looks like they may have convinced the Supreme Court to go along with it.

It's fun to speculate what bull**** reason they might have come up with to challenge single-payer health care, had it actually passed Congress. And don't say that no one disputes its legality...what you really mean is that no one disputes its legality NOW, as was the case of the individual mandate just 3 years ago. If it actually became a law, you can bet that Republican politicians and conservative ideologues would be able to invent some constitutional reason out of thin air why it's somehow different than Medicare or the VA. And unfortunately I no longer have any confidence that the judicial system wouldn't have bought whatever bull**** they threw at it.
 
Not really. We have the most difficult to amend constitution in the entire world. The only reason our system is able to function at all is because we typically DON'T follow the original intent of the Constitution.

So someone admits openly that the constitution is not followed that supports growing government. Finally...

Thanks for being honest unlike everybody else that supports what you support.

However, where is your proof that the country couldn't function if the law of the land was actually followed?
 
Not really. We have the most difficult to amend constitution in the entire world. The only reason our system is able to function at all is because we typically DON'T follow the original intent of the Constitution.

So someone admits openly that the constitution is not followed that supports growing government. Finally...

Thanks for being honest unlike everybody else that supports what you support.

Actually I said that the original intent is not followed. That is not the same as saying the Constitution is not followed. Nice try though! :2wave:

However, where is your proof that the country couldn't function if the law of the land was actually followed?

We have an 18th century document (with a few more recent amendments) that is simply outdated for today's world, if one were to follow the original intent of the law. Furthermore, the amendment process is generally not a workable solution; our constitutional amendment process is somewhere between extremely difficult and nearly impossible. Since the Bill of Rights, our Constitution has been amended only 17 additional times...and many of those amendments were for minor things. The last time it was amended for anything important was 1920.

As a result, we are left with two choices: Stick with our 18th century document as is, or do not rely on a fundamentalist interpretation. And I hope that you aren't seriously going to suggest that sticking with a 200+ year old document as is, which hasn't even had an important amendment in nearly 100 years, is a viable model of governance in 2012.
 
Last edited:
Actually I said that the original intent is not followed. That is not the same as saying the Constitution is not followed. Nice try though! :2wave:

So how do you follow something when you ignore what it means? Care to tell me?

We have an 18th century document (with a few more recent amendments) that is simply outdated for today's world, if one were to follow the original intent of the law. Furthermore, the amendment process is generally not a workable solution; our constitutional amendment process is somewhere between extremely difficult and nearly impossible. Since the Bill of Rights, our Constitution has been amended only 17 additional times...and many of those amendments were for minor things. The last time it was amended for anything important was 1920.

As a result, we are left with two choices: Stick with our 18th century document as is, or do not rely on a fundamentalist interpretation. And I hope that you aren't seriously going to suggest that sticking with a 200+ year old document as is, which hasn't even had an important amendment in nearly 100 years, is a viable model of governance in 2012.

All you just did was say it was outdated AGAIN. Thanks for nothing.
 
So how do you follow something when you ignore what it means? Care to tell me?

That's a loaded question, as it assumes that I already agree with your premise that "what it means" equals "what the original intent was". :2wave:

All you just did was say it was outdated AGAIN. Thanks for nothing.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. What kind of "proof" do you want? Proof that relying on a fundamentalist interpretation of a document drafted for an agrarian, third-world country doesn't work for a modern, industrialized democracy? Since that model of governance has never been tried anywhere in the world, there isn't much proof beyond speculation. The only other case of people trying a model of governance even CLOSE to this would be religious fundamentalists who want to impose the literal words of a centuries-old or millennia-old religious doctrine onto their modern societies...and that typically doesn't work out so well.
 
That's a loaded question, as it assumes that I already agree with your premise that "what it means" equals "what the original intent was". :2wave:

There is nothing to disagree with, it does. What else could it possibly mean? What you make up out of the wind?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. What kind of "proof" do you want?

Proof of your claim. What else could I possibly want?

Proof that relying on a fundamentalist interpretation of a document drafted for an agrarian, third-world country doesn't work for a modern, industrialized democracy?

Care to tell how the Constitution doesn't allow for an industrialized nation under its original intent?

Since that model of governance has never been tried anywhere in the world, there isn't much proof beyond speculation.

What are you going on about now? It was not drafted for what you said above.

The only other case of people trying a model of governance even CLOSE to this would be religious fundamentalists who want to impose the literal words of a centuries-old or millennia-old religious doctrine onto their modern societies...and that typically doesn't work out so well.

Care to me how that is comparable?
 
Last edited:
So talking ot my relatively apolitical wife about the health care law last night and the arguments made in court, she brought up an analogy that I actually thought was rather on point and one I wanted to expand on.

People die. When people die, if there is no family or no one able to provide for their burial we do not simply leave the dead decaying body to lie out and about. Someone bears the cost to go forward with disposing of the body either thorugh burial or cremation. And when that's ont a family member its putting an unnecessary financial burden on portions of society. Everyone, in some fashion, will enter into this market place at some point. There is no an individual who at some point in their life will be involved in some fashion with this particular market. We don't know when an individual may enter this market, and the entrance to it could be sudden and without any forthought.

As such, should the government be able to regulate this market in advance by mandating that every individual do one of the following two things or be levied a tax penalty?:

1. Purchase Life Insurance, assuring that everyone who dies will have some money doled out that will cover after-death costs. To go along with this, regulation will be put on Life Insurance that it must cover ALL forms of death at least to a minimum amount, including suicide.

2. Purchase a burial plot and coffin or pre-purchase cremation services.
None of the above.
(And I didn't read the whole thread.)

If someone has to be buried at county expense then I would hope (at least if it's MY county) that they would forward the bill to whatever county is handling the estate of the deceased. If the deceased doesn't have enough in the estate to cover the bill they were obviously destitute and couldn't have afforded anything anyway. If the estate is enough to cover burial then where's the loss?
 
There is nothing to disagree with, it does. What else could it possibly mean? What you make up out of the wind?

Legal precedent and changing interpretations to fit the needs of a changing society.

Care to tell how the Constitution doesn't allow for an industrialized nation under its original intent?

Obviously you're missing the point (although I'm not yet sure whether it's intentional). It isn't that the Constitution doesn't ALLOW for an industrialized nation under its original intent, it's that it wasn't DESIGNED for a nation like the United States circa 2012. It would be like taking the constitution of any other democracy and expecting it to work equally well in the United States. Obviously that wouldn't work because the cultural, political, historical, and economic conditions of the two nations might be vastly different.

Our Constitution was written for an entirely different country...in fact, the gulf in circumstances between the US circa 1789 and the US circa 2012 is much wider than the gulf in circumstances between the modern US and France or Germany or Japan or South Africa or Brazil. Since our amendment process is so arduous, the only way our Constitution is able to stay relevant is through modern interpretations of the Constitution.

What are you going on about now? It was not drafted for what you said above.

To the best of my knowledge, no nation in the world has a Constitution that has not been amended in any important way since 1920, which they follow to the letter of the law. Such a system would be completely unworkable given how much the world has changed.

Care to me how that is comparable?

Some religious fundamentalists seek to take an ancient holy text, apply the "original intent" to their modern societies (based on a blind faith that some wise people from previous generations understood their contemporary problems better than their contemporaries do), and let the chips fall where they may...even if it means turning the clock back centuries or millennia. This is essentially what constitutional fundamentalists seek to do as well. And the retort to "just amend the Constitution when you want to change it" is equivalent to saying you don't want it changed at all, given how difficult the amendment process it is.

Consider this: With the exception of the process to work out the initial kinks in the Constitution (1789-1804), and a few amendments passed at the barrel of a Union gun (1865-1870), there has been only one period in all of American history where major constitutional reforms were implemented: 1913-1920, at the height of the progressive era. That's it. In 200+ years. The utter dearth of important constitutional amendments throughout American history should be all the proof necessary to demonstrate that the amendment process is untenable for most things, and therefore the Constitution needs to be reinterpreted to fit modern circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Legal precedent and changing interpretations to fit the needs of a changing society.

The first has no part in the courts and the later is just failing to read to get what you want.

Obviously you're missing the point (although I'm not yet sure whether it's intentional). It isn't that the Constitution doesn't ALLOW for an industrialized nation under its original intent, it's that it wasn't DESIGNED for a nation like the United States circa 2012.

Where does it not allow it? Where is it impossible to have industrialized nation. Trying to get answers out of you is not being dense. Its called exploring..

It would be like taking the constitution of any other democracy and expecting it to work equally well in the United States. Obviously that wouldn't work because the cultural, political, historical, and economic conditions of the two nations might be vastly different.

Not all constitutions are equal so that comparison fails on face value.

Our Constitution was written for an entirely different country...in fact, the gulf in circumstances between the US circa 1789 and the US circa 2012 is much wider than the gulf in circumstances between the modern US and France or Germany or Japan or South Africa or Brazil.

The size of the country makes no difference what so ever.

Since our amendment process is so arduous, the only way our Constitution is able to stay relevant is through modern interpretations of the Constitution.

And why is that again? Why must you fail at reading to have a working country for today with the document given? Still no answer there.


To the best of my knowledge, no nation in the world has a Constitution that has not been amended in any important way since 1920, which they follow to the letter of the law. Such a system would be completely unworkable given how much the world has changed.

You still aren't saying anything in this post and that includes this part. How is it unworkable? Please tell me. Stop just repeating yourself over and over again. Thank you.

Some religious fundamentalists seek to take an ancient holy text, apply the "original intent" to their modern societies (based on a blind faith that some wise people from previous generations understood their contemporary problems better than their contemporaries do), and let the chips fall where they may...even if it means turning the clock back centuries or millennia. This is essentially what constitutional fundamentalists seek to do as well. And the retort to "just amend the Constitution when you want to change it" is equivalent to saying you don't want it changed at all, given how difficult the amendment process it is.

You really don't like how the Constitution is put together do you? Tell me, why does the government need new powers to advance as a society to work as a country? I still haven't gotten an answer there which I would think is the question to be asked.

And I honestly don't care what religious people want. Stop acting like I do or that it actually has some sort of reason in your posts. It doesn't.

Consider this: With the exception of the process to work out the initial kinks in the Constitution (1789-1804), and a few amendments passed at the barrel of a Union gun (1865-1870), there has been only one period in all of American history where major constitutional reforms were implemented: 1913-1920, at the height of the progressive era. That's it. In 200+ years. The utter dearth of important constitutional amendments throughout American history should be all the proof necessary to demonstrate that the amendment process is untenable for most things.

It is supposed to be. How does that make a difference?
 
Last edited:
Actually I said that the original intent is not followed. That is not the same as saying the Constitution is not followed. Nice try though! :2wave:



We have an 18th century document (with a few more recent amendments) that is simply outdated for today's world, if one were to follow the original intent of the law. Furthermore, the amendment process is generally not a workable solution; our constitutional amendment process is somewhere between extremely difficult and nearly impossible. Since the Bill of Rights, our Constitution has been amended only 17 additional times...and many of those amendments were for minor things. The last time it was amended for anything important was 1920.

As a result, we are left with two choices: Stick with our 18th century document as is, or do not rely on a fundamentalist interpretation. And I hope that you aren't seriously going to suggest that sticking with a 200+ year old document as is, which hasn't even had an important amendment in nearly 100 years, is a viable model of governance in 2012.


WOW. Man am I glad you are not a politician. For attitudes and beliefs like that are exactly what this country does not need. It goes right into my belief that the left really does not give a crap about the constitution and will do whatever they need to accomplish their idiotic ideas.

Pathetic stuff.
 
The first has no part in the courts and the later is just failing to read to get what you want.

Legal precedent certainly does have a part in the courts...in fact, it is the cornerstone of our judicial system. Common law - rather than code law - has been the governing principle of American courts from the beginning, even predating the Constitution itself. As for "failing to read to get what you want"...if your interpretation of the Constitution was the only correct one, then the Supreme Court would be composed of nothing but "originalists" and there wouldn't be any legal debate over anything in the first place.

Where does it not allow it? Where is it impossible to have industrialized nation. Trying to get answers out of you is not being dense. Its called exploring..

I understand, and I'm not opposed to "exploring" these answers...but it would go a lot more quickly if you didn't misquote me. For example, you just responded to a paragraph where I explicitly said that the problem was NOT that it didn't allow such a system with "where does it not allow it?" It isn't a matter of allowing or not allowing an industrialized nation, it's a matter of the Constitution simply not being designed to accommodate the needs of an industrialized nation.

Not all constitutions are equal so that comparison fails on face value.

I don't expect that our Constitution would work well if it were implemented in France or Japan or Brazil, any moreso than the French/Japanese/Brazilian constitutions would work well if we tried to implement them here. It's not a matter of one being "better" than the other in some objective sense (although some constitutions clearly don't work at all), it's a matter of different constitutions working better in some societies than others. The societal differences between the US and France/Japan/Brazil are simply too great for a constitution from one nation to work just as well in another...and the societal differences between the US circa 1789 and the US circa 2012 are vastly greater still.

The size of the country makes no difference what so ever.

It's not just a matter of size (although that is certainly part of it). It's also a matter of different history, different politics, different cultural values, different economic systems, etc.

And why is that again? Why must you fail at reading to have a working country for today with the document given? Still no answer there.

You still aren't saying anything in this post and that includes this part. How is it unworkable? Please tell me. Stop just repeating yourself over and over again. Thank you.

Here are just a few reasons why an "originalist" interpretation of the US Constitution would not work for our modern society. This is by no means an exhaustive list, just what I could think of off the top of my head:

1. We have cars, airplanes, and an interstate highway system. It is relatively easy for people to pick up and move from one state to another, whereas when the Constitution was written most people lived their entire lives without traveling more than 30 miles from their home. This means that a system of assigning primary taxing/spending responsibilities to the states, rather than the federal government, would be far less effective now than it was in 1789. Not to mention that it greatly increases both the size and scope of interstate commerce.

2. The concept of environmentalism was almost totally unknown in 1789, aside from maybe a few minor issues like overfishing. The Founding Fathers certainly could not have envisioned massive air pollution from smokestacks, widespread electricity consumption, the economics of the oil trade, climate change, nuclear power plants, a hole in the ozone layer (or even the existence of an ozone layer), ocean trawling, etc. Regulating some of these activities cannot easily be done on a state level, because the environmental practices of one state can affect others.

3. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, most people identified with their state first and their nation second. Today, it is the opposite. This is a profound cultural shift, that ingrains a "we're all in this together" mentality on most American citizens. This, of course, leads to comparisons of American policies with those of other nations (rather than between the states), and calls for a heavier federal role in things like health care and education. (You personally may or may not have this mentality, but that's irrelevant to the historical fact that this way of thinking is radically different from what it was in 1789).

You really don't like how the Constitution is put together do you?

It's not a matter of "liking" it or not. It certainly was an historical achievement for its time, and I suppose it worked reasonably well in 1789 (aside from the whole slavery and gender discrimination thing). But it doesn't work well in 2012, at least if one adopts an "originalist" interpretation. Furthermore, there are fundamental flaws in the document - like the amendment process itself - which the Founding Fathers could not possibly have imagined when they were writing it for a nation of 13 coastal colonies, instead of a continent spanning 50 states.

Tell me, why does the government need new powers to advance as a society to work as a country? I still haven't gotten an answer there which I would think is the question to be asked.

See above, re: fundamental differences in society today versus society in 1789. Our Constitution was written for a totally different country, and following an originalist interpretation of it now would be just as alien to modern American society as following the French Constitution would be.

And I honestly don't care what religious people want. Stop acting like I do or that it actually has some sort of reason in your posts. It doesn't.

Umm YOU asked for elaboration on that point; I only brought it up in the first place as the only other example I could think of of people trying to strictly adhere to a nearly-unchangeable 100+ year old document, and applying all those situations to their modern circumstances.

Again, this "exploration" of answers to questions would probably go more efficiently...if you didn't ask a question and then say you didn't care about the answer. ;)

It is supposed to be. How does that make a difference?

It is supposed to be DIFFICULT to amend. It is not supposed to be virtually IMPOSSIBLE to amend. The fact that we've only had a single 7-year period in our entire nation's history in which important, non-coerced, modernizing constitutional amendments were passed, should indicate that the task is nearly impossible. Therefore, the only other solutions are preserving the document as is for all eternity and assuming that we figured out the perfect government for all-time in 1920...or allowing for more modern interpretations of the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
On a side note, I'd just like to point out the logical fallacy of some originalists in presuming the Constitution was wisely-crafted because of how great America has become...and then lamenting the fact that we don't follow the Constitution. Considering that most of America's "greatness" occurred in the late 19th century and the 20th century (long after we abandoned an originalist interpretation of the Constitution), how do you know that strictly following the original intent of the Constitution would have led to greatness? Perhaps the value of our Constitution was in the fact that we HAVE interpreted it to fit modern times...or perhaps we're a great nation in spite of our antiquated Constitution. ;)
 
Last edited:
You have said the amendment process was bad. I think many disagree with you, and probably see your belief as just a realization on your part that the things you want done are not possible due to the amendment process, due to lack of support.

Other than that, what exactly in the constitution is so 'out of date' that it does not fit 'current times'?
 
So if "Obama and the Dems" would have wasted their time pushing a bill that both you and they knew perfectly well couldn't have passed, you would have "listened." Wow, are you not generous. Somehow I think they were less concerned with whether or not you personally would "listen" for five minutes than they were with creating actual health care reform that could actually pass. :roll:

Unfortunately it's now clear that ANY workable health care reform was going to be challenged in court. It didn't matter what it contained, how flimsy the legal ground, or what precedent would indicate. Republicans were hellbent on preventing health care reform, period, and would stop at nothing to achieve it. And unfortunately it looks like they may have convinced the Supreme Court to go along with it.

It's fun to speculate what bull**** reason they might have come up with to challenge single-payer health care, had it actually passed Congress. And don't say that no one disputes its legality...what you really mean is that no one disputes its legality NOW, as was the case of the individual mandate just 3 years ago. If it actually became a law, you can bet that Republican politicians and conservative ideologues would be able to invent some constitutional reason out of thin air why it's somehow different than Medicare or the VA. And unfortunately I no longer have any confidence that the judicial system wouldn't have bought whatever bull**** they threw at it.

Why is it so bad to ask for honest debate? Present your ideas to the American people and let us decide. Seems to me you are admitting single payer would never be accepted by the American people if it was openly discussed and you are defending trying to ram a program down our throats that we don't want and would never willingly accept. I would be for single payer if you could show me it would work better and less expensively than our current system, apparently your side can't do that.
 
You have said the amendment process was bad. I think many disagree with you, and probably see your belief as just a realization on your part that the things you want done are not possible due to the amendment process, due to lack of support.

It's not a matter of wanting any specific thing done. Take the substantive question out of it entirely and just look at it from an historical perspective...we have had no important constitutional amendments since 1920, and only three important, non-coerced, modernizing amendments in our entire history (all passed between 1913-1920). Do you believe that we figured out the perfect form of government in 1920?

As for the policy changes which I supposedly want...clearly there *is* public support for a more modern interpretation of the Constitution. If there wasn't, the American people would stop electing presidents who appoint modernizing judges, and senators who confirm them.

Other than that, what exactly in the constitution is so 'out of date' that it does not fit 'current times'?

See post #87 for a brief list.
 
Last edited:
Why is it so bad to ask for honest debate? Present your ideas to the American people and let us decide. Seems to me you are admitting single payer would never be accepted by the American people

So that precludes the adoption of any other, lesser health care measures?

if it was openly discussed and you are defending trying to ram a program down our throats that we don't want and would never willingly accept.

Make up your mind. Does electing a Congress that opposes a specific law (e.g. single payer) mean that it isn't "accepted by the American people"? Or does electing a Congress that passes a specific law (e.g. the Affordable Care Act) have no bearing on whether it's wanted/accepted by the American people? You can't have it both ways.

I would be for single payer if you could show me it would work better and less expensively than our current system, apparently your side can't do that.

Want evidence that it works better and less expensively than our current system? For my evidence I cite the policies of every other developed country in the world, which have universal health care and far lower costs than our health care system. Done.

Something tells me you still aren't convinced. :roll:
 
It's not a matter of wanting any specific thing done.

Again we see the liberal refusal to answer any question that would cause them to be specific.


See post #87 for a brief list.

All bogus...

1. We have cars, airplanes, and an interstate highway system. It is relatively easy for people to pick up and move from one state to another, whereas when the Constitution was written most people lived their entire lives without traveling more than 30 miles from their home. This means that a system of assigning primary taxing/spending responsibilities to the states, rather than the federal government, would be far less effective now than it was in 1789. Not to mention that it greatly increases both the size and scope of interstate commerce.

Thus the CC covers interstate commerce. It doesn't matter the scope of the commerce. Was valid when written, is valid now.

2. The concept of environmentalism was almost totally unknown in 1789, aside from maybe a few minor issues like overfishing. The Founding Fathers certainly could not have envisioned massive air pollution from smokestacks, widespread electricity consumption, the economics of the oil trade, climate change, nuclear power plants, a hole in the ozone layer (or even the existence of an ozone layer), ocean trawling, etc. Regulating some of these activities cannot easily be done on a state level, because the environmental practices of one state can affect others.

You think the founders knew nothing about the environment? Read up on Jefferson. Again, those that effect across state lines are covered. And you seem to give little credit to a states ability to handle it's own business. Common among liberals.

3. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, most people identified with their state first and their nation second. Today, it is the opposite. This is a profound cultural shift, that ingrains a "we're all in this together" mentality on most American citizens. This, of course, leads to comparisons of American policies with those of other nations (rather than between the states), and calls for a heavier federal role in things like health care and education. (You personally may or may not have this mentality, but that's irrelevant to the historical fact that this way of thinking is radically different from what it was in 1789).

There just aren't the proper words to explain how stupid #3 is.

So I will guess you will continue to not offer any specifics. Most likely because you have none, but just a general concept that the fed should have more power, because they are the only ones that can enact the change YOU want.
 
Other than that, what exactly in the constitution is so 'out of date' that it does not fit 'current times'?
2nd Amendment said:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
... as originally written and intended meant anything up to and including the high-dollar muskets and cannons used by the regular army. As I've posted in other places, I have no problem with someone owning a fully-functional army version of an M-16 or any other military weapon they are qualified on up to and including .50 cal machine guns, 20mm guns, and (my favorite) tanks. However, I'm willing to bet even most NRA people would balk at some of that. By strict interpretation and intent of the 2nd Amendment these should all be 100% legal. Of course, with the Gatling gun a century in their future the Founders had no clue about full automatics of any kind and a tank was well beyond their wildest imaginings.
 
Last edited:
You think the founders knew nothing about the environment? Read up on Jefferson. Again, those that effect across state lines are covered. And you seem to give little credit to a states ability to handle it's own business. Common among liberals.
I give credit where credit is due. You can refer to this page for how much credit that is:
Superfund Sites Where You Live | Superfund | US EPA
 
Last edited:
WOW. Man am I glad you are not a politician. For attitudes and beliefs like that are exactly what this country does not need. It goes right into my belief that the left really does not give a crap about the constitution and will do whatever they need to accomplish their idiotic ideas.

Pathetic stuff.

You have said the amendment process was bad. I think many disagree with you, and probably see your belief as just a realization on your part that the things you want done are not possible due to the amendment process, due to lack of support.

Other than that, what exactly in the constitution is so 'out of date' that it does not fit 'current times'?

Does this not say it all?

madison.jpg
 
So talking ot my relatively apolitical wife about the health care law last night and the arguments made in court, she brought up an analogy that I actually thought was rather on point and one I wanted to expand on.

People die. When people die, if there is no family or no one able to provide for their burial we do not simply leave the dead decaying body to lie out and about. Someone bears the cost to go forward with disposing of the body either thorugh burial or cremation. And when that's ont a family member its putting an unnecessary financial burden on portions of society. Everyone, in some fashion, will enter into this market place at some point. There is no an individual who at some point in their life will be involved in some fashion with this particular market. We don't know when an individual may enter this market, and the entrance to it could be sudden and without any forthought.

As such, should the government be able to regulate this market in advance by mandating that every individual do one of the following two things or be levied a tax penalty?:

1. Purchase Life Insurance, assuring that everyone who dies will have some money doled out that will cover after-death costs. To go along with this, regulation will be put on Life Insurance that it must cover ALL forms of death at least to a minimum amount, including suicide.

2. Purchase a burial plot and coffin or pre-purchase cremation services.

This is not making a scene Purchasing of Burial plot it 's better to purchase of health insurance or pay tax properly.
 
It's not a matter of wanting any specific thing done. Take the substantive question out of it entirely and just look at it from an historical perspective...we have had no important constitutional amendments since 1920, and only three important, non-coerced, modernizing amendments in our entire history (all passed between 1913-1920). Do you believe that we figured out the perfect form of government in 1920?

What ammendment do you think we need to add to the Constitution?

I disagree that the amendment process is "impossible" to achieve now adays. It may seem impossible but it is not. As always you just need something that is acceptable to put into the Constitution. Right now I don't see anything worth having.

Also you might want to expand on what you mean by "no important constitutional amendments since 1920, and only three important, non-coerced, modernizing amendments in our entire history (all passed between 1913-1920)." Because we have certainly had amendments added to the constitution since 1920. The newest one was put into the Constitution in 1992.

In point of fact the 27th Amendment, though ratified in 1992, was originally proposed by some of the founding fathers to be included in the original Bill of Rights but it was never ratified so was not included.

Amendment 27 - Limiting Changes to Congressional Pay. Ratified 5/7/1992. History

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

The United States Constitution

27th Amendment
The 27th Amendment was originally proposed on September 25, 1789, as an article in the original Bill of Rights. It did not pass the required number of states with the articles we now know as the first ten amendments. It sat, unratified and with no expiration date, in constitutional limbo, for more than 80 years when Ohio ratified it to protest a congressional pay hike; no other states followed Ohio's lead, however. Again it languished, for more than 100 years.

In 1978, Wyoming ratified the amendment, but there was again, no follow-up by the remaining states. Then, in the early 1980's, Gregory Watson, an aide to a Texas legislator, took up the proposed amendment's cause. From 1983 to 1992, the requisite number of states ratified the amendment, and it was declared ratified on May 7, 1992 (74,003 days).

The United States Constitution ~ History of the 27th Amendment

I find it funny that you are proposing the Constitution is outdated and basically irrelevant and yet our newest amendment which was ratified relatively recently originally came from our fouding fathers.

Anyways you also might want to note that we have had 7 Amendments that I think are important that has been added to the Constitution since 1920.

Amendments 20 and 21 were passed in 1933
Amendment 22 in 1955
Amendment 23 in 1961
Amendment 24 in 1964
Amendment 25 in 1967
Amendment 26 in 1971
Amendment 27 in 1992
 
What ammendment do you think we need to add to the Constitution?

If we were following an "originalist interpretation" of the Constitution we would need a lot of them. I'm actually in the process of writing my own proposed US Constitution just for fun...I'll post it on here and/or on my website when I'm finished with it. But in the mean time, here are a few that I would propose, if we were to seriously adopt an originalist interpretation of the Constitution:

- Fixing the amendment process itself to make it a bit easier to amend the Constitution (although still hard enough that it can't easily be done for short-term political gain).
- "The Supreme Court shall have the power of judicial review. This Constitution shall be treated as a living document."
- Changing the 10th amendment to give all powers to Congress which are not delegated to the states, the people, or the other branches, as long as Congress does not use them to violate anything in the Constitution.
- "Congress shall pass no law imposing trade barriers on any foreign nation, except as needed for national security, health and safety, or quality control."
- Supreme Court justices shall have 17-year term, and shall only serve one term.
- Senators shall have a 6-year term, and shall only serve one term.
- Representatives shall have a 6-year term, and shall only serve one term.
- Explicitly create an independent Federal Reserve as a fourth branch of government.
- Explicitly create an independent Elections Branch which would be tasked with redistricting after the census, establishing campaign finance regulations for federal offices, establishing congressional ethical standards, and shall have the power to remove any congressperson from office for violating these rules. Congress would also keep the power to impeach its own members.
- Possibly take away routine budgetary responsibilities from Congress and put them in the hands of an independent committee and/or the executive branch. If Congress wants to alter the amount of money we spend on entitlements and/or discretionary spending, that's fine. But in the absence of any action from Congress, entitlement spending will continue to do whatever it's going to do, and all discretionary departments/agencies/spending shall receive the same amount of funding as it did the previous year by default (indexed for inflation). This will prevent budget stalemates, debt ceiling debacles, and other self-inflicted fiscal crises.

I disagree that the amendment process is "impossible" to achieve now adays. It may seem impossible but it is not. As always you just need something that is acceptable to put into the Constitution. Right now I don't see anything worth having.

But that may be BECAUSE we interpret the Constitution to fit the times. If we actually followed an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, you might feel otherwise. I think that the idea that ANY country is capable of using an incredibly old Constitution (written in 1788 and last seriously amended in 1920) and have it work just as well in 2012, is impossible. Heck, Thomas Jefferson himself thought that the entire Constitution should be rewritten every 19 years so that each generation could have a form of government that best corresponded with its own circumstances and needs.

Also you might want to expand on what you mean by "no important constitutional amendments since 1920, and only three important, non-coerced, modernizing amendments in our entire history (all passed between 1913-1920)." Because we have certainly had amendments added to the constitution since 1920. The newest one was put into the Constitution in 1992.

None of the ones passed since 1920 have been particularly important, in that they fundamentally changed the nature of our government. They've just been trimming around the edges.

In point of fact the 27th Amendment, though ratified in 1992, was originally proposed by some of the founding fathers to be included in the original Bill of Rights but it was never ratified so was not included.

The United States Constitution

The United States Constitution ~ History of the 27th Amendment

I find it funny that you are proposing the Constitution is outdated and basically irrelevant and yet our newest amendment which was ratified relatively recently originally came from our fouding fathers.

Actually that was because a college kid made a major push for it in the 1980s by writing to state legislatures encouraging to have it passed. It's not as though there was a political contingent (other than Congress itself) opposing it on ideological grounds. But that's my point...the only amendments we've been able to pass in the last 92 years have been minor things like that.

Anyways you also might want to note that we have had 7 Amendments that I think are important that has been added to the Constitution since 1920.

Amendments 20 and 21 were passed in 1933
Amendment 22 in 1955
Amendment 23 in 1961
Amendment 24 in 1964
Amendment 25 in 1967
Amendment 26 in 1971
Amendment 27 in 1992

But we had three very important amendments between 1913-1920 which fundamentally changed the nature of our government: The direct election of senators, the power of Congress to levy an income tax, and the right of women to vote. Nothing since then really compares in terms of its significance...we have the repeal of Prohibition, three amendments dealing with presidential terms and/or succession, three dealing with voting rights (for 18-year-olds, DC residents, and despite the failure to pay a poll tax), and the congressional pay raise amendment. None of those really compare in importance to the 16th, 17th, and 19th amendments...the newer amendments are just minor housekeeping, and our government would work more or less the same way without them. Maybe not exactly the same, but pretty close.
 
Last edited:
But in the mean time, here are a few that I would propose, if we were to seriously adopt an originalist interpretation of the Constitution:

Other than term limits so there are no lifelong politicians any longer, the rest looks like a recipe for disaster.

But we had three very important amendments between 1913-1920 which fundamentally changed the nature of our government: The direct election of senators, the power of Congress to levy an income tax, and the right of women to vote. Nothing since then really compares in terms of its significance...

So?

Is there some reason why there must be an amendment every so often that appeases you in order for things to be 'right'? That makes no sense to me. When things need fixing you fix them, when they don't, you don't mess with them.
 
Back
Top Bottom