PROPOSAL to Fix a Broken United States Government

paddymcdougall said:

Seriously? then how do YOU define the right to vote being limited to white, property owning men? and slaves being counted as 3/5s of whites for representation allocation?

Click to expand...

You will note, as I am sure you are able, that no such reference to such things is in the Constitution.

polgara said:

:agree: How long do you think it will take, though, when the legislators in DC can't even agree on whether a law is really a law that applies to everyone but them? :thumbdown:

Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

Click to expand...

Nobody knows how big a hurdle or how difficult it will be to fix what ails us more than I do. But if we don't have a place to start from, a principle to guide us, a concept that will get us where we want to be, there is no hope we will even begin. So my hope is to change hearts and minds to look at what needs to happen. If enough of us agree on that, then there is at least a support base for the right kind of change.

Henrin said:

Let it be understood that sexism nor slavery was ever endorsed, enforced, or otherwise supported by the Constitution. There would be no consequences towards those ends by returning to it's original form.

Click to expand...

And even if that was in the original Constitution, those issues have been dealt with and resolved in the centuries since then and the OP does not address or deal with those issues in any way other than how the existing government perpetuates them. The OP deals with a proposed fix for what ails our goverment now and a way to restore the Founders concept that no monarch, dictator, pope, despot, or other authoritarian government would have any power to dictate to the people how they must organize their societies and live their lives. Nor would it have any power to enrich itself at our expense.

If you want to get corruption out of federal politics, well most of it, you will never get it all out, the best way to do so would be to get rid of corporate personhood, put some strong restrictions on lobbying, and reform campaign financing. If you remove the ability of corporations, interest groups and unions to buy politicians, then you will take a lot of the corruption out of Washington.

The whole OP is basically a right wing wet dream. It is just a big partisan argument disguised as an anti-corruption platform. Most people in this country are pretty moderate, yet we have a primary system that encourages the most extreme politicians to be elected to congress. If we simply elected more moderates, pragmatic people that were not extreme in their views, we would have a far more effective and less corrupt government that still represented the views of the majority of Americans.

paddymcdougall said:

and they REALLY INTENDED white male property owners to run the country.... they did not like the popular vote.

But as Verax said

Click to expand...

No. They intended for a divided people to come together as one cohesive nation. It took them eleven long years of debate, argument, discussion, give and take, and compromise to achieve that after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. But they got it done, plus they provided a means to amend the Constitution as the need would arise.

On the supposedly undemocratic electorate: Far from excluding the poor, the electorate in the founding era was the most democratic of any large nation in history. It included about 85 to 90 percent of free males. Those Founders who defended a property requirement for voting did so, not in opposition to, but on the basis of, the equality principle of the Declaration of Independence. They feared—as we will see, not without reason—that the propertyless poor might become the tools of influential and wealthy demagogues, distorting election results and endangering the survival of liberty. They changed their minds on this point as it became increasingly clear that the poor were not opponents but friends of the rights of mankind, including the right to acquire and possess property.--Thomas G. West (who has researched and written extensively on the motives and conclusions reached by the Founding Fathers.)
Vindicating the Founders: Read the Preface

Click to expand...

But most importantly they want all social issues to be decided by the people within the various states. They intended the federal government to be strong enough to defend our rights and allow us to function as one nation, but to leave the governing of the people to the people. The OP, in whole, addresses that concept.

SouthernDemocrat said:

If you want to get corruption out of federal politics, well most of it, you will never get it all out, the best way to do so would be to get rid of corporate personhood, put some strong restrictions on lobbying, and reform campaign financing. If you remove the ability of corporations, interest groups and unions to buy politicians, then you will take a lot of the corruption out of Washington.

Click to expand...

But to do that we have to restrict the liberty of people to support who they want for whatever reason. The OP provides a means of achieving campaign finance reform without taking away a single right or liberty from anybody.

AlbqOwl said:

But to do that we have to restrict the liberty of people to support who they want for whatever reason. The OP provides a means of achieving campaign finance reform without taking away a single right or liberty from anybody.

Click to expand...

If only it were that simple. Governments exist for a reason. The services required out of a government today are different than what they were 200 years ago. For example, 200 years ago there was no concept of environmental protection, public health policy was in its infancy, the technologies available today and the reach of them was inconceivable, security is different today, wars are fought completely differently. As a result, governments over time have adapted to these changes.

We will always need strong environmental protection.

We will always need public health policies.

We will always need some form of Medicare. The reason why we have it is that seniors are uninsurable in the private sector.

We will always need some form of federal flood insurance.

We will always need federal monetary policy.

We will always need some form of market oversight at the federal level.

We will always need federal funded basic research.

We will always need a CDC.

You can't just take all of this out of the government simply because the founding fathers did not conceive of it. In fact, I cannot imagine that they would want a government that was that nonadaptable to changes in the world.

So the fact is, like it or not we are going to need more of a government than you are proposing and we cant just delegate it all to some confederacy of states. Thus there will always be the potential for corruption. If you want less corruption and a more effective government then elect more centrists and moderates and put some limits on campaign financing and lobbying. If you look at the least corrupt governments around the world, that is how they do it.

Slyfox696 said:

Nostalgia is fun. Brainwashing is fun.

The United States was conceived as "a government of the people, by the people and for the people"...as long as the people were white, land-owning Christian men. Everyone else...not so much.

Click to expand...

Actually that easy toss-off itself is false history - brainwashing, if you will. The states were left to their own devices to distribute the franchise, and non-land owners, non-Christians, and non-whites voted.

AlbqOwl said:

Well you're entitled to your interpretation of my intent. I'm entitled to my interpretation of my intent. And if you want to argue that component of it, that has no place in the OP, I suggest you start a thread on it and invite me over.

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing your intent so much as I'm arguing against your nostalgic believe of what never was. Your entire premise is that America has lost its way from its beginnings, and its beginnings were something to restore. I'm pointing out how Americas beginnings were far from something we wish to restore.

Instead of "returning to Constitutional roots", I'd much rather continue advancing towards the idea of equality for all under the law. To me, that's a much more noble pursuit than some misguided belief things were better at the beginning.

cpwill said:

Actually that easy toss-off itself is false history - brainwashing, if you will.

Click to expand...

It's neither, it was the quick response to show the ridiculousness of the opening sentiment.

The states were left to their own devices to distribute the franchise, and non-land owners, non-Christians, and non-whites voted.

Click to expand...

Except in the states where they couldn't.

Eligibility to vote for representatives would be based on each state's rules for voting on the state legislature's lower house. For example, the 1777 New York State Constitution required that a man have considerable wealth to be able to vote for the state Assembly - he had to pay taxes as well as own property worth at least 20 pounds or pay an annual rent of 2 pounds. Ten of the original 13 states had property and/or tax requirements when the U.S. Constitution came into effect.

Click to expand...

http://www1.cuny.edu/portal_ur/content/voting_cal/the_constitution.html

Slyfox696 said:

I'm not arguing your intent so much as I'm arguing against your nostalgic believe of what never was. Your entire premise is that America has lost its way from its beginnings, and its beginnings were something to restore. I'm pointing out how Americas beginnings were far from something we wish to restore.

Click to expand...

Then you are conflating unlike things - since Owl is not arguing that we should revitalize the ideal of racism (which didn't really grow up until the 19th century, anywho), but rather that we should revitalize the ideal of more limited government.

For example, I could point out that your own leanings compared to my own are somewhat leftist, and that I therefore cannot support or compromise with you in any manner because I am wholeheartedly against the Purges and Gulag System as used under Stalin. You may think that things can be somewhat better if we move a bit back to the left ideologically, but you are not arguing for the Soviet Union.

cpwill said:

Then you are conflating unlike things - since Owl is not arguing that we should revitalize the ideal of racism (which didn't really grow up until the 19th century, anywho), but rather that we should revitalize the ideal of more limited government.

Click to expand...

They are not unlike things. She first started by saying it should be a government of, by and for the people and then said we should return to Constitutional roots which were most definitely not of, by and for. That was her entire premise and impetus for this thread.

Furthermore, the idea of a "return to a more limited government" is not only impractical, in many ways it's simply false. For all the power the federal government didn't have, the states did (which is constantly overlooked by those waxing nostalgia about the past). And as time has changed and the states have shown an inability to use their power fairly, and as technology has continued shrinking our world, the federal government has taken on more and more responsibilities, because quite frankly, they have to.

AlbqOwl said:

And even if that was in the original Constitution, those issues have been dealt with and resolved in the centuries since then and the OP does not address or deal with those issues in any way other than how the existing government perpetuates them. The OP deals with a proposed fix for what ails our goverment now and a way to restore the Founders concept that no monarch, dictator, pope, despot, or other authoritarian government would have any power to dictate to the people how they must organize their societies and live their lives. Nor would it have any power to enrich itself at our expense.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the op should have been written better then. He doesn't want to go back to the "founders vision" he wants to go back to some made-up version of the founders vision that he has that matches up with what he wants.

Slyfox696 said:

They are not unlike things. She first started by saying it should be a government of, by and for the people and then said we should return to Constitutional roots which were most definitely not of, by and for. That was her entire premise and impetus for this thread.

Click to expand...

On the contrary; universal suffrage is not required for representative government. For example, we currently do not extend the vote to felons, non-citizens, or six year olds. The Constitutional roots she appears to be discussing are additionally not one of the franchise (none of her points deal with its' retraction), but rather the size and scope of government.

You are attempting to criticize someone making a constitutional point about the size and scope of government by making a strawman argument about the franchise. It is a lazy and inaccurate argument.

Furthermore, the idea of a "return to a more limited government" is not only impractical, in many ways it's simply false. For all the power the federal government didn't have, the states did (which is constantly overlooked by those waxing nostalgia about the past)

Click to expand...

Sort of - the State was certainly more powerful, but it did not exercise anything close to the level of imposition that the federal government today aspires to. Any state legislator in the 18th or early 19th century suggesting the equivalent of mandating particular kinds of lightbulbs inside of people's own homes would have been laughed off the floor if he was serious and perhaps mobbed if he persisted. In fact, the accusation that the Constitution might allow government to do such a thing was one of the most salient points raised by the anti-Federalists, resulting in its denunciation by the authors and defenders of that document.

And as time has changed and the states have shown an inability to use their power fairly, and as technology has continued shrinking our world, the federal government has taken on more and more responsibilities, because quite frankly, they have to.

Click to expand...

That is inaccurate in it's depiction of causality. The states have proven no less able to use power fairly (if anything, the opposite) than the Federal government. We began to heavily centralize governing functions because of an ideological predisposition that became common in the early 20th century to see the whole of human-kind as a kind of factory-like system; operating best with centralized direction, optimum efficiency, and depressed non-compliance.

All things are fixed by election reform, and reigning in lobbyism.

None of the OP will happen without the above, but once the above happens, many, if not most of our problems would be fixed within 2 decades, at most.

cpwill said:

Sort of - the State was certainly more powerful, but it did not exercise anything close to the level of imposition that the federal government today aspires to. Any state legislator in the 18th or early 19th century suggesting the equivalent of mandating particular kinds of lightbulbs inside of people's own homes would have been laughed off the floor if he was serious and perhaps mobbed if he persisted. In fact, the accusation that the Constitution might allow government to do such a thing was one of the most salient points raised by the anti-Federalists, resulting in its denunciation by the authors and defenders of that document.



That is inaccurate in it's depiction of causality. The states have proven no less able to use power fairly (if anything, the opposite) than the Federal government. We began to heavily centralize governing functions because of an ideological predisposition that became common in the early 20th century to see the whole of human-kind as a kind of factory-like system; operating best with centralized direction, optimum efficiency, and depressed non-compliance.

Click to expand...

however, states that want to stick an ultrasound probe up my vagina are not imposing on me?

states are doing plenty of things to their citizens. Thank goodness the federal govt can overrule them, as can the federal courts.

cpwill said:

On the contrary; universal suffrage is not required for representative government.

Click to expand...

No one said it was. Please understand my argument in its entirety. You seem to just be picking out certain parts to respond to and ignoring/forgetting the argument as a whole.

You are attempting to criticize someone making a constitutional point about the size and scope of government by making a strawman argument about the franchise. It is a lazy and inaccurate argument.

Click to expand...

*sigh*

See above and then get back to me about lazy and inaccurate arguments.

Sort of - the State was certainly more powerful, but it did not exercise anything close to the level of imposition that the federal government today aspires to.

Click to expand...

False. We had states which legally held one race was inferior to another and the inferior race was not even human at all, but property of another.

There's no more control any government could exercise over its people than the slavery of them.

Any state legislator in the 18th or early 19th century suggesting the equivalent of mandating particular kinds of lightbulbs inside of people's own homes would have been laughed off the floor if he was serious

Click to expand...

Probably, considering the light bulb wasn't even invented in the 18th century and not available in most homes throughout most (if not all) of the 19th.

But one only has to google "ridiculous state laws" to know silly and controlling laws have always been around. I like "Odd Florida Law: It used to be illegal to not wear clothes while taking a bath in a bathtub."

That is inaccurate in it's depiction of causality.

Click to expand...

No, it's not.

The states have proven no less able to use power fairly (if anything, the opposite) than the Federal government.

Click to expand...

Of course they have. States are regularly attempting to deny its citizens basic and fundamental rights, even today. How many states are passing Voter ID laws to prevent voter fraud which does not exist? North Carolina recently added to their constitution an amendment prohibiting gays to marry (while still legally allowing first cousins to do so). Texas is pushing hard to remove the theory of evolution from the classroom in favor of creationism.

States have not and are not using the power fairly. Combine that with the shrinking world in which we live and the federal government needs more power to make sure all citizens are treated equally and standards exist across all the states.

We began to heavily centralize governing functions because of an ideological predisposition

Click to expand...

:roll:

Nonsense. We centralized government functions because we needed to and technology permitted it. You don't seem to understand the difference in the world today and the world of the late 1700s. You don't seem to appreciate the fact we can now use an airplane to travel across the ocean in only a few hours, a trip which once took weeks. You don't seem to appreciate we have technology to deliver missiles anywhere in the world at any time, as opposed to the muskets and bayonets used during the late 1700s. We can strike in unmanned aircraft, I can converse in real time with someone from Japan or Italy (at the same time even) and then can drive 10 miles up the road, have lunch, drive back and be back home in a little over an hour. I can travel from Missouri to North Carolina in 13 hours, instead of the weeks it once took. Technology has fundamentally changed the world and the people of the states are no longer self-contained, at least not to the degree they once were. A centralized government is increasingly necessary to handle the realities of today's world.

Are there things which would be better suited for the state and local governments? Absolutely. But those who lament the fact our federal government has increasingly taken on more responsibilities don't seem to appreciate the fact there's really no other way if we want to continue to develop as a nation and stay a leader of the world.

The goals of the proposal are good. The devil is in the details. Looks to me as if the states could be facing unfunded mandates but the rest of it would be a refreshing change.

Slyfox696 - post 42 - well said! thanks!

paddymcdougall said:

however, states that want to stick an ultrasound probe up my vagina are not imposing on me?

states are doing plenty of things to their citizens. Thank goodness the federal govt can overrule them, as can the federal courts.

Click to expand...

These would be the same federal courts who wanted to stick not an ultrasound, but surgical equipment up into your vagina, in order to forcibly sterilize you against your will, on the basis that you might prove genetically unifit? Oh yes, they sound very much like the cavalry coming over the hill to save us from ourselves :roll:

sawdust said:

The goals of the proposal are good. The devil is in the details. Looks to me as if the states could be facing unfunded mandates but the rest of it would be a refreshing change.

Click to expand...

If the responsibility for social programs is transferred to the states, where the Founders intended those programs be all the time, the federal mandates would be eliminated. And there is no such thing as an 'unfunded' mandate. Everything gets funded if even on paper. What we would do is to eliminate the federal government's power to mandate that the states provide goods or services to anybody. And neither would the federal government have power to forbid the states to provide goods or services to anybody.

It is utterly ridiculous for the federal government to take our money, siphon off a huge percentage of it to feed the enormous and ever growing bureaucracy in Washington, and then send whatever is left to the states to fund something the federal government says they have to fund.

I would remind the participants on the thread, that there is nothing in the OP that forbids the federal government from initiating any voluntary program of any kind regarding research, federal insurance programs, national relief or whatever. The resolution would simply eliminate the federal government's power to confiscate resources from the people to do things that the federal government does not have to do.

And those of you who want to make this a thread about racism or sexism or any other -isms that have ever existed in this country or that exists now, I would really appreciate you taking that to another thread as this one has absolutely zero to do with any of that. This is a thread about power and authority and who should have it now, right now, in 2014 in America.

AlbqOwl said:

If the responsibility for social programs is transferred to the states, where the Founders intended those programs be all the time, the federal mandates would be eliminated. And there is no such thing as an 'unfunded' mandate. Everything gets funded if even on paper. What we would do is to eliminate the federal government's power to mandate that the states provide goods or services to anybody. And neither would the federal government have power to forbid the states to provide goods or services to anybody.

It is utterly ridiculous for the federal government to take our money, siphon off a huge percentage of it to feed the enormous and ever growing bureaucracy in Washington, and then send whatever is left to the states to fund something the federal government says they have to fund.

I would remind the participants on the thread, that there is nothing in the OP that forbids the federal government from initiating any voluntary program of any kind regarding research, federal insurance programs, national relief or whatever. The resolution would simply eliminate the federal government's power to confiscate resources from the people to do things that the federal government does not have to do.

And those of you who want to make this a thread about racism or sexism or any other -isms that have ever existed in this country or that exists now, I would really appreciate you taking that to another thread as this one has absolutely zero to do with any of that. This is a thread about power and authority and who should have it now, right now, in 2014 in America.

Click to expand...

Excellent post! :thumbs:

Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

PROPOSAL to Fix a Broken United States Government

Click to expand...

WHEREAS the proposal in the OP is a hyperpartisan fantasy,

Resolved :

1. End gerrymandering nationwide, and draw new districts electronically using only population density statistics generated by the census.

2. Relax laws that are designed to keep independents off of the ballot.

3. Strengthen lobbying rules.

Conclusion :

that'll help a bit.

Helix said:

WHEREAS the proposal in the OP is a hyperpartisan fantasy,

Resolved :

1. End gerrymandering nationwide, and draw new districts electronically using only population density statistics generated by the census.

2. Relax laws that are designed to keep independents off of the ballot.

3. Strengthen lobbying rules.

Conclusion :

that'll help a bit.

Click to expand...

The OP would render lobbying, gerrymandering, and rigging the vote moot at the national level, because nobody would be able to profit from that.

So if your proposals are not hyperpartisan fantasy, what makes the OP a hyperpartisan fantasy?

AlbqOwl said:

The OP would render lobbying, gerrymandering, and rigging the vote moot at the national level, because nobody would be able to profit from that.

So if your proposals are not hyperpartisan fantasy, what makes the OP a hyperpartisan fantasy?

Click to expand...

The fact that it's a right wing fantasy to eliminate entitlements and throw everything back to the states. Nonstarter.

Cutting gerrymandering off at the knees would do a lot of good. There is nothing hyperpartisan about pointing that out.