• 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!

Impedance of the American Constitution

. . . . . . except that Mr. Trump has signed more than few executive orders. For example, he opened up the west and east coasts to petroleum exploration---and that got very little public attention!

I heard that Congress has passed 100 pieces of legislation in the past two years. This is not a stalled Congress. Did CNN or Foxx report much on these bills that became laws? Nah, Russiagate and porn stars get more attention. Keeps the people glued to the TV which then sells more advertising.
I live in California and I guarantee you we heard PLENTY on Trump opening the coasts for petroleum exploration. Local and State legislators immediately drafted bills blocking the construction of facilities for handling oil on-shore, e.g. pipelines and storage facilities.
 
say, these actions have caused a loss of credibility for the USA.

I would like to believe that USA is going to bumble along. Western democracy has a lot of checks and balances--and Mr. Trump seems to be abiding by them, as much as he does not like the rules or understand why they are there. In that sense, the constitution is working well. But I would say that 10% of Americans would quickly agree to replace the constitution with a Trump monarchy. This social/political force is not going away soon. Part of the problem is the poor education of Constitution at the high school level. It was not written by God. It was written by men who had faults and personal agendas.

Mr. Trump has embarked upon no less than a baker's dozen attempts to subvert the rule of law and the constitutional checks and balances and has not abided by them except as the judiciary has, on several occasions, blocked him or reversed his attempts flat out, or Congress has managed to retain hold on their senses at the eleventh hour.

And I would say that as much as fifteen or twenty percent of this nation stand ready to toss democracy and the republic aside for a fascist authoritarian theocracy. Trump isn't so much the problem as he is the symptom and the weapon, a virus sent to tear down the fabric of the democratic process itself, to make society ready, or at the very least, scared stiff and wiling to accept, anything in the quest "to restore order" out of chaos.
Trump is the hand-picked "chaos tornado" sent by authoritarians on the Right to dispense with our 229 year old system of governance.
 
He’s attacked his own FBI (“its reputation is in Tatters — worst in History”) and “‘Justice’ Department” for failing to prosecute Hillary Clinton.

He’s called the verdict in the trial of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate (who fired the gun that killed Kate Steinle in San Francisco in 2015) a “miscarriage of Justice” because the jury found that firing a bullet that ricocheted off the ground to kill a person didn’t meet the legal definition of murder. (Garcia Zarate was still convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and can be deported during or after his sentence.)

His lawyer John Dowd has argued openly that it’s legally impossible for the president to commit obstruction of justice, because he is the chief law enforcement officer in the United States.

On Feb. 4, the day after a Washington federal court enjoined President Trump’s executive order banning refugees and citizens of seven Muslim countries from entering the United States, Trump tweeted, “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions endured the worst abuse, which came during Mr. Trump’s gobsmacking Oval Office interview with The Times. Mr. Sessions’s offense? Recusing himself in March from all investigations related to the 2016 presidential campaign, a decision that infuriated Mr. Trump. “If he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job and I would have picked somebody else,” the president said.

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaughin 2013 asserted that it's a "traditional exercise" of presidential power to ignore laws the White House views as unconstitutional, as he defended the controversial practice of signing statements prevalent in George W. Bush's White House.

That's half a dozen off the top of my head.
 
I kind of follow a group called The Next System Project. Basically it is a group of academics and practitioners in the socio-economic field. They say the world is improving in general, and it really doesn't matter what form of government is being used or who the political players are. I think there is some truth to this, but I think we could get there faster with a more responsive system of governance.

I agree with the supposition by the group. What forms of government?

I do believe that we are limited in choices by technology. For example, while socialism appears nice on it’s face, it doesn’t work in a world of limited resources. Because of limited resources, it becomes necessary to rob from the rich to give to the poor. In a world of unlimited resources (e.g. Star Trek unlimited energy and replicators) then there is no reason to rob anyone in order to give to the poor.

FWIW, I think we have the best possible form of government under present levels of technology: a Constitutional Republic with a socialist safety net for the poor, sick and minors fueled by capitalism.
 
Americans take pride in how their 1787 constitution has shaped their country and the world. The various freedoms—speech, association, religion, and others—enshrined in the document provided a new and beneficial relationship between the citizen and its state. The capability of the citizenry to vote out a foolish or corrupt government was a unique achievement. America truly was the first nation to practice western democracy as we know it today, which helped bring creativity, opportunity, and prosperity to its people. And the principles of this document have found their ways into many other political charters around the world.

But so enthralled are the Americans with their social engineering invention that they tend to readily forget some of the history behind the building of the constitution. When this history is examined a little closer, one realizes that the constitution was not the perfect document created by perfect people in a perfect process.

Even by the world's standards today, the American colonies were not badly governed by the British. Yes, there were some unfair laws and bad governors, but these conditions still happen in western democracies. Relatively speaking, most Americans of the 1700s had a pretty good society under British rule. And Americans at that time were far from united in their quest for independence from that rule.

While freedom was a keystone in the constitution, about half of the founding fathers were slave owners. The other half did not have the political will to abolish slavery at the birth of this nation. As well, women were to have no roles in government, even as voters. These unprogressive philosophies can only mean the thinking behind the constitution was not as progressive as the myth portrays.

While property rights were better enshrined under American law, there were certainly no property rights for aboriginal Americans whose traditional lands were confiscated for the next century. Another group that had no property rights was the supporters of the British crown, driven from their American wealth to Canada and Britain by unofficial state sanctioned terrorism. These loyalists neither had freedom of political expression nor the right to legally defend themselves while these very freedoms were being drafted into the constitution.

The constitution was not created out of thin air. A lot was borrowed from the British system of governance—and some of this was improved on. One improvement was based on the founding fathers' disdain for political parties: the electoral college was designed to elect a non-partisan head of state. Yet less than 40 years after the constitution was ratified, political parties became the vehicles for ambitious citizens to be elected as state and national legislators, thus diluting the original intention of this innovative institution.

The drafting of the constitution was not done by independent thinkers coming to a unified and unique conclusion. Expedient deals were struck and compromises were made to bring the 13 states together under one national government. Sound logical philosophy did not always influence the drafting.

Whenever the American constitution has been proffered as the ultimate social engineering tool, all the negative aspects of the building of the American constitution are made forgotten. This creates the illusion of an infallible document, above any serious reproach or criticism. Hence there is no need to discuss alternative models of governance that have different processes to elect public officials and give them different tools to make public decisions. How will we in the 21st century ever be able to move past this 18th century social invention?

You come up with idiotic posts like these when you try to apply 2018 values to 1787.
I can guaran-damn-tee you 200 years from now they will say 2018 was a barbaric year too.
...and your post would be banned.
 
First why would I want too? Second there is the amendment process. So as an American I am good. Its not perfect but it works for the most part for me.

...and it is still the oldest and best form of government in the world.

So many Canadians and Brits hate this simple fact.
Others love it.
 
Could you provide a brief summary of this book?

Go look at the Amazon reviews....it is a wonderful book about the affects of European immigration over the years....
 
Mr. Trump has embarked upon no less than a baker's dozen attempts to subvert the rule of law and the constitutional checks and balances and has not abided by them except as the judiciary has, on several occasions, blocked him or reversed his attempts flat out, or Congress has managed to retain hold on their senses at the eleventh hour.

And I would say that as much as fifteen or twenty percent of this nation stand ready to toss democracy and the republic aside for a fascist authoritarian theocracy. Trump isn't so much the problem as he is the symptom and the weapon, a virus sent to tear down the fabric of the democratic process itself, to make society ready, or at the very least, scared stiff and wiling to accept, anything in the quest "to restore order" out of chaos.
Trump is the hand-picked "chaos tornado" sent by authoritarians on the Right to dispense with our 229 year old system of governance.

I mostly agree with your points, but I would say democracy was dead before Trump was elected. Fascist authoritarian symptoms and practices were very much in place before he took office.
 
I think I just saw something that gun deaths had gone up in Canada. Not very much as I recall, but up. This isn't the piece I saw but it is interesting

There have been some increases in Toronto with gangs. It will be interesting to see if the police can curtail this violence in the next few years. But, for an issue like this, it's kind of hard to make a statistical conclusion on just a few years.

Back in my political days, I got to know the president of the National Firearms Association (Canada's NRA). He had a simple solution: a firearm user licence. The user must demonstrate competence in handling the weapon and undergo some background checks. If someone has a gun but no licence, confiscate the gun. If this happens again, it's time for jail. I still believe this solution is the best balance to firearm safety and people enjoying their hobby.
 
I live in California and I guarantee you we heard PLENTY on Trump opening the coasts for petroleum exploration. Local and State legislators immediately drafted bills blocking the construction of facilities for handling oil on-shore, e.g. pipelines and storage facilities.

Thank you for letting me know of that news.

When I first heard about the change, I thought of the great infrastructure that would be needed to rebuild the oilfield service & supply sector on the west coast. In order for petroleum companies to drill, they need a vibrant service sector in place. The service sector is not going to make that big of investment unless they see some profit. That alone is going to make oil exploration a bit difficult. And with this edict only as an EA, it can be rescinded just as easily.

I wasn't thinking of how the west coast could make exploration difficult in a regulatory way. This shows the importance of getting most parties on side to make things happen. Mr. Trump is no deal maker in this regard.
 
Mr. Trump has embarked upon no less than a baker's dozen attempts to subvert the rule of law and the constitutional checks and balances and has not abided by them except as the judiciary has, on several occasions, blocked him or reversed his attempts flat out, or Congress has managed to retain hold on their senses at the eleventh hour.

And I would say that as much as fifteen or twenty percent of this nation stand ready to toss democracy and the republic aside for a fascist authoritarian theocracy. Trump isn't so much the problem as he is the symptom and the weapon, a virus sent to tear down the fabric of the democratic process itself, to make society ready, or at the very least, scared stiff and wiling to accept, anything in the quest "to restore order" out of chaos.
Trump is the hand-picked "chaos tornado" sent by authoritarians on the Right to dispense with our 229 year old system of governance.

Wow, there is a lot said in a few words here.

On another forum of lefties and righties pecking at each other, I put up a facetious post about a Trump monarchy. Surprisingly, a few of the righties liked that idea. Your 10% to 15% assertion may be valid!!!!!

Mr. Trump is both very simple and very complicated. He's been in office for two years now, and I not seeing any signs of him reaching for the dictator-of-the-nation controls. The framers of the constitution assumed that fools would occasionally assume political office and the constitution would handle them. All those peaceful protests and threats of impeachment are having an effect on his thinking. The constitution is working well in this regard. But we should watch carefully.

I'm more worried about the next populist leader, who will learning from the Trump presidency: what he did right and what he did wrong. And that one could come from political left. It is possible to break the constitution, but I don't see Mr. Trump as the one to do it.
 
He’s attacked his own FBI (“its reputation is in Tatters — worst in History”) and “‘Justice’ Department” for failing to prosecute Hillary Clinton.

He’s called the verdict in the trial of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate (who fired the gun that killed Kate Steinle in San Francisco in 2015) a “miscarriage of Justice” because the jury found that firing a bullet that ricocheted off the ground to kill a person didn’t meet the legal definition of murder. (Garcia Zarate was still convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and can be deported during or after his sentence.)

His lawyer John Dowd has argued openly that it’s legally impossible for the president to commit obstruction of justice, because he is the chief law enforcement officer in the United States.

[FONT=&]On Feb. 4, the day after a Washington federal court enjoined President Trump’s executive order banning refugees and citizens of seven Muslim countries from entering the United States, Trump tweeted, “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned.”[/FONT]

Attorney General Jeff Sessions endured the worst abuse, which came during Mr. Trump’s gobsmacking Oval Office interview with The Times. Mr. Sessions’s offense? Recusing himself in March from all investigations related to the 2016 presidential campaign, a decision that infuriated Mr. Trump. “If he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job and I would have picked somebody else,” the president said.

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaughin 2013 asserted that it's a "traditional exercise" of presidential power to ignore laws the White House views as unconstitutional, as he defended the controversial practice of signing statements prevalent in George W. Bush's White House.

That's half a dozen off the top of my head.

Thank you for this reminder.

An elderly fellow from my home town just passed away. Harry was a young soldier in the German army, part of the retreat from France. He was captured and spent three years in POW camp in Scotland. After the war, he went back to Germany and got married. However, the opportunities were not great. He immigrated to Canada, with a dream of becoming a farmer. He worked on farms for many years, but finally bought his own farm in 1965.

Harry and his wife were part of the Nazi-youth movement. Yet they were some of the nicest people you could ever meet. WHen my parents asked them how they could be caught up in all this, they had no answer.

Part of the answer is that the Nazis made it seem it seem that there was no other alternative. Opposition media were shut down. Moderate Germans were beaten if they spoke up. Some lived in fear. Others joined the ride.

What you are saying here has been repeated over and over again in America. The fact that you can still say it is a good sign. The fact that many people are indeed saying these things is influencing the current administration as to how far it can go. But Americans must still be vigilant.
 
...and it is still the oldest and best form of government in the world.

So many Canadians and Brits hate this simple fact.
Others love it.

Don't get me wrong. For 1791, the American constitution was a great social engineering invention in its day. I acknowledged that world learned a lot from this document.

But just like we have abandoned scientific models of the past, it's time to let western democracy go and move forward with another system of governance. If you are interested in hearing more, private message me.
 
I mostly agree with your points, but I would say democracy was dead before Trump was elected. Fascist authoritarian symptoms and practices were very much in place before he took office.


I'm not sure about "fascist and authoritarian symptoms". I think there is a tendency for big organizations to have fascist-like mindsets in certain departments, so I'm not convinced that few fascists in government are a big deal.

If there are a few too many, maybe Mr. Trump is the person to rock the boat and get some different people in charge. I don't know.

I remember a documentary on Edgar Hoover. He had a dossier of dirty deeds on all influential politicians. If they went after him, he would open up the file to let the public see. Is this the kind of fascism you are talking about?
 
I agree with the supposition by the group. What forms of government?

I do believe that we are limited in choices by technology. For example, while socialism appears nice on it’s face, it doesn’t work in a world of limited resources. Because of limited resources, it becomes necessary to rob from the rich to give to the poor. In a world of unlimited resources (e.g. Star Trek unlimited energy and replicators) then there is no reason to rob anyone in order to give to the poor.

FWIW, I think we have the best possible form of government under present levels of technology: a Constitutional Republic with a socialist safety net for the poor, sick and minors fueled by capitalism.



It is amazing that we talk about left vs right, liberal vs conservative, and capitalist vs. socialist, all western democracies have created a balance between the two extremes. In fact, I would say that most of the political parties are closer to each other than to the extremes. Yet we talk--even in Canada--that one extreme is preferable to the other as if there is little middle ground. But we are very much standing on that middle ground.

Rather than talk about which extreme is better, we need to find a better way to find a better balance.

DP rules come into play, so I cannot comment further. And I believe I have sent you a private message a week ago.
 
It is amazing that we talk about left vs right, liberal vs conservative, and capitalist vs. socialist, all western democracies have created a balance between the two extremes. In fact, I would say that most of the political parties are closer to each other than to the extremes. Yet we talk--even in Canada--that one extreme is preferable to the other as if there is little middle ground. But we are very much standing on that middle ground.

Rather than talk about which extreme is better, we need to find a better way to find a better balance.

DP rules come into play, so I cannot comment further. And I believe I have sent you a private message a week ago.
Western thought is linear and this, IMO, leads to extremes. Eastern thought is more holistic and recognizes the whole.

While westerners think in terms of winners and losers, easterners think in terms of Yin and Yang; the idea two sides make the whole. The movie “Jerry McGuire” popularized the term “You complete me”. There’s a solid Zen idea behind that idea.

yin-yang-md.png
 
There have been some increases in Toronto with gangs. It will be interesting to see if the police can curtail this violence in the next few years. But, for an issue like this, it's kind of hard to make a statistical conclusion on just a few years.

Back in my political days, I got to know the president of the National Firearms Association (Canada's NRA). He had a simple solution: a firearm user licence. The user must demonstrate competence in handling the weapon and undergo some background checks. If someone has a gun but no licence, confiscate the gun. If this happens again, it's time for jail. I still believe this solution is the best balance to firearm safety and people enjoying their hobby.
Licensing works well will honest, law-abiding citizens. But is does nothing for criminal and gang violence, which, IMHO, contribute a lot more to homicide stats than your average law-abiding citizen. I've seen some form of training requirement to purchase guns, which MAY, emphasis on MAY reduce gun accidents.
 
Western thought is linear and this, IMO, leads to extremes. Eastern thought is more holistic and recognizes the whole.

While westerners think in terms of winners and losers, easterners think in terms of Yin and Yang; the idea two sides make the whole. The movie “Jerry McGuire” popularized the term “You complete me”. There’s a solid Zen idea behind that idea.

yin-yang-md.png

I had a friend who decided to go to Japan to teach English. He stayed. He learned Japanese and was working for Japanese engineering company (last I heard). He told me how his company makes decisions. They have meetings and talk. Then more meetings and talk. Then more meetings, rehashing what was said in previous meetings. Then my friend comes to work and everyone is working to one of the alternatives they were talking about. He was at the last meeting and saw no decision. Yet everyone else seemed to know a decision had been made.

Getting back to the original post, if the Eastern cultures have some internal philosophy to guide our decision making processes, then it's pretty certain that founding fathers had none of that when developing the constitution. Maybe we need to incorporate some of that philosophy with a new constitution.

Back in the 1980s, National Geographic had an article that really shaped my thinking. It was about a town in SW USA whose economy was based on wealthy Americans retiring there: nice weather, nice facilities, etc. The service economy was comprised of younger people: doctors, nurses, police, garbage men, small shops, etc. Many of them had children in school--and the school was overcrowded. It seemed the best way to resolve the school problem was to raise property taxes. The retired people were against this tax hike! Their justification was that they paid taxes for many years to educate their own kids, why should they pay taxes to educate someone else's kids? I thought: "The retired people need the younger people to service the community. If the younger people are not happy, this affects the quality of life for the retired people." The retired people were not seeing the connection between themselves and a group to which they were directly linked to in an economic sense. I think this disconnect is common in Canada, but more prevalent in USA. We can talk about socialism vs capitalism, but we are more concerned with how government benefits us, not others.

In other words, this example shows how the west has really not attained that station of ying-yang. We need to think differently.
 
Licensing works well will honest, law-abiding citizens. But is does nothing for criminal and gang violence, which, IMHO, contribute a lot more to homicide stats than your average law-abiding citizen. I've seen some form of training requirement to purchase guns, which MAY, emphasis on MAY reduce gun accidents.

Fully agree. Most criminals will not stop buying and using guns; they will not bother to get a license. But if they get caught with a gun but no license, that's a good reason to throw them in jail. By getting their license, law-abiding gun owners are separating the sheep from the goats.

And I think we need to clear that such a social change will not solve all firearm deaths. But I can see the license reducing these deaths by half--but it may take 10 to 15 years to see the decrease.
 
Wow, there is a lot said in a few words here.

On another forum of lefties and righties pecking at each other, I put up a facetious post about a Trump monarchy. Surprisingly, a few of the righties liked that idea. Your 10% to 15% assertion may be valid!!!!!

Mr. Trump is both very simple and very complicated. He's been in office for two years now, and I not seeing any signs of him reaching for the dictator-of-the-nation controls. The framers of the constitution assumed that fools would occasionally assume political office and the constitution would handle them. All those peaceful protests and threats of impeachment are having an effect on his thinking. The constitution is working well in this regard. But we should watch carefully.

I'm more worried about the next populist leader, who will learning from the Trump presidency: what he did right and what he did wrong. And that one could come from political left. It is possible to break the constitution, but I don't see Mr. Trump as the one to do it.

Maybe so but it can be argued that Trump was put there to weaken the system so that it could be torn down by successors, which of course Republicans would want from their camp.

Could a misanthrope bent on destruction come from the Left? Of course. So what? We always knew that it could come from either side, but the problem is more one of society being conditioned to view misanthropes and malcontents as folk heroes.
 
Maybe so but it can be argued that Trump was put there to weaken the system so that it could be torn down by successors, which of course Republicans would want from their camp.

Could a misanthrope bent on destruction come from the Left? Of course. So what? We always knew that it could come from either side, but the problem is more one of society being conditioned to view misanthropes and malcontents as folk heroes.

I will concur that a weakening of the system is possible in the Trump administration. However, I don't think it is deliberate. But someone else may capitalize on it.
 
I will concur that a weakening of the system is possible in the Trump administration. However, I don't think it is deliberate. But someone else may capitalize on it.

You're a lot more kind and generous than I am :slapme:
 
I had a friend who decided to go to Japan to teach English. He stayed. He learned Japanese and was working for Japanese engineering company (last I heard). He told me how his company makes decisions. They have meetings and talk. Then more meetings and talk. Then more meetings, rehashing what was said in previous meetings. Then my friend comes to work and everyone is working to one of the alternatives they were talking about. He was at the last meeting and saw no decision. Yet everyone else seemed to know a decision had been made.

Getting back to the original post, if the Eastern cultures have some internal philosophy to guide our decision making processes, then it's pretty certain that founding fathers had none of that when developing the constitution. Maybe we need to incorporate some of that philosophy with a new constitution.

Back in the 1980s, National Geographic had an article that really shaped my thinking. It was about a town in SW USA whose economy was based on wealthy Americans retiring there: nice weather, nice facilities, etc. The service economy was comprised of younger people: doctors, nurses, police, garbage men, small shops, etc. Many of them had children in school--and the school was overcrowded. It seemed the best way to resolve the school problem was to raise property taxes. The retired people were against this tax hike! Their justification was that they paid taxes for many years to educate their own kids, why should they pay taxes to educate someone else's kids? I thought: "The retired people need the younger people to service the community. If the younger people are not happy, this affects the quality of life for the retired people." The retired people were not seeing the connection between themselves and a group to which they were directly linked to in an economic sense. I think this disconnect is common in Canada, but more prevalent in USA. We can talk about socialism vs capitalism, but we are more concerned with how government benefits us, not others.

In other words, this example shows how the west has really not attained that station of ying-yang. We need to think differently.
Not only are westerners taught to think linearly, but we’re a consumerist society which seeks to prove the adage “The one who dies with the most toys wins”.
 
Agreed.

The American colonies did rightly fear that Britain could take them back one-by-one if they did not unite in a federation. The non-slave states felt that the union was more important than the slavery issue.

As well, there were economic issues as the states had difficulties in establishing a credible currency. Coming together to create a common currency from a "bigger country" helped stabilize the economies. Some of the founding fathers got really rich.

The founders agreed upon union first with some of them having the knowledge that slavery wouldn't last forever. Many signers hated slavery and knew it would eventually die out.
 
Back
Top Bottom