• 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!

How Do We Fix Our Polarized Government And Electorate?

C

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,637
Reaction score
2,295
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Do we 'fix' The Constitution?

Postings on a previous thread have proven how highly polarized our government and our electorate has become. IMO, Our Constitution is unable to function effectively under those circumstances.

Our current justice department has repeatedly failed to implement laws passed by congress, yet some commentators have, for example, reasoned the current influx of undocumented children can't be easily sent back because of laws. Really? I sincerely doubt this administration (and I) feel that is the reason why the children can't be sent back. This administration would rather follow their own ideology than The Constitution and, IMO,
'the best interests of the US'.

We have a judiciary who's repeatedly (since the beginning of our government) passed judgements based more on there own ideologies than The Constitution. These ideological law changes become the basis for further ideological law changes. Let me use the separation of church and state interpretation of the religion part of the first amendment by Jefferson's SCOTUS as an example of my charge, here.

In US and state congress, to bottleneck a bill that's been passed by the other body, all one has to do is refuse to bring it up for vote. That's all. It never gets voted on.
No one seems to be aware of the option of compromise (here or anywhere in American government or the electorate).

One might think the American electorate could 'solve' some of these ideological and disinterest with what's best for the government problems with a voting cleanse, but the electorate has become as highly polarized as their elected representatives.
(Has elected become polarized because the electorate is more polarized, or vice versa)?

Liberals want to spend to improve the government. Fiscal conservatives want to spend as little as possible to avoid more taxes and increase chances for personal liberty.
Both ideologies are right, here, and wrong, and we have this polarization.

In another topic, liberals want to bring an open border atmosphere to the US to give everyone the chance of having all the advantages of being American. Every other American realizes the US chaos with this kind of philosophy: monetarily, anarchically. Threatens the very existence of the US. There never has been an 'open border bill' voted on and agreed upon. Never. The open border ideology has been enabled in the US because of a lack of law enforcement of previous passed immigration laws. If you don't respect past and present laws concerning immigration, you don't have a respect for the Constitution. You have, instead, a respect for YOUR ideology.


In another thread, I was in a posting 'argument' with a fiscal conservative over the functionality of The Constitution during these times of high polarization. His suggestion was to recommit to the founders' idea of checks and balances by abolishing the 17th amendment and giving the right of electing US senators back to state legislatures and take this away from the voters, but how could this turn into anything other than more polarized standoffs like we have now?
(He was quite polarized in his attitude).
 
Last edited:
We don't fix it. The constitution is just fine. The people are the problem. We will keep going as we are now until a change happens by necessity, because we have such a deep divide in ideological differences. We will reach the point that we can't economically survive, and change will be forced.
 
Or the US ceases to exist - I don't mean figuratively.
 
Refer to 1775. Do it again. Quench the thirst of the tree of liberty.
 
cabse5 said:
Our current justice department has repeatedly failed to implement laws passed by congress, yet some commentators have, for example, reasoned the current influx of undocumented children can't be easily sent back because of laws. Really? I sincerely doubt this administration (and I) feel that is the reason why the children can't be sent back.
Click to expand...

Really. 8 U.S.C. §1232.

(3) Rule for other children
The custody of unaccompanied alien children not described in paragraph (2)(A) who are apprehended at the border of the United States or at a United States port of entry shall be treated in accordance with subsection (b).
...
(5) Ensuring the safe repatriation of children
(A) Repatriation pilot program
To protect children from trafficking and exploitation, the Secretary of State shall create a pilot program, in conjunction with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Homeland Security, nongovernmental organizations, and other national and international agencies and experts, to develop and implement best practices to ensure the safe and sustainable repatriation and reintegration of unaccompanied alien children into their country of nationality or of last habitual residence, including placement with their families, legal guardians, or other sponsoring agencies.
...
(b) Combating child trafficking and exploitation in the United States
(1) Care and custody of unaccompanied alien children
Consistent with section 279 of title 6, and except as otherwise provided under subsection (a), the care and custody of all unaccompanied alien children, including responsibility for their detention, where appropriate, shall be the responsibility of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

(2) Notification
Each department or agency of the Federal Government shall notify the Department of Health and Human services 1 within 48 hours upon—

(A) the apprehension or discovery of an unaccompanied alien child; or

(B) any claim or suspicion that an alien in the custody of such department or agency is under 18 years of age.

(3) Transfers of unaccompanied alien children
Except in the case of exceptional circumstances, any department or agency of the Federal Government that has an unaccompanied alien child in custody shall transfer the custody of such child to the Secretary of Health and Human Services not later than 72 hours after determining that such child is an unaccompanied alien child.
U.S.C. Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
Click to expand...
 
Not gonna quote you again, just point out, logically, that Obama and his cohorts didn't believe in the rule of law, before, concerning immigration reform so why now? My answer: because now it fits their ideology. And it has nothing to do with the law.
 
cabse5 said:
Do we 'fix' The Constitution?

Postings on a previous thread have proven how highly polarized our government and our electorate has become. IMO, Our Constitution is unable to function effectively under those circumstances.

Our current justice department has repeatedly failed to implement laws passed by congress, yet some commentators have, for example, reasoned the current influx of undocumented children can't be easily sent back because of laws. Really? I sincerely doubt this administration (and I) feel that is the reason why the children can't be sent back. This administration would rather follow their own ideology than The Constitution and, IMO,
'the best interests of the US'.

We have a judiciary who's repeatedly (since the beginning of our government) passed judgements based more on there own ideologies than The Constitution. These ideological law changes become the basis for further ideological law changes. Let me use the separation of church and state interpretation of the religion part of the first amendment by Jefferson's SCOTUS as an example of my charge, here.

In US and state congress, to bottleneck a bill that's been passed by the other body, all one has to do is refuse to bring it up for vote. That's all. It never gets voted on.
No one seems to be aware of the option of compromise (here or anywhere in American government or the electorate).

One might think the American electorate could 'solve' some of these ideological and disinterest with what's best for the government problems with a voting cleanse, but the electorate has become as highly polarized as their elected representatives.
(Has elected become polarized because the electorate is more polarized, or vice versa)?

Liberals want to spend to improve the government. Fiscal conservatives want to spend as little as possible to avoid more taxes and increase chances for personal liberty.
Both ideologies are right, here, and wrong, and we have this polarization.

In another topic, liberals want to bring an open border atmosphere to the US to give everyone the chance of having all the advantages of being American. Every other American realizes the US chaos with this kind of philosophy: monetarily, anarchically. Threatens the very existence of the US. There never has been an 'open border bill' voted on and agreed upon. Never. The open border ideology has been enabled in the US because of a lack of law enforcement of previous passed immigration laws. If you don't respect past and present laws concerning immigration, you don't have a respect for the Constitution. You have, instead, a respect for YOUR ideology.


In another thread, I was in a posting 'argument' with a fiscal conservative over the functionality of The Constitution during these times of high polarization. His suggestion was to recommit to the founders idea of checks and balances by abolishing the 17th amendment and giving the right of electing US senators back to state legislatures and take this away from the voters, but how could this turn into anything other than more polarized standoffs like we have now?
(He was quite polarized in his attitude).
Click to expand...

Eliminating Gerrymandering would go a long way. With House districts drawn as they are, most of them are either safe R or safe D. In the safe R districts at least, you can't be too far right, and if you aren't far enough, the TP is breathing down your throat. Ask Eric Cantor - not the most collegial guy in the first place, and he was still "too willing" to compromise to keep his seat. For Democrats, there's no upside to working with the TP - for one thing, the TP doesn't play well in their districts, and the TPers aren't willing to give something to get something. That used to be how bills got passed. Now it's about ramming through your ideology and moaning when the other side won't vote for it (like Obama does).

Even in these districts, voters can put their foot down and demand more effective governing, and less ideological purity.

Getting rid of the direct election of Senators wouldn't do anything. State legislators are elected by the same people for the same reasons, and they're going to pick whoever the majority party wants. Remember what happened with Obama's Senate seat and the scandal surrounding how it was filled? Picture similar things happening 100 times over every 6 years.

It's not that they don't "respect the Constitution" it's that they think their way is the only way to see the Constitution. It's the "my way is the right way, and everyone else is wrong" mentality, and the lack of respect for effective governing.
 
cabse5 said:
Not gonna quote you again, just point out, logically, that Obama and his cohorts didn't believe in the rule of law, before, concerning immigration reform so why so, now? My answer: because now it fits their ideology.
Click to expand...

Of course they all develop a healthy love for the rule of law when it fits what they want. That goes no matter if you're a Dem or a Repub.
 
cabse5 said:
Not gonna quote you again, just point out, logically, that Obama and his cohorts didn't believe in the rule of law, before, concerning immigration reform so why now? My answer: because now it fits their ideology. And it has nothing to do with the law.
Click to expand...

Actually presidents from both sides have skirted the law and done so to fit their ideology. This is nothing new.

What's new is people on both sides are willing to "accept" this by blaming the other side and turning a blind eye toward their side when it happens.

The system in place is just fine, but it requires people to hold their side accountable which they are not doing.
 
TheNextEra said:
Actually presidents from both sides have skirted the law and done so to fit their ideology. This is nothing new.

What's new is people on both sides are willing to "accept" this by blaming the other side and turning a blind eye toward their side when it happens.

The system in place is just fine, but it requires people to hold their side accountable which they are not doing.
Click to expand...
What, are we supposed to hold our breaths and hope that the people see 'straight' again? What if... before that happens comes the dissolution of the US government? Again, times are really bad now and The Constitution has no remedies, here. I mean, amendments not a new type of constitution.
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
Eliminating Gerrymandering would go a long way. With House districts drawn as they are, most of them are either safe R or safe D. In the safe R districts at least, you can't be too far right, and if you aren't far enough, the TP is breathing down your throat. Ask Eric Cantor - not the most collegial guy in the first place, and he was still "too willing" to compromise to keep his seat. For Democrats, there's no upside to working with the TP - for one thing, the TP doesn't play well in their districts, and the TPers aren't willing to give something to get something. That used to be how bills got passed. Now it's about ramming through your ideology and moaning when the other side won't vote for it (like Obama does).

Even in these districts, voters can put their foot down and demand more effective governing, and less ideological purity.

Getting rid of the direct election of Senators wouldn't do anything. State legislators are elected by the same people for the same reasons, and they're going to pick whoever the majority party wants. Remember what happened with Obama's Senate seat and the scandal surrounding how it was filled? Picture similar things happening 100 times over every 6 years.

It's not that they don't "respect the Constitution" it's that they think their way is the only way to see the Constitution. It's the "my way is the right way, and everyone else is wrong" mentality, and the lack of respect for effective governing.
Click to expand...

Excellent post.
 
cabse5 said:
Not gonna quote you again, just point out, logically, that Obama and his cohorts didn't believe in the rule of law, before, concerning immigration reform so why now? My answer: because now it fits their ideology. And it has nothing to do with the law.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the conservative the SOP, complain that Obama doesn't follow the law, and then complain when he does.
 
cabse5 said:
What, are we supposed to hold our breaths and hope that the people see 'straight' again? What if... before that happens comes the dissolution of the US government? Again, times are really bad now and The Constitution has no remedies, here. I mean, amendments, not a new type of constitution.
Click to expand...

This isn't the first period of intense polarization, and it won't be the last. We lived through it before.
 
29A said:
That seems to be the conservative the SOP, complain that Obama doesn't follow the law, and then complain when he does.
Click to expand...
Yeah? So what? If everyone jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge.... does that make it right?
 
cabse5 said:
What, are we supposed to hold our breaths and hope that the people see 'straight' again? What if... before that happens comes the dissolution of the US government? Again, times are really bad now and The Constitution has no remedies, here. I mean, amendments not a new type of constitution.
Click to expand...

What if aliens invade, what-if China attacks. You can play 'What-if" scenarios till you're blue in the face.

If you think times are REALLY bad, go visit a third world country, we are not even REMOTELY that close yet. I think some people really need some perspective of what's "really" bad.

And as for people, here is a hint. We are a country of the people, by the people and for the people. Notice what the dominant word is there? Yes, it's people. People are the answer to the problem. And people only have themselves to blame for the problems we are currently in and people are the only way out of it.

The consitution has checks and balances but only if the people hold the politicians accountable for their actions.
 
How Do We Fix Our Polarized Government And Electorate?
Click to expand...

Eliminate gerrymandering nationwide by letting a computer draw the districts using only census data.

Do that, and you'll be surprised at how many problems are solved.
 
How Do We Fix Our Polarized Government And Electorate?
Click to expand...

cabse5 said:
...Obama and his cohorts didn't believe in the rule of law, before, concerning immigration reform so why now? My answer: because now it fits their ideology. And it has nothing to do with the law.
Click to expand...


Heal thyself, conspiracy theorist.
 
cabse5 said:
Yeah? So what? If everyone jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge.... does that make it right?
Click to expand...

Based on what I said, that strikes me as a real non sequitur. Complaining both when Obama follows the law and when he doesn't is an example of polarization, which your OP is purportedly against.
 
TheNextEra said:
Actually presidents from both sides have skirted the law and done so to fit their ideology. This is nothing new.

What's new is people on both sides are willing to "accept" this by blaming the other side and turning a blind eye toward their side when it happens.

The system in place is just fine, but it requires people to hold their side accountable which they are not doing.
Click to expand...

Do you think people who identify with the Tea Party are disaffected liberals?
 
There used to be statesmen in offices throughout the land. Now they are greasey politicians with billions in swiss banks and serve terms ten times longer than nature should allow. We now have two gangs in washington and the harry reids and the like are simply feeble minded child porno watchers with no purpose to anyone. When is the last time you heard a straight answer from a politician when asked the simplest of questions? Clear the house and senate and start over.
 
29A said:
Based on what I said, that strikes me as a real non sequitur. Complaining both when Obama follows the law and when he doesn't is an example of polarization, which your OP is purportedly against.
Click to expand...
I'm complaining because Obama and his cohorts refused to follow previous laws concerning immigration reform and now, since the law fits more to their ideology, they demand the law be followed... quite hypocritical and political.

If previous immigration reform legislation had been followed, (and the border secured) there wouldn't have been a need for the 2008 immigration law nor the, I presume, upcoming immigration reform legislation. Since previous immigration reforms have not been followed and the borders not been secured, why do you or any one else think 2008's (or any other immigration) reforms will be followed? Or be successful? Or is that your plan?

Rule of law my eye. Rule of my ideology, more like it
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
What if aliens invade, what-if China attacks. You can play 'What-if" scenarios till you're blue in the face.

If you think times are REALLY bad, go visit a third world country, we are not even REMOTELY that close yet. I think some people really need some perspective of what's "really" bad.

And as for people, here is a hint. We are a country of the people, by the people and for the people. Notice what the dominant word is there? Yes, it's people. People are the answer to the problem. And people only have themselves to blame for the problems we are currently in and people are the only way out of it.


The consitution has checks and balances but only if the people hold the politicians accountable for their actions.
Click to expand...
Being a Libertarian (either left or right) makes you the least likely to be able to compromise or be an expert of it. Your political ideology is, in essence, one that refuses to compromise. It's narcissistic. Which makes for a different preamble than is in The Constiution: 'I am a country of me by me and for me'. Not we a country of the people by the people and for the people.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
Being a Libertarian (either left or right) makes you the least likely to be able to compromise or be an expert of it. Your political ideology is, in essence, one that refuses to compromise.
Click to expand...

You know NOTHING about me son. Let me give you a bit of advice. There isn't a ONE-SIZE fits all of ANY political ideology. You trying to say you know me is rich, but I shouldn't expect anything less from someone who thinks it is "Really Bad" here in America.

When you want to actually discuss things like an adult, let me know. I'll let you just continue to spew one-sided remarks like you think you actually know anything.
 
I'm being as concise and emotionless as I can. This is not rhetoric. These are the facts about Libertarians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom