• 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

TDGonDP said:
Western democracy, all of its various version, is a social engineering tool. It teaches people how to work together, settle differences, and voice their concern through non-violent means. Even Mr. Trump has some of his natural instincts from running a private company curtailed as he is now POTUS.


Everytime we see an ad on TV, that seller is trying to social engineer us into buying their product. The tobacco companies were great social engineers in convincing us to partake in an expensive and unhealthy lifestyle. Internet trolls, from both the left and right, are also trying to social engineer us, hopefully scaring us away from a discussion. Having the police issue speeding tickets is another means of social engineering to change behavior.

I made friends with a Bosnian family fleeing a war. He got into a pizza shop, and he and his business partner had a little disagreement. Back in Bosnia, bullets or billy clubs would have been flying. But in Canada, they went through the civil claims court. That too is social engineering. Social engineering is happening all over, for both good and bad reasons.

If your local pastor is doing a good job from the pulpit, he is trying to teach you to be a better person. If you are a young person, and your peer group tells you to drink all this beer, that pressure is hard to resist. These too are social engineering.

There's social engineering everywhere, not just in government. If you believe that only government social engineers, that I would say that you have been social engineered to think that way.
Click to expand...

The point is, the Constitution sets things up so that the government won't be the social engineer.

You said the claim is that the Constitution is a great social engineering tool. But I don't think anyone claims that. Constitutionalists certainly do not.
 
celticwar17 said:
Are you saying that there aren't large parts of American History and it's Constitution that are amazing and inspiring?
Click to expand...

This question sounds like a red herring to me. But to answer, USA did have some brilliant moments in my opinion, like WW2. But there were a lot of awful things as well, like Iraq and Vietnam.

High school students are getting a very sanitized version of American history, a history that pits the USA as great and everyone else as evil. One of the falsehoods is that Americans were very oppressed under the British rule. Actually, the colonists had quite a bit of freedom. Probably more freedom than your average communist country. The lower classes had more freedom and opportunity than their counterparts in UK at the time.


Read the book.
 
Harshaw said:
The point is, the Constitution sets things up so that the government won't be the social engineer.

You said the claim is that the Constitution is a great social engineering tool. But I don't think anyone claims that. Constitutionalists certainly do not.
Click to expand...

In a way, you are right. There is a common belief that only left leaning government do social engineering. In that sense, the constitution is working perfectly as progressives, when in government, don't really get to do what they want.

Here is the Wikipedia definition of social engineering:

Social engineering is a discipline in social science that refers to efforts to influence particular attitudes and social behaviors on a large scale, whether by governments, media or private groups in order to produce desired characteristics in a target population. Social engineering can also be understood philosophically as a deterministic phenomenon where the intentions and goals of the architects of the new social construct are realized.

I would say that the last great president that could get things done was Ronald Regan. He was very much a social engineer with his economic plans. Whether he is right or not or was successful or not is another matter of discussion. But he had a plan to change America and he was able to implement that plan.

As mentioned earlier, the tobacco companies were excellent social engineers, convincing nearly 60% of us to take up the habit--for their own profit. That falls with the definition above.

But if you are stuck that social engineering only belongs to socialists, then I guess that is it.
 
TDGonDP said:
This question sounds like a red herring to me. But to answer, USA did have some brilliant moments in my opinion, like WW2. But there were a lot of awful things as well, like Iraq and Vietnam.

High school students are getting a very sanitized version of American history, a history that pits the USA as great and everyone else as evil. One of the falsehoods is that Americans were very oppressed under the British rule. Actually, the colonists had quite a bit of freedom. Probably more freedom than your average communist country. The lower classes had more freedom and opportunity than their counterparts in UK at the time.


Read the book.
Click to expand...

That is not what American's are taught lol.... I am an American and was raised in an American school.... They did not pit USA as great and everyone else evil lol..

If anything we were taught the opposite. You ever went on to a American school teachers union website? Or see their brochure's?

You also did not answer my question... you just randomly mentioned WW2. I am asking the question because you seem to have a very cynical edge lord view of American history, and I am wondering if you are able to acknowledge the Great and Significant feats that were ackomplished in forging the constitution.


I've read book my whole life and have a graduate degree.... not in history of course... But I read history as a hobby.
 
celticwar17 said:
That is not what American's are taught lol.... I am an American and was raised in an American school.... They did not pit USA as great and everyone else evil lol..

If anything we were taught the opposite. You ever went on to a American school teachers union website? Or see their brochure's?

You also did not answer my question... you just randomly mentioned WW2. I am asking the question because you seem to have a very cynical edge lord view of American history, and I am wondering if you are able to acknowledge the Great and Significant feats that were ackomplished in forging the constitution.


I've read book my whole life and have a graduate degree.... not in history of course... But I read history as a hobby.
Click to expand...

I'm not following you at all. Please explain the great things the American Constitution has done.
 
TDGonDP said:
I'm not following you at all. Please explain the great things the American Constitution has done.
Click to expand...

I don't know, maybe...

That it's the first permanent constitution that was adopted by elected officials of the people with a separation of powers and bill of rights?...

That has influence constitutions and governments all around the world since?

Inspired by a rejection of Tyranny, and that no man has divine right over anyone?

The concept of Monarchy is inherently offensive. They are literally people who are born better than everyone else for no other reason than blood... It is essentially perpetrating racism, it validates the concept that not all men are equal in value.

Did the Constitution ban slavery? No, and I found that to be quite contradictory to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights... and Americans later thought so too... and also later made sure that that misunderstanding would never be made again by an amendment.

THe U.S. Constitution is and was a crowning achievement in Human History setting an example of all constitutional democracies after it.

It was, in no doubt written and ratified by genius's. Thomas Jefferson was one of the most intelligent men that ever lived.

It was an incredibly inspiring story, with tons of bravery, risk, beating odds, with people truly trying to make a better world.... and it certainly wasn't all rainbows and sunshine. And it all culminated to creating the most powerful and influential country in the entire history of the world.
 
celticwar17 said:
I don't know, maybe...

That it's the first permanent constitution that was adopted by elected officials of the people with a separation of powers and bill of rights?...

That has influence constitutions and governments all around the world since?

Inspired by a rejection of Tyranny, and that no man has divine right over anyone?

The concept of Monarchy is inherently offensive. They are literally people who are born better than everyone else for no other reason than blood... It is essentially perpetrating racism, it validates the concept that not all men are equal in value.

Did the Constitution ban slavery? No, and I found that to be quite contradictory to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights... and Americans later thought so too... and also later made sure that that misunderstanding would never be made again by an amendment.

THe U.S. Constitution is and was a crowning achievement in Human History setting an example of all constitutional democracies after it.

It was, in no doubt written and ratified by genius's. Thomas Jefferson was one of the most intelligent men that ever lived.

It was an incredibly inspiring story, with tons of bravery, risk, beating odds, with people truly trying to make a better world.... and it certainly wasn't all rainbows and sunshine. And it all culminated to creating the most powerful and influential country in the entire history of the world.
Click to expand...

Point 1: Agree
Point 2: Agree, but I don't see much inspiration for the future
Point 3: The USA is still a tyranny of the rich
Point 4: Monarchy was a popular form of governance for many centuries. It brought a lot more social order than an anarchy. It's naive to say that democracy could have been introduced to those countries and those times and worked. The people needed to be slowly trained, and the British were the first to get a passing grade.
Point 5: Many Americans find corporations financing elections is offensive, yet the Constitutino allows it and the current wielders of power have no interest in fixing this problem.
Point 6: The USA was the first country to master democracy in its current form. Much of the world has caught up. Much of the world will not catch up. The USA is no longer showing the world a good way.
Point 7: And there are no intelligent men today?
Point 8: All Empires eventually fade. Rome/Islam/Spain/France/Britain have had their period of domination. The America's influence is fading.
 
TDGonDP said:
Why would I want to drastically alter the constitution?

Circa 1800, our understanding of chemistry was the pudding model. Scientists knew atoms were composed of charged particles, but believed the charges were equally distributed throughout the atom. They then tried to explain chemistry using that pudding model. Then circa 1900, Rutherford did some experiments that proved the positive charges were concentrated in the nucleus and negative charges occupied the periphery. The pudding model was thrown out, as the Rutherford model was much better at explaining things. Had we stuck with the pudding model, nuclear power would have never happened.

Science is full of examples of once-useful-at-the-time models to explain science are replaced by better models. The humanistic sciences have also been turned on their head several times. It seems strange that western democracy---a social engineering tool---cannot be challenged.

In my original post, I summarized that the drafting of the American Constitution was far from a pure and altruistic purpose, far from being written by pure and altruistic men. As well, the founding fathers had very little knowledge of psychology, sociology, and political science as these sciences were not formally invented or taught in those days.

The founding fathers got to their constitutional meetings by stage coach and sailing ship. They had no way of communicating with their home state as negotiations were on-going. They lived in a much different world than we do today.

To insist that we can do no better than the American founding fathers in creating another system of governance is very strange given that we have advanced in so many ways from the founding fathers. At best, we have advocates for elimination of the electoral college or campaign finance reform. But these are mere tinkerings with the current system, which would leave the basic 18th-century structure intact. We have been cowed into believing the American constitution is infallible.

In the original post, I alluded to the founding fathers having a disdain for political parties--as they watched the British politicians democratically wrestle with each other for personal advantage. This is one feature of the founding fathers' work that should have been enshrined in the constitution. But alas, they could not find the words to make it work. This is where we need to go.
Click to expand...

So, then, no ideas on how to change anything for the better. Good for you!

Do you understand what the Constitution is intended to do?

I'll give you a hint: It limits the power and reach of the government into the lives of the citizenry. There is very little that it was intended to do. The power of the Constitution is in what it prohibits.

The Tenth Amendment and the most important restriction on the power of the Federal Government:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Interestingly, the Framers were very aware that the States and the People are two very different things.

See the wisdom in this? If we (the Framers) didn't discuss it here, we (the Feds) have nothing to do with it and no control over it. This is a pretty broad statement of restriction.

Shakespeare, or the entity or entities that we call Shakespeare today, finished writing his last work before the IDEA of the USA was ever conceived. Are we to throw away all of his thoughts as well simply because: Science?

Your thoughts on pudding are entertaining, but really useless in this consideration.
 
TDGonDP said:
In a way, you are right. There is a common belief that only left leaning government do social engineering. In that sense, the constitution is working perfectly as progressives, when in government, don't really get to do what they want.

Here is the Wikipedia definition of social engineering:

Social engineering is a discipline in social science that refers to efforts to influence particular attitudes and social behaviors on a large scale, whether by governments, media or private groups in order to produce desired characteristics in a target population. Social engineering can also be understood philosophically as a deterministic phenomenon where the intentions and goals of the architects of the new social construct are realized.

I would say that the last great president that could get things done was Ronald Regan. He was very much a social engineer with his economic plans. Whether he is right or not or was successful or not is another matter of discussion. But he had a plan to change America and he was able to implement that plan.

As mentioned earlier, the tobacco companies were excellent social engineers, convincing nearly 60% of us to take up the habit--for their own profit. That falls with the definition above.

But if you are stuck that social engineering only belongs to socialists, then I guess that is it.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about "socialists" or "left-leaning" anything. I certainly didn't say anything about "only" socialists or left-leaning anything.

I was speaking only to your contention that the Constitution is the "ultimate social-engineering tool," and/or the contention that someone claims it is. My statements: it isn't, and no one really says it is, least of all Constitutionalists.
 
Harshaw said:
I didn't say anything about "socialists" or "left-leaning" anything. I certainly didn't say anything about "only" socialists or left-leaning anything.

I was speaking only to your contention that the Constitution is the "ultimate social-engineering tool," and/or the contention that someone claims it is. My statements: it isn't, and no one really says it is, least of all Constitutionalists.
Click to expand...

Every one is us is a social engineer. How we interact with people has an effect on their daily pysche.

While you didn't state your political position, I have come to the conclusion that you believe social engineering only comes from socialists. This is a common belief.

It's OK if tobacco companies were successful in engineering our value system to make tobacco usage acceptable, but it's not OK to provide education for poor families to better the opportunities for the children of these families. Both are social engineering, if we look at the Wikipedia definition. But the first is business; the second is, well, . . . . socialism.

The constitution of the USA is a social engineering tool. It spells the relationship between the federal government, the state government, and the citizens. It is designed to force a certain kind of interaction between all these entities. When people show up in peaceful protest, they have been social engineered to use this tool to express their displeasure for government. Much better than using bullets.
 
Last edited:
TDGonDP said:
While you didn't state your political position, I have come to the conclusion that you believe social engineering only comes from socialists.
Click to expand...

Based on what, exactly?

It's OK if tobacco companies were successful in engineering our value system to make tobacco usage acceptable, but it's not OK to provide education for poor families to better the opportunities for the children of these families. Both are social engineering, if we look at the Wikipedia definition. But the first is business; the second is, well, . . . . socialism.

The constitution of the USA is a social engineering tool. It spells the relationship between the federal government, the state government, and the citizens. It is designed to force a certain kind of interaction between all these entities. When people show up in peaceful protest, they have been social engineered to use this tool to express their displeasure for government. Much better than using bullets.
Click to expand...

The rights protected by the Constitution are a reflection of what had already been "engineered." The whole point of the Constitution was to keep social development in the private sphere.

So no, it's NOT a social engineering "tool."
 
Harshaw said:
Based on what, exactly?



The rights protected by the Constitution are a reflection of what had already been "engineered." The whole point of the Constitution was to keep social development in the private sphere.

So no, it's NOT a social engineering "tool."
Click to expand...

I say western democracy is great social engineering tool. It allows a process for citizens to elect their leaders, interact with their leaders, and hold their leaders accountable. And the leaders have been socially engineered to step aside when the citizernry chooses someone else.

I doubt it very much the founding fathers had any notion of social engineering. If anything, these elite believed the government should do nothing to help the citizenry for that was the way of much of the western world back then. Britain, France, Russia, Germanic states, etc. really didn't give hoot for the welfare of the lower classes and could still count on them for manual labor and fighting silly wars. In this sense, the founding fathers did not invent anything new with the constitution: they were following the lead of the governing elite of other countries, democratic or not.
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
So, then, no ideas on how to change anything for the better. Good for you!

Do you understand what the Constitution is intended to do?

I'll give you a hint: It limits the power and reach of the government into the lives of the citizenry. There is very little that it was intended to do. The power of the Constitution is in what it prohibits.

The Tenth Amendment and the most important restriction on the power of the Federal Government:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Interestingly, the Framers were very aware that the States and the People are two very different things.

See the wisdom in this? If we (the Framers) didn't discuss it here, we (the Feds) have nothing to do with it and no control over it. This is a pretty broad statement of restriction.

Shakespeare, or the entity or entities that we call Shakespeare today, finished writing his last work before the IDEA of the USA was ever conceived. Are we to throw away all of his thoughts as well simply because: Science?

Your thoughts on pudding are entertaining, but really useless in this consideration.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your thoughtful post. And sorry for the delay in response; life got in the way yesterday.

I spent about an hour crafting a message to you this morning. I did copy the text before posting (I had to learn that lesson a couple of times on DP). I thought I saw the response being published on this thread. But now it's gone, or perhaps better said: "I probably wasn't careful enough."

I'm not sure I'm going to rewrite. See how my day goes.
 
code1211 said:
So, then, no ideas on how to change anything for the better. Good for you!

Do you understand what the Constitution is intended to do?

I'll give you a hint: It limits the power and reach of the government into the lives of the citizenry. There is very little that it was intended to do. The power of the Constitution is in what it prohibits.

The Tenth Amendment and the most important restriction on the power of the Federal Government:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Interestingly, the Framers were very aware that the States and the People are two very different things.

See the wisdom in this? If we (the Framers) didn't discuss it here, we (the Feds) have nothing to do with it and no control over it. This is a pretty broad statement of restriction.

Shakespeare, or the entity or entities that we call Shakespeare today, finished writing his last work before the IDEA of the USA was ever conceived. Are we to throw away all of his thoughts as well simply because: Science?

Your thoughts on pudding are entertaining, but really useless in this consideration.
Click to expand...

I'm back, giving you the 10-minute version of my last post to you.

Point #1
If the states rights have indeed been usurped by the federal government, then the Supreme Court should be the final arbitrator. I suspect that states rights have been challenged by various states in the past, the SC's interpretation has found to favor the federal government. In this case, either "the constitutionalist cause" has misinterpreted the constitution OR the SC is somehow corrupt or inept. In the latter case, then the constitution is at fault, thereby placing the constitution further away from being a perfect document--and worthy of replacement or serious amendment.

Point #2
I believe it would be entirely possible to develop a new political party in the USA, mostly based on giving rights back to the states. Elect these people to Congress, and the transition "back to the good old days" can start. But there is not such a political movement, leaving the D's and R's in charge. The two parties are not that interested in this transition.

Point #3
We could argue for hours whether a certain aspect of governance is better suited at the federal, state (or provincial), or municipal levels. And in many cases, we have made the right call. For example, I don't think citizens in Odessa Texas need to contact someone in Washington to fix a pothole in their street. But I have to admit that we Canadians sometimes get this balance wrong, and it is difficult to fix.

Point #4
I consider the "states right movement" a moot point. Even if the movement does gain some practical influence, many of the problems of America will remain intact. It is hard to blame everything on the lack of state rights. In my opinion, the best solution is get rid of all political parties. And the political parties would sooner have us debate state rights than their own demise.

-----
Just to clarify, I believe we need to place responsibility and authority to lowest possible of governance that can handle the job. There may be times when we need regional and federal oversight, but keep that at minimum.

I said a lot more in my "lost" post, but I think this is a good summary.
 
Harshaw said:
Based on what, exactly?



The rights protected by the Constitution are a reflection of what had already been "engineered." The whole point of the Constitution was to keep social development in the private sphere.

So no, it's NOT a social engineering "tool."
Click to expand...

The Preamble to the USC suggests otherwise: We The People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the General Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Perhaps you should realign your definition of 'social engineering'?
 
Thoreau72 said:
The Preamble to the USC suggests otherwise: We The People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the General Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Perhaps you should realign your definition of 'social engineering'?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should take better strides to understand the Preamble.
 
Harshaw said:
Perhaps you should take better strides to understand the Preamble.
Click to expand...

I understand it pretty well thanks for commenting.

Now if you could make your case that it is NOT any form of social engineering, we could proceed.
 
Captain Adverse said:
1So please don't lecture us from the platform of your British parliamentary system, where your "figurehead" is still a monarch sitting in Buckingham Palace while your Prime Minister is as changeable as a pair of underwear if his "ruling" Party loses faith in him/her.
Click to expand...

Cut the other stuff out of your response, because I don't take issue with it, and I am uncomfortable with folks telling other folks their system is better - you guys live in the system you want, and you have mechanisms to change it if need be. Great news. To each their own.

I do wonder, though, how "your Prime Minister is as changeable as a pair of underwear if his "ruling" Party loses faith in him/her" is a bad thing. It forces our leaders to keep the faith, as it were. Was that designed to be a zinger? If so, it lacks zing. Don't you also have mechanisms to remove your leader, if faith is lost? I need help understanding this statement, bud...

Also...the Queen is pretty much about tourism at this point...just sayin'.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I understand it pretty well thanks for commenting.

Now if you could make your case that it is NOT any form of social engineering, we could proceed.
Click to expand...

I see you're approaching this the exact same way as you do all your CTs.
 
Harshaw said:
I see you're approaching this the exact same way as you do all your CTs.
Click to expand...

Exactly! If you refuse to attempt to defend your statement that the Constitution simply is not a form of social engineering, why on earth should I believe you, given the language of the Preamble?

This really isn't CT, but I understand your need to resort to such a claim. In your eye, that relieves any responsibility you might have to offer an explanation or discussion.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Exactly! If you refuse to attempt to defend your statement that the Constitution simply is not a form of social engineering, why on earth should I believe you, given the language of the Preamble?

This really isn't CT, but I understand your need to resort to such a claim. In your eye, that relieves any responsibility you might have to offer an explanation or discussion.
Click to expand...

:roll:

"I said something ridiculous, ignorant, and a little paranoid! PROVE ME WRONG!!!" <---- The CTer's mantra.
 
Harshaw said:
:roll:

"I said something ridiculous, ignorant, and a little paranoid! PROVE ME WRONG!!!" <---- The CTer's mantra.
Click to expand...

No, the CT mantra is "prove your story", or perhaps "the facts available suggest the story/theory is invalid". Just common sense really. Why should a rational and curious person believe the statements of men known to be liars?
 
Thoreau72 said:
No, the CT mantra is "prove your story"
Click to expand...

Oh?

Thoreau72 said:
I understand it pretty well thanks for commenting.

Now if you could make your case that it is NOT any form of social engineering, we could proceed.
Click to expand...

Him: "The constitution is a social engineering tool."

Me: "No, it isn't."

You: "PROVE IT WRONG!!!!"
 
Harshaw said:
Oh?



Him: "The constitution is a social engineering tool."

Me: "No, it isn't."

You: "PROVE IT WRONG!!!!"
Click to expand...

We are down to 'agree to disagree'. With presenting the language of the Preamble again, I say it could easily be construed as some effort to engineer such social values as domestic tranquility and justice, just to mention a few. The document takes steps to engineer such values as are described in the Preamble.

You disagree. Big deal.
 
Thoreau72 said:
We are down to 'agree to disagree'. With presenting the language of the Preamble again, I say it could easily be construed as some effort to engineer such social values as domestic tranquility and justice, just to mention a few.
Click to expand...

Then you are construing it incorrectly.

It's not a question of opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom