• 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

I do not disagree with your statement regarding the U.S., however freedom within the UK and Europe have also become "Police States", point of fact, total gun control and more CCTV's per capita than America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_Kingdom
~~~~~~
https://pen.org/mass-surveillance-in-the-european-union
~~~~~~
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10220974
~~~~~~
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gun-control-in-europe-is-almost...

what do the ordinary citizens think of this? do people talk about the surveillance as being invasive? I wouldnt like it, I would try to find like minded people to organize against the government, or i would leave.
 
what do the ordinary citizens think of this? do people talk about the surveillance as being invasive? I wouldnt like it, I would try to find like minded people to organize against the government, or i would leave.

Remember now, according to the UK gov't and Europe (especially Germany) it's all for public safety that the population is totally surveilled. Soon gov't CCTV will be placed in homes ala "1984" Orwellian style. Laptop computers also have the capability to broadcast video images without the owners permission.
 
Your defense of the Crown, the Redcoats and Cornwallis surrender is admirable, but the final result is that Britain ****ed up, lost it's biggest colony because they were too authoritarian, treated colonials like second-class citizens and, the real irony, was that despite a 100 years of acrimony, we saved their asses not once but twice in one century...and now they rely on us for help.

lb8kk.jpg

...as with most history, not exactly that simple. Much of the "taxation" was a billing back of the British costs of defending the colonies (and British interests) in the French/Indian War.
 
Remember now, according to the UK gov't and Europe (especially Germany) it's all for public safety that the population is totally surveilled. Soon gov't CCTV will be placed in homes ala "1984" Orwellian style. Laptop computers also have the capability to broadcast video images without the owners permission.

so the citizens of Germany and the uk are alright with this? dont they care about personal freedom? individual liberty? dont people have an opinion
 
I do not disagree with your statement regarding the U.S., however freedom within the UK and Europe have also become "Police States", point of fact, total gun control and more CCTV's per capita than America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_Kingdom
~~~~~~
https://pen.org/mass-surveillance-in-the-european-union
~~~~~~
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10220974
~~~~~~
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gun-control-in-europe-is-almost...

europes laws make me understand the constitution and appreciate it. the constitution was written that the people can control the government not the government control the people. ben franklin said something like '' people who give up freedom for security deserve neither'' when the gov. of the u.s. violates the constitution the people are supposed to overthrow it by force. I cant wait for that !! thats the difference we dont fear the gov.
 
We have Amendments for a reason. When a part in the Constitution proves not be where we as people need it to be in the present, we alter it to where it will.
 
We have Amendments for a reason. When a part in the Constitution proves not be where we as people need it to be in the present, we alter it to where it will.

thats some amazing power
 
We have Amendments for a reason. When a part in the Constitution proves not be where we as people need it to be in the present, we alter it to where it will.

who do you mean when you say oui ?
 
I didnt say oui anywhere in my post so what on earth do you mean? :confused:

just bored.. you said we as people alter the constitution. but in my opinion the constitution cant even be utilized by the people unless the government allows it. the u.s. is not governed by the people. and the the people do not govern themselves. self governance being a founding principle
 
just bored.. you said we as people alter the constitution. but in my opinion the constitution cant even be utilized by the people unless the government allows it. the u.s. is not governed by the people. and the the people do not govern themselves. self governance being a founding principle

I guess that came as time went on and the federal government took more and more power.
 
Probably because the states do such a bad job of governance.

the people allowed it . it is the duty of the people to defend the constitution . the gov is a necessary evil, that has slowly taken control away from the peeps. thats why jazzy jeff said a revolution was needed about every twenty years. what we have today is a gov. that hasnt been spanked in a while.
 
Can you give a couple of examples how the US Constitution has "shaped the world" ?




Er no. The English Revolution in 1688 (known often as a the "Glorious Revolution) gave birth to the Revolution Settlement and the Bill of Rights.

Almost 100 years before the US Constitution



Of course the US Constitution (it should always be written with a capital "C" by the way) was not a perfect document. It was a document of the late 18th century and it's vocabulary and concerns reflect this.

The fact that so many of its articles are argued over proves this. This is why having a constitution that lasts for hundreds of years is a bad thing - in the same way that laws written hundreds of years ago lose their mean/intent or purpose.




The motivation for the Revolution came from the wealthy middle classes who saw an opportunity to make more money. It had nothing to do with independence or representation and everything to do with making the wealthy middle classes richer.

In the 1860's the USA had a bloody civil war - it was motivated too by the Southern establishment seeking to protect their wealth and maintain slavery. But the dirt farmers who owned no slaves and did the fighting thought they were fighting for independence.
They weren't - they were fighting for the Southern rich to keep their wealth.




Don't forget the Native Americans either. In fact the people who could actually vote were a small minority of white males.

"WE THE PEOPLE" - meant "we the specific group of elite"





What American law(s) have property rights enshrined in them ?




What improvements were made ?

And how could the drafters of the Constitution have possibly expected political parties to not exist ?




Yeah, right off the bat there were 10 amendments...better to have started again.





Who, in their right mind, would think the US Constitution an infallible document ?

It should be scrapped and a new one drafted.

It seems like Ruth Bader Ginsburg agrees with you:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave an interview to Egyptian television in which she did not recommend using the U.S.
Constitution as a model for post-Mubarak happiness.

'Be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the
US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa.'
She really said that, and then:

“Your Time Is Up White People!” South African Government Sets Date for White Farmers to Give Up Land without Compensation.
 
We have Amendments for a reason. When a part in the Constitution proves not be where we as people need it to be in the present, we alter it to where it will.


And the definition of what "...we as people need it to be..."


Is determined by who ?
 
And the definition of what "...we as people need it to be..."


Is determined by who ?

A clear majority (two-thirds) of our Congressional representatives in both houses of Congress.
 
A clear majority (two-thirds) of our Congressional representatives in both houses of Congress.

what would happen if congress was infiltrated by a foreign entity? what if congress conspired to manipulate the ammendments to their own purposes? for their own gain ? or if representatives were being paid by wealthy corporations or individuals to manipulate congressmen
 
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?

Impedance is an electronics term. You mean 'impotence', right?
 
Impedance is an electronics term. You mean 'impotence', right?

From Dictionary.com | Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com

1) Electricity . the total opposition to alternating current by an electric circuit, equal to the square root of the sum of the squares of the resistance and reactance of the circuit and usually expressed in ohms. Symbol : Z
2) Also called mechanical impedance. Physics . the ratio of the force on a system undergoing simple harmonic motion to the velocity of the particles in the system.
3) something that impedes; an obstacle or hindrance.

My usage fits #3 quite well. Americans are impeded by their sacrosanct attitude towards the constitution; they cannot look at alternatives.
 
Back
Top Bottom