America's fundamental change

[Skybird]

... is in demographics and ethnicities.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/012496.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/washington/14census.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1218802779-nbIACVRTPJUOC/lb9TFPgg&pagewanted=print

then at the latest, plicies will have seen chnages. and even in avdance, existing politicians will start to change in attempts to fish for different groups of voters.

since the chnages are going very fast, fromm a sociological point of view, I cannot form any real vision of what america will be like in 40, 50, 60 years. But it won't be the traditional America of the proverbial WASP anymore.

[AVGWarhawk]

Welcome to the great melting pot.

[Skybird]

Welcome to the great melting pot.
Where now the pot itself is melting...(!?)

[August]

Where now the pot itself is melting...(!?)

People like you have been forecasting our imminent demise for centuries. :roll: If you spent half the time worrying about your own nation as you do about ours Germany would actually be a half decent place to live.

[Konovalov]

Welcome to the great melting pot.
Where now the pot itself is melting...(!?)
Can you expand on this? I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. :-?

[Skybird]

Welcome to the great melting pot.
Where now the pot itself is melting...(!?)
Can you expand on this? I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. :-?
the context that nevertheless gave a framework (the dominance of WASP's cultural dogma) to "melting" (in which it took place and to what it more or less adapted), is loosing in structural integrity.

[August]

Welcome to the great melting pot. Where now the pot itself is melting...(!?) Can you expand on this? I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. :-?

He thinks because we let non white people immigrate to our country that we're going to collapse under a tide of unwashed peasants.

[Digital_Trucker]

.blah blah blah, I cannot form any real vision of what america will be like in 40, 50, 60 years. But it won't be the traditional America of the proverbial WASP anymore.
I don't know what America you speak of, but the one I live in is not "the traditional America of the proverbial WASP" now.

[Schöneboom]

What matters in the long run is not the ethnic mix, but how well the immigrants assimilate into the culture, esp. in terms of adopting the language & values. So far we've been fortunate that our immigrants have been motivated to adapt out of self-interest. Actually some of our native-born population needs to achieve fluency in English!

We could have a population as mixed as Brazil's and still be American as ever. And dare I say we have a bit more experience in absorbing waves of immigration than Europe. Having visited several times (UK, France, Spain, Germany, Italy), I reckon it's the EU that could have a problem with rapid demographic changes.

Ciao,
Wayne

[Skybird]

What matters in the long run is not the ethnic mix, but how well the immigrants assimilate into the culture, esp. in terms of adopting the language & values.
That is precisely the point I am pointint at. For the most, your goals have not been questioned, and they derive from a cultural heritage formed by white christian europeans. And this dominance of cultural values and a national tradition deriving from these - is to be expected to chnage. that was different in the past waves or constant processes of immigration. It also means that ethnic patterns on the ground are changing. Some weeks ago for exaple there was a documentary essay about how the ethnic structure of inhabitants in Miami has massively changed over the past 60 years (people with a white european background moved away, hispanics massively replacing them, I think), and how this is reflected in changes of local policies, and chnaging focusses of local political projects.

[Frame57]

It already looks like Mexico here in California. But the politics of the Country will resemble the feminized socialistic Europe we see today. Yes, America is following its ancestor into the future. Morals are now immoral, Illegals are now legal, Churches will only be of historical value, economic and political policies will be unified, Women will now wear the pants, diversity has become perversity, the people have become the sheeple.... I pray as long as there is patriotic blood flowing through the veins of men, that this will not be. If this does unfold in the course of human events, then I will know that the last patriot has died.

John Lennon can shove his song "Imagine" where the son does not shine. Sure, imagine there is no country..... that is what will happen if things do not change.Progressiveness is just another "buzz" word for socialism. Some people want that and that is fine. But the concept of American Independance is what America is all about. Free trade does not have to be socially engineered to bring America to a 2nd or 3rd world country. There is no logical sense to have a North American Union. Only to the few who would become even wealthier, would such nonsense make sense. If we are at that point then we have arrived to enact our constitutional right to take the affairs and direction of our Country out of the hands of the bums in Washington and steer this ship of the shoals. But the people are asleep still and Nero fiddles while Rome burns. Someday soon the alarm clock will ring and all the bums in Washington D.C. will reason with their treason. Because they are guilty of it.

[SUBMAN1]

Where now the pot itself is melting...(!?)
People like you have been forecasting our imminent demise for centuries. :roll: If you spent half the time worrying about your own nation as you do about ours Germany would actually be a half decent place to live.This is hallarious, but so true!

Hey guess what? To anyone that hasn't noticed, we are still here! Last I checked, we are still the world power too! :D :p

-S

[Platapus]

For all the problems with America (and we have plenty of problems), America still remains a pretty nice place to live. :up:

[Platapus]

...America still remains a pretty nice place to live. :up:

It sure is ! It's just too bad there's so many Americans in there :D

Well I think that America would be a better place to life if about half of the people moved away. LoL

[Frame57]

For all the problems with America (and we have plenty of problems), America still remains a pretty nice place to live. :up:Bravo! A blessed America is a blessing to everyone. As is any Country. I have never been a person who felt the American spirit had to be infused with a superiority complex. people came here for freedom and opportunity that they could not find in their Countries. Where will they go when that ceases to be? People of all Countries should have common respect for each other borders, language and culture. This is what makes a Country a Country.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Immigrants? Bring em' on! The more the merrier.

Let's just make sure we find our capitalism and limited government first so we can profit from them instead of pay for them.

It should be around here somewhere.......
I know it's not in the attic because that's Canada.

[Frame57]

Immigrants? Bring em' on! The more the merrier.

Let's just make sure we find our capitalism and limited government first so we can profit from them instead of pay for them.

It should be around here somewhere.......
I know it's not in the attic because that's Canada.True, true! I actually looked into living in Romania. I have to learn the language, I have to have a career, I have to have at least 60K in cash to move there. That is friggin Romania!

[heartc]

I don't know what America you speak of, but the one I live in is not "the traditional America of the proverbial WASP" now.

He speaks of Spiegel's America...

http://www.dmko.info/covers1.JPG

[UnderseaLcpl]

He speaks of Spiegel's America...

http://www.dmko.info/covers1.JPG


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:Good one!

[Konovalov]

I think that one gains a better knowledge and understanding of a country and it's people by travelling throughout it and meeting it's people over an extended period of time.

[August]

I think that one gains a better knowledge and understanding of a country and it's people by travelling throughout it and meeting it's people over an extended period of time.

I agree. I learned a lot about Germany during the three years i lived over there.

[Digital_Trucker]

I don't know what America you speak of, but the one I live in is not "the traditional America of the proverbial WASP" now.

He speaks of Spiegel's America...

<pic snipped to save bandwidth>


Thanks for clearing that up, heartc:up:Sure am glad I don't live in that America

[August]

Thanks for clearing that up, heartc:up:Sure am glad I don't live in that America

I tried to tell Skybird how off base he was but he wouldn't listen.

[orwell]

I have never been a person who felt the American spirit had to be infused with a superiority complex.

Of course not, it comes naturally when you've been running the world for the last century or so. :)

[Skybird]

Cover carricatures are no argument pro or against the content and quality of a printed essay.

Often their carricatures are damn good, nevertheless. And sometimes they are imitations of American originals. ;)

[Platapus]

Is there a website where larger sizes of those covers can be downloaded. Some of them are pretty clever. :)

[Fish]

Welcome to the great melting pot.
Where now the pot itself is melting...(!?)

You could be right.


Within a few decades, the U.S. will lack automobile, truck, air, and rail transportation, as well as mechanized agriculture, adequate food and water supplies, electric power, sanitation, home heating, hospital care, and government services.
http://www.peakoilassociates.com/PeakOilAnalysisOctober6-2007.pdf

CURRICULM VITAE
CLIFFORD J. WIRTH

http://www.unh.edu/political-science/wirth.pdf

[jeremy8529]

I think that one gains a better knowledge and understanding of a country and it's people by travelling throughout it and meeting it's people over an extended period of time.

I would strongly agree with you, call me weak at soul, but I was actually offended by someone who lived in Holland when I having a chat over ventrilo (yes I know he didn't mean anything by it and no i wasn't pissed, I was more... hurt... perhaps?)

" Your not like most Americans"

"How so?"

"Well, most American's seem to think they own the world and that they are superior"

" What would give you that impression?"

"The news mainly, CNN and the such."

Now, you must think, is it our fault people see us this way? The average American Cit? Are we really that arrogant of a people as a whole?

Perhaps, the newscasters don their cloak of super American patriotism, and prepare to march across other country's feelings in their steel plated boots.

Perhaps even, and most likely in my opinion, it is our current administration, maybe the fact we can't keep our fecking hands to our selves so to say, maybe the fact the dragged several other nations into a war that is mostly un-popular,

Let me tell everyone this here, let me tell everyone something they already know, that perhaps they forget it whenever it is convienant, but we don't vote on these conflicts, we are not a true democracy, we are more akin to a republic, or as they sugar coat it in my school books today, " Represntive Democracy"

We did not vote to go to Iraq! We did not elect a presedent with conquest on our mind! We did not say, "Let's vote for someone who will crusade in foregin lands for us to bring us more oil!"

As I see it, we vote for someone we think will behave a certain way, in a certain situation, and we pray for the best.

Sorry for the soapbox speech :oops:

[Digital_Trucker]

No need to apologize, Jeremy. This country is not a democracy at all. It is a Republic. Our government is the same as any government on this planet. It is run by human beings, and as such, is fatally flawed. If anyone can think of one, I'd like to know which government on this planet is perfect and totally reflects the feelings and wishes of its average citizen.

Associating the characteristics of a people with the actions of it's government is dangerous. It's been done many times, and, evidently continues unabated. Using that type of logic, the average German citizen under Hitler would have been a megalomaniacal racist. I don't believe that was the case any more than I believe that the average American is whatever the hell George Bush is.

Whether you want to believe it or not, all governments are the same. They are run by out of touch, elite, power hungry people. It's the nature of government. The power attracts the type of people that you see leading us now. The concept of a "public servant", one who strives to do what's best for their people, is a thing of the past.

Edit : As for the graphics not degrading the written work inside the magazine, I agree. The written work inside of any publication isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

[Frame57]

Agreed! We have had popular vote over ruled by our own apponted judges on various propositions in this country. Which to me is treasonous! Our representatives often do not do their job and cater to their party rather than the people. The question is what can we do about it? No one seems to know. The system is in need of reformation. Perhaps amendments need to be made to limit terms of the senate. All Judges should be voted in and not appointed to clearly be party biased. The will of the people is what needs to be acted upon and not the will of bankers and other selfish entities.

[Platapus]

James Madison wrote in Federalist number 10 about this issue of how much democracy is enough.

Alexis de Tocqueville also wrote about it in "Democracy in America" in 1835

This was not an easy concept to find a solution. The concept of representation in democracies has been studied almost from the very beginning.

Would this country be in a better position if every decision was in line with the Majority viewpoint? Tyranny of the Majority is a term used to describe that.

One of the advantages of a representative government is that the views of both the Majority and the Minority are represented.

Would we have abolished Slavery when we did if our representatives were mandated to follow the majority view?

How about Woman's suffrage?

Civil rights?

Sir Edmund Burke once wrote: A Representative owes his people both his industry and his judgement. He betrays them if he sacrifices either to their opinion.

If a whole bunch of smart dead guys could not come up with an answer, I sure can't. :)

[Digital_Trucker]

Good points all. Just a shame that our representatives can't be more concerned with where the country is heading and less concerned with whatever it is that consumes their time and energy (mainly getting re-elected and staying wealthy).

[UnderseaLcpl]

A well-founded and relevant argument here;

James Madison wrote in Federalist number 10 about this issue of how much democracy is enough.

Alexis de Tocqueville also wrote about it in "Democracy in America" in 1835

This was not an easy concept to find a solution. The concept of representation in democracies has been studied almost from the very beginning.

Would this country be in a better position if every decision was in line with the Majority viewpoint? Tyranny of the Majority is a term used to describe that.

One of the advantages of a representative government is that the views of both the Majority and the Minority are represented.

Would we have abolished Slavery when we did if our representatives were mandated to follow the majority view?

How about Woman's suffrage?

Civil rights?

Sir Edmund Burke once wrote: A Representative owes his people both his industry and his judgement. He betrays them if he sacrifices either to their opinion.

If a whole bunch of smart dead guys could not come up with an answer, I sure can't. :)

I had to read this twice to make it into an argument for my own beliefs.:D

In essence, no one can agree how much Federal government is good because the feds have too much power. One way or the other a national government is tyrannical because there will always be people who disagree with it.

Of course, a national government is necessary because nations would otherwise descend into anarchy (the communism of right-wing politics) and then result in totalitarianism of some type or another.

As such, the sovereignty of the individual must be our watchword when creating or maintaining a government. The U.S. constitution is a fine example of this belief, and it was designed by men who were fighting political, social, religious, and economic tyranny. And it can be clearly seen that the U.S. constitution is, more than anything else, a document intended to limit government to the maximum permissable extent.

All government is tyrannical in one way or another. All government ultimately enforces its' will through violence. IMHO, the only solution is to have as little of it as possible.

In the interest of not posting another 10,000 word, mouse-finger-punishing treatise on the subject, I will refrain from expounding upon this further unless someone has a specific question or counterpoint.

There's a reason the U.S. is the de facto leader of the world and it isn't because of our socialist beginnings.
There's also a reason the U.S. is slipping politically and economically and it isn't because we followed our own constitution.

[Platapus]

The problem with democracy is that humans are involved. Humans will always have the struggle between what is right for the group and what is right for them.

Term limitations on Congress may make this problem worse. If a member of congress knew that they only have a limited time in office, they would be more likely to put their interests in front of the country's

My opinion: The forefathers were short sighted when it came to designing the system of checks and balances.

At that time, the worst thing congress could do is pass a "bad" law. This is why laws are reviewed by a supreme court and laws are carried out by a different branch of the government (Executive branch)

Unfortunately our forefathers could not foresee today's environment where the worst thing congress can do is spend money (taxes). There is simply no external checks and balances to limit how much money congress can spend.

Perhaps the solution is yet another branch of the government (can't believe I am saying that) that provides oversight and restriction to Congress spending money. Just like the Supreme Court can rule a law "unconstitutional" , this mythical new branch could rule that an expenditure is "unconstitutional".


Just a wacky idea of mine.

[Digital_Trucker]

I think you call that branch the President with line-item veto power. Granted, he's only one person, but a good president (there's a contradiction in terms) could put a swift end to pork-barrel politics.

Interestingly enough, guess who was involved in the last attempt at it?

[UnderseaLcpl]

The problem with democracy is that humans are involved. Humans will always have the struggle between what is right for the group and what is right for them.

Term limitations on Congress may make this problem worse. If a member of congress knew that they only have a limited time in office, they would be more likely to put their interests in front of the country's

My opinion: The forefathers were short sighted when it came to designing the system of checks and balances.

At that time, the worst thing congress could do is pass a "bad" law. This is why laws are reviewed by a supreme court and laws are carried out by a different branch of the government (Executive branch)

Unfortunately our forefathers could not foresee today's environment where the worst thing congress can do is spend money (taxes). There is simply no external checks and balances to limit how much money congress can spend.

Perhaps the solution is yet another branch of the government (can't believe I am saying that) that provides oversight and restriction to Congress spending money. Just like the Supreme Court can rule a law "unconstitutional" , this mythical new branch could rule that an expenditure is "unconstitutional".


Just a wacky idea of mine.


Wacky indeed. You just supported everything I said (in temrs of distrusting government) and then proposed that the solution was another branch of government. There is a branch of govenrment that resricts the spending of Gov't. It's called The People of the United States of America. Unfortunately, most of these people are educated by the stae, which in turn means that they are proponents of state values.

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

[Platapus]

We gave that a good try with the Line Item Veto Act of 1996.

President Clinton used it 11 times to kill 82 expenditures.

In the case of Clinton v. City of New York in 1998, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 that the Line Item Veto was unconstitutional.

Which means that in order to give the President the Line Item Veto power over Congress an the Constitution would have to be amended.

Let's see how that happens. Article V of the Constitution covers ammendments.

Article V

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states...."

So the only two bodies that can propose an amendment are Congress and the States.

Well Congress sure aint gonna propose an amendment that limits Congressional power. So that leaves the States.

If you like the idea of Congressional control through a Presidential Line Item Veto, then start talking to your individual state legislators.

33 states need to propose it
38 states need to ratify it

This might be a good question to start asking your various state representatives when it comes to election time.

[1480]

I think you call that branch the President with line-item veto power. Granted, he's only one person, but a good president (there's a contradiction in terms) could put a swift end to pork-barrel politics.

Interestingly enough, guess who was involved in the last attempt at it?

Ummmm the guy that all of middle Europe detests???:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


Anyways, what is great about the United States of America:

1. Where else can you goose step, yelling "Zieg Heil" carrying the nazi flag through a jewish neighborhood and not get arrested for it.

2. Have a two person protest.

3. Have as many babies as you can and have the gubnent support you.

4. Have a constitution written in a language that was never formerly adopted as it's official language.

5. Permitted the concept of Adjustable rate mortgages that cause the housing and some could argue the land's economic downturn.

6. Nancy Pelosi is two cardiac arrests away from being the president.

7. Has more practicing attorneys then any place else.

8. Took 217 years to interpret the 2nd amendment.

9. Has many urban 10th graders who believe proposals to redress the government is a makeover.

10. Finally, still is home to Alec Baldwin, Tim Robbins, Susan Saradon, even after they promised to leave if G W was reelected.

Couldn't picture living anywhere else though!

[Digital_Trucker]

Well Congress sure aint gonna propose an amendment that limits Congressional power. So that leaves the States.


Not to be argumentative, but the Line Item Veto act of 1996 was proposed by and passed by who? Well, that would be congress wouldn't it? Clinton couldn't have used it if Dole and McCain and others hadn't proposed it to begin with.

But, if the people of America wanted it, they could get it done by electing people who knew that they wouldn't keep their jobs unless they voted for it. Never mind, people would have to do something for it to happen:rotfl:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996

[nikimcbee]

Where now the pot itself is melting...(!?)

People like you have been forecasting our imminent demise for centuries. :roll: If you spent half the time worrying about your own nation as you do about ours Germany would actually be a half decent place to live.

Sheesh, I go to a movie and I almost missed all of the fun.:cool:

I agree with August. Every generation of americans has bitched about how the current immigrants were going to wipe out our country. We survived the Irish immgrants, we can survive anything.:rotfl:

So I'm not really worried.

[jeremy8529]

The problem with democracy is that humans are involved. Humans will always have the struggle between what is right for the group and what is right for them.

Term limitations on Congress may make this problem worse. If a member of congress knew that they only have a limited time in office, they would be more likely to put their interests in front of the country's

My opinion: The forefathers were short sighted when it came to designing the system of checks and balances.

At that time, the worst thing congress could do is pass a "bad" law. This is why laws are reviewed by a supreme court and laws are carried out by a different branch of the government (Executive branch)

Unfortunately our forefathers could not foresee today's environment where the worst thing congress can do is spend money (taxes). There is simply no external checks and balances to limit how much money congress can spend.

Perhaps the solution is yet another branch of the government (can't believe I am saying that) that provides oversight and restriction to Congress spending money. Just like the Supreme Court can rule a law "unconstitutional" , this mythical new branch could rule that an expenditure is "unconstitutional".


Just a wacky idea of mine.

Let me say this, first of all, we are getting some really great responses in this topic, this is possibly some of the deepest thinking I have read in this forum in a while. Second of all, let me try and conjour up an educated answer or more accuratly stated, a contribution to what you just said. (work with me, 10th grade education here)

Let's start by making extremes, and hence sides to this topic. On one side, lets call them " Republicans" (as in they want a republic style goverment with representives which are elected by SOME people) and ironicly enough "Democrats" ( They want a goverment in which all descesions are voted on by ALL the people, a democracy).

Now fleshing this concept out further starting with the "Republicans" thier preference is to have a goverment that is efficent, quick, and with very little hassle because, only a certain amount of people are in the loop. Maybe the wealthiest bussnise owner from each city, would vote for a representive for his people of the his state of residency. Who in turn would serve in a council that would make the laws of the land, and apoint other officals on the lower levels. The major problem with this, is what if the wrong people get in power? Their is a very real possibilty that corruption could set in very very quickly in a goverment of this style.

Now I am going to define the "Democrats". They belive bassicly that the best system is a very very light weight one. One that requires as little maintence as possible becuase it is ran by the people. Their is very little organization, and bassicly the people get to make the rules of the land based on a majority vote. However, this is a very flawed version of goverment, because not only is this a very very slughish and ennifiecent style of goverment, but it also has lots of room for the people to just be like.... im going to do what serves me the best, and im not going to think about the people around me, and the people that come after me. For example, "im 34 years old, and ive never gone to school, and im never going to go, and i sure as hell don't want to pay my money for something im never going to use." So in effect, the people can not be trusted, and someone smarter must make these descesions for them, a Father figure so to say in the goverment. "You probaly don't understand why im punishing/grounding you now, but one of these days, you will understand and look back and thank me." Have I creeped anyone out yet?

Now Ive started this thread in very general and broad terms, and I want someone to fill in the next parties, I want this to go in order, from extreme, to middle, on both sides of the wall, until we answer the question, (or we think we have answered the question) "What is the ideal system of goverment?"

[Platapus]

Well Congress sure aint gonna propose an amendment that limits Congressional power. So that leaves the States.


Not to be argumentative, but the Line Item Veto act of 1996 was proposed by and passed by who? Well, that would be congress wouldn't it?

I think you are confusing the passing of legislation and proposing an amendment to the Constitution. The two are quite different.:D

[Digital_Trucker]

Well Congress sure aint gonna propose an amendment that limits Congressional power. So that leaves the States.


Not to be argumentative, but the Line Item Veto act of 1996 was proposed by and passed by who? Well, that would be congress wouldn't it?
I think you are confusing the passing of legislation and proposing an amendment to the Constitution. The two are quite different.:D
I understand the differences quite well. Perhaps I should have worded it differently, but that's all semantics. What really matters is that, until our elected officials do what they are elected to do (govern wisely, another contradiction in terms:doh:), we, as citizens, need to begin (almost said continue:rotfl:) to demand more of them and take care in selecting them.

[kiwi_2005]

The two young germans at work here hate their country they always putting it down, Germany is to angry place to live, they make everything hard for us young ppl, here in NZ we can get work anywhere with the skills we have, NZ is a great place to live i want to settle here one day. Ah yeah but theres a catch, here we employ foreigners cause most skilled kiwis head to Aussie where the money is we are becoming a nation short of skilled New Zealanders. Once the two germans realise they can make 3 times as much in aussie with the programming skills they be off. We wont tell em yet we need them to finish the software first!. :)

[Sailor Steve]

I want this to go in order, from extreme, to middle, on both sides of the wall, until we answer the question, (or we think we have answered the question) "What is the ideal system of goverment?"

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
--Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787.

"Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."
-Thomas Jefferson; first inaugural address, March 4, 1801

"The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations."
-Thomas Jefferson; letter to Gideon Granger, August 13, 1800

I know they're only quotes, and not thoughts from me, but that pretty much sums up my idea of the perfect government. Of course quoting Jefferson, Madison, or any of the Founders is always risky, because they all said different things at different times and in different contexts. Also quoting the Federalist is interesting, because while the papers are considered to be one of the finest collections of thinking on modern democratic government, it's good to remember that they were written by three men who were trying to sell the idea of a stronger Federal Government to a nation of citizens who wanted exactly the opposite. The states didn't want to relinquish their power to a higher authority (much like opposition to a World Government today), but were forced to realize that the previous system wasn't working.

The Framers at the Constitutional Convention are sometimes looked at today as a group of divinely inspired Solomons, who sat down and worked out the perfect system. In actuality they were a group of individuals, some intelligent, some political geniouses, and some who were beaurocrats taking up space. Each one had his own vision of the perfect government, and no two were exactly the same. It took months of wrangling, arguing, backbiting, double-dealing, negotiating and finally - that word despised by all true patriots today - compromise. Everyone had to give a little, and some ended up giving a lot. And the end result is hardly perfect; but they were smart enough to put in a system for change. They also made sure that while change is possible, it would not be easy.

As for James Madison, who put the Convention together in the first place, and is considered 'The Father of The Constitution', he didn't even want a Bill Of Rights, believing that if they left any out some future generation would jump on it, saying "They didn't mention that one, so they must not have wanted us to have it!" He managed to get that established with the Ninth Amendment, which to my mind is the single most important one, at least where our individual rights is concerned. And that includes the oft-challenged Right to Privacy.

Democracy? Why not? Are the people we elect really more capable than the rest of us? On the whole, no; but they do gain some experience which helps make them more informed if not necessarily more capable. Jefferson's observation that democracy was nothing more than mob rule, with fifty-one percent of the people able to take away the rights of the other forty-nine, certainly has merit, but a representative government is just a smaller mob. While a democracy runs the danger of the people being misled by one smart speaker or another, a republic runs the danger of the representatives being, not easily led, but easily persuaded to make bad decisions in the belief that they will get something good in return. The problem is size and scale. As Madison said, "A pure democracy is a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person."

It's true that limiting terms for congress might encourage members to be more self-aggrandizing, but the current system has member able to make a career out of it, becoming more and more distant from the people they supposedly represent.

Perfect government? Madison again: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

So, how do we go about improving it? I don't know, and I don't trust people who claim they do. First, talk instead of preaching. Debate instead of hostility. Realising that people on the opposite side of an argument may not be the lying, cheating power-mongers you believe they are, but might actually believe what they are arguing for. And they might actually have some merit.

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should be not victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert

[1480]

The two young germans at work here hate their country they always putting it down, Germany is to angry place to live, they make everything hard for us young ppl, here in NZ we can get work anywhere with the skills we have, NZ is a great place to live i want to settle here one day. Ah yeah but theres a catch, here we employ foreigners cause most skilled kiwis head to Aussie where the money is we are becoming a nation short of skilled New Zealanders. Once the two germans realise they can make 3 times as much in aussie with the programming skills they be off. We wont tell em yet we need them to finish the software first!. :)

Actually I figured out SB: he is Rick (or a wannabe) of the Young Ones, I'm going to come up with Cliff Richard quotes, just to see if I'm correct....:rock:

[1480]

Oh, my gawd gee, SS, the first amendment says that the man cannot set up a state mandated religion (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion) yet it has been interpreted to be freedom to "practice" religion. I understand that is the "concept" of seperation of church and state, and looking at the times, understandable why this was important. It does not say that religion is above, property taxes, practices that may violate state law or municipal ordinances, or any qualifications as to become part of the sanctified, but, there lies a huge hole in logic, that anyone who wraps themselves in that somewhat wonderful but somewhat flawed, piece of paper....... let the broadsides continue.

[Sailor Steve]

I'm confused. You mention me specifically, and seem to be taking me to task over the Separation issue, but I never mentioned any Amendment but the Ninth. I'm glad to talk about it, but is that within the scope of the thread as it has been discussed so far?

I'm also confused about your meaning in the first place. Are you arguing for or against Separation?

[Platapus]

What really matters is that, until our elected officials do what they are elected to do (govern wisely, another contradiction in terms:doh:), we, as citizens, need to begin (almost said continue:rotfl:) to demand more of them and take care in selecting them.

I think we are in total agreement here. :up:

[jeremy8529]

I agree there, but assuming that we were up to the task, what would be the most effective way of ensuring that this is done? What could we do as a people, to emphasize the importance of other voters making the correct choice?

[Digital_Trucker]

Just my opinion, but there should be nothing we do to influence others than to remind them that "actions speak louder than words". We, as a whole, need to pay less attention to what is being said and more to what is being done. Unfortunately, that is too much work for many of our citizens who simply vote for A or B based on how slick a talker they are or what is sliding out of their mouths.

[1480]

I'm confused. You mention me specifically, and seem to be taking me to task over the Separation issue, but I never mentioned any Amendment but the Ninth. I'm glad to talk about it, but is that within the scope of the thread as it has been discussed so far?

I'm also confused about your meaning in the first place. Are you arguing for or against Separation?

As for James Madison, who put the Convention together in the first place, and is considered 'The Father of The Constitution', he didn't even want a Bill Of Rights, believing that if they left any out some future generation would jump on it, saying "They didn't mention that one, so they must not have wanted us to have it!" He managed to get that established with the Ninth Amendment, which to my mind is the single most important one, at least where our individual rights is concerned. And that includes the oft-challenged Right to Privacy.



My apologies SS, I forgot to preface the statement (often happens when I'm thinking) . I was using the very first line of the 1st amendment as an example of literal text that has been interpreted to mean something completely different.


I agree with you in regards to the 9th, but shouldn't that have been number one?
The 1st which I interpret to be "setting the tone," seems to me more of a direct slap in the face to the British Empire rather then, a promotion of rights to the people.

I think I'm back on track, sorry for the confusion. ;)

[Sailor Steve]

My apologies SS, I forgot to preface the statement (often happens when I'm thinking) . I was using the very first line of the 1st amendment as an example of literal text that has been interpreted to mean something completely different.
Oh, okay, gotcha.


I agree with you in regards to the 9th, but shouldn't that have been number one?
I'm not sure. I think they wanted to include all the rights they could think of and then at the end put the caveat in; sort of in and "Oh, by the way..." manner. Some people in the past have said that freedom of speech was most important, which is why they put it first, without realizing that 'They' didn't put it first, but third. There were originally twelve amendments, but the First (Changes to Proportions of Representation) and Second (Congressional Pay Raises) were not ratified by enough states to make it in; probably because they had nothing to do with citizens' rights. The original Second Amendment was finally ratified by 2/3 of the states in 1992, and became the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.

The 1st which I interpret to be "setting the tone," seems to me more of a direct slap in the face to the British Empier rather then, a promotion of rights to the people.
I don't see it that way. They listed rights that everyone agreed had been abused by the British, but they also saw the possibility of abuse by their own government. The main goal was to make absolutely sure that the new government was restricted, in writing, from trying to take away, or even 'infringe upon' the rights of the individual. After all, the Declarations specifically says "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men...", which I take at face value, meaning that we create government and laws to protect our rights from each other, and, as Jeffersons says "The legitimate purpose of Government is to prevent that which is injurious."

Often when people refer to 'The Constitution', or 'Constitutional Principles', they are actually referring to the Bill of Rights, treating it as more important than the main body of the document itself. I think this is proper and true, but sometimes in doing so they forget which is which. The Constitution itself is just the American Government Instruction Manual.

[SUBMAN1]

So now that you guys have all these comments, what exactly are you doing about it? When was the last time you contacted your representatives?

-S

[1480]

So now that you guys have all these comments, what exactly are you doing about it? When was the last time you contacted your representatives?

-S

In the past year, Rahm Emanuel's office and once himself has heard from me 4 times. All positive experiences, but I would cut off my right newt before I would ever talk to Durbin da Turban or the "rock"......

[nikimcbee]

So now that you guys have all these comments, what exactly are you doing about it? When was the last time you contacted your representatives?

-S

In the past year, Rahm Emanuel's office and once himself has heard from me 4 times. All positive experiences, but I would cut off my right newt before I would ever talk to Durbin da Turban or the "rock"......

How 'bout your other represenitive:cool: . (hides behind couch with popcorn)

[1480]

So now that you guys have all these comments, what exactly are you doing about it? When was the last time you contacted your representatives?

-S

In the past year, Rahm Emanuel's office and once himself has heard from me 4 times. All positive experiences, but I would cut off my right newt before I would ever talk to Durbin da Turban or the "rock"......

How 'bout your other represenitive:cool: . (hides behind couch with popcorn)

JJ jr is on the south side and south suburbs. Plus he basically divorced himself from his ole man during the "castration conversation" verasification.

[UnderseaLcpl]

The Constitution itself is just the American Government Instruction Manual.


And of course, no one bothers to read the manual:rotfl: