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?"

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.

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:

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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. ;)

Oh, okay, gotcha.


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.

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.

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.

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