America's fundamental change

[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;

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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? 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]

Originally Posted by August

People like you have been forecasting our imminent demise for centuries. 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

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.

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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

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), 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]

Originally Posted by jeremy8529

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