Hey look! the FBI and NSA are data-mining and analyzing your data!

[soopaman2]

So is this partisan blame, or a a-hole government as a whole?

As much as I would like to mash one clear person on this, I feel it is institutional, and much like the stealth bomber, been around longer than we had awareness to it.

Silly. I take nothing partisan from this, it only affirms my belief of the firm need for a constitutional convention, and a purge of the house and congress.


They all act as if they did not know, hoping someone (the president) takes the bullet for everyones conspiracy.

For Legislative bodies to all of a sudden act outraged at this, when the crap they pulled far outweighs this....sad, on many levels.

I still want to know why they get free healthcare when they wish to abolish the same benefit to the poorer american??


This is what happens when the extortion money does not go where it is supposed to, scandal....

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

So is this partisan blame, or a a-hole government as a whole?

As much as I would like to mash one clear person on this, I feel it is institutional, and much like the stealth bomber, been around longer than we had awareness to it.

I would agree with your assessment that this is institutional. I don't think there is any one party or political ideology to blame, only human nature. When people are allowed some power or authority, they almost inevitably abuse it. Especially when they are not, or can not, be held accountable, or face repercussions for their actions.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I would agree with your assessment that this is institutional. I don't think there is any one party or political ideology to blame, only human nature. When people are allowed some power or authority, they almost inevitably abuse it. Especially when they are not, or can not, be held accountable, or face repercussions for their actions.

My thoughts exactly, some are worse than others but but it's the "political class" as a whole. The Governor of my home state(Florida) just removed the Liberty County Sheriff from office and had him arrested, for what? Standing up for second amendment rights.Governor Scott had seemed like one of the good guys, but apparently not.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Silly. I take nothing partisan from this, it only affirms my belief of the firm need for a constitutional convention, and a purge of the house and congress.

We already have a purge of the Senate, every six years, and the house, every two years.

If the people choose, and it is their choice, not to exercise their right to replace their representatives, that's not the government's fault.

No Senator or Representative is ever automatically re-elected. None. The citizens choose to keep the same congresscritters in office at a rate above 90%.

Who is really at fault?

We have met the enemy and it is us.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

So is this partisan blame, or a a-hole government as a whole?

As much as I would like to mash one clear person on this, I feel it is institutional, and much like the stealth bomber, been around longer than we had awareness to it.

Silly. I take nothing partisan from this, it only affirms my belief of the firm need for a constitutional convention, and a purge of the house and congress.


They all act as if they did not know, hoping someone (the president) takes the bullet for everyones conspiracy.

For Legislative bodies to all of a sudden act outraged at this, when the crap they pulled far outweighs this....sad, on many levels.

I still want to know why they get free healthcare when they wish to abolish the same benefit to the poorer american??


This is what happens when the extortion money does not go where it is supposed to, scandal....

No president is ever going to give back the powers that were granted to George W. Bush in 2001. If you're scared that Obama has them, well, guess what? A bunch of us warned you that Bush wasn't gonna be president forever. And even if the Patriot Act were, through some miracle, overturned in court or legislated out of existence through your theoretical constitutional convention, it's already too late because the web of surveillance has been put in place. You can bet that its future legality has already been set up.

You can't unscrew the virgin once the cherry's popped.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Silly. I take nothing partisan from this, it only affirms my belief of the firm need for a constitutional convention, and a purge of the house and congress.

Seriously? Have you considered what that would entail? The original only came about because men of wisdom fought and bickered and compromised. At the Virginia ratification discussions Patrick Henry said there should be a new convention then, and a Bill Of Rights should be placed withing the document itself. Fortunately he was not heard, mainly because they weren't sure a second convention wouldn't create an entirely new Constitution that would be much worse.

If a new Constitutional Convention were to be called (and thank whatever powers you pray to that they made it so difficult) there is no rule that it would have to do what you want, and every chance that the things you believe in would be ignored. They would have carte blanc to create whatevery they wanted. What if it came up with a new Constitution that truly made America a socialist state? What if it took away all our rights? What if it went in the opposite direction, and guaranteed all rights but totally eliminated all Federal interference, for better or for worse? First off, at least two-thirds of the States would have to ratify it (unless of course it did away with the States entirely, as some have suggested in the past), and that in itself seems highly unlikely.

So let me ask this: If you had the power to rewrite the Constitution as you say, what exactly would you change? How would you make it better?

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

So let me ask this: If you had the power to rewrite the Constitution as you say, what exactly would you change? How would you make it better?

No one can honestly answer that there is no way that it would not be a complete compromise unless as you said they got rid of the 2/3 majority by getting rid of states which would never fly.

All though I would like to see Soopamans answer.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

No one can honestly answer that there is no way that it would not be a complete compromise unless as you said they got rid of the 2/3 majority by getting rid of states which would never fly.

All though I would like to see Soopamans answer.

That's my point. There is no real answer, but I have met more than a few people who say they want to try, which makes me nervous to say the least.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Seriously? Have you considered what that would entail? The original only came about because men of wisdom fought and bickered and compromised. At the Virginia ratification discussions Patrick Henry said there should be a new convention then, and a Bill Of Rights should be placed withing the document itself. Fortunately he was not heard, mainly because they weren't sure a second convention wouldn't create an entirely new Constitution that would be much worse.

If a new Constitutional Convention were to be called (and thank whatever powers you pray to that they made it so difficult) there is no rule that it would have to do what you want, and every chance that the things you believe in would be ignored. They would have carte blanc to create whatevery they wanted. What if it came up with a new Constitution that truly made America a socialist state? What if it took away all our rights? What if it went in the opposite direction, and guaranteed all rights but totally eliminated all Federal interference, for better or for worse? First off, at least two-thirds of the States would have to ratify it (unless of course it did away with the States entirely, as some have suggested in the past), and that in itself seems highly unlikely.

So let me ask this: If you had the power to rewrite the Constitution as you say, what exactly would you change? How would you make it better?

The declaration of independence was a good thing. The constitution less so, mainly for it founds the belief that the people must be governed by a government (that there must be a general state). From a libertarian POV, that statement already is unacceptable, no matter the idea of the people being allowed to chnage the government (which in practice proves almost impossible, I would say, for people have to deal with the same politicians time and time again and agfain and again - you just cannot get ride of them, for decades).

What it comes down to, is a question I assume you would like: who monitors the monitors? The checks and balances do not work well, for the judge's name is Capone, the grand jury is formed up by mafiosi, and the witnesses are next of kin of the suspect.

See, you absolutely sank some hooks in me back then. More than you or Neal maybe imagine.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The declaration of independence was a good thing. The constitution less so, mainly for it founds the belief that the people must be governed by a government (that there must be a general state).

I see your point, but for them it was more than just a belief. They were faced with the reality of three major powers (Britain, France and Russia) who refused to make trade treaties with the individual states. They had to have some kind of central power just to deal with foreign governments, or else face the possibility of separate States making their own deals and possibly being swallowed up by those powers, leaving the rest surrounded and outnumbered. For them it was an absolute necessity. Franklin's statement from the signing of the Declaration, "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately", was a very real concept, and one which affected the next generation, which accounts for Lincoln's belief that the Union had to come before all. Right or wrong, that was the bogeyman they saw awaiting them if they didn't create a strong central government.

As for the monitoring question, that is something that is always there as well. They had their own arguments, hence the battle between Hamilton and Jefferson over the National Bank. They couldn't concieve of modern technology and its problems. On the other hand the fact that this has come to light at all shows that the invasiveness of such technology works both ways. In this case the people really are the monitor. Yes, it was done, but it has been brought to everyone's attention and it is the government that is on the run because of it. It will continue to happen, and all we can hope for is that we can keep up with them, if not ahead of them. The beauty of it is that the technology involved is available to everybody.

In wanting to understand why these processes nevertheless run on, I realised that my old ideas did not work and that I needed to pout everything into question. And that I did.

Yet the answer to the questions which you cannot even see is that your new "ideals" don't work any more than your old ones did.

[Platapus]

Awesome point about the risk of writing a new constitution. I think the only thing worse than relying on a 200 year old constitution is trying to write a new one today.

It would be an interesting academic train-wreck to watch what would result from a constitutional debate between representatives of FIFTY states.

Actually, if we can get the entire congress to focus on writing a new constitution, it would keep them busy for the next 20-50 years and that might be better off for the citizens. LoL

[STEED]

It's crossed the pond.

GCHQ Prism spying claims: Agency to report 'shortly'

Eavesdropping centre GCHQ will report to MPs within days over claims it secretly gathered intelligence from the world's largest internet companies.
The Guardian claims the UK's listening post accessed data on the internet activity of Britons obtained by a US spying programme called Prism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22824379

So what is new?

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Awesome point about the risk of writing a new constitution. I think the only thing worse than relying on a 200 year old constitution is trying to write a new one today.

I don't know how anyone can arrive at the conclusion that the constitution and the bill of rights is outdated. Yes, they were written 200 years ago, yes we have new technologies, however, Mankind has not changed or evolved. Sure some social quirks may change here or there, but people behave today, just as they did 200 years ago, just as they did 2000 years ago. The constitution and the bill of rights was written with human behavior in mind. If humans had changed, we'd have stopped killing each other, or trying to gain control or advantage over each other, a long time ago.