Bloomberg: Constitution ‘must change’ to give government more power

[Oberon]

Pretty inevitable, but this is just one guy. Of course, many more will feel the same way but that's to be expected.

What it boils down to is the trade off between liberty and security, every time someone blows something up or shoots something in America (or indeed in many other nations) the question is always asked 'Why wasn't this prevented?', or 'What can we do to stop this?' and now we've reached the point where no real further action can be taken without infringing on constitutional rights, so either the choice must be taken to accept the risk of further terrorist attacks or school shootings or accept the loss of constitutional rights, and it's easier to justify the prevention of deaths of children than it is to defend a document written over two hundred years ago.

So, generally speaking, the masses will lean towards greater security because a) they don't want to run the risk of being blown up or shot and b) they are told that these things can be avoided if they are willing to give up certain parts of privacy, after all...if you haven't done anything wrong, why do you need to be worried, as they will say.

Here comes the future...

[Vince82]

It's unamerican.

[mookiemookie]

I think it's interesting to see the rivalry of originalism vs. that of a living Constitution here.

Strictly going by a document written by a group of men who lived and died 250 years ago comes with certain problems. Technology has advanced so far beyond what the framers ever envisioned that you are forced to look at things in a different way. I think that's all Bloomberg's saying.

[Buddahaid]

Gee I haven't noticed any increased security measures take effect in any of the past fifty years. We really need this to be even more intrusive and obvious. We need Robocop so not one bad thing can ever happen to anybody anywhere, anytime. Screw you Bloomberg!

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I think it's interesting to see the rivalry of originalism vs. that of a living Constitution here.

Strictly going by a document written by a group of men who lived and died 250 years ago comes with certain problems. Technology has advanced so far beyond what the framers ever envisioned that you are forced to look at things in a different way. I think that's all Bloomberg's saying.

The problem with your way of thinking, is that history repeats itself. Just because something happened a few hundred years ago, doesn't mean it can't happen again. People are still people, regardless of what technologies are, or are not, available to them. Mankind hasn't changed - at all.

The framers of our country, were far wiser then you are I. I reject the notion of a "living constitution". That's just power hungry politician double speak for, "Ill redefine things to how it best suits my agenda, in order to sidestep that damn Constitution and Bill of rights that is always getting in my way, so i get what i want. "

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Strictly going by a document written by a group of men who lived and died 250 years ago comes with certain problems. Technology has advanced so far beyond what the framers ever envisioned that you are forced to look at things in a different way. I think that's all Bloomberg's saying.

Has technology advanced that much really? Could the Boston bombers did what they did in 1776? Sure: In the 17th century (100 years before the Constitution was written) repeating firearms already existed so in theory they could have had a shoot out with police. Gunpowder and bombs existed, books written in 14th century China explained how to make fragmentation bombs, so in theory they could have blown up a great number of people. Their ideology certainly existed, we would fight a war against its followers not soon after the ink was dry on the Constitution. The only differences is that they would have had to leave their house to acquire it all instead of sitting at a computer.

What Bloomberg is saying is not that he wants to make the country safer, he wants to exercise greater control over it. He could say that he wants the Government to track down those who indoctrinated, encouraged, and supported the bombers and bring them to justice (guess what it's easy people were saying 2 years ago they should look at the Mosque the bombers attended and how it was linked to fundamentalists); but he instead says we should give up our rights so the Government can protect us.

[Platapus]

We DO need to change the way we interpret the Constitution.

We need to get back to the interpretation of the Constitution that puts limits on the powers of the Federal Government.

We need to reinterpret the Incorporation Doctrine to determine if it truly is in our best interest, and if so, properly define and place limits on it.

Absolutely we need to change the way we interpret the Constitution.

But I fear that this is not what Bloomberg meant.

Bigger government is not the solution
More powerful government is not the solution

[Skybird]

Relevant readings for this topic.

LINK: On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolutio

As the Declaration of Independence noted, government is supposed to protect life, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet in granting government the power to tax and legislate without consent, the Constitution cannot possibly assure this goal but is instead the very instrument for invading and destroying the right to life, property, and liberty. It is absurd to believe that an agency that may tax without consent can be a property protector. Likewise, it is absurd to believe that an agency with legislative powers can preserve law and order. Rather, it must be recognized that the Constitution is itself unconstitutional, i.e., incompatible with the very doctrine of natural human rights that inspired the American Revolution.

Indeed, no one in his right mind would agree to a contract that allowed one's alleged protector to determine unilaterally, without one's consent, and irrevocably, without the possibility of exit, how much to charge for protection; and no one in his right mind would agree to an irrevocable contract which granted one's alleged protector the right to ultimate decision making regarding one's own person and property, i.e., of unilateral lawmaking.

LINK: War, Terrorism, and the World State

What we see in the U.S. today is something very familiar. Governments love crises – indeed, they frequently cause or contribute to them – in order to increase their own power. Just witness the government takeover of airport security, the establishment of an office for homeland security (isn't that the task of the Department of Defense? and if not, wouldn't it be more appropriate to call the department of defense the Department of War?), and the current plan of establishing an almost complete electronic surveillance system vis-a-vis its own citizens.

In order to combat terrorism it is necessary to engage in a non-interventionist foreign policy, to have a heavily armed civilian population – more guns, less crime – and to treat terrorism for what it is: not as a conventional attack by the armed forces of another state but as essentially private conspiracies and crimes which must be combatted accordingly by police action, hired mercenaries, privateers, assassination commandoes, and headhunters.

LINK: Reflections on State and War

LINK: Why Bad Men Rule

the selection of government rulers by means of popular elections makes it nearly impossible that a good or harmless person could ever rise to the top. Prime ministers and presidents are selected for their proven efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Thus, democracy virtually assures that only bad and dangerous men will ever rise to the top of government. Indeed, as a result of free political competition and selection, those who rise will become increasingly bad and dangerous individuals, yet as temporary and interchangeable caretakers they will only rarely be assassinated.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Platapus

We DO need to change the way we interpret the Constitution.

We need to get back to the interpretation of the Constitution that puts limits on the powers of the Federal Government.

We need to reinterpret the Incorporation Doctrine to determine if it truly is in our best interest, and if so, properly define and place limits on it.

Absolutely we need to change the way we interpret the Constitution.

But I fear that this is not what Bloomberg meant.

Bigger government is not the solution
More powerful government is not the solution

The problem lies in gaining consensus across America as to what the Constitution means, something which as we can see at the moment is just not happening. Depending on each persons agenda, they interpret it in different ways, like lawyers finding loopholes.
Makes me wonder how they managed to agree long enough to write it in the first place...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Oberon

The Makes me wonder how they managed to agree long enough to write it in the first place...

They didn't. They fought over it for months, and finally only agreed on the system we have now because it was pointed out the them that they had to compromise on the points of contention or admit they couldn't do it.

[soopaman2]

As a close follower of Bloomy.

Not a believer, just someone who watcheds his bullcrap, a local observer.

I moved to NJ because of him, first off.

Second. This jerk, as a member of city council, somehow circumventedf the peoples will, by being a leading oppositional voice to Rudolph Guilianis third term, pst 9-11.

We the people wanted it, city council said no, lead by mayoral candidate Michael Bloomberg.

He then won the election, then banned smoking in bars, won another a few years later.

When it came his turn for 3rd term, it went through city council no problem, after he won the election it was finally put to vote by the people of NYC, and they struck down the more than 2 terms crap.

Amazing!!

No one tells this story, a modern day Tammany Hall. Google that one, Tammany hall was a doozy, but at least boss Tweed didn't try to ban soda.

I am a local, this scumbucket and his crap decisions hurt my everyday life.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Pretty inevitable, but this is just one guy. Of course, many more will feel the same way but that's to be expected.

What it boils down to is the trade off between liberty and security, every time someone blows something up or shoots something in America (or indeed in many other nations) the question is always asked 'Why wasn't this prevented?', or 'What can we do to stop this?' and now we've reached the point where no real further action can be taken without infringing on constitutional rights, so either the choice must be taken to accept the risk of further terrorist attacks or school shootings or accept the loss of constitutional rights, and it's easier to justify the prevention of deaths of children than it is to defend a document written over two hundred years ago.

So, generally speaking, the masses will lean towards greater security because a) they don't want to run the risk of being blown up or shot and b) they are told that these things can be avoided if they are willing to give up certain parts of privacy, after all...if you haven't done anything wrong, why do you need to be worried, as they will say.

Here comes the future...

Well, i'll refrain from pasting in the usual Benjamin Franklin quotes. I for one, am not willing to give one iota of liberty for security. I feel very strongly about this. I would rather live as a free man with some element of danger to contend with, then live under big brother and have some government minder always sticking his nose up my ass.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Well, i'll refrain from pasting in the usual Benjamin Franklin quotes. I for one, am not willing to give one iota of liberty for security. I feel very strongly about this. I would rather live as a free man with some element of danger to contend with, then live under big brother and have some government minder always sticking his nose up my ass.

I know the quote and would have put it myself but I've used it many times before so refrained like you.
I agree with you, but you and I are becoming the minority in society, after all you only have to look at the amount of information available online on us already, particularly if you engage in online society like facebook or twitter (which if I had to hazard a guess I'd say that you did not). Now, it may be easy to rebuttal that with your non-compliance with modern online society that you are exempt from that, however you are in a minority, and with each passing generation that minority gets smaller. Within two generations posting your life story on facebook (or whatever the fad is then) will be a norm, and with things like google glasses it will be even easier to capture life moments and share them with the internet denizens.
Now, what does that mean in regards to privacy and rights in the real world, well as life and society takes the current restrictions as norm then there will be less blanching at the possibility of further restrictions, particularly if they are seen as being necessary for the greater good of society. Mark my words, soon there will be a small chip that you can have placed in your hand, it will open doors for you, start your car just my gripping the steering wheel in a certain way, you will be able to get on and off buses and trains without having to buy a ticket in advance, and you will be able to buy your shopping just by picking it up from the shelf.
It will be easy, convenient, and it will also monitor everywhere you go, to help find lost children and elderly relatives who have gone walkabout. Of course, some will say that "It's the mark of the devil" or that "the government is herding us like sheep" but they will be dismissed as 'Yubbas' and when no-one dies after using the chips, the convienience will override any fears of constitutional infringement or loss of privacy.

At the end of the day, convenience will triumph over security, history has shown us this much so far. By all means, resist, many will, but when we die, history will march on, and the youth will inherit the Earth.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I know the quote and would have put it myself but I've used it many times before so refrained like you.

Indeed. However relevant some quotations may be, like anything used too much, it starts to sound unoriginal, and in fact, starts to lose it's meaning.

I agree with you, but you and I are becoming the minority in society, after all you only have to look at the amount of information available online on us already, particularly if you engage in online society like facebook or twitter (which if I had to hazard a guess I'd say that you did not).

Well, I disagree that we are a minority in our thoughts. I would submit that the current political division within the United states into "red" and "blue" states as evidence to the contrary. While i realize i'm generalizing, it is my thought residents of Blue states are more apt to trade liberty for security while those residing in red states are not.

As for facebook, or twitter, your right. I would never use such sites in any capacity. It has been my view since before the days of "geocities" and everyone was into making their personal web page or weblog, that putting too much personal information on the internet is a very bad idea. The reasons for that start on identity theft and branch outward from there. Suffice to say, "Homey don't play that".

Now, it may be easy to rebuttal that with your non-compliance with modern online society that you are exempt from that, however you are in a minority, and with each passing generation that minority gets smaller. Within two generations posting your life story on facebook (or whatever the fad is then) will be a norm, and with things like google glasses it will be even easier to capture life moments and share them with the internet denizens.

Maybe, maybe not. Thought I do find myself drawing a metaphor to the intention behind things like The Colosseum in ancient Rome. It's whole purpose was to keep the Plebians happy and their minds off their troubles, less they would get upset and do things the rulling class wouldn't like. I'm not saying that technology, internet, toys, games etc are designed with that in mind, but the net effect (pardon the pun), is the same.

I have often wondered, were it not for computers, games, etc, diverting me, and any motivation and dedication i posses, what would I have accomplished? I have often thought back to wondering what it would be like in the before the advent of computers. (I grew up with computers, or is that, computers grew up with me? My first PC was an 8086 IBM clone). I think past generations accomplished much more with their lives without the diversions we have now. On a side note, have you seen It disgusted me the first moment I saw it. It's like peoples whole lives centered on, and revolving around, stupid little electronic boxes.

Now, what does that mean in regards to privacy and rights in the real world, well as life and society takes the current restrictions as norm then there will be less blanching at the possibility of further restrictions, particularly if they are seen as being necessary for the greater good of society. Mark my words, soon there will be a small chip that you can have placed in your hand, it will open doors for you, start your car just my gripping the steering wheel in a certain way, you will be able to get on and off buses and trains without having to buy a ticket in advance, and you will be able to buy your shopping just by picking it up from the shelf.
It will be easy, convenient, and it will also monitor everywhere you go, to help find lost children and elderly relatives who have gone walkabout. Of course, some will say that "It's the mark of the devil" or that "the government is herding us like sheep" but they will be dismissed as 'Yubbas' and when no-one dies after using the chips, the convienience will override any fears of constitutional infringement or loss of privacy.

You have a point about convenience. My wife is a self admitted "whore to convenience". Although, I think along the way though, there will always be people raising concerns about legal, ethical, or moral boundries.

At the end of the day, convenience will triumph over security, history has shown us this much so far. By all means, resist, many will, but when we die, history will march on, and the youth will inherit the Earth.

Well, at the end of the day, we are all just dust and bones. When it comes to changes in our constitution, bill of rights, liberty, freedom, and everything that is important that makes up home to me, I will always resist. Not just for myself, but for my family. At the end of the day, I would rather go out fighting for what I believe in; at least then I can leave this world knowing I tried and did my best. To blatantly borrow Paton, "If a man does his best, what else is there?"

[JU_88]

Jesus Christ...
The idiocy of this guy is unbelivable, the only way to truley beat terrorism is to not change a goddamn thing!
Do what this guy suggests and its Terrorists =1 America= 0.