by minimus 71 Replies latest jw friends
I make no claims to be a Constitutional scholar. I know as much as the next person. I have opinions.
Well, I was just simply curious and while I agree that no system is perfect, I also agree with Farkel in that the Constitution is the way it is by design.
As far as adding amendments, I understand that the process could go on for over a century if need be. If I am not correct on this, let me know but if this is true, I think this is kind of ludicrous.
"The Constitution is a STATIC document and was meant to be that way, except for the possibility to add amendments. Progressivism was never in the minds of its authors and "progressives" like you are very dangerous to that idea, UNLESS you have a better United States Constitution in mind."
Allow me to clarify something. I agree that the writers of the Constitution wanted the document to last forever. Of course they weren't thinking, "well hopefully this will last a few years". That doesn't mean that their good intentions were perfect or would never need revision. What I was trying to say is that, at the same time they were progressive thinkers. The U.S. Constitution included things that were forward thinking. They didn't want a remake of the English Constitution. We are obviously using "progressive" differently. I was taking the dictionary definition not the political, social, liberal one. I never even used the word "progressivism".
"As far as adding amendments, I understand that the process could go on for over a century if need be."
You are correct.
"I also agree with Farkel in that the Constitution is the way it is by design."
I didn't disagree. Some people act like not thinking the U.S. Constitution is perfect is unpatriotic. Give me a break.
Freudianslip,
I will give you due credit for being reasonable or should I say "civil" in expressing your ideas. That is refreshing in what often is just partisan boxing matches on these types of subjects.
:but I'll give you one. Article Five makes it impossible to amend certain parts of Article One. That doesn't sit well with me since Article One lays out the checks and balances of the three branches of government. If the system fails to work, then what do we do?
I was always in awe at the checks and balances of our government. I've never seen anything as wise and carefully thought out as that. How could that be improved?
The President cannot pass laws nor unilaterally start wars. Congress can pass laws and must give approval for going to war. When Unconstitutional laws are passed, the Supreme Court can nullify them. The Supreme Court cannot be tainted by politics since they do not run for office and are appointed for life and cannot be removed except for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Our bicameral system provides for equal representation for all states (respective of size) in the seating of Senators, while at the same time giving weight to larger states with Representatives according to population. Each body of Congress has specific and clearly named duties that cannot be performed by the other half of Congress.
If the House becomes corrupt, they can all be tossed out in merely 2 years. One third of a corrupt Senate can be tossed out every two years.
The President can veto any law he wishes and if he does, it can only be overridden by a 2/3 majority of BOTH Houses of Congress. In a politically balanced Congress laws should be very difficult to pass. Our Founding Fathers wanted it that way. They did NOT want this Country to be a Democracy. Congress could be packed with one political party, but if the President is a member of the other Party, laws still become difficult to pass. This is as it should be. Most laws that are passed are mischief and interference in our lives.
There are many other WONDERFUL things about the United States Constitution that average nitwits like us probably don't really comprehend or understand.
There has never been any document in the history of humankind that even begins to come close to it in its wisdom and fairness.
If, in your infinite wisdom, you think you can trump that, I'm all ears.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
Farkel
I never claimed to have infinite wisdom. I also only have ideas. Just because I have a problem with something doesn't mean I have the technical know-how to solve it. I guess I was thinking about Brazil's most recent constitutional change and how benefical it was to their country. I just don't think that reworking it is an absolute no-no, now or in the future.
The End (I hope?).
FreudianSlip,
:I also only have ideas
The only idea you've had so far is that somehow the Constitution "could" be improved, but you don't know exactly what should be improved, how it could be improved, and you have some vague idea of why it should be improved, but cannot articulate even that.
The End (I hope, too!)
Farkel
On a recent quick gas run to Blaine Washington, I was asked to pull over for a secondary inspection coming back to Canada. I know that Canadian Border Services ocasionally do random secondary inspections, but when I was interrogated, they asked me to remove certain items of clothing. I was hiding nothing. I removed my shirt, and pulled up my pants to the crotch. I declared what I purchased. Jug of milk. 50 bucks worth of gas. And some dollar value food from Burger King. They rifled through my wallet.
Here's the problem. I was asked to do this while I was outside for all in the border line-up to gawk at when I was asked to do a partial stripdown. Did I mention that it was freezing outside?
Were my rights violated? Could be, but if I raised a stink, you bet I would have many more problems than minor frostbite.
What would any of you done? How about if you were female? Would you refuse to strip outside? What would have happened if I refused?
Can they refuse me to return to my native country? Who knows what would have happened if I spoke up. I just wanted to go home.
Farkel-
What you want from me would amount to several pages of type. I can't possibly lay out a proper paper here. I could go copy and paste something but that's not how I do things. I don't think you're truly interested anyway. If you are, and you want to be as civil as you know how to be, I will. I am in graduate school though, so I do have priorities.
FreudianSlip,
:I don't think you're truly interested anyway. If you are, and you want to be as civil as you know how to be, I will. I am in graduate school though, so I do have priorities.
I'll take that as a "no" to my challenge to come up with something better than our Founding Fathers did. Don't offer the notion of having better ideas unless you are willing to present them.
If you actually DO have better ideas, you could transform our entire way of life, you know.
But I understand. You have to attend to school. I know you are in graduate school, but have you taken "Civics 101" yet? I took that class in 5th grade, by the way.
Farkel
Farkel-
Stop picking on me! I am getting my Master's in Public Administration (graduate in May!!) for a reason and ideally I would like to run for office. I DO have ideas. I work on several local boards and councils (mostly for Non-Profits but I hope to branch out). I don't have aspirations to change our Constitution, but I am not just words.
