The US Needs a Revolution - New Government

We (the US) need a new government. Our old government has lied its way into the belief that it is a democracy. Our government is a republic - an elected oligarchy. We only have the power to elect who we think will do what we want. There is no institution to let us speak our opinions except the open air. We have an extremely limited choice of president, we only get to vote on 2 out of the almost billion people in the United States.

The only way to pass a national, or state-wide law is to get an ungodly amount of people to sign it in. And even then, there is no guarantee that the "government" will consider it legal.

We need a government where we can have more of a choice for voting in a president. We need a government where the president can't run a 60 day military rampage. We need a government where the popular vote for president matters (BUSH LOST THE ELECTION, but was still voted in by the "electoral dictatorship (college)". We need a government where the people come together and discuss policy. We need a government that cares about the fairness of laws and the education of the people.

This does call for a new constitution. The old constitution has very meaningful things in it, but it is not specific enough. The current constitution must be "interpreted" by the judicial branch; why? The laws should be written in plain english so everyone can understand them. Not only that, they should be written so that the spirit of the law IS the letter of the law.

Ok what does anyone think? I wrote up what my version of the government should be, though I left out a constitution or bill of rights. If you want I can put it up; it is a bit hard to read/condensed, but I might be able to revise it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Our system of government is fine the way it is, it's the people who run the system, that need to be replaced.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree with static.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ummm...do you feel like implementing a working government after this one is taken down? How about continuing to deal with terrorists, how bout managing your weapons and diplomacy? What we have now is fine, just needs a little refining and some liberals in the White House. BTW, Gore won by such a small percentage, it really is trivial to say he outright won it.

 

Perhaps you should consider a multi-parti system like Canada. With such a system, any bozo can form a party and take a seating at the government. FOr example, we have a marijuana party, 3 or 4 communist ones, a few seperatist ones, one completely filled with insane people (NDP), as well as many others...


But alas, our system is more autocratic right now...
Jean Cretien, our supreme high commander refuses to step down.

 

Yes... but how many times? :bugeye:

 

The system was fine for the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But how could the founding fathers be expected to anticipate changes in society and culture? The gun law being a perfect example of something which is simply a relic of another time.

I think the principles that the US was founded upon are good ones, but the almost fanatical onbsession with preserving the constitution in its original state is harmful. Besides, the most important freedoms have been trampled over as the years progress.

In my opinion the US needs to look again at its system and see where its going wrong. The power of business and money and control of the media needs addressing. Financing is too much of an issue, it needs to be addressed. The US is currently a plutocracy and that can't be what was envisaged. Half the population is no longer voting - ther is no real choice and the media simply perpetuates half truths and denies coverage to dissenting opinion.

Revolution? Maybe not that extreme, but there needs to be a serious look at the system.

 

Rather than going throught the lengthy process of quoting and replying to each quote, let me say in general that most of the postings are dealing with the people that are running the system rather than the system itself. There were two schools of thought when the Constitution was written, Thomas Jefferson felt that people were generally good and only needed limited government while Alexander Hamilton had the view that people were evil and needed government to control them. Jefferson also new that government would grow larger and more corrupt as the years passed and in fact made statements such as " We need to spill a little blood every 20 years to keep government honest". For those that aren't aware, this is the real reason for the 2nd Amendment, for the people to have the means to fight an oppressive government. You must also look to The Declaration of Independence to understand the ideological foundation for the Constitution. It is the people's right, nay their duty, to throw out a bad government but only if they institute a better government in it's place. The Constituion is a wonderful document and sets forth not only the fondation for government but the means to run it, make changes and ensure the orderly transfer of power. It is the PEOPLE who fail to keep watch, it is the PEOPLE who allow government to run amuck, it is the PEOPLE who are to blame for bad representatives. But it is also the PEOPLE who can make change and set things right, unfortunately not enough of the PEOPLE desire to get involved and only stand around and bitch!

 

Absolutely. In the beginning, dinosaurs ruled the earth. Okay, they were called the Founding Fathers, but they’re all dead now. Some things should die with them. They produced a marvelous document in the Constitution, but it is also important to remember that they were not “regular” Americans, but those from the upper class. Author James McGregor Burns describes them as "the well-bred, the well-fed, the well-read, and the well-wed". They naturally held beliefs justifying their status, just as the elite maintain them to this day.

I believe that the constitution should be fluid, and I believe that a number of the Founding Fathers believed this as well. Many wanted a Constitutional Congress every 20 years to go over changes to their draft of “how things should be” and see what changes needed to be made. They basically said, “look, we’re not perfect, we can’t predict the future. Let’s make changes as they arise.” This Constitutional Congress never did come into existence. Not once have we gone back and reexamined what the framers of the constitution did and tried to determine if it was the right thing, or if it is still applicable in today’s world. It doesn’t look like it will happen anytime soon, either.

Precedent is well and good. In law it’s an absolute must. But at the same time, we should never base our decisions on “well, we’ve always done it this way” and, IMHO, we should never base them on what we think the Founding Fathers wanted. We should base our decisions on what is right for the time.

Peace.

_____________
Youth is the first victim of war - the first fruit of peace.
It takes 20 years or more of peace to make a man;
it takes only 20 seconds of war to destroy him.

• -- King Boudewijn I, King of Belgium (1934-1993)

 

This is up to the American people. The problem with who gets elected has to do with the voting public's lack of knowledge of what their represenatives are doing. Too many listen to their local news(which is heavily filtered and censored), or talk radio(partisan propaganda) for ALL their news. Newspapers are still the best way of getting news because it doesn't depend on soundbites.

When people look to tabloid networks like Fox News and CNN(who care only about ratings and controversy) for "in-depth" coverage, you can see why its so easy for the public to be mislead.

Once again, it's up to the voting public to get their act together, our system is fine.

 

The corporate/government owns ALL the mainstream media. The newspapers just give more propaganda, not less.

 

Another problem is that "the people" don't all have the same values. Even if everyone were perfectly informed on issues they wouldn't hold the same positions. How can any government hope to satisfy all people? It's lucky if only half of them are pissed off!

 

Yes, it's the people's responsibility. Until Americans are concerned enough about their government, nothing will change. We wouldn't have a President if it weren't for the people. If American citizens want a change bad enough, no one in our government can stop it from happening. If Americans as a whole decide to trash the constitution, and start over, that's what will happen. Maybe that's an extreme example, but it's still true.

New Government isn't the answer. More involvement from Americans is the answer.

BTW, I'm not a Democrat or anything, so don't think I'm defending Clinton because I'm biased: What's the big deal with our President's making mistakes? Especially in their personal lives? I mean, we're all human. Who cares! It's immoral? Speeding is immoral, but everyone does it. If everyone's going to break the speed limit laws, why not change the law?

Sorry, I'm rambling.

 

Okay..

Goofy, about the Constitution Congress, I thought that we didn't call one of them because of widespread fear among congressmembers over the past two hundred years of our constitution being completely thrown out. I could be wrong, but it is a possibility.

Anyway, politically, this coming election may be the most important for congress, the democrats and, ultimately the liberals hold a slim majority in the senate, and if they lose that majority then all hell will break loose. For another two years at least conservatism will reign supreme.

Lately doublya has been trying to place hardcore conservatives in the supreme court, and without democrats to knock em down we may be entering a three decade era of total social decay. Abortion will again be outlawed, forcing women to get their operations on the street by unqualified people. The rich will become richer, the poor will pay heavier taxes. Liberal presidents will have absolutely no power. This will be the time you should fear of humanity destroying itself, evil will dominate everything. And it will either be staved off in november or begin under our very noses.

So, the worst is yet to come amigos.

 

Ahh. So, conservativism = evil.

Saving life = evil.

It never occured to you that there are alternatives to taking life (or potential life)? Adoption? Orphanages (if they're still called that)? Oh, wait, let's take away their chance to prove liberals wrong that orphans can only live unfulfilled lives.

Does liberal mean irresponsible, selfish, or both?

<---prepares for responses from liberals...

 

Extremism from either political spectrum could easily be considered evil. The moderates, who are relatively balanced, are the good guys.

Let the woman decide. It may be considered immoral by some, but the government should not decide the future lives of females. It is despicable to think that anyone would want the government to take away a right that every woman should be able to make use of, if she decides to do so.

 

and

I think that a written constitution can do more harm than good. There's too much of a focus on what's on paper, that the constitution is what it should be, that government is what it should be because, "Look! It says so right there!"

The reality of things can change right under people's noses. A false sense of security.

 

And Hear, Hear!, Pollux.

 

A murderer decides if they are going to kill their victims. We shouldn't hold them accountable for killing...they decided to. It's their decision, right. We have no right to say they can't kill.

Ok, I can think of only one time when a woman doesn't decide to have sex, but does. That's rape. I thought the liberals would be the one's to tell the children: 'Your father raped your mother, but that doesn't make you a bad child. You have the best qualities of both of your parents.'

 

Your post is completely off topic (amongst many other things). Why don't you start a new thread?