Americans do a lot of boasting about their much vaunted constitution holding it up too other nations as the pinnacle of freedom..... But on closer inspection.......... Article-s I to II concern the powers invested into the President and Congress and the voting system , which as we know is not a proportional representative electoral system but an archaic rigged voting system designed to keep popular aspirations in check . Article III concerns the administration of the Judicial system , a system which many Americans attest to being a gravy train for the benefit of greedy lawyers . Article-s IV to VII concern the imposition of duty taxe-s etc . It is only with the Bill of Rights with Amendment I that is there any mention of freedom of speech , and then it does not guarantee your right to be heard or your right of reply in the media nor even laws governing the ownership of the press ! this document is completely impotent here are some examples slaverey existed a further 100 years under this constitution . Segregation existed as constitutional for 100 years after slavery ended . The mass murder of native Americans proceeded under the constitution . In the 1950s the Constitution protected witch hunts persecuted many innocent American . And today the most anti-human , anti-democratic homeland security bill and the Patriot Act monstrosity passed through congress with the protection of the constitution what a bargain the American people got !
Er, perphaps you could suggest an improvement then? You complain about taxes and the people having the right of who they publish as bad things? Also, none of the problems you mentioned are actually due to the consitution. Lastly, the homeland security bill and Patriot act are not un-democratic. I think they are both wrong, but not un-democratic.
How about adopting The Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html The media should be in public control away from Goverment manipulation and Private ownership . The constitution is supposed be legal protection if a constitution cannot prevent its own citizens from being enslaved or discriminated against it is obviously teethless . Yeah right perhaps you should read those acts again you missed a wad of undemocratic anti-pravacy laws .
We've had that discussion here before. There are few things listed there which are not already in US law. Think about that for a second. You don't want the government to run media, but you don't want private people doing it either. Doesn't leave much does it? Currently just about aanyone can start a newspaper... although that doesn't mean people will read it. As for over the airwaves we have swatches of public radio stations and television. EVERY constiution is touthless. If someone decides to ignore it, tough shit. The UN Declaration has no more weight behind it. To address your arguments more specifically: enslavement: That is now covered by the rights, so it's a moot point. Regardless, at the time they weren't considered citizens anyhow. discrimination: I don't really care what piece of paper you have... it won't stop discrimination. The founding fathers knew this, and didn't expect the constitution to be protection from all the evils of man. It is a guideline of specific things they wanted to avoid, and is no way all inclusive... and it doesn't have to be. That is why we the legal system does not consist only of the constitution. It is a guiding document, but not the only one. I did read them and find some of the clauses disturbing. I also so many safe-guards built in, but not nearly enough. If you look around this forum you'll find me complaining about certain aspects of it in several places. Your acusations of ignorance aside, it doesn't contain undemocratic laws. It does contain anti-privacy laws, but privacy and democracy are NOT the same thing.
Actually, the voting system isn't archaeic in any way. The Electoral College bases their votes off of the popular vote. The only thing is it is all or nothing. If Mississippi voted like this: Candidate A: 50% Candidate B: 45% Candidate C: 5% Then Candidate A wins all of Mississippi's electoral college votes. Therefore, the Electoral College is designed to fully asses (sp?) a state's vote. Article III seems you are referring to the Judiciary branch. It is only another check and balance between the legislative and executive branch so no 3 of the branches gets all the power. I've never heard anybody say something like that about the Judiciary branch. Is there a problem with taxes? How would any government run without them? No one has the RIGHT to be HEARD. They have the right to say what they want, but if no one listens, that is no one's problem but their own. Your right of reply in the media? What exactly does that mean? Ummm...ownership of any press is private...right? Is that a bad thing? We also have buisness laws. Discrimination still exists today the world over! Just because the US still had slavery doesn't mean the rest of the world treated the black man as an equal. Not to mention, slaves were considered property. The mass murder of native americans didn't proceed under the Constituion. It just happened. That's like saying the violence in India occured under the British version of the Bill of Rights (well, technically, the Bill of Rights is a version of the British one...but I can't remember the name for it at the moment). The Constiution didn't protect Joseph McCarthy when he was censured, and it didn't help him when he was witch-hunting. It was people's own fault for not standing up sooner. The Patriot Act and the homeland secruity bill both passed democratically through Congress. Argue as much as you want, but it wasn't in a secret meeting or anything. And at least 2 parts of the PA were struck down late last year.
Aside from your assertion that the PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional (which I agree with) I fail to see the point of this thread. Unless it's just to say OMGUSASUXLOL, but there's already a hefty surplus of that in these forums.
First off, it was written over 200 years ago........................................... But dont worry its now invalid. The 9th Courts ruled awhile back that the term 'under God' was unconstitutional. Being that "God" is in the Constitution, it is now invalid and we are now under English control. Good day.
i shall agree on this discussion that the US Constitution has become invalid for quite some time. secret laws passed in the middle of the night and directives passed by certain presidents have infringed upon our basis of freedom. theyve been taking our Guns away slowly too, with fake Shootings and Killings perpetrated to allow the confiscation of firearms. the right to bear arms was one of the most important parts of the consitution, making sure citizens could protect themselves from anyone, even their own government if it were to go haywire. i have stated numerous laws and directives that have been eating away at our constitution, for more i suggest you either visit my threads or purchase a very detailed book title "behold a pale horse" which names names and gives u exact dates for all of these snakelike laws and tricks. http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33931 http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33932 its time to pledge allegiance to YOURSELF and no one else.
The US constitution was created based on the undeniable truth that there will always be conflicting interests. The US constitution is known to date as the best compromising tool to compromise the conflicts. It is of course not perfect and that is why there are amendments to come as close to perfection as possible. Deviations will always exist but not they are not intended by the US constitution.
Who is this Brian Foley? He posits one antiauthoritarian scenario after the next and leaves anarchic disillusionment in his wake. It is a sign of the times when detached individuals such as himself (leftist modernist perhaps) reject every form of social control because it is the popular maxim of this era. Then in a self-defeating paradox he cries of injustice and impoverishment, the very results of liberalism. Brian and Zonabi, the universe does not revolve around mankind and it never will. Nature does not favor the individual, who exploits society and the planet for his own selfishness (they call it 'freedom'). What suffering occurs in this existence will always be and no ammount of complaining will fix that. The United States, although completely deprived of its European roots in the 20th century and developed into a materialistic anti-culture, has a constitution that gives people a decent amount of freedom and an incredible power-checking system which is the cornerstone of its success.
The most important aspect of our governing system is that while it is ordinarily extremely hard to make a change in our system once it becomes apparent that a change is necessary then a change can be made quite rapidly. The United States constitution does not guarantee you it just gives you the right to pursue happiness and insures a fairly even playing field. The people who wrote the constitution were afraid of total democracy they knew that given the opportunity people will always vote for junk food in their diet and in their politics. They set up a system that allows for representation by good people (mostly) and prevents the worst excesses of democracy at the same time.
You know what? I'm not even going to touch this subject. I'm not going to start because you would not win, and I would need my medication.
No, it isn't. The word "God" does not appear in the Constitution. Neither does Jesus. There is one reference to the "year of our Lord." That's it. http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
Wow, I bet you got your 17th century state of nature theory course aced. Too bad it doesn't apply today. You're talking about everybody bellum omnium contre omnes. War of everyman against everyman. The state imposed, with the Constituion is a contradiction in many cases. The fact that there's government control on any aspect of the economy is for starters, a huge objection the utilitarian minded founding fathers would have objected to. The state's principle concern is to protect the citizens, both from foreign powers and from internal conflcits amongst citizens. This explains in Locke's view how citizens submit to the community, who selects government. By submitting to the community, you therefore deny yourself the executive right to execute the laws of nature. That means that citizens have consented to having their firearms seized, because it is in their best interest. Rule utilitarianism. I can go on but i really don't want to take the time to go through the other contradictions, but you catch my drift.
Guess what Brian? It doesn't apply to you, so just relax and let us continue to be the most prosperous and envied nation in the history of the planet.
Hey, Brian. There are those who hold that the constitution was an illegal contract from the get go. Do a search for "Lysander Spooner." I came to the same conclusion before learning of him via a little knowledge of general systems theory and information theory. All of these nation states are basically collective fantasies. The so-called constitutions exhibit the second order cybernetic system bias in its extreme. I suspect we will need to wake up soon but it might take having a viable alternative available. Some will see earlier than others. The rest are liable to be more a part of the problem rather than any possible solution.
I am not applying nature (a made-made construction) to the constitution, that is not the question here. I am talking of the antiauthoritarian rants of Mr. Foley, who can't get enough of himself. Furthermore, you posit no alternative to my scenario, what evidence do you have that would reverse my position on 'nature'? Personally, I think the concept behind democracy and the republic is flawed to begin with: the idea that the population is better at executing long-term decisions rather than an intelligent individual or a group of individuals. All governments are a phase and continually die to be replaced by the next system. The key to a people's longevity is culture, which is more important then the current stated form of government.
Hate to say it, but I agree with you. I think most of what is covered by the constitution is actually inherent in society. Our current system leads to short term thinking (of say, 4 years) which other countries don't have as bad. I'm not sure of the answer though. The perfect solution would be a group of intelligent people who carred about the masses... but that is somewhat of a pipe-dream in the long run.
