The taboo subject none of the candidates have dared to broach....

a reply to: Indigo5

The only flaw is see in the argument for the return of compromise is where the philosophic line is drawn politically.

An immediate return to 'compromise' at this juncture leaves laws, policy and their effect on society in place where it stands right now.

My political views would not permit the DHS, the EPA, the Department of Education and Common Core, ICE and the current immigration policy, the federalizing of issues better left to individual states...there are many, to remain as they are. Then there's the international agreements, WTO and the like.

I believe if JFK was alive today, he'd cross the floor...no, he'd RUN!

As an earlier poster has noted, the agenda of Obama 'seems' aligned with international efforts to homogenize the planet into a lock-step mentality and culture.

It also seems to me the subject of compromise becomes more commonplace when the political winds look like things are preparing to move to the right.

The current state of affairs are not acceptable to many, including myself.

Perhaps the underlying issue to those you mention is the moral level of the current society. But then that very issue is politicized and is viewed as 'partisan'...perhaps deliberately.

If you are right that 'compromise' and the balance of power in the federal gov't are interlinked and inseparable, then this thread is useless.

One would have to be 'uncompromising' to return the system to that level of functionality.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Indigo5

The only flaw is see in the argument for the return of compromise is where the philosophic line is drawn politically.

....Said every last politician in DC who refuses to compromise....

Just saying...They represent the PEOPLE...and we are a mixed bag and that is what we should get as policy and laws.

Or we can continue on the extremist agenda....

a reply to: Indigo5

I know, I know, yet our representatives really do reflect the split in the 'people'.

We get what we deserve...

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Indigo5

I know, I know, yet our representatives really do reflect the split in the 'people'.

We get what we deserve...

I don't know about that, I think most people are content to play follow the leader. They latch on to a plan presented by a politician and then support it without fully understanding the details. This would imply that the majority of people are rather agreeable and simply want something that works. Competing plans create divisions, but those aren't true ideological divisions because the majority of people don't understand the underlying issues of the plan. The example I like to bring up is foreign policy. Lets take Trump and Russia for example, some people like the tough talk while others think it's ridiculous. Very few actually understand the intersection between American and Russian geopolitical strategy and are capable of prioritizing the give and take in our relationship (or lack of) with them.

a reply to: Aazadan

Perhaps. Yet what real alternative is there? Or rather when has it been any different?

The average Joe isn't going to understand all the ramifications-I include myself in that assessment-at some point the decision process by those that are empowered must be at least somewhat analogous to empirical understanding.

The current economic scene is what really impinges on the masses. Empirically, evidence aplenty that the policies of the Gov't aren't working in their favor.

I'd guess the majority don't give a crap about Russia, one way or the other.....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Perhaps. Yet what real alternative is there? Or rather when has it been any different?

The average Joe isn't going to understand all the ramifications-I include myself in that assessment-at some point the decision process by those that are empowered must be at least somewhat analogous to empirical understanding.

The current economic scene is what really impinges on the masses. Empirically, evidence aplenty that the policies of the Gov't aren't working in their favor.

I'd guess the majority don't give a crap about Russia, one way or the other.....

I don't think there is an alternative, our system is designed with this flaw in mind. Where we're failing lately though is that we're not electing representatives who do better understand the issues, I'm not sure how to fix that.

I just don't see the ideological divide in this country as being that big once you remove politics from it. It's pretty easy to convince people on either side of a plan rooted in the opposite ideology if you remove certain buzzwords from it, as an example Scott Walkers recent health care reform (a thread on it is here) is mostly already implemented by Obamacare, the only part that isn't oddly enough (breaking medicaid from federal to state funding) goes against the general conservative plan of broadening risk pools to reduce costs.

Politics in the US right now is less about what you say and more about the brand of who says it.

If you want to talk economics, just browse through these forums where people are a little more informed on average. Most still have at best nothing more than a rudimentary understanding of debt, supply/demand, currency, taxes, and many others. When people talk of the economy what they're really saying is two things. They want a job with upward mobility that pays the bills, and they want it to be more desirable to work than to not work. Cheerleading for a team aside, as long as the economy is accomplishing those two things for most people they really couldn't care less about the system.

a reply to: Indigo5

Something about compromise being the crux of the matter behind the imbalance of Gov't bothered me. It didn't feel right.

Not unlike forgetting a name of someone that you 'know', it hits you, usually in the wee hours of the morning. In this case, it hit me yesterday.

I now rebut. Compromise, or rather the lack of it, has contributed to the imbalance of gov't. It is however, not the cause of it. Rather the value of the Constitution has dropped in relation to the political ideologies. This started through he use of compromise, not the lack of it.

For example, originally, the loser in the presidential election was appointed the Vice-President and the winner, of course the Presidency. This was changed. It was changed via agreement between the two sides, or if you will, compromise.

Giving the President the right to exercise war via the "football" is another example. In fact, almost every change in the Constitution has resulted from "compromise". Few of these have strengthened that Constitution, I can think of none.

In today's climes, it is a popular belief that when both sides agree on a legislation, that legislation is likely to be bad for the average individual.

Both sides want easier immigration laws, albeit for different reasons, and that ultimately hurts the average citizen, if for no other reason that messing with the supply and demand in the labor force. The Patriot act flourishes under both parties.
The Affordable Care Act isn't going away. Almost all legislation that receives bi-partisan support has a negative impact if it's directed at national issues.

Likewise, reversing the process via compromise is also a non-starter as compromise of ideological issues will not happen.

Reintroducing the concept that the Constitution is senior to political 'isms' and getting broad agreement to that concept without 'compromising' one's ideology 'could' work.

If my views are important to me, and they are, then asking me to marginalize those beliefs are less likely to occur than convincing me that the Constitution is even MORE important than my 'ism'. That allows me to retain my personal beliefs while re-positioning the Constitution above all else....

Retake the oath to preserve and defend.....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
If my views are important to me, and they are, then asking me to marginalize those beliefs are less likely to occur than convincing me that the Constitution is even MORE important than my 'ism'. That allows me to retain my personal beliefs while re-positioning the Constitution above all else....

What makes the Constitution more important? It wasn't written by a perfect divine being, it was written by a bunch of men. It also inherently recognizes that it is not a perfect document by including a clause to modify it. Like all laws the Constitution is nothing more than some paper, ink, and ideas.

a reply to: Aazadan

One of the most important documents in the history of Mankind, and it was written by:

"a bunch of men"

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Nucleardoom


These three (or four) branches need accountability, something like a citizen oversight branch of government made up of average people, since they are all so out of touch and can't relate with the average US citizen's life.

I think you are right. We need representatives for the people to make sure government is executed in the peoples interest.

NOw....where shall we house these representatives? LOL

House? Make up your mind.
You said execute them before that, didn't you?

Separation of powers is essential in preserving a Constitutional Republic, it cannot survive the concept of a "unitary executive" bypassing Congress and the courts. That is open despotism, regardless of which party holds the White House.
Congress has meekly gone along with it all due to the absolute stranglehold partisan politics has.

When the bankers own both parties this is what we get. when money became free speech this was the ultimate end of what could go wrong. When the power to make and control money was privatized we lost everything.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aazadan

One of the most important documents in the history of Mankind, and it was written by:

"a bunch of men"

One of the most important... I'll grant that, but I don't think it even makes the top 10. Still, it's a good document, I like the constitution but I don't understand the reverence for it. Like anything else it's just an idea. Instead of worshiping it, I would much prefer people create ideas on par with it.

a reply to: Aazadan


If you can ask that question then perhaps you need to look at what a 'nation' is. What this nation was intended to be. The binding force that keeps it together.

Without it? Dissolve this union. It's done. Kaput. Finis.

Frankly, that option is better than revolution or civil war, as well.

It surely cannot survive indefinitely as it is now. IMO.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Well, what you ask are pretty deep questions, and I'm not thinking nearly deep enough right now to answer them but I'll try.

A nation is a sovereign state, it has the right to determine it's own laws and it's border for the jurisdiction of those laws. It has the right to standardize weights, coins, measures, and other things within it's borders.

What this nation was intended to be? It was intended to be a nation where we don't bow down to royalty, a nation where those who could display competence and vision could be voted into power for a time. A nation where each generation earns it way rather than inheriting power. A nation that sees the potential of people and allows all to come and contribute, so that they improve themselves, their neighbors, and our country. A nation where your intelligence, work ethic, and reputation would determine your success rather than family relationships, Oligarchs, and inheritance.

As far as the binding force that keeps our nation together, that's an easy one. It's hope. Hope that while things weren't perfect in this election they get better 2 years from now. American's are very optimistic about the future, or we were until the 2007 crash which we never recovered from. And we all know another one is on the way. People have little hope these days.

Hope is the same thing that keeps the states going. If we reverted to 50 densely packed nations there would be complete chaos. The end result of that would be much worse than revolution or civil war because of the number of sides involved.

a reply to: Aazadan

Hope is an individual issue and motivation, not a collective one.

The hope was flamed and the word spread due to, of course, space-Siberia has 'space'- backed by opportunity put into play by the Constitution and the freedoms ensured for the individual.

Individual freedom for the less aware, individual liberties for the brighter, more inspired, etc.. There is a big difference between the two, it's "give me liberty or give me death", not give me freedom...

You call it worship-like, the reverence for the Constitution, an 'idea'. You are correct it is an 'idea'. This nation is based on an 'idea'. It IS an idea, not a location.

Yet this idea IS the ne plus ultra of ideas. Nothing matches it in history anywhere, at any time.

Really, is there anything else about the U.S. of A. that merits the loyalty, the sacrifice, the continued support in the face of unbelievable, contradictions and stupidities that exist? I think not.

Chaos? You raise that? I assure you without that binding document, chaos would have reared it's head long ago.

Dissolving the union would produce chaos. Yet there would be more in the face of violence...as always.

The only, ONLY way to prevent any of these scenarios is the Constitution.

Reverence?

Damn right!...

a reply to: nwtrucker

But even the constitution in it's current form is a work of compromise. No one supported the entire thing, one of the big points of contention was the Bill of Rights being included after it was signed, many of the framers were against such a list and believed individual freedoms should be left to the discretion of each state, and that if you outlined what the government cannot do, it would eventually be assumed that those are the only things the government cannot do. As it turns out, they were right.

The constitution makes a great starting place for society, particularly in outlining the branches of government. Everything the document does beyond that though, it doesn't do very well.

The greatest irony is that when certain politicians talk up their love of the constitution they're really speaking of the various amendments which specify powers (or lack of) rather than the process outlined in the constitution itself.

a reply to: Aazadan

All right . Answer this question.

Where would we be without the Constitution?

Would we even exist as an nation? The far and away most diverse population in the world, at a guess.

Where would the commonality be? Money? Budweiser?

You seem to marginalize the value of that 'idea'. I see it as the 'idea' that holds the 50 States together. Maybe down your way Sam's DNA courses through the community and would do fairly well as a nation without it. The rest? I am unconvinced.

Besides, I believe this debate is academic. It is too late. The Constitution will not resurge. Too many enemies. Too many marginalizing young 'uns...

I promote it as a seed for whatever survives. So the idea can rise again, so to speak. A Phoenix...LOL

a reply to: nwtrucker

I agree you on some aspects. The 17 TRILLION (true dollar) deficit we have as the 500 lb gorilla in the room is not very comforting.
It's actually criminal. How the hell are we (America) going to pay for all that debt? With very low manufacturing jobs, low education standards, mostly service jobs....how are we going to tackle this TREMENDOUS debt? How?
We are effen screwed....plain and simple.
You think Greece was an issue? Just wait until the American debt comes to the table.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aazadan

One of the most important documents in the history of Mankind, and it was written by:

"a bunch of men"

While there are some real class acts in that "bunch of men", I guess it is true that everything we write and read is done by a "bunch of men" (yes women as well, as the term should be "humans"). The bible is really written by a "bunch of men" as an interpretation of the word of God, but it was still penned and published by us. We create our own reality and then step into it.

originally posted by: charlyv
While there are some real class acts in that "bunch of men", I guess it is true that everything we write and read is done by a "bunch of men" (yes women as well, as the term should be "humans"). The bible is really written by a "bunch of men" as an interpretation of the word of God, but it was still penned and published by us. We create our own reality and then step into it.

Since he was referencing what I wrote, I wasn't meaning men in the gender sense but rather human. The difference between the Constitution and the Bible is that the words transcribed came from God if you believe in it. The words in the Constitution instead came from a bunch of people debating and deciding what they thought would work best.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
All right . Answer this question.

Where would we be without the Constitution?

Without the Constitution we would probably be something similar to what the EU is now. The states themselves would have largely adopted similar constitutions. In fact I would argue that we may even be in a better position socially due to the concept of competing state laws, and each trying to one up the other. Militarily however we would be much weaker, we never would have made the Louisiana purchase and expanded west and each state would be defending themselves, while an overarching federal military is a much more efficient use of funds because the states don't have to waste any money defending against each other.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I promote it as a seed for whatever survives. So the idea can rise again, so to speak. A Phoenix...LOL

In my opinion the Constitution is a deeply flawed document. Those that wrote it did the best they could and I can't fault them, but certain issues have changed too much from it's creation and the Amendment process to fix it is a little too stringent. Take for example the Second Amendment, it has essentially grown obsolete because of the cost of arms. When it was written the military were using the same weapons as the populace, and largely had access to the same resources. Today a carrier costs billions, a single missile millions, and so on while the individual is only able to spend a few thousand on a very nice gun. Even if citizens had access to every conventional weapon the military can use (something I support btw, I don't like military/law enforcement only items) they have been priced out of the hands of the people.

a reply to: Aazadan

It was made 'stringent' for a good reason. I contend we would have had even more alterations/interpretations than we have.

By the way, I admire your thinking outside the box. Having said that, you point out the second as an example. You citing the cost factor yet omit how you would change it or how that change would be an improvement over the current version.

Yet, that is your example of "deeply flawed"? Really??

But let's take your "we'd be more like EU". As you say we would have been militarily weaker. Correct. There is no way we'd have all 50 agreeing to send troops to bail out Europe. Just a short 70 years ago, that "Europe' was defeated by Germany. A weaker U.S. military would have meant an inability to create a second front. Those 55 divisions left in Europe by Germany to defend against a second front would have been used on the eastern front...Down goes Russia. End result? No EU.

You can't leave the historical changes that no Constitution would have resulted world-wide.

You say/quote Obama's deeply flawed Constitution. Yet name a superior constitution out there. EU is more fragile as an entity than the U.S..

Your deeply flawed vs. my 'no higher level'. Failing to point out a longer lived, more successful, or even intellectually superior document is what I see as the flaw in your logic and should clear up any non-understanding you claim in our 'reverence' of the Constitution engenders.

If this fails to clarify, then we shall have to agree to disagree...