constitution is getting old..

reply to post by XTexan


i'd rather go with that system than the current one
and good point with the controlling our morals wtf is up with that?
they can kill us with fast food but i cant kill myself with illicit substances? who are they to govern these types of decisions anyway?

Originally posted by dannyfal


the people aren't involved in the political system at all, the word democracy is a joke.

That's why America wasn't set up as a democracy; it was set up as a Republic. So that all people, Majority, Minority or whatever would always be represented.

In a democracy our right to bear arms could be taken away by the "Majority".
In a democracy our right to free speech could be infringed if we offend the "Majority".
In a democracy anything the "Majority" believes is to be made truth.

That is the flaw of democracy. People inherently cannot be trusted with power.

[edit on 7/7/2009 by eNumbra]

reply to post by dannyfal


The thing about the consitution.. Is that it's supposed to be about basic rights.. Like protecting freedoms of speech, expresssion, religion, right to life, ect.

Is there something thats out dated? Some would argue 2nd Ammendment is out dated. I don't personally feel that way, but I do recognize the view.

Originally posted by eNumbra

Originally posted by dannyfal


the people aren't involved in the political system at all, the word democracy is a joke.

That's why America wasn't set up as a democracy; it was set up as a Republic. So that all people, Majority, Minority or whatever would always be represented.

In a democracy our right to bear arms could be taken away by the "Majority".
In a democracy our right to free speech could be infringed if we offend the "Majority".
In a democracy anything the "Majority" believes is to be made truth.

That is the flaw of democracy. People inherently cannot be trusted with power.

[edit on 7/7/2009 by eNumbra]

... isn't that how it is already?

just replace MAJORITY with THE POWERS THAT BE
and bam, its our government. i'd rather have a say in what goes on is all i'm saying

we don't elect those bastards in office and we all know it

reply to post by dannyfal


What we have now; what our republic has become is an Oligarchy. Rule by the few.

And we do elect some of them. At the very least we elect our locals just to keep the masses believing the lie. Whether or not all the other elections are frauds and just how fraud(y?) they are is up for debate. There's little doubt that we are led to believe we elect them however.

[edit on 7/7/2009 by eNumbra]

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by dannyfal

 

The thing about the consitution.. Is that it's supposed to be about basic rights.. Like protecting freedoms of speech, expresssion, religion, right to life, ect.

Is there something thats out dated? Some would argue 2nd Ammendment is out dated. I don't personally feel that way, but I do recognize the view.

I think your referring to the Declaration of Independence there buddy...

speaking of which what the hell is "pursuit of happiness" that is the most subjective BS i've ever heard

Originally posted by dannyfal
speaking of which what the hell is "pursuit of happiness" that is the most subjective BS i've ever heard

"Pursuit of Happiness" is pretty obvious to me.

What makes a person happy is what's subjective. As long as it doesn't infringe on others, I say okay.

reply to post by dannyfal


Actually.. I was refering to the consitution. First and second ammendment.


Right to life may not be guaranteed in the constitution, I admit I threw that in there. If you so need.. I could post excerpts from the consitution to back up my point.

Originally posted by eNumbra

Originally posted by dannyfal
speaking of which what the hell is "pursuit of happiness" that is the most subjective BS i've ever heard

"Pursuit of Happiness" is pretty obvious to me.

What makes a person happy is what's subjective. As long as it doesn't infringe on others, I say okay.

where does it say anything about not infringing on others?

reply to post by dannyfal


Sadly the system I described is the system we have... Its just that the states, for some reason, have grown to fear the Fed... which is crazy.

One day the states might take their rightfull place back, some are attempting to do that... but only time will tell.

reply to post by Miraj


nah i get what your saying. i guess electoral college is something that is outdated. of course that is debatable but look where its gotten us

reply to post by dannyfal


Yeah, electoral college should be done away with. It's a system that looks as though it's designed specifically so that it can be easily rigged.

reply to post by Miraj


In the beggining the Electoral College made sense, because the states were the ones who made most of the decisions. It was done to make sure a state with higher population recieved more votes than a state with a low population. More people, more votes... which makes sense.

In the beggining Im not sure if the total votes for a state was split depending on how the population voted, but now if a party wins a state they get all the EC votes even if that party only recieved 51% of the vote in the state.

If all states split their EC votes based on how the population voted then it would be more fair, IMHO.

If the electoral college is your biggest gripe what would have been different if Gore were President or McCain or Kerry? With the exception of Perot and most recently Paul every President and runner-up has been authoritarian. We'd be right where we are today.

Another thing, the notion of "majority rule" doesnt seem to bother you so much. Don't forget polls at the time showed the "majority" supported invading Iraq and even connected Iraq to 9/11. The "majority" burned witches, sent Galileo to house arrest, lyched negores, etc...

The "majority" is a frightening animal. As an entity it has been quick to react/overreact, is largely stupid and nearly impossible to stop once a certain momentum has been gained.

I dont like how our alleged "representatives" are bought and sold and I really dont like how they rule by majority by proxy by following whatever position the polls state they should to "win." I like neither option.

The best thing would be to put more emphasis on a smaller unit like a town or even a county. There people would be better represented, have more control over their own areas and be more accountable for any wrong doings or corruption. We never should have attempted to form any unit larger than neighborhood or "clan" size. A state is too large and diverse and a country trying to operate as our is is a joke. If the fed only followed the powers granted it by the Constitution and nothing more things would be operating a lot smoother and without nearly as much waste.



[edit on 7-7-2009 by thisguyrighthere]

The States can't step up to "reclaim their powers" because our NEW constitution took them away.

I know what you are saying, OP.

This thread is just an analogy for the supporters of the Articles of Confederation...

You people need to remember that we are on our second constitution right now.

This is not our first. The first one was illegally overthrown in a conspiracy.

I'm sure there are some blockheads who don't agree that it was our first constitution, that it was something else, so here is a link to the Library of Congress:

The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States ...

www.loc.gov...

... and how can we forget Article XIII ?

ARTICLE XIII.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

Perpetual? Altered? REPLACED????.. Oh, and before you even TRY to read that, do some research and save yourself the time.

Remember they were replaced to give the BIG GOVERNMENT more control.

... and just like the first constitution wasn't effecting in joining, standardizing, have a military for, etc.. etc... It's the same reason they will replace the current constitution with the THIRD ONE, so that the BIGGER GOVERNMENT (NAU?) has more control and we have standardized money, a continental military, and a stronger big government.

Formal name of the nation
Articles: The United States of America
Constitution: (not specified, but referred to in the Preamble as "the United States of America")

Now nobody knows WHAT it is? Is it a corporation? A country? Is it D.C? Oh wow, they really pulled the wool over our eyes!

Legislature
Articles: Unicameral, called Congress
Constitution: Bicameral, called Congress, divided into the House of Representatives and the Senate

Divide and conquer says the NWO.

Term of legislative office
Articles: One year
Constitution: Two years for Representatives, six for Senators

More time for continued networked corruption.

Term limit for legislative office
Articles: No more than three out of every six years
Constitution: None

.. of course not! more time to practice your corruption! Or, if you are Ron Paul, more time to pratice beating a dead horse!

When Congress is not in session...
Articles: A Committee of States had the full powers of Congress
Constitution: The President can call for Congress to assemble

ONE group to rule them all!

Navy
Articles: Congress authorized to build a navy; states authorized to equip warships to counter piracy
Constitution: Congress authorized to build a navy; states not allowed to keep ships of war

Take more power from the states! States don't need battle ships like people don't need guns!

Power to coin money
Articles: United States and the states
Constitution: United States only

And just WHAT IS THE UNITED STATES? IT HAS NO FORMAL NAME!!!

Maybe it REALLY IS the FEDERAL RESERVE/IRS + Foreign interests.

Boy, I can't wait to see what our second constitution is replaced by!

reply to post by dannyfal


So we should tell the families of the thousands of soldiers that died upholding what we belive to be true, Oh , Sorry, we are going to change it a bit, realy they didnt have to go there or fight, since now things are diffrent...

Naa the basic constitution is sound, and solid, its all the ones in power and in wealth abusing it and changing it to fit them and bend the rules..
as it stands, it would last the test of time.

Originally posted by dannyfal

Originally posted by eNumbra

Originally posted by dannyfal
speaking of which what the hell is "pursuit of happiness" that is the most subjective BS i've ever heard

"Pursuit of Happiness" is pretty obvious to me.

What makes a person happy is what's subjective. As long as it doesn't infringe on others, I say okay.

where does it say anything about not infringing on others?

Really? *sigh*

We all have the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness; therefore you DO NOT have the right to infringe upon another's 3 intrinsic rights.

reply to post by dannyfal


You should do some investigations on your own to aide in your search for what the Constitution actually is, why it was there, why it's worded the way it is etc etc...

Sometimes, or rather most of the time, deep meaning can only come from within. I would point you towards the The Federalist Papers, The Antifederalist Papers, and the 5000 Year Leap.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by Xtinguish]

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

The best thing would be to put more emphasis on a smaller unit like a town or even a county. There people would be better represented, have more control over their own areas and be more accountable for any wrong doings or corruption. We never should have attempted to form any unit larger than neighborhood or "clan" size. A state is too large and diverse and a country trying to operate as our is is a joke. If the fed only followed the powers granted it by the Constitution and nothing more things would be operating a lot smoother and without nearly as much waste.


[edit on 7-7-2009 by thisguyrighthere]

probably the best solution i've heard so far

Originally posted by eNumbra

We all have the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness; therefore you DO NOT have the right to infringe upon another's 3 intrinsic rights.

is that not more your opinion than what is actually written in the Declaration of Independence?

Originally posted by severdsoul
So we should tell the families of the thousands of soldiers that died upholding what we belive to be true, Oh , Sorry, we are going to change it a bit, realy they didnt have to go there or fight, since now things are diffrent...

well that is a whole nother story... the motivation behind why a soldier joins the service cannot be assumed. and even if they died for what they believed, it doens't necessarily mean what they believe is right/the best thing. for example the suicide bombers believe what they are doing is right.

(don't think i'm knocking soldiers, they are the bravest and/or craziest people of this country, i just was tryin got make a counterargument)

reply to post by trace_the_truth


and no one starred trace the truth's posting but me? that was some good research and info people. its basically the reason i started this thread, to get my ignorant ass to learn