Third Party & Independents: Archives

David,

You nailed it!

While doing my normal hospital routine yesterday I read the print version of this article and later researched the related material:

Not a bad representation of how our government has turned around to bite “We The People” in the ass.

Based only on my personal memory of politics the problems began loooooooooong ago! JFK’s administration was nicknamed “Camelot” for crying out loud!

(I can just imagine my grandson texting me now: “Gramps OMG U dissed JFK!)

Yep! Sure did. Our government has spun out of control! Certainly it keeps getting worse. Every abuse we witness now by Bush & Co. is met by comments such as, “look what Clinton did”? (That’s only the most current excuse)

Honestly we, the electorate, need to wake up! Maybe there should be a new selection listed on every ballot: NONE OF THE ABOVE!

WE are the ones that keep Paris Hilton in the news and WE are the ones that worship our elected officials as though they’re royalty.

We’re also the ones that don’t mind stepping over someone in need:

Sadly we’ll all pay in the long run!

Sad! Sad! Sad!

We’re becoming what we once professed to oppose in other nations! Narcissism ring a bell?

Note to Woman Marine:

I think I read recently where you linked to an easy “link shortener” thing but I was not at my own puter and now I can’t find that. It would be cool if I could use that.

If anyone knows what I’m talking about I’d appreciate a link.

Sorry to get off track.

Thanks, Kansas Dem. I just watched a documentary on the death of the Electric Vehicle in America. If ever there was proof that our government, our corporations, and our political system are aligned with the profits of special interests instead of the needs of the American people, the death of the All Electric Vehicle, stands as the most astounding proof of all.

Ending dependence upon foreign oil was, and is, available, the technology already created. But the EV1 battery patents were bought up by Chevron and the murder of the electric vehicle became inevitable despite public pressures and blowback. GM chose to destroy their EV1’s rather than sell them to highly motivated lease owners. The other manufacturers followed suit. The government, corporation, oil industry conspiracy to deprive working Americans of a clean, efficient, and vastly lower cost maintenance vehicle, stands as testament to the forces that now control America.

David

If you really believe the Diebolt thing, why ask the voters to do anything?

You know if Hilary wins the nomination, she will be the closest thing to an incumbent in the 2008 election. She is the only one running who has lived in the White House. Will you advise voting against her?

“the EV1 battery patents were bought up by Chevron”

And the MSM buried any reporting of that in the business columns, while flooding us with reports of what happened between Kim Basinger and Alec Baldwin!

The “Clinton / Lewinsky scandal” has once again been on the lips of all the Republicans as a defense for the Bush administrations misdeeds. Hmmmmm, just imagine what the next CinC can get away with if we use every previous CinC’s misdeeds as a new precedent!

OTOH I did recently read where a Texas company has built a desalination plant, so you may have water to drink, arrrrgh! Is this what we’ve come to?

Jack,

I think you’re missing two huge things. Hmmmm, maybe I should say “dismissing”.

#1. No one is telling you not to vote for someone you truly support. I’m quite sure that David has made that clear more than once. Just be prepared to explain why you still support an incumbent. Name recognition seems like a lame excuse to me.

#2. Politics is no more complicated than “work-a-day” labor. We’ve only been fooled to believe it is. Incumbency extends beyond a second term for any office. While experience is preferable to some degree I find it repulsive to play the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush game.

Certainly we should not bar someone from running for office based on prior service, but we should take a darn close look at their record. The one single word that screams out is ELITE.

While we’d hardly trust a homeless person to lead our country, I believe trusting a career politician deserves nearly equal scrutiny. If they survive that test then, by all means, support them! I doubt David would argue with that, although he might well argue with the individual choice.

Right, Kansas Dem. As I say in my article:

“The revolution can be conducted at the polls by voting out incumbents who stand in the way of responsible government.”

If the incumbent fits, don’t vote for them. If the incumbent fits, and you do vote for them, you are part of the problem, not the solution. Jack, appears to not see past partisanship to understand the root cause of America’s lack of solutions to the major problems it faces.

Voting out incumbents is a strategy which could work, but does America have the time to wait on it to do so? Clearly, we voted out incumbents in 2006, but where has that gotten us? The political elite continue to make abode in the halls of our government, and they plot to secure their residency.

Does America have the time and patience to swing back and forth between two spectrums of a well established status quo, while both ends attack our liberty, security, and right of self governance?

Right now, outside on the streets, and in millions of back yards, oblivious Americans are watching their fake money smoke, pop, and whistle to the tune of Chinese fireworks. On the grill, food of unknown origin sizzles. Men and women stand by and chug alchohol to help force a good time upon themselves. Parked in the driveways are overly expensive vehicles, filled to various capacities with overpriced, foreign fuel of a finite quantity. Children run and shout, basking in the splendour of ignorance, while taking example of the ignorance and ambiguity of their elders.

What are we celebrating? The fact that we don’t give a shit about who runs the country, so long as we get to act like we have good jobs and stable lives inside our little boxes of privacy? Sounds more like it to me. Outside of our little comfortable boxes, the rules are always being changed, and we somehow keep running out of room in jails and prisons.

Again, does America have the time to wait out the swelling tide of mega-rich globalists, who are systematically dismantling our government “of the people”, while in a frenzy of the despotism we endure from the two ruling parties?

Yes, Diebold, Exxon, GlaxoSmithKline, China, Mexico, Experion/Transunion/Exuifax, Republicans, and Democrats say you have all the time in the world.

The alternative (to not wait) is civil uprising. Just have a look outside today - take a good look around at all the people partying away their short lives. This, David, is where your observations ring so true. That consumerism, fear, and blind Loyalty are eating us alive from the inside. That apathy and ignorance are food for the rich and powerful.

Life in America, I’m afraid, will need to get alot worse before it can begin to improve. All the truth-seeing ranting and chanting is all for naught in a world of the deaf and dumb. We can only, at this present time, watch in awe as the Comfortable Americans drag this republic to it’s knees.

wtc7

You have hit the exact point. Life in America is very good. Nobody under that age of 30 even remembers a bad economy. People own nice cars and houses. Daytime tv (watched by the poorer demographic) carries adds for luxury vacations.

I do not like the hedonism, but few people rebel against having too much. But in America the fat & happy people like to talk about it a lot.

Kansas

I think politics are harder than you think, whether or not we like politicians. We nurture a fine myth in our country that an ordinary guy can just come in and put things in order, but we find very few examples of it. We have few examples, but I can think of two. We had governor of Minnesota Jesse “the Body” Ventura and governor of Wisconsin Lee Sherman Dryfuss. Both were smart and accomplished guys w/o much political background. They quickly learn that it is not as easy as it seems.

Many of the stories of accidental leaders are myths. Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt were veteran statesmen, they just seemed like outsiders.

You want example of outsiders? How about Jimy Carter & GW Bush. They rose fast w/o many of the usual political trials. You like what you see?

Jack, you hit on an all too true point of American electorate politics. Specifically, that Americans want their candidates packaged, trimmed, and made-up for prime time TV imaging, very much like a soap or soup, before Americans will buy the candidate.

Hence, my alluding to consumerism as the opiate that shuts out reality and dulls its pain. Life in America is as you say, great! But, only for many. Not, by any means, all.

But, that is not the issue. The issue of importance is that our nation is on a path toward undoing that broad distribution of apparent wealth through the trials and tribulations of ever rising medical expense bankruptcies, mortgage defaults, and downward pressure on wages on for the majority of Americans, not to mention ever increasing brain immigration to compensate for poor education production in our K-12 schools.

The majority of voting Americans are aware of this increasingly precarious future for our children. Hence, contrary to wtc7’s perspective, I think there is hope and a short time yet, for the voters to turn this state of affairs around. But, time is growing short. By 2017 or so, our nation’s expense pad on Social Security surpluses dries up, and either huge deficits, or a dramatic drop in services and support for the middle and lower middle classes will ensue, or, a combination of both at less rapid growth (most likely).

David:

I agree with the premise of your article, but I disagree with some of the specifics. I hope to adress them tomorrow, I have to rise and shine in less than 5 hours, and quite frankly, I am too old for this late night stuff.

KansasDem:

I agree with your premise in the post at 7:12 and 7:44, I whole heartedly agree. But keep in mind that both the Dems and Repubs hammered away at “A vote for Perot is a vote wasted”, many Repubs feel that if not for Ross, President Clinton would have never have been(probably right) and many Dems felt that Nader cost both Sen. Gore and Sen. Kerry the Presidency(possibly right). Mr. Perot was a suprise, but there were web sites that would allow Democrats to trade votes from states that were solidly Democratic for votes in swing states so that Nader could still garner enough votes for federal funding. These people were truly political whores willing to subvert the political process for federal(please read as TAXPAYER) money.

Unless we as a whole are willing to bypass political points for what is right and wrong, things will not stay the same, they will get worse. I do not mind if anyone says that President Bush is wrong on actions and/or policy, but to inflame or degrade the debate for nothing but political points is not only wrong, but should not be tolorated by either side.

Until we get to the point that both sides of the aisle are willing to abandon their party for what they see is right instead of looking for the advantage, we will face more of the same. We were so close with Mr. Perot, but both parties’ loyalists were willing to look for a advantage in the stead of what was best for the country. Any Clinton supporters that claim that President Bush is illegitimate because of not recieving the majority of the popular vote(hense “King George”) care to tell me who was the first President elected twice without a majority of the popular vote?

wtc,

Preach it! You are absolutely right. How do we begin a civil uprising? How do we emulate the likes of a Martin Luther King, Jr., a Ghandi, a Nelson Mendella—truly exceptional characters.

Indeed we need to take our government back through massive civil uprising. How do we begin, marchers, boycotts, what?

Individuals truly interested in this pursuit, let’s put our heads together and get something organized BEFORE the 2008 election.

David,

I think your points are quite valid, but I wish I was as optimistic as you seem to be. I think, as you said, “we have come full-circle” so we need to start the cycle again—civil uprising. It’s time to rebuild the corruption of our governmental and economic systems. It’s time for Americans to insist on a government for the people. As it is a cycle, corruption, money, consumerism, wealthy elite, etc. will eventually find their way back to the top. In the interim, however, is the chance for a new generation to learn from the past and fashion a system of government and an economic system that breaks the cycle that is our current reality. At such at a time, America will be greater than it has ever been. If this ideal sound utopian, that is because it is. No system of inlcusive government or economic infrastructure can withstnd the “evil” nature of man and his need for power, money, and the like. Truly great individuals on the level of the men I mentioned in my previous post will always be in the minority, they will always be subject to mortal attack from factions in the majority. The only thing we can do is to begin the cycle again, and pray to God that new leadership not only will resist corruption but will withstand it as well.

Kim-Sue, the problem as I see it, is that America had as good a checks and balances constitutional beginning as can be devised. With the Bill of Rights, and the ideals set out in the Declaration of Independence, and their fulfillment in subsequent Amendments, I cannot imagine a better Constitutional framework from which to design a nation.

The things that went wrong were few, but, substantial. The very first thing that went wrong was the rise of political parties. Political parties quickly evolved from being champions of philosophy and policy platform, to being defenders of power through division of the populace, appealing not to the higher reason of humanity, but, to the lowest emotional common denominators, by painting their issues as blessed and opponents as evil. Which of course, 99% of the time is pure b.s. In addition, the purpose of political parties shifted inexorably from being the best at serving the people, to today’s ultimate goal of becoming a one party government, which in our system is akin to becoming an authoritarian politburo.

The second thing that went wrong was granting citizen status to corporations, which took politics out of the hands of the people and placed it directly into the palms of profiteers, bribers, and blackmailers using campaign contributions or their withholding as a threat. Our government was specifically set out to be a not-for-profit operation, but ended up being controlled by the profit oriented corporateers.

The third thing that went wrong, seriously wrong, was when the Supreme Court equated money with speech, and said contributions to political parties or candidates were protected by the 1st Amendment as political speech. This had the effect of handing a megaphone to the wealthiest and reducing the individual citizen’s voice and vote to a faint whisper with regard to legislation and administration on all issues save those rare few in which a vast majority of the electorate speak with one voice as just happened with the immigration bill last week.

If Americans would vote with rectifying these 3 historical errors in mind, we would not need to reinvent the greatest wheel ever devised for governance. We could simply correct these few errors in our system which have so corrupted it and government beyond recognition by our founding statesmen. We have achieved these kinds of rectification in the past: civil rights, women’s suffrage, workers rights, child labor, and establishment of the Securities and Exchange Commission are all examples of the people rectifying errors in our system despite powerful vested interests.

History demonstrates correcting our mistakes is possible. Such actions require only a public awareness of the problem and tireless voices to keep the message fresh and alive, organizers willing to sacrifice personal comforts to drive the movement forward, and grass roots contributors willing to underwrite the movement’s expenses. This combination may or may not come to pass to rectify the corruption of our democratic republic - time will tell. But, I personally know of hundreds of Americans working at this very thing. And that gives me hope that their numbers will grow to thousands and millions in the coming years.

And the number of voters it will take to remove incumbents who support this corruption of our system, is remarkably small. See the article, Power In Small Numbers. The vast and growing numbers of Independent voters can be sufficient to bring about the changes called for here.

David,

You’re forgetting the 4th thing. Once we implemented policy to take money from one group of people by force and give it to another, effectively making politics a game of promising the most money to the largest group of people, bribing them, politics became nothing more than people voting for what is best for them, not what is best for the country.

Going from an income based tax system back to a usage based system would be the best hope for reversing this trend, but I don’t see it happening soon because too many people would lose out on their ‘fair share’.

“Government of the majority of the people, by the majority of the people, and for the majority of the people”

Great description of “democracy” there David, too bad “majority rules,” is not what our country was founded on.
The “Constitutional Republic” that our country once was, was founded with “We the People” in mind, not with “what the majority of people thinks is best,” in mind.

We gave up our rights, freedoms and ability to keep our govt in check in favor of having govt do things for us and to take care of us.
We successfully went from a Constitutional Republic, with rights and freedoms for all, to a democracy, with rights and freedoms granted by the majority.
The problem with this, is that we are now beholden to govt and when a people are beholden to govt, they are dependent on govt. And when the people are dependent, they give up voting for their rights and freedoms, but instead, start voting for the party who promises them more for nothing.
And instead of wanting to keep govt in check, they now just want the govt check.
Democracy.

David R.,

Nice article and follow-up comments. The more I think about it, the more I find attractive Joel’s push for a Constitutional Convention.

A few things I think such a Convention should consider:

* Campaign financing and political lobbying. Any attempts now to curb the vast influence of money on politics are made more difficult because of First Amendment concerns. We need to specify that money is not speech as far as politics is concerned.

* The stranglehold of the two dominant political parties on federal and most state politics. (Madison raised the proper concerns in Federalist No. 10 and elsewhere.) Rules in Congress have the effect of maintaining the current two-party system; rules in elections make it difficult for third parties to get on the ballot. I don’t know how this can be handled, exactly, but certainly it should be a concern for the Convention. I wouldn’t mind prohibiting mention of political affiliation on ballots.

* Second Amendment. The Amendment is just broken; I think anyone, regardless of political views, can see that. Right now the Courts have ruled that individuals do not have the right to bear weapons; militias have that right. I do not buy those arguments though I think some sort of government regulation is socially necessary (not a contradiction). Let’s fix the Second Amendment to make it clear what rights individuals have, and what are the limits of government regulation.

These are just a few off the top of my head. The Founders gave us the option of a Constitutional Convention. I buy the arguments that we shouldn’t resort to such a step lightly, but I also think conditions have gotten to the point that the option should be seriously considered. Certainly the Founders did not intend that we never hold Constitutional Conventions. This was intended to be our country, our government, not the exclusive holdings of two political parties.

More radically, we should have some debate on the very form of Representational Democracy we employ. The winner-takes-all system tends to support the two-party system; we should look at other more representational systems. I’m not advocating such a radical change, but I do think it warrants discussion.

Rhinehold said: “Once we implemented policy to take money from one group of people by force and give it to another,”

You mean taking money from 147 million taxpayers and giving it to only those employed in the military is a bad thing? WoW. Somehow, I don’t think most folks in our government or in American streets would agree with you Rhinehold.

No system of funding government would ‘feel’ fair to all, because such funding is forced by the rule of law, not voluntary. I just don’t see the merit of your argument from that perspective.

Now, if you want to critique whether or not government expenditures on this or that program provide a net benefit or harm to the nation’s people, that can be a much more cogent and reasoned debate. The very definition of federal government inherent in our Constitution was to provide service to the nation’s public in ways which the people themselves, or the states, could not individually provide on their own (international tariffs and military for example).

The interstate highway system was a perfect example, in which the nation as a whole has benefited measurably many times more than the investment cost of the system. But, such a system could not have come into being through individual effort.

kctim said: “Great description of “democracy” there David, too bad “majority rules,” is not what our country was founded on.”

Majority rule, or what is sometimes called ‘mob rule’ in which every decision of government is voted upon by the public, was not intended by our U.S. Constitution. That is true enough, kctim.

But, you seem to conveniently forget that our Constitution DID provide that those with a vested interest in the consequences of government decisions WERE given the Constitutional Right to vote out the politicians who decided against the interests of the voter. Thereby, making government accountable to the voters on election day.

Which is why our government is correctly termed ‘a democratic republic’. And it is important to note, that as education, employment, and vested interests in the products of government were extended well beyond male land owners, our Constitution provided for adaptation and modification to our Constitution over time through an Amendment process. And that Constitutionally based amendment process has been used to make our system far more democratic, in accordance with the will of the people.

This is why your comments and those of many libertarians have no currency with me. Your comments imply that America should turn back the hands of time to the original Constitution without subsequent amendments. That of course is a completely preposterous position. Our Constitution was designed from the gitgo to be Amended and modified as changing times warranted. It was one of the incredible strengths and brilliant foresights of our founding fathers, that has allowed our Constitutionally based government to weather change without revolution or, being forced to go back to the drawing board and reinvent the Constitutional wheel.

Gerrold, your comments have much merit and credit from my perspective. I have held and still hold that a Constitutional Convention is a perilous action to take. That said, as I witness America’s seemingly ‘insoluble’ crises like entitlement spending and illegal immigration and border security continue to be ineffectively addressed, the perils of a Constitutional Convention become more worthy of the risks. The longer our government fails to address our future crises, the more reasonable become the justifications for a Constitutional Convention.

I just don’t think the American people are yet of one and like mind on the direction a Constitutional Convention should take, nor are they aware of the inherent and potential risks of redrafting major sections of Constitution. Joel’s arguments however, will make more sense as we move forward in time, ever more crippled by the infirmities of our current political system.

On this, I agree with you entirely.

Right now the Courts have ruled that individuals do not have the right to bear weapons; militias have that right.

No, they have not. Only those who want you to believe that are suggesting such a thing.

The interstate highway system was a perfect example, in which the nation as a whole has benefited measurably many times more than the investment cost of the system. But, such a system could not have come into being through individual effort

I’m not suggesting no taxation, I’m suggesting we stop taxing based on income and then use the sales taxes and user fees to fund those things that they should be. For example, the highway system should be funded and maintained through taxes on gasoline or sales taxes on automobiles/trucks/etc. There is no reason why we should stoop to taxing income in order to do the things that government should be doing. In fact, until very recently we wouldn’t have dreamed of doing so, however, once we opened those floodgates and people realized that they could vote themselves other people’s money, well, it just resulted in a nation that is stictly about promising to give the most to the largest group of people.

The problem with a Constitutional Convention, and this will most likely be my only say on this topic even though they will keep getting posted ad naseum, is that the mindset of the country is just not right for one. If I thought that we were at a place where the citizens would push for what was best for the country and were strongly in defense for individual rights, more specifically the 9th and 10th amendments, then I might be behind a redifinition of some aspects of the constitution. However, in a society which ignores or doesn’t even understand the basic premises behind the 9th and 10th amendments, I cringe at the thought of putting those things up for being thrown out. I would rather see us reteach and relearn what those things mean and somehow develop a basic understanding of human rights and interactions, however if you were to have that convention right now you would see no 9th amendment, no 10th amendment, no 2nd amendment, curbing of the 1st amendment, the establishment of positive rights like healthcare and religion, an establishment of a national religion (christianity) and an amendment stating that the legal benefits of a marriage can only be shared between a man and a woman. If those are things you want to have happen, then by all means get that convention going.

I, myself, do not want me or my children to see that day.

David
I did not conveniently forget anything.
We were given the right to vote out politicians who decided against the interests of the country and our Constitution but that has been perverted to mean the voters personal will now.
People are no longer concerned with holding govt accountable, they are concerned about what govt can do for them personally.

I also know how the amendment process works, but tell me, do you think the founders really believed it was ok to take away personal rights and freedoms because the “majority” thought that is what should be done?

I am not talking about turning back the hands of time. Nice fear tactic though. Ranks right up there with the elderly being forced to eat catfood line.
Believe it or not, it is possible to honor our original Constitution and still progress as a country. Individual rights and freedoms aren’t as bad as you all make them out to be either.

I agree though, that our current govt is a democracy (democratic republic in your words) but that is not how it was founded.
We have allowed our individual opinions, greed and laziness to trump what our Constitution gives all of us and the politicians have successfully used that to push personal agendas and to pander to us.
The politicians have “modified as changing times warranted,” without respect to the Constitution, for votes and we gave them the permission to do so.

You don’t improve something by gutting its foundation and you don’t improve a Constitutional Republic by making it a democracy.

kctim said: “We were given the right to vote out politicians who decided against the interests of the country and our Constitution but that has been perverted to mean the voters personal will now.”

WOW! What a completely ignorant comment. You are suggesting that in the 18 century, voters were NOT inclined or meant to vote in accordance with their personal will and interests?

I use the word ignorant to refer to how your comment IGNORES that human nature was no different then, than now. Of course voters in the 18th Century voted according to their personal will and interests. How else could slavery, for example, been preserved through the 19th century and the Civil War? The idea that voters then held themselves to a higher moral standard or something equally rediculous than we do today, is preposterous on its face.

Kansas Dem…..is this what you’re looking for???

http://tinyurl.com/

It is not ignorant nor preposterous if one is willing to acknowledge that the Constitution was written to protect against the voters human nature of selfishness.
That is why the right to free speech is in the Constitution and the right of govt to steal money from one and give to another is not.

And of course some voters back then believed govt should be there to support their own personal beliefs. There are always people who believe govt should take care of them or that govt should force everybody to do what they themselves wont do.
Luckily, our forefathers had individual rights and freedoms which allowed them to believe and care as they wish. Today we do not.

Rhinehold,

Case law since the United States vs. Miller (1939) has consistently maintained that an individual right to bear arms must be seen in the context of a well-regulated militia. In effect, that means the government can infringe (and clearly does) upon the individual right to bear arms. It is true that some read Miller as affirming an individual right to bear arms, but because SCOTUS consistently refuses to address Second Amendment challenges to firearm laws, existing case law stands.

If you remember, Miller was concerned with transporting a sawed-off shotgun across state lines. Because SCOTUS held that there was no evidence that such a weapon had any bearing upon the preservation or the efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it ruled that the Second Amendment does not guarentee the individual right to keep or bear such a weapon.

The Second Amendment is very awkwardly written. I believe the well-regulated militia phrase constitutes a rationale for the invidivual right to keep and bear arms, but not a condition. In other words, it’s a right not contingent upon the need for a well-regulated militia. Obviously the courts disagree with me.

There is also much debate on what the term “people” means in that Amendment and others.

—-

I understand your fear of a Constitutional Convention. However, I don’t believe the things you fear would come to pass. Anything the Convention ratifies would have to be ratified by 3/4ths of the States. That’s a huge barrier. I think it may be time for the States, which theoretically are closer to the “people,” to get involved. Otherwise, we can only get amendments if they are first proposed by Congress, and none of us here, I think, are too excited about how our national politicians have served us.

kctim, the basis of your argument is that we should return to the original Constitution. That of course would return us to Blacks being only a partial citizen, and no women’s suffrage, and state’s rights to slavery.

Sorry, your argument has no merit, whatsoever. The Constitution we have today as amended, and interpreted by the courts, was arrived at Constitutionally. Therefore, the Constitution we have today is the only valid and justified Constitution we have to work with, just as the original Constitution was the only one valid and justified for its day. This is so precisely because the orginal Constitution contemplated and allowed for the modification and amendment of itself over time to accomodate changing situations.

The only valid arguments that can be made today are what changes NOW need to be made in our current context, and why. Calling for a return to the original Constitution has no merit, nor rational meaning, just as calling for turning the hands of time back to 1776 has no merit or rational meaning.

Funding government today, whether by sales tax, flat income tax, or the progressive income tax we now have, were not in the original Constitution. Does this mean we should return to trade tariffs to fund the current demands and needs of our military, space exploration, intelligence operations, homeland defense, etc.? I assure you, such tariffs would be monumentally inadequate to supply even these services of government.

Ergo, your argument of a return to the original Constitution has no merit whatsoever, in the context of reality.

kctim said: “Luckily, our forefathers had individual rights and freedoms which allowed them to believe and care as they wish.”

Hmmm…., I feel free to believe and care as I wish. I am even free to publicly express those beliefs and cares without infringement by my government. I just don’t see your point here. Are their beliefs and cares that you feel you cannot hold or express in America at this time? If so, please elaborate.

David,

I think you’ll find that ktctm’s argument is NOT to return to the original constitution but to expect that our government exist within the limits of the current constitution.

I, for one, would love to see that occur, to see the 9th and 10th amendments be reinstated, etc…

It is only your own reality that is out of context David.
I said HONOR the original Constitution, not return to slaves or your other fears. That is just a fear tactic people use because they are afraid of giving Americans all the rights the Constitution grants them.

So, the courts have arrived at all their “interpretations” of the law Constitutionally? Does that go for the wiretapping issue if they leave it as is?
You know as well as I that the “interpretations” are political, pandering and don’t always abide by the Constitution. The only reason they get by is because the sheep no longer care as much about their rights as much as they do what they are promised by govt.

“The only valid arguments that can be made today are what changes NOW need to be made in our current context, and why”

What changes? Honor the Constitution.
Why? Because individual rights and freedoms are what made our country great and the envy of the world.

Funding govt today would be easy and the govt would not need to force people against their will to support it. How? By taxing people for govt duties only.

You ask “resolution or revolution” and seeing how far from the Constitution we have allowed ourselves to be taken, the only is answer is: revolution is the only resolution IF we wish to be free as our founders intended.

And all your statements to redirect the topic, such as slavery, suffrage and inadequate govt resulting, are nothing but your own fears of losing what you think govt should be like, not what our Constitution says it should be like.

But, as I’ve said before, I am not naive enough to think things will change. The majority of the people believe such as you and in a democracy, majority rules.

Rhinehold, the court’s interpretations of the Constitution of which the Amendments are a part, are as integral to our system as the Amendments themselves. That too was part of the design of our system within the Constitution.

The Congress and President (i.e. the people) together have the power granted by the U.S. Constitution to check and balance excesses by the Court’s interpretations. The fact that such has not taken place to your liking with regard to the 9th and 10th Amendments in no way implies the interpretations are unconstitutional. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This Amendment is somewhat nebulous and vague and highly subject to interpretation, don’t you think? The rights mentioned here shall not be interpreted in a manner which shall deny or minimize OTHER rights retained by the people. Note that ‘the people’ here refers to the consensus of the people through legislation by representation and does NOT mean individual rights declared by an individual contrary to the will of the Congress.

This is a very difficult point for some in our society to understand and accept, like the Fundamentalist Right Evangelical Christians, who believe their minority view should trump majority consensus on declaring the U.S. a Christian nation for example.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Same definition of ‘the people’ is used here. By consent of the people through acts of Congress and signed by the President, ‘the people’ have assented to abrogate certain rights previously held in return for broader services by the government. A perfect example is the abrogation of the right to a signed warrant before search of one’s person or vehicle by the police on public highway where the police determine that probable cause exists.

These are tough pills for some to swallow, but, the U.S. Constitution intrinsically places the welfare of the state, and therefore the people as a whole, above the preferences of the individual, EXCEPT, where the Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments specifically preserve individual rights in law. We are after all, intended to be a nation of law, not a nation of individual preferences.

At the heart of a great many critics of our current system of government lies an anarchist trying to punch their way out of the Constitutional Parchment bag. I am very critical of many aspects of our current government, but, I believe the power to correct such flaws lies with the consensus of the American people and their vote. It is what prevents the anarchist in me from governing my words or deeds. And within every individual, there is an anarchist at odds with living under the rules others have contrived.

That is the intrinsic conflict between individual and society that rasps at the durability of every society and government from the beginning of human time. It behooves those wanting to start over to recognize this fundamental fact of human nature and not act too hastily or fervently on contemplations that they can design a better form of government than what we now have. History is littered with societies and governments which have come and gone on the belief that starting over would improve their lot.

“Are their beliefs and cares that you feel you cannot hold or express in America at this time? If so, please elaborate”

Come on David. You already know my answer to that.
Taxes, seatbelts, marriage, guns, smoking, welfare, SS etc…etc…

Sure, I can hold whatever belief about them I want and I can even speak out against them, but in the end, I am still forced, by govt, to support what everybody else believes.

U.S. Constitution intrinsically places the welfare of the state, and therefore the people as a whole, above the preferences of the individual, EXCEPT, where the Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments specifically preserve individual rights in law.

I disagree wholeheartedly, and this is where our disagreement on the 9th amendment comes from. However, the ‘ambiguity’ concerning the 9th amendment can be easily overcome by reading the founding father’s intent for not just the amendment but how the government should operate.

That we choose to push the ‘society’ over the ‘individual’ is what in the end is damaging us as a country IMO. Right now the ‘majority’ can tell me what I can and can’t do in my own home or inside my own property. I would imagine that is exactly what our founding fathers DIDN’T want to have happen. As long as I am not violating the rights of another, why does the government think they have a right (they don’t) to come in and tell me what I can and can’t do?

Desires of the majority, over the rights of the minority, have been put in place in all 3 branches of our government to ensure that it does. And until a majority of people see this and stand up for the rights of others whether they agree with them or not then slowly but surely as has been happening for decades now there will be a complete loss of individual rights at the hand of the society, something I believe may be past time to counter.

And it all started with the questionalable ratification of the 16th amendment (It may not have been properly ratified), something I would love to see a new amendment rescinding it be adopted, much as we saw the 18th amendment go down in flames rightfully so (even though we never learned from).

Quick question though…

If we needed an 18th amendment to make alcohol illegal to sell, why didn’t we need one for marijuana?

That’s the type of thing I’m talking about, the slow erosion of our individual rights, without going through the proper procedures, and then signed off on by the ‘supreme court’ which has become a puppet group, ever since FDR cowered them into irrelevance.

kctim said: “but in the end, I am still forced, by govt, to support what everybody else believes.”

Quite right. Just as a murderer, rapist, or thief is forced to support the laws ‘everybody else believes’.

If left to them, they would abolish laws calling for their prison terms after such acts. That is why both you and Rhinehold’s argument that the individual should prevail over the majority is so absurd. If you don’t like our democratic form of government, you have options: work to change it, leave it, or accept it. Freedom is all about options, including moaning about conditions and doing nothing - a favorite American past time.

Rhinehold said: “That we choose to push the ‘society’ over the ‘individual’ is what in the end is damaging us as a country IMO.”

Rhinehold, see my reply to kctim above. Rule of law as opposed to rule of men, by definition, puts the order and harmony of society first over individual preference, EXCEPT, as I said, in the Bill of Rights and individual rights specifically named and protected thereafter.

You should be aware that individual rights meant so little to our founding fathers that they removed them from the Constitution Body since they could not get consensus, and added them afterward as Amendments. So, don’t preach such falsehood’s that our ‘founding father’s intent’ was to place individual rights before that of government and society as a whole. It is a patently false statement refuted by the history of the drafting of our Constitution. Incorporating individual rights into the Constitution was a highly controversial issue incapable of achieving our founding father’s consensus.

David,

Do you remember why there was such argument about including the Bill of Rights?

The one side wanted to make sure that these specific rights would never be infringed. The other side argued that if they included them then someday down the road someone might argue that the only rights we are guaranteed are those listed in the Bill of Rights. The 9th amendment was the compromise in order for them to be included.

You see, no one at the time felt that the document should be a list of what individual rights are guaranteed, anything else is fair game. Unfortunately, that is just what you are suggesting it is…

Not at all, Rhinehold. The rights the individual enjoys in America today are far greater in total than were first laid out in the Bill of Rights. But, that in no way makes the case that the U.S. Constitution was predicated on individual rights usurping the stability, longevity, survivability, or preeminence of the rule of law over individual choice.

Remember, that States were given incredibly wide latitude to define what individuals could or could not do, and to decide on what punishment for wrong doing, no matter how excessive or repressive, was appropriate. Such a wide latitude gave incredible deference to the state over individual liberty outside the Bill of Rights, which themselves were controversial and ignored by many states for almost 2 centuries.

Also, lest you forget, Civil Rights were not won by the merits of individual liberty. They were won due to the civil disobedience of State Governments and police toward Black folks, and Black Americans civil disobedience toward state and local law while exercising their perceived rights to peaceable assembly and speech.

In other words, the Civil Rights movement succeeded ONLY because our government placed a higher priority on social stability and rule of law, than on any individual preferences. Restoring order and rule of law for the nation and society at large were the prime movers behind our government’s adoption of the Civil Rights Bill.

The same was true of women’s suffrage. The leaders were jailed, force fed, and mistreated by our government in order to force the end of their civil disobedience. When they became martyrs and women rose up across the country in their defense and in threat to civil order in small towns and big cities through demonstrations in churches, town squares, and places of business, only then did our government seeking the welfare of the society and government against civil unrest by women and the media, did the Congress relent and pass women’s suffrage.

It is one of the great strengths of our Constitution that it places such a premium upon checks and balances, oversight and regulation, law and order by rule of law, that civil disobedience in combination with a free press can achieve individual liberties not provided by the original Bill of Rights.

Stated another way, it is because our Constitution sought stability and order against excesses of individuals with power, and granted so few individual liberties to so few people, (white male landowners), that the Declaration of Independence continues to this day to have such relevance and power despite its having no Constitutional or legal authority in the affairs of American lives, apart from setting ideals and declaring sovereignty.

Many of our founding fathers feared too much liberty by individuals, especially those in government, and the Constitution reflects this in abundance. Children were not considered more valuable than chattel slaves, and exploitation of child labor was commonplace from our very beginnings. Women were treated as necessary but, not entitled to a host of rights imparted to white males like the vote.

Jefferson himself was a slave owner as were many of our founding fathers, and their wives and daughters deprived of legal standing in property ownership, and civil redress in the courts. So, it is a gross error to buy into 3rd grade historical fantasy dressed up patriotically for minds not yet gifted with critical analysis, assuming that our founding fathers put such great stock in individual rights over the needs and welfare of the state.

Remember, the great fear of their time was government confiscation of private property which was commonplace amongst the British rule of the Colonies, and detention, arrest, and invasion of private homes by British soldiers without any legal process or redress.

If you look at the Bill of Rights in this light, you quickly realize that the bulk of those rights were adopted for the benefit of white male land owners with a vested interest in protecting their liberty and property from those individuals with the power of the state as their office. They were not adopted out of any sense of basic inherent moral human rights unalienable to the human individual by virtue of being human. Women and children, and people of color were humans, but, were not afforded rights of white male landowners.

That interpretation which we now enjoy in America was a result of liberal interpretation by the courts over centuries of ceaseless battle by women and parents of children and people of color for basic human rights.

No, you are very, very wrong in your assessment that our founding fathers and Constitution placed a higher regard for human rights over those of a stable, predictable, checked and balanced government and state bound by the rule of law. The individual rights contemplated and protected by our founding fathers were aimed at their own protection as white male landowners, and therefore, quite self-serving, as opposed to any grand notions of individual liberty for all, above and beyond the needs of a stable and predictable state afforded by the rule of law, and backed by executive and judicial enforcement and police power.

One of the great dilemmas posed for our times, is the fact that the design of our government and Constitution in many ways fails to address the population explosion that occurred after the Civil War. With vast increases in population and population centers, have come an erosion of order and civil harmony as the number of citizens vastly overload our courts, prisons, and policing capacities. With that circumstance comes the very real and now evident erosion of individual rights at the hands of a government trying to cope with such vast numbers of people unwilling to comply with the law and order proscribed by a Constitution and laws designed for a much a smaller population and far less condensed population centers.

With the Bush adminstration and the Republican Congress, America has begun to emulate China in is attempts to track, monitor, and interdict citizen’s behavior before they pose a threat to civil order and obedience.

Freedom of assembly was partially thrown out the window by the Bush administration and the courts when this administration reserved the right to corral dissenters at the President’s arrival airport many blocks away from the view of the President and the media.

Cameras are now everywhere in public areas from highways and sidewalks to places of business and now, even places of worship. And the recording devices are now available to the government under a number of new laws designed to restrict rights of privacy in one’s daily affairs if the government has a wish for them.

As our population grows, you can track the great and awesome power of our Constitution’s provisions to place a far higher premium on social stability and civil order than on individual rights and freedoms. That is perceived as one of its great strengths by a majority of Americans. Our forefathers, witness to the horrible costs of our Revolutionary War, imbued into our Constitution their fears of ever having to fight another: though a few of the more prescient, wrote of the value of revolution, as itself a check and balance against the abuse of power by those in offices of government.

James Madison said: “The ultimate authority resides in the people alone.” He implies that government’s role is to maintain order and stability and it is the people’s responsibility to protect and defend their liberties from government. Our original Constitution reflects just such a postulation.

Alexander Hamilton illustrates my point precisely, when he said: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”

If you do a little research, Rhinehold, you will find that I am correct and that Hamilton expressed quite correctly the intentions in drafting the U.S. Constitution. Individual liberty was not the first duty of government or Constitution, giving Government control of the governed was the first duty.

Samuel Adams refers to this as well in his use of the words ‘internal invader’ in the following quote:

“As long as the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader. If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security.”

Internal invader is a bit obscure to us today, but, in his time, it referred to abusers of office and power. It was not the Constitution’s role to define and protect individual liberties save those in the Bill of Rights, which themselves were subject to repeal or amendment. As Samuel Adams and others have stated, that responsibility falls upon the people themselves, not the Constitution. No piece of paper can define and defend the people’s individual liberties so vast and wide in range and scope. That falls to the people of virtue and knowledge to define and defend for themselves, even if revolution is the only avenue available.

David R.,

That is a nice essay, one that deserves to be an article and not a comment.

I’m not certain I agree with you, though. Many of your points are obviously correct; the Bill of Rights did not limit States until after the Civil War, and of course the Civil Rights movement established rights that were implicit in the Bill of Rights but not actually in practice.

That said, Englightenment ideals clearly were behind the Founding documents. And, as Rhinehold says, the Founders did have the argument that setting forth a Bill of Rights would imply that other unnumerated rights did not exist. Jefferson took a pragmatic view, claiming that it was better to secure what rights we could if not all that we by “nature” have.

Yet I find myself agreeing with much of what you write. I think it’s a difference in emphasis. Certainly a narrative emphasizing the Founders’ concern for the rights of man has historical support and is valid. Your narrative emphasizing the role of the government to govern is valid, too; in fact, we replaced the weak Articles of Confederation, in which States took precedence over the national government, with the Constitution, with its much stronger national government.

I’ve always thought of the Bill of Rights this way. It’s taken us a long time to fully understand their implications, but they’ve established the framework by which slaves, women, etc., eventually became fully franchised. The liberal notions of the Englightment as codified in our Founding documents, over time, made it difficult to continue suppressing segments of the population. And yes, fights had to be fought to secure this enfranchisement. But from one point of view, these fights were merely to secure what had already been established as fundamental rights. True, “man” in the 18th century did not necessarily imply slaves or women, but for some it did. Remember, Samuel Johnson criticized our early nation for still employing slaves; all through our history there were those who saw the logical contradiction of establishing rights for man while at the same time enslaving man.

Gerrold, Samuel Adams makes my point.

Samuel Adams refers to the people as responsible for individual liberties, NOT the Constitution, in his use of the words ‘internal invader’ in the following quote:

“As long as the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader. If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security.”

Note he makes no reference to the Constitution being their “great security” for that was not the primary intent of the Constitution. “Internal invader” is a bit obscure to us today, but, in his time, it referred to abusers of office and power.

It was not the Constitution’s role to define and protect individual liberties save those in the Bill of Rights, which themselves were subject to repeal or amendment by the Constitution. As Samuel Adams and others have stated, that responsibility falls upon the people themselves, not the Constitution.

No piece of paper can define and defend the people’s individual liberties so vast and wide in range and scope. That falls to the people of ‘virtue and knowledge’ to define and defend for themselves, even if revolution is the only avenue available. The Constitution’s primary intent was to found a government to govern, meaning to control those who would wreck it for individual purposes. This is self-evident in the Federalist Papers, the writings of a great many of the founding fathers, and of course, the original U.S. Constitution itself, which addresses the structure of government, checks and balances on its power, and enumerated responsibilities and duties to exercise power through the rule of law, and consensus for the purpose of maintaining order, predictability, and social acceptance of the power of governance.

I agree with you and Rhinehold entirely, that there were grave concerns by some of our founding fathers over the power of government to infringe upon what, they themselves viewed as their own vested interests. But, their vested interests were not, by any measure, encompassing of the myriad of other human and individual rights of women, children, or people of color. If women, children, and people of color were to carve out their rights, they would have to use the provisions of the Constitution to alter the rule of law emanating from the U.S. Constitution to provide for such individual liberties through consensus and majority persuasion and legislation.

One of the immense strengths of our Constitution was its refrain from trying to be too specific about individual liberties or intentions other than to provide for an orderly and predictable process for accommodation of the needs and will of the people, as time passed, without having to resort to revolution. An orderly and predictable process not afforded the Colonialist by King George’s government.

Hence, Samuel Adams quite correctly states that it is the province of the people, not the Constitution, to fight for, define, and defend their individual liberties deprived by their absence of inclusion in the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution’s intent was to provide a predictable and orderly process by which to accomplish that and other things, without having to resort to Revolution or civil insurrection.

Alexander Hamilton illustrates my point precisely, when he said: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”

“First enabling the government to control the governed” means the first intention of the Constitution is to restrict individual choices and liberties which may undermine the government itself. When he says, “and in the next place” (meaning secondarily), “oblige it [government] to control itself”, he means make it possible for the people to force government through legal process to accede to the people’s consensus demands for additional rights and liberties WHICH do not threaten the integrity of the first purpose of government to control the governed from destabilizing the nation through insurrection and revolution.

These are some of the most sophisticated and complex thought processes ever devised by humans on the relationship between government (powerful people) and the governed, those not in positions of power. It implies that if the powerful people ever rig the game in a fashion such that the people have no recourse as a majority to redress their grievances peaceably, revolution as undertaken by the founding fathers against England is a justified and moral course of action.

Pretty heady stuff, this. And if America does not get busy teaching this heady stuff in our schools, Samuel Adams’ admonition will become reality: “If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved.”, which is another way of saying, if virtue and knowledge are NOT diffused among the people, enslavement will surely follow at the hands of the powerful.

Awww.. the same old write and rhyme vote out incumbents than all will be well..we live in a dream world..we live in a dream world..we live in a dream world..come on people repeat it with me. Sorry David, voting out incumbents means ABSOLUTELY nothing! We need to vote out the duopoly. When you vote out incumbents all you do is get the younger version of the party loyalty, they will be forced to party loyalty, and if they don’t they will be replaced with someone who will. We need more voices and more choices.

David R.,

Ok, I see your point. Very well thought and stated.

Richard, the dream is all yours my friend. The dream that incumbents and the duopoly party controlling the FEC are going to alter rules and regulations to permit more parties and choices to enter elections on a level playing field is so far from reality as to be laughable.

Voting out incumbents and destroying tenure for those who refuse to level the playing field and halt the wealthy special interest governance is far more realistic because voters have a vested interest in doing so, unlike the incumbents who don’t. Reality, Richard, not fantasy and wishes are what is needed. VOID offers a real world solution controlled and delivered by voters with a vested interest in ending the corruption and money driven governance. Your dream calls for incumbent politicians to shoot themselves in the foot of their own accord. Not going to happen except in your dreams.

David, I only wish I could articulate as well as you,but to get to the point, you’re absolutely correct! I’m not a great man just an average guy really. 46 years old, White, Irish American. I’ve never taken a handout and my pride won’t allow me to. Worked every day of my life just like you. Seems like a person like that is what the govrenment would want. Whether they know it or not they’re inciting all of us to (for the lack of a better term) “Rare Up.”

Ken, thank you for your gracious comment. I was the very fortunate recipient of a college education in philosophy under two of the greatest instructors I have ever heard of, Dr.’s Andrew Bjelland, and Nikhil Bhattacharya, both Ph.D’s and brilliant instructors. I must give them the credit for the instruction that forced me to learn my own language and its subtleties, which of course aided my ability to think through the meaning of other’s words.

It is a very rare thing for an individual to receive an original thought. I am 57 and still waiting for my moment. Thus, the credit belongs to those who have been my teachers, living and long dead. :-)