"atheist@home" <atheist@home.com> said:

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 23:01:47 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:

"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> said:

This is a genuine example of self-destructive
reasoning. Period.

And, yes, I use this example knowing full well
that political partisans will be unable to get
past the subject of the quotes, and into the very
real (and dangerous) inconsistencies...

| The founding fathers of the United States understood
| that so well that they knew they too were a danger
| and tried to protect us from themselves as well as
| from those who would follow. But we shall never
| see their like again.

Now, if you agree with the above (and we can all
assume that the person who made the statement
agrees with it), then the last thing you'd ever do is
place TODAY'S politicians in the exact same
position as those "founding fathers," expecting
BETTER results than the founders themselves.

There is a logic problem, but it seems to be one that the founders
created. They made ways to change the constitution. It would certainly
be, in any day, "today's politicians" that would do that. This is
properly understood as not being a complete protection, but protection
that required a supermajority. Nothing can constitutionally protect a
democratic republic whose constitution requires as supermajority, from
a supermajority of "inferior people".

There really isn't a contradiction.
The founders were not sent by their governments to create a new
constitution but to discuss ways to amend and strengthen the Articles
of Confederation.
They assumed the task of writing a new constitution themselves.
They were politicians and being politicians naturally overstepped
their bounds.
Imo we would be sending people of lesser quality intellectually but
oversight would be much greater.

Didn't ratification by the states require oversight, at least to the
extent of reading what they were ratifying? That would have been the
last chance to say, "You didn't do what we sent you to do."

The more power and responsibility that a strong central government
assumes the more it infringes on the freedom of the people.
It's something near a mathematical certainity and there is no way for
it to be avoided.

I tend to agree that it seems as much a fact of nature, as the fact
that if we suspend crystals in a saturated solution, the larger ones
will grow at the expense of the smaller.

If however procedures are in place to correct the problem when it
reaches a point that it is no longer bearable, and if the people show
they are willing and able to take advantage of those procedures, the
natural movement toward that power can be limited.
And a new constitution has to be ratified by the people.
I isn't as though the delegates could simply amend it and the people
would be subjected to it without their permission.

We get the government we deserve.

"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:msednQW1hrFhkwzenZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com...

"Ike" <accordiondocxyzxyzxyz@mindspring.com> wrote

Well I must be dangerously stupid too, because I would
like to right now (you heard me first do it here!) call for
a constitutional convention to ratify a constitution yet to
be written, but will be before the convention takes place,
to change the USA government to a parliamentary system,
and abolish the individual income tax.

Yeah, you are stupid if you think there's any chance that a
constitutional convention would result in a government
that you'd respect more than the present one.

I think actually respecting any government is stupid. The purpose is to try
to limit the damage a government can do. Changing the government might slow
down the damage at least for a while.

atheist@home wrote:

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 02:33:52 GMT, "Ike"
<accordiondocxyzxyzxyz@mindspring.com> wrote:

"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:upKdnRRTZuqgVA3enZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com...

This is a genuine ex ample of self-destructive
reasoning. Period.

And, yes, I use this example knowing full well
that political partisans will be unable to get
past the subject of the quotes, and into the very
real (and dangerous) inconsistencies...

| The founding fathers of the United States understood
| that so well that they knew they too were a danger
| and tried to protect us from themselves as well as
| from those who would follow. But we shall never
| see their like again.

Now, if you agree with the above (and we can all
assume that the person who made the statement
agrees with it), then the last thing you'd ever do is
place TODAY'S politicians in the exact same
position as those "founding fathers," expecting
BETTER results than the founders themselves.

However, within the very same article the person
goes on to suggest:

| The governors of the states can bypass congress
| and call for a constitut ional convention and imo
| that's the only solution to the problems we face.

So we'll NEVER see the likes of the founders
again... today's politicians simply aren't up to
their standards... so let's give them all the powers
that the founder had... lock them in a room and
allow them to come up with ANY changes these
inferior people see fit...

There's being stupid, and then there's being
DANGEROUSLY stupid!

Well I must be dangerously stupid too, because I would like to right now
(you heard me first do it here!) call for a constitutional convention to
ratify a constitution yet to be written, but will be before the convention
takes place, to change the USA government to a parliamentary system, and
abolish the individual income tax.

Shouldn't the purpose of the convention be to do the re-write of the
Constitution and then place it before the people for ratification?

State legislatures would vote, not the people.

Personally I'm not that familiar with the parliamentary system and
would appreciate an opinion on why it would work better.

One advantage is that a parliamentary system might
encourage a multi-party--instead of a two party-- system.
There is a disadvantage in a two party system in that the
challenging party feels compelled to take up a contrary
position to the party in power or in office. This is one
reason why, over time, the republican and democrat parties
have switched sides so many times on so many issues
(for example, before WWII, and for a time afterward, it
was the Republicans who were isolationist/anti-war: it
was they who cheered Chamberlain's appeasement of
Hitler in 1938 and wanted to dismantle the US millitary,
except the Air Force, after WWII). With 3 or more parties
sheer contrariness is not as necessary. The disadvantages
to parliamentary/multi-party systems are more well known
and I won't go into them here.

I do feel however that the people would rebel at the idea of a total
change in structure which would kill the idea before it gets off the
ground.

There would have to be great dissatisfaction and or a
crisis of some sort. There would probably have to be
demagogic appeals from the top, framing the CC as
traditional, patriotic and moral, while vilifying the
opposition.

The republicans are well positioned to do this, with their
organization and billion dollar think tanks.

My thinking on a new constituional convention is that the people of
the individual states have somewhat more control over our state
representatives than we do those in Washington.
The Constitution is not Holy writ and it is inevitable that
politically mature people will one day recognize that fact and realize
that it needs to be amended.

It has been amended 26 times.

We have over two hundred years of history to draw from and it's
obvious that mistakes were made and need to be corrected.
Some of it needs to be rewritten in order to clarify the meaning of
certain concepts that are vague in their wording and by being so allow
politicians and federal courts to assign whatever meaning is
convenient to their purposes at the moment.

The fact that some parts are vauge is the reason they
were agreed to in the first place.

We simply cannot trust congress under it's present construction to do
an honest job because they are not going to give up one iota of their
power over the people.
It would be to the benefit of the states to do the job themselves,
bypassing not only the sitting congress, but sending a clear and
unequivocal message to those that follow that their arrogance and lust
for power will not be tolerated.

As if state office holders aren't arrogant or lust for power?

Hey, you do send a message to congress: the house every
2 years and the Senate every 6. What could be more direct
than that?

Here is a prediction of the inevitable outcome of a failure to do so;
The federal government will continue to assume more and more power
over the people until w e are living under absolute tyranny.

And yet we have had fewer freedoms, in many ways, in
the past. It was the federal government that forced the
South to allow blacks to vote and brought murderers to
justice that the individual states involved would not do.
It was individual states who passed and enforced
anti-abortion laws and the federal government that
overturned those laws. In fact in many instances it
was the federal government who protected the
individual over the tyranny of some particular state.

It's foolish to deny the fact that the current federal government
through it's representatives is open for bids.

And state representatives aren't? Anyway, ask yourself
why this is. Are they pocketing the cash?

In most cases no. They simply need it to get re-elected. But why do
they need so much (and they do need plenty)? It is
because of the cost of advertising and the fact that
the most effective advertising is also very expensive
(see: Trout, Jack. Positioning: The Battle
for Your Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981.)

atheist@home wrote:

The Constitution is not Holy writ and it is inevitable that
politically mature people will one day recognize that fact and realize
that it needs to be amended.

One quibble here -- by your phraseology, you've sort of intimated that
those who do not share your view about a constitutional amendment are
not politically mature. Say it again, and I'm telling mom!

We have over two hundred years of history to draw from and it's
obvious that mistakes were made and need to be corrected.

I'd be interested, again, in what you consider mistakes. Clearly the
drafting of the thing, and the subsequent inclusion of the Bill of
Rights, were hotly debated, discussed, and wrangled over, with
recognition of the potential for problems no matter which direction it
went. It might be argued that some of the structure might be archaic
in present circumstances, but like international politics, often it's a
matter of choosing what seems the lesser of two possible bad outcomes
rather than something as simple as a mistake.

Some of it needs to be rewritten in order to clarify the meaning of
certain concepts that are vague in their wording and by being so allow
politicians and federal courts to assign whatever meaning is
convenient to their purposes at the moment.
We simply cannot trust congress under it's present construction to do
an honest job because they are not going to give up one iota of their
power over the people.

It's the nature of power.
But I'll offer a counter-argument to that.

No change is going to be without repercussions good *and* bad. If we
can posit that, for instance, a reduction in federal power is a "good,"
then we must also recognize that those things we're accustomed to
federal power handling, which they will no longer be empowered to do,
will either be forced upon the states or not taken care of at all.

Jared Diamond points out that complex kleptocracies do have some
benefits to them -- such as maintenance of public order and common
protections. He's not wrong, I don't think, and a lot of the social
fabric we unconsciously depend upon rests at the feet of our
centralized government.

Frankly, I'd vote for not amending the constitution, but a real
reminder that it was enacted to *limit* the power of the federal
government.

It would be to the benefit of the states to do the job themselves,
bypassing not only the sitting congress, but sending a clear and
unequivocal message to those that follow that their arrogance and lust
for power will not be tolerated.
Here is a prediction of the inevitable outcome of a failure to do so;
The federal government will continue to assume more and more power
over the people until we are living under absolute tyranny.

That's a risk in any society, frankly. I happen to think it's less
likely in this one than most.

It's foolish to deny the fact that the current federal government
through it's representatives is open for bids.
Both major parties are controlled by wealthy special interests and
those in control of the lesser parties can hardly bear the wait for
their turn on the auction block.
They all want to rule our lives and have proven that they are willing
to do so at the point of a gun if necessary.
I know the call for a new convention is radical and that many will
claim that anyone calling for one is a nutcase.
A good, honest and open rational discussion without angry partisan
party bickering <Right, what are the chances of that?> could show that
it is either a good, workable idea or idiocy.

The thing is, I'm not sure it's completely necessary.
There's no government -- except, perhaps, self government -- which
doesn't have its share of negatives. And as noted, people bear those
negatives until they become unbearable -- or, really, until the
perceived balance of good/bad shifts to mostly bad. At which point,
they vote (or revolt, or something else) and have the chance to change
things.

To me, right now, it's more good than bad. I am free to get up and
walk out my door. I can travel state to state without showing papers
(unless I'm flying, and understand the rationale for that restriction).

I can choose my means of earning a living, not forced into jobs based
on my status. I can choose to have children or not; marry or not; have
a dog or not; drive a car or not. I can read what I like, watch what I
like, think what I like, go to church where I like or not at all, and
argue with whom I like, either in person or online. I can trust,
within reason, the stability of the banks that hold my money, the
courts to find some approximation of justice (with exceptions noted),
the grocery store to have ample supply of sustenance, the mail to be
delivered, the fire trucks to come at a wreck or fire, and the water
coming from my tap to be reasonably clean and free of carcinogens and
bacteria. More than anything, I trust the rancorous and even angry
debate which accompanies deviance from any of these expected norms. It
annoys me sometimes, and makes me want to disengage sometimes, but I
still trust it as part of the messy, engaged, business of being an open
society.

It's the tradeoff, those things which make my life more secure and
comfortable, and indeed increase the likelihood of personal success.
Roads and schools and emergency care are what I purchase, along with
every other taxpayer, willing or not -- and when, as Diamond says,
those "goodies" distributed by the kleptocracy aren't seen as
sufficient, then there's revolt, and in our constitution, means for
achieving it peaceably. It's a trade off. Politicians want power (and
some of them, to do good). We give them power in return for their
handling of the things we can't do efficiently as individuals or
smaller groups.

As far as changing the constitution, I would argue that it has already
been changed, in effect, by rulings and laws and so forth subsequent,
all of which might be argued to reflect the cumulative will of the
people. Perhaps I'd prefer to know exactly what you'd like amended,
and why -- because I'm very leery of case-specific changes to that
marvelously adaptable document, which would change the entire tenor of
the thing.