Who thinks we need a new government?

[Cleita]

Let’s face it, the two hundred years old Constitution doesn’t adequately cover the needs of our nuclear and technological age anymore. The founding fathers barely knew about electricity and had only begun to explore the mechanics of how things work that would lead to the computer age. Back then the rights of women, children and the elderly were barely thought about. It was assumed that family would look after and take care of any issues involving them.

True democracy frightened the founding fathers because they believed not everyone was intelligent enough to make informed decisions. The fact that a large part of the population was illiterate reinforced this notion. Then there were the institutions of slavery and aristocratic entitlement that impacted any further exploration of the ideals of equality and freedom. Like in the democracies of ancient Greece, these ideals didn’t apply to everyone.

Ideas of preserving the ecology of the earth in the early days of our country weren’t even considered then as the resources of the world and the wilderness seemed endless, even as recently as the last century. No one thought there possibly could be a limit; that we could use up all the resources and leave a barren planet. In fifty short years the once boundless ocean is quickly becoming a septic tank of polluted water and endangered species. As enlightened as the crafters of our Government were, they couldn’t have foreseen what would come about in the next two centuries.

With the rise in power of the conservative movement of mostly white men in America, it seems we are going backwards instead of forward. I really thought we would be exploring our solar system by now, that we would have solved the world’s problems with science, technology and sociology; that we would have advanced into a new civilization that preserved the planet for future generations, not only for humanity but all species that inhabit the world. I thought we would have ended hunger, useless suffering and abject poverty. There is no reason why this couldn’t have happened except for the greed of black hearted profiteers.

Now these profiteers have infiltrated our governmental ship of state and institutions because our antiquated laws and civic structures have allowed them to seep in through the cracks. Let’s face it, this old vessel of our state has had two hundred years to develop these cracks. Yes, repairs have been made over the centuries that put things right and the patches worked for awhile, but the old tub is leaking badly and we are all going to drown unless we build a new ship.

It’s time to draft a new constitution for a new America in a new world made dangerous by the privateers who are running things now. There are plenty of models to draw from of things that work, not to mention the wealth of science and technology to draw from. I think the events of the last thirty years have been leading to this. If we don’t, our country will collapse from it’s own weight and lack of flexibility.

Somewhere here in DU are the new leaders whose ideas will be drafted into a coherent and brilliant document to be presented for approval to the voters of America. I truly hope that this will happen in the near future for the sake of future generations.

My suggestion would be that candidates for elected offices be screened for their background and ability to do the job, the same way you would hire someone in your company, then and only then could they aspire to be candidates. If George Bush I had been screened, he would never had made the first cut, which would have saved us a lot of grief up to now.

What would you change if you could rewrite the Constitution?

[billbuckhead]

1. No more electoral college, no more 2nd amendment, corporations would

be more regulated. That's a good start.

[zonmoy]

95. The first thing

that would need to be changed would be to remove all rights from corporations.

[Faygo Kid]

2. Who will "screen the candidates?"

I believe this would put more power in the hands of the oligarchy, the very profiteers you rightly condemn. Unworkable, unwise. A Constitutional Convention would open up the protections of the Bill of Rights to the right wing. The problem isn't the Constitution, per se. The challenge is to make it work. That's always been the challenge.

[billbuckhead]

3. Hell the only amendment left standing is the 2nd because it's no threat to

the corporatocracy.

[Cleita]

4. Well, don't they have to go to the registrar's office to file?

It seems they should have to hand in a resume and take some tests. I always had to do this when I applied for a job even before I was considered for an interview. Couldn't there be a list of job qualifications for each position like in any corporation? I think a background check would be in order to for previous arrests, etc. That would have eliminated Darrell Issa.

[zeemike]

5. I am opposed

To any attempt to make a new constitution. There is nothing wrong with the one we have.
But what we do need badly is a new constitutional convention that would amend the document to spell out certain things that are being attacked.
An example is this; a corporation is considered to have all the rights of a citizen by a Supreme Court ruling in I think 1868 or so. Is this what we want as a society? If not, we can amend the constitution to say that only living people have the right of citizenship and spell it out so that no court in the future can rule against it.
The same is true of when life begins, and all the other questions that make us want to through out the good with the bad and start over.
The Constitution was meant to be amended and corrected with time and much of its legitimacy has to do with it being a timeless document that lives and grows with us.

[Some Moran]

15. Corporations were never given that right...

Some wack-job clerk illegally wrote it into an SC decision, and the robber barons have run away with it.

[JaySherman]

6. of, by, for... life, liberty, happiness

Taxpayer-funded elections, an end to the two-party system, tight corporate controls, separation of business and state along with church and state, abolition of corporate personhood, national health care, a living wage or inflation-adjusted minimum wage.

Taxpayer-funder elections are where it needs to start. Question is how to get there? We'd have to kick almost all the current people in power (Dem and Repub) out and that in itself would practically mean starting over.

We don't need to rewrite the Constitution itself, the ideas are fine in theory. But in practice we need a government that is truly of by and for the people and a system that truly grants freedom for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Cleita]

7. Exactly what I mean. We have to start over again.

[JaySherman]

9. I don't think it's about dumping the Constitution...

It's more about dumping the current handlers and putting people in power who serve the American people in accordance with the principles laid down in the blueprint.

Again, the question is how do we go about doing that? The concept in itself is almost revolutionary. And who really wants that? Since revolutions by nature tend to be violent. Unfortunately I don't have the answer. None of us seem to at this point.

[Cleita]

10. So you just think we shouldn't even talk about it.

I mean we are getting pretty close to becoming Germany under Hitler. Remember that Hitler took a decade to consolidate his power. Then it was too late. We have got to go back to the drawing board and soon.

[JaySherman]

21. Quite the contrary...

I believe the issue absolutely needs to discussed. That's what I thought this thread was: an open discussion on the subject. I was just stating my view. I was also stating honestly I don't have a bloody clue how to start changing things. Just a few wacky ideas about America someday being a liberal democracy.

I do agree that America appears to head down the fast road to fascism. I also believe those of us on the progressive side are for the most part chasing our tails trying to figure out what to do about it. If we weren't something would have been done already.

2004 is shaping up to be the crossroads. But even if we kick Bush and the neocons out, there's still going to a monumental amount of work needing to be done. It won't end the problem by a longshot, but it will be a start. Germany 1939 (actually more like 1933) is not an inaccurate comparison, and we have to remember, Hitler was "elected" too.

Once again, I don't think the problem is the Constitution itself. The concept and the ideas on paper are wonderful. The problem is the flaws in the system, which I think resembles little of the original ideal. That's why I don't think kicking Bush out will solve all out problems. Essentially what we're seeing in Bush and the neocons is the exploitation and exposure of the flaws inherent in system itself. A system that has since developed not in response the original Constitution, but largely in response to the interests of business, especially over the last 60-odd years (since the end of WWII). In particular, the deregulation of industry has led to a merger of business and government that has put us down this road toward facism.

So if I have any answer on how to start fixing things, it begins with kicking Bush and his cohorts the hell out of town. Nothing is going to change for the better until then. But that will just put us back where we were in about 1999. The flaws in the system will still be there. Then the question is, what do we do after that?

In all honesty, I'm not sure there will be any dramatic changes until the social and economic situation gets so bad that people get ticked off enough to start a mass popular movement. Until then we're only going to see more of the band-aid solutions. But we've got to keep working just the same, and hope we can make changes before it comes to that.

[Cleita]

23. So you hit on the core of what I was trying to get to.

BushCo got there because of the flaws in an antiquated document that either needs a lot of reworking or needs to be replaced with one that addresses our very modern problems. Otherwise even if we kick this crowd out the circumstances are ripe for a whole new bunch of gangsters to come it and this time they could be our gangsters.

[tom_paine]

8. You know what Jefferson said on this subject...

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment? laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind? as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times? We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
-- Thomas Jefferson, on reform of the Virginia Constitution

" monarchs instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits and obliged their subjects to seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself and of ordering its own affairs. Let us... avail ourselves of our reason and experience to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41

=============================================================

The only problem is...who could be entrusted with such an undertaking. The pathetic group of Imperial Senators and Toadies that make up the Empire's government today? Hah, they with few exceptions would side with King George then as they do today!

Perhaps a council of those murdered by the Imperial Family, if such a thing were possible. A council of the Honored Dead:

JFK
RFK
MLK
John Heinz
Carnahan
Wellstone

[arewethereyet]

11. Actually I like the Constitution as it is

now if we would only go back to actually governing the country the way it states that we should, that would be a very good thing.

[Cleita]

12. Too many loopholes and ambiguities need to be fixed first.

Also, there is nothing to address our new ways of doing war and our new technology. At least this much needs to be crafted into something workable.

[Johnyawl]

16. I like the loopholes and ambiguities !

They've worked well for us in the past, and will do so again, once we have the right people running things.

If you think for a moment that you can build an ironclad, tamper proof system, one that can't be corrupted, morphed into something different, or turned to the dark side, you are seriously fooling yourself. No matter what kind of constitution you have, no matter how rigid, clear stated, and straight forward it is, no matter that you think you've provided for every eventuality, all it takes is for people to stop paying attention, to become apathetic, and that system will be corrupted, and turned to the use of those who desire nothing but wealth and power.

You can't legislate around human failings.

[Cleita]

18. This is why most of us shouldn't write it but you just

wrote the key phrase, "once we have the right people running things." That's not going to happen until we fix things. How about some serious penalties for lies and other malfaence while in office?

[Johnyawl]

20. We already have that, it's called impeachment

You do remember the republicans impeaching President Clinton for lying? EVERY system has the potential to be abused. You cannot fix it so it can't be abused. What we have has worked pretty damned good for 200 years, and has evolved as times has changed. We have come very close to facism before, and survived; we will survive this.

[fujiyama]

17. Much of these ideas

you've brought forth could be ammended WITHIN the constitution that stands right now. This of course requires better political leadership, all over the nation to accomplish.

Technically I'm curious how the nation would go about such a thing. The US Constitution is the longest standing constitution in the the history of man. It has served as a great inspiration to many other nations, and is one of the greatest documents in all of human history.

I would agree that many things that have proved to be of great importance, especially regarding science and technology were not included in the original document. This of course, is the challenge of any constitution. The question of how narrow or how broad a consitution is, is being discussed in Europe as well at the moment, as they are considering (or may have already) ratified their constitution.

There are several points in the constitution that could be changed. Ideally, certain contentious issues such as the death penalty, gun control, abortion, and the right of corporations, would be more clearly defined.

Another issue that would better be addressed are the inequalities in the voting system, and the electoral college itself. Does the EC still serve its purpose? Has the EC proven itself, untrue to the consistution itself, especially the 14th ammendment? Does representational voting provide a more democratic approach to the nation?

These and many questions could be answered by various ammendments. A new constitution seems unecessary and as a framework, it has mostly proven itself the test of time, though this is definetely questionable right now, and would definetely be in doubt, if this administration continues another term.

[Cleita]

19. So what is your suggestion to get the intelligencia to

the table and the crooks out of office? Voting doesn't seem to work anymore.

[Yupster]

97. Electoral College a relic

Once the decision was made to abandon the states as the principal level of governance of the country, the electoral college became a relic and should have been changed.

The electoral college was to guarantee state legislatures the ultimate right to choose the president, as they also had the right to choose the senators. Once state legislatures were downgraded, there's really no point in it anymore.

These issues were solved at Appomattox and with the 17th Amendment. It's time to clean up the remnants like the electoral college.

[Norcom]

36. New ways of war

how do you want the constitution to address "new ways of doing war"?

[Cleita]

40. Considering at the time of the Revolutionary war

we were still pretty much doing hand to hand combat, I think that the fact that it's possible to put a bunch of satellites up in the sky to blow up everything to smithereens warrants cut and dried guidelines for when and how we will engage in war. Apparently having Congress declare war doesn't work anymore as a deterrent so we need better rules with stiffer penalties for upending the Constitution's war rules. War is no longer played on limited battlefields. It's everywhere.

We also need some very concrete policies for Foreign Affairs and diplomatic missions, which our present Constitution doesn't address at all.

[Norcom]

42. I disagree

I think that the fact that it's possible to put a bunch of satellites up in the sky to blow up everything to smithereens warrants cut and dried guidelines for when and how we will engage in war.

Let me know when our enemies will agree to these standards.

We also need some very concrete policies for Foreign Affairs and diplomatic missions, which our present Constitution doesn't address at all.

And your new fantasy Constitution will be able to be written to address all foreign affairs and diplomatic missions that will arise?

[Cleita]

45. Shouldn't it at least address this?

We have the worst record of diplomatic blunders in modern history. The ugly American isn't just a stereotype. He exists where he doesn't belong, in our government. I want this to change and many other people with international viewpoints do as well.

[Norcom]

55. How exactly

would it address it? And be very, very specific. No generalities. Specifics only.

And as I said before. When our enemies, current and future agree to and abide by the same standards then I will begin to even consider it.

[arewethereyet]

93. like I said, if we just play it like it stands, its fine

we have moved away from that with legislation that is a bit contrary to that. However our elected representatives voted for it and they are our proxies.

If you don't like the way things shift then you show your favor with your vote.

A Constitution is not intended to be really specific on everything so as to allow the prevailing public sentiment to have a voice.

Its fine. Leave it be.

As for the state of war, remember what Pope Gregory said about the crossbow, that it was a weapon so terrible that it would render war too horrible to contimplate. Nothing stops the development of better weapons. It started with Og finding a bigger stick or rock...

[Silverhair]

13. Do you really think that only Liberals would do the rewriting?

I am sure that the right would also have a wish list of things they would like to see in a new constitution. Do you think they would be idle? What about states that didn't want to stay with the new constitution? You could easily find yourself with New England as one country, the south & west as a country, and the west coast as a country.

[Cleita]

14. The West Coast as a country would work for me.

Seriously, do we really have to invite the neo-cons? Actually the first Constitution was written for the benefit of those who wrote it, mainly land owners so there is a precedent for not inviting everyone to the table.

[jackcgt]

22. It'll never happen...

No that it doesn't need to, but it won't. There are too many people interested in keeping it as is, and too many issues that are intractable should it be changed. Also, we may try to sew up loopholes, but new and perhaps nastier ones will appear. It would be an exercise in the law of unintended consequences.

[grasswire]

24. I would codify..

...access of the press to the White House. My constitution would require the president to hold a monthly press conference, not allow the WH to ban reporters except by a decision of their peers, and other measures to enforce transparency and strengthen the press.

[Cleita]

27. Giving the press the access it needs is very necessary

for a true democracy.

[Norcom]

38. True democracy

is the last system of government that should be aspired for. Tyranny of the Majority is not a way to govern.

[Cleita]

48. Well, where it has been tried, it works pretty well.

[Norcom]

56. And where is that

Where as an absolute democracy been tried and shown to work "pretty well"?

And I would prefer something to work more than "pretty well".

[jpgray]

25. Eh, there's one catch to this :-)

You say we can't get the right people in power because of problems with the Constitution, but only those with power will have the ability to amend or change the Constitution.

It's trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube--either clean up the mess or wait until toothpaste is everywhere and you have a disaster on your hands, because you're not getting that toothpaste back in the tube.

:)

What I mean is, we can hope for some superficial healing and maintenance, or a big disaster. But real, effective change will probably only happen with the disaster. And then that change will attract the ambitious folks who will turn it into a personal springboard and the same old corruptions will crop up again. Hey, it's happened uncounted times in history.

[Adjoran]

26. Neither necessary, nor proper

The problems aren't with the Constitution at all. Sure, there are a few points that could use clarifying, but that is what the Amendment process is for. A corrective Amendment would have a lot better chance of being ratified than a whole new Constitution.

Most of the problems are either with the laws, or their enforcement. These problems can be dealt with by the legislature and executive branches as presented constituted.

Any change to the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of either both Houses of Congress, or a Constitutional Convention, AND ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures. That is a tall order, requiring almost a consensus. Good luck!

As pointed out, if we elect the right leaders, the problems will get solved with tinkering with the Constitution, and it only requires a simple majority of votes to do it. We'll be able to effect change that way long before we could ever enact a new Constitution.

[Cleita]

30. I hope you aren't referring to the majority of votes

that got Shrub into office and recently Arnold the Groper. We have some serious problems and it looks like the old fashioned ways for dealing with them aren't working. Our election process has been compromised. Wake up!

[DebJ]

59. why do you think/how can you say Shrub got in by a majority of votes?

[SahaleArm]

64. Change the Elected Officials not the Constitution.

Sure from the standpoint of the last election that can be argued; but Democrats need to get people to vote and change the laws within the framework of the constitution. The constitution is there so that peoples right to liberty is not abridged by the government. The goal of the constitution is to set limits to what the govenment can do.

Congress shall pass no law...

Within such a framework we can have universal healthcare, tougher corporate laws, better energy infrastructure, and better public transit. It's the lawmakers, not the constitution, that haven't made any of this possible. Change the President, the Congress, and the Senate before changing the constitution.

[Yupster]

98. I'd like to see more amendments

proposed and passed to the Constitution. I don't like the Constitution being gradually changed over time by court decisions without votes to do it.

[Character Assassin]

28. The Constitution is just fine as it is; science has little to do with it

Let’s face it, the two hundred years old Constitution doesn’t adequately cover the needs of our nuclear and technological age anymore.

No, there is nothing to face; the Consitution is just fine for our times, and technology, whether nuclear or not, is irrelevant to it.

The founding fathers barely knew about electricity and had only begun to explore the mechanics of how things work that would lead to the computer age.

And this is relevant to rights and powers exactly how?

Back then the rights of women, children and the elderly were barely thought about. It was assumed that family would look after and take care of any issues involving them.

The rights of women and children today, however, are well-established.

True democracy frightened the founding fathers because they believed not everyone was intelligent enough to make informed decisions.

'True' democracy should be frightening to anyone not interested in mob rule, and the nature of democracy is indeed such that not everyone is intelligent enough to make such decisions.

As far back as Plato, it was clear that democracy will eat itself.

The fact that a large part of the population was illiterate reinforced this notion. Then there were the institutions of slavery and aristocratic entitlement that impacted any further exploration of the ideals of equality and freedom. Like in the democracies of ancient Greece, these ideals didn’t apply to everyone.

What does that have to do with rights and powers today?

Ideas of preserving the ecology of the earth in the early days of our country weren’t even considered then as the resources of the world and the wilderness seemed endless, even as recently as the last century.

This has nothing to do with the current structure of the Constitution.

No one thought there possibly could be a limit; that we could use up all the resources and leave a barren planet. In fifty short years the once boundless ocean is quickly becoming a septic tank of polluted water and endangered species. As enlightened as the crafters of our Government were, they couldn’t have foreseen what would come about in the next two centuries.

This has nothing to do with the current structure of the Constitution.

With the rise in power of the conservative movement of mostly white men in America, it seems we are going backwards instead of forward.

We disagree.

I really thought we would be exploring our solar system by now

We've been doing that for over 40 years.

...that we would have solved the world’s problems with science, technology and sociology...

If you were familiar with science, technology and sociology, why on earth would you think that?

that we would have advanced into a new civilization that preserved the planet for future generations, not only for humanity but all species that inhabit the world.

On what grounds could you justify that outlook?

I thought we would have ended hunger, useless suffering and abject poverty.

What brought you to that conclusion, and what does it have to do with the current structure of the Constituion?

There is no reason why this couldn’t have happened except for the greed of black hearted profiteers.

Bullshit.

Now these profiteers have infiltrated our governmental ship of state and institutions because our antiquated laws and civic structures have allowed them to seep in through the cracks.

So name some names and cite specific examples, relating to the Constitution.

Let’s face it, this old vessel of our state has had two hundred years to develop these cracks. Yes, repairs have been made over the centuries that put things right and the patches worked for awhile, but the old tub is leaking badly and we are all going to drown unless we build a new ship.

No, we're not.

It’s time to draft a new constitution for a new America in a new world made dangerous by the privateers who are running things now. There are plenty of models to draw from of things that work, not to mention the wealth of science and technology to draw from. I think the events of the last thirty years have been leading to this. If we don’t, our country will collapse from it’s own weight and lack of flexibility.

I'll ask you again: what does science and technology have to do with the structure of our Constitution, and what makes you think they would add anything at all to a new draft? Please be very, very specific.

Somewhere here in DU are the new leaders whose ideas will be drafted into a coherent and brilliant document to be presented for approval to the voters of America. I truly hope that this will happen in the near future for the sake of future generations.

My suggestion would be that candidates for elected offices be screened for their background and ability to do the job, the same way you would hire someone in your company, then and only then could they aspire to be candidates.

I would take up arms to prevent this from occuring. It is a Pandora's Box worthy of Joeseph Stalin.

If George Bush I had been screened, he would never had made the first cut, which would have saved us a lot of grief up to now.

Depends on who is doing the screening. That's a knife that cuts both ways.

What would you change if you could rewrite the Constitution?

Strengthen the 4th Amendment.

[Cleita]

29. I have to disagree with every point of disagreement you made with me.

Today Science and technology can devastate the planet as much as that ancient asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs. Our governments and political institutions have to address this major problem. The Constitution is as outdated as the Ten Commandments and the Bible for addressing new problems that didn't exist in the days that they were crafted.

If you think the rights of women, children and the elderly are being addressed today, please remove your head from the sand and open your eyes.

[ACK]

31. But why a brand new government or constitution

The Constitution is as outdated as the Ten Commandments and the Bible for addressing new problems that didn't exist in the days that they were crafted.

Its called an amendment.

What rights for the elderly, women and children should be addressed in an amendment?

That is the real question.

The constitution is actually a pretty bare bones piece of documentation laying really only the foundation of a stronger federal government over the states and laying out a balance of power between the executive, the legislature and the judicial branches.

The bill of rights were amendments to the constitution.

If you look at the history of constitutions and governments both state and other federal documents from other countries I believe that the number of amendments to the Constitution are pretty small next to other documents of this type.

Frustration with a government in power should not necessarily lead to a reactionary response to the system itself.

[Cleita]

32. Read Q's post here and you will see why.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=730589&mesg_id=730589

[ACK]

41. I read it and I don't buy the new constitution arg still

Q was talking about how the state of law has become a state that ignores its laws.

Deal is that any system no matter how well crafted can become a lawless state.

If you re-write the constitution it still does not matter if a one-party state arises again and goes into the same lawless state.

[Norcom]

34. No

The constitution is actually a pretty bare bones piece of documentation laying really only the foundation of a strong federal government over the states and laying out a balance of power between the executive, the legislature and the judicial branches.

No. The Constitution LIMITS the power, scope, and authority of the Federal Government. And the Founding Fathers wanted a WEAK federal government, not a strong one. They wanted government to be 10% federal and 90% local.

[ACK]

39. Ok, typing issue strong should have been stronger

stronger should have been what I typed.

The Constitution established a real federal system as opposed to the federation present before that.

[Yupster]

100. Agree Norcom, but

since we've made the decision to move from local power to central power, don't we need to amend the document to conform to that decision.

[Yupster]

99. Best part of the Constitution is

Article V

How to amend the constitution.

[Character Assassin]

33. You seem to be exaggerating things to an unwarranted degree.

Today Science and technology can devastate the planet as much as that ancient asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.

Again, that is irrelevant to the structure of the Constitution. It's a document that delineates gov't powers and enumerates certain, but not all, rights of the citizenry. It doesn't need to make specific allowances for science and technology.

Our governments and political institutions have to address this major problem.

They already can and do. It's called 'making laws'. It isn't a Consitutional issue.

The Constitution is as outdated as the Ten Commandments and the Bible for addressing new problems that didn't exist in the days that they were crafted.

Please substantiate your contention. There are no problems that the Constitution can't cover, and the Ten Commandments have absolutely nothing to do with this issue.

If you think the rights of women, children and the elderly are being addressed today, please remove your head from the sand and open your eyes.

Gosh, you're right. Women, children and the elderly have it worse than slaves in the old Confederacy. How could I possibly have missed that?

[Cleita]

35. Gee, I can't afford medication for my husband and myself

because our health care dollars are being robbed by the for profit health industry, which this crooked regime is getting ready to award them even more of our health care dollars in the next few days. Now, tell me where I am missing out on something? As a woman I have had to work for a fraction of what any man had to work for, which in the long run has affected my retirement and future healthcare in old age. Tell me how equal I am and how the Constitution has protected me from this?

[Norcom]

37. I get the feeling

that you would like this man to write the "new constitution".

[Cleita]

43. Well, you're wrong.

It would take a congress of men and women, of equal numbers and a variety of backgrounds to do so. I have nothing against a socialistic/capitalistic state, one that involves real democracy not some ass baiting the electorate by telling them what he's going to do for them and then switching to tell them that only he knows what good for the country.

I hate totalitarianism like the Nazis and Soviets, but this is what we have now if you haven't looked around and beyond the propaganda being fed to you. We need to stop it and it is the power of the people that will do it.

[Norcom]

44. If you think

we are living in a totalitarian state like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union you need to up your medication.

[Cleita]

50. Gee I wish I could afford that medication.

But since I don't have insurance anymore because I am retired, I guess I'll just have to rant and rave until someone decides to shut me up, just like they do in totalitarian states.

[Norcom]

60. That you can sit here

and type what you are typing. Speak it publicly if you want. Publish it in a book. Or any other form of speech you choose is evidence that you are not living in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

Go out in public and criticize Bush. If you are not locked up or "disappeared" your argument is bogus.

[zonmoy]

102. Perhaps

but can you deny that we are heading in that direction.

[ACK]

49. Reactionary response

Sure, all you have to do is re-write things from the ground up and polticians will be honest and the threat of the rise of a one-party state goes away.

I don't buy it. Read the Constitution. Read the amendments. Very carefully.

The reason that document is very barebones is that gives it flexibility. Amend it. Fix it. Abolish it? That is just silly. There are some great concepts there.

[SahaleArm]

67. I trust Madison, Jefferson, and Franklin...

over any of todays politicians.

[Nederland]

46. This is what you are missing

Government does not exist to meet your needs. That is your responsibility.

[Cleita]

47. Wrong again.

Government should exist to meet not only my needs but the needs of every living thing in it's jurisdiction, because government should be by all the people, not a few kings who run the government for their needs at everyone else's expense. Go back to your palace. You aren't needed here.

[ACK]

51. Woh that is harsh... Clieta

Go back to your palace. You aren't needed here.

Did a read that right. WTF? I thought we were talking not flaming.

Please I am asking nice calm down or the thread will get locked.

[Nederland]

52. Response

The thing that you seem to be missing here is that "the government" is nothing more than a group of people. Its not like government is some group of space aliens or machines--ultimately government is nothing more than the people that make it up. Therefore, when you say "Government should exist to meet not only my needs but the needs of every living thing in it's jurisdiction", you are basically saying that it is one group of people's responsiblity to take care of the rest of us. My question for you then is this: why should one group of people be burdened with a greater responsibility than others? Shouldn't we all be expected to contribute to society in equal measure?

[Cleita]

53. This is not so.

It is our responsibility to get those people we pay with our taxes to do their job and for that we need to have a rule of law that works for everyone, not one that can be bent for the benefit of a few. Our taxes should be a pooled resource to benefit everyone, not only with roads and utilites, the traditional ones, but health care, education and all those things that ordinary individuals can't do for themselves but that a group can effect. We don't have that. Instead our tax money is being funneled into a black hole of corporate malfaesance.

[Nederland]

63. Questions

In your opinion, is there anything that government should not do? You claim that government should do "all those things that ordinary individuals can't do for themselves but that a group can effect." That's practically everything. For example, an individual can't build a car. Should government build cars? I fail to see how your definition places any limits on the size and scope of government--one of the key concerns that motivated the writers of the Constitution.

[Norcom]

57. Meet your needs?

Well, you need food. I am sure you need a car to get to and from various locations. You also need housing. Not to mention clothes.

Should the government provide you with free food, car, clothes, and a home?

Why shouldn't you be responsible for supplying these things for yourself?

I provide them for myself just fine.

[Cleita]

61. Yes, because you have a job that enables you to afford all

these things. The reason you can is because of the ghosts of workers past who died sometimes in violent strikes to raise the ante, otherwise you wouldn't be earning anymore than our poor souls in Mexico who work for so little that our minimum wage looks like a fortune to them. One of these days you are going to be too old to work, then how are you going to afford these things? Don't count on your retirement planning. Anything can happen. This is why SS was implemented as a safety net for what could happen. Now they are trying to get this away from us.

[Norcom]

66. Your crazy

no one is proposing to take away your social security.

And no, you are NOT entitled to a car, clothes, house, food, and other items provided by myself and other tax payers.

You are very bitter. I suspect you have made some very poor decisions in the past and the consequences of them are causing you great grief.

[Cleita]

84. Geez, gimme a break.

I can see now why this country is going to hell because people like you are voting for it to go to hell. I am trying to explain facts to you and all you can see is that they are taking a deduction out of your check so some poor person "who made bad decisions" doesn't have to be homeless and eat out of garbage cans. Such a compassionate conservative you are.

[Norcom]

86. again

you are entitled to the standard SS and medicare benefit. But you are asking for far more than that.

Imagine what you could have done with 15% of your income over the years if you have the ability to control it for retirement purposes. But the government has forced us into this system, that is truly a pyramid scheme and amounts to crumbs when the checks come.

Hopefully my children and grand children will not be burdened by this system, and I would hope that you would want better for yours as well.

[Character Assassin]

54. That is not a right of any kind. It's an entitlement.

IOW, the gov't is actually providing for you some service or good/product.

our health care dollars are being robbed by the for profit health industry, which this crooked regime is getting ready to award them even more of our health care dollars in the next few days.

Such an overarching generalization is impossible to respond to in specific terms. Suffice it to say we disagree. Not everything is a conspiracy from a smokey back room.

Now, tell me where I am missing out on something? As a woman I have had to work for a fraction of what any man had to work for, which in the long run has affected my retirement and future healthcare in old age.

A 'fraction' could be anything from 1% to 99.99% Unless you actually quantify that number, I can't answer.

Tell me how equal I am and how the Constitution has protected me from this?

There is no right to equal pay, with the singular exception of gov't employees. You are payed by your relative worth. If some foolish employer is going to pay you less than your value to the company represents, you vote with your feet.

[Cleita]

58. Let me explain it to you, it is an entitlement, which I have

paid into all my life, now I am entitled. You never walked in my shoes in my era to even pass a judgement like that. I was never paid what I was worth or what my education warranted because I was a woman. When I started working women made 63 cents on the dollar that a man made. I had to train fresh guy out of college after fresh guy out of college at one job, which job I was never offered, because I was a woman "and would probably leave to get married and pregnant anyway" so don't tell me what I am entitled to.

[Norcom]

62. Are you always walking around

with your hand out?

And if you were not satisfied with your employer you should have sought employment else where. Or gasp, STARTED YOUR OWN BUSINESS!

Millions of people do it every year.

[Cleita]

72. Hey I'm sixty three years old.

My husband is dying on me and requires full time care. I have never walked around with my hand out. It isn't out now. I did a calculation on the money we contributed over the years to SS and Medicare. I converted it into today's dollars with a small interest like if we had saved it instead. We are entitled to every penny we will get in the next thirty years. Screw you and that elephant you rode in on. Your ideas belong on the Free Republic not here.

[Norcom]

74. Its not out?

You continual demands of "I'm entitled" says different.


I did a calculation on the money we contributed over the years to SS and Medicare. I converted it into today's dollars with a small interest like if we had saved it instead. We are entitled to every penny we will get in the next thirty years.

Actually, you are not entitled to a single penny of it. Go to the government and demand the amount you calculated you are do and see how much you get. ZERO!

Now, if you had been able to save that money over your 40+ year working career instead of having it taken by the government you would have a hell of a nest egg available to you. I wish you had had that ability. I wish I had that ability. Hopefully my children will.

[SahaleArm]

77. The #1 mistake is expecting SS/Medicare to cover retirement.

Rarely happens unless you own your property free and clear. Even then a nest egg is imperative before contemplating retirement for emergency funds.

[Norcom]

80. Tell that

to Cleita, not me.

[Cleita]

87. I have a nest egg. It has provided less and less income

since el Busho took over. Oh yes it's also worth a third of what it was under Clinton. Although I considered SS to be unimportant, it has in the long run turned out to be more important. I have never owned property. God didn't bless me this way, but kudos to all those white Republican men who could afford to.

[SahaleArm]

91. Nest egg in securities.

It sounds like you weren't diversified enough; when you're close to retirement it's better to be in cash, bonds, CD's, and other fixed-income financial instruments. Stocks are just too volatile.

[Cleita]

81. So according to you, I should have paid all my life

into programs that aided your grandparents and great grandparents and I am not supposed to want any back?

[Norcom]

83. Not at all

You paid into SS and medicare and should get the standard benefits of the program. But you are asking for far more than just your monthly SS check.

[Norcom]

76. appreciate if you could

go back to post #55 and #56 to fill me in on your ideas.

[Nederland]

78. Hard to believe

It isn't out now. I did a calculation on the money we contributed over the years to SS and Medicare. I converted it into today's dollars with a small interest like if we had saved it instead. We are entitled to every penny we will get in the next thirty years.

Hard to believe that's true. Simply because of the way demographics have worked these past 40 years a 63 year old person is likely to get way more from the government than they ever paid in. The only way you could have possibly put as much into the system as you are getting out is if you are very, very wealthy. I don't get the sense that you are in that category.

[Nederland]

68. Question

Let me explain it to you, it is an entitlement, which I have paid into all my life, now I am entitled.

Do you expect to get more out of it than you paid in?

[Cleita]

79. This is soooo mean I am sputtering now.

If you have grandparents, no doubt your contributions in SS and Medicare don't even cover what they get. How would you like to take on the whole burden? The problem is that you will never not pay into these programs. It's just that the Washington crooks are diverting the money away from those they were originally intended for and into corporate profits on the stock market.

You know I will be dead by the time you realize what a ride you are being taken on and I don't care. People like you deserve to be tricked for being mean and greedy.

[Norcom]

82. I notice you are supporting Howard Dean

the same Howard Dean that proposed cutting medicare, increasing SS taxes, reducing benefits and increasing the eligibility age.

How do you reconcile that with all you have said on this thread?

[Nederland]

89. Response

This is soooo mean I am sputtering now.

It wasn't mean, it was a question.

If you have grandparents, no doubt your contributions in SS and Medicare don't even cover what they get.

Actually they do. The fact of the matter is that I was born at the wrong time in history. People like you enjoyed living in a period in which there were 5-10 working people for every 1 Social Security recipient. Today the ratio is close to 2 working people per Social Security recipient. Given the fact that I'm in a higher income bracket than most, my SS taxes are pretty close to what my father receives (my grandparents are dead already).

Don't get me wrong. I believe in a progressive tax structure and see nothing wrong with the fact that I have to pay about 10 times in taxes what most people pay. What pisses me off however, is people that don't appreciate the fact that I am paying for their retirement and seem to think that they are entitled to recieve an even larger share of my income. In this case, that would be you.

[Character Assassin]

69. I'm not. I'm telling you what you're not entitled to.

Let me explain it to you, it is an entitlement, which I have paid into all my life, now I am entitled.

You've paid into a magical health care/drug fund your whole life, and now you're entitled to it? That's certainly an interesting take on it. Where is this repository of money, pray tell.

You never walked in my shoes in my era to even pass a judgement like that. I was never paid what I was worth or what my education warranted because I was a woman.

I'm not passing judgement. You think you're owed something that isn't a right. I don't think you're owed anything in particular.

When I started working women made 63 cents on the dollar that a man made. I had to train fresh guy out of college after fresh guy out of college at one job, which job I was never offered, because I was a woman "and would probably leave to get married and pregnant anyway" so don't tell me what I am entitled to.

So, therefore, the gov't owes you for life? Suffice it to say we disagree. Completely.

[DebJ]

65. yeah right vote with your feet as you move on to the next employer who

also discriminates ....

[Norcom]

70. Here is a noval idea

Start your own company. Then you can discriminate against yourself!

[DebJ]

85. banks don't give loans to women......but then again that is probably why

women owned businesses have a much higher success rate than males. A few years ago in Maryland, I believe the statistics were something like 85% of women-owned businesses passed the critical five year mark, while well less then half of men owned businesses did.

[Character Assassin]

88. Banks don't 'give' loans to anyone.

That would be what's known as a grant.

Banks, however, do approve loans for businesses owned by women.

A few years ago in Maryland, I believe the statistics were something like 85% of women-owned businesses passed the critical five year mark, while well less then half of men owned businesses did.

So where are all the bank failures in MD, then? Evidently, the banks were far too stupid and sexist to invest in loaning money to the people who have by far the better track record at making businesses successful, and they loaned funds to incompetents who failed better than 50% of the time.

Perhaps it's just magic.

[Nederland]

90. Sure

Banks don't give loans to women? Right... I guess all my female friends with houses got their money from the tooth fairy.

[Nederland]

71. Why

...do you assume that you have to work for someone else? Starting your own business in Colorado costs $25.

[Character Assassin]

73. Well, gosh. I guess that clears it up. Women just can't get a break

As every employer discriminates against them, and decides they'd rather not maximize the value of their company, but lose worth and a competitive edge to some other company, just because they don't like women.

Righto.

[DebJ]

75. Nothing works if it is NOT USED. People are not voting, nor even

paying sufficient attention. We have the tools we need to prevent this crap from happening....but the people refuse to pay attention/they want to keep dreaming on....so they don't recognize the very real need for them to get off their butts and learn and vote.

As was said in the Declaration of Independence
"history has shown that mankind is more likely to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are acccustomed...but when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, IT IS THEIR DUTY...etc
Everyone has been too spoiled for too long and doesn't want to recognize their rights and duties. They want to wake up one day and find out someone ELSE took care of everything for them.
We have to FORCE facts down the throats of the unwilling public, then let them decide....I liked Gore's speech the other day...he kept saying things like, "Is this what we want?" What this country needs is for everyone to be forced to see the facts and then be forced to answer the question, IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT????
Also in the Declaration of Independance, it says after the words "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" :
"that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED".
Well, people, ABSENCE OF DISSENT IS CONSENT.
OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR LAWS GIVE US THE POWER WE NEED TO TAKE BACK OUR GOVERNMENT. PROBLEM IS, MOST PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE CLUELESS AS YET OF WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN ROBBED.

Don't focus on changing the institution, focus on getting people to see they need to use it.

[The Commie]

92. My Ideas Are...

1. Replace the current Senate with one with proportional representation, as in many European countries. This is to weaken the 2-party system.

2. Scrap the Electoral College.

3. Presidents have a single, 6 year term.

4. Supreme Court justices serve for 10 years, not for life.

5. Publically funded elections.

6. Amendments are started by petition and voted on by a 66% referendum. Improvements in communication have made the current amendment process obsolete.

[Yupster]

101. Why not get rid

of states entirely. They're kind of a relic of a past age anyway.

[Cascadian]

94. I have been talking about this for years.

First of all, get rid of the electoral college. I would also create a new updated version of the Bill of Rights. Plus, I would make the electoral process available to ALL political parties and not just a duoply that we have now. I would also let states have more control of their own govenment. No more conservative states like Alabama telling states like Washington or Oregon how to run their lives. I will even put into an amendment, I right to decent health care and for a quality public education for all. Also, our armed forces will be used only for own defense and intrusion on other countries.

I have many other ideas that I have but I you get the idea.

John

[Cascadian]

104. CORRECTION

That should be NO INTRUSION in regards to armed forces.

[mmonk]

96. We don't need a new constitution

we need the truth to be told to the American people. We need politicos to stop going around the constitution. We need to return to the idea of citizen government (untarnished by money). We need the president to face congress and answer questions like the prime minister of Britain does in the House of Commons and it needs to be televised.

[quaker bill]

103. A few changes

Flush the electoral college, it over represents the red states.

Flush 'states rights' This is one country with a highly mobile population, 'states rights' is an artifact of horse and buggy colonialism.

Eliminate the constitutional 'right to bear arms'. While allowing reasonable possession of arms for use in sport and as necessary for personal defense.

Modify private property rights in the 4th ammendment to allow for land use regulation in the public interest while assuring that if government actually 'takes' land for public use the previous owner is properly and fully compensated.

[Scott Lee]

105. One is coming whether we like it or not

This isn't pure political opinion, but historical fact. No politico/economic system lasts forever, and frankly one that is predicated on 19th century capitalism will fall when that system does.

Why will capitalism fall? Because what it needs to sustain itself will fall. It needs to grow, make new markets in order to maintain. With a growing population and shrinking resources, well, do the math - it just aint there. As capitalism replaced feudalism, something will replace capitalism when the time is right. Mercantilism, and buying and selling, will always be with us. But that is not the same as the capitalism we say that we know.

Once that econommic cosmology has changed, the systems by which nations govern themselves will follow suit. What will ours be like? That's a tough call. But one thing is for sure; Dean was right in noting that we won't always have the strongest military. In fact, we may not have much resembling our Constitution today at all.

[lostnfound]

106. Representation for DC residents n/t