Call it what you want, I'm in favor of strict Constitutionalism, so yeah that would be a reversion of sorts. I don't think we need anything radical or some great new reform. We just need to get back to a Government that behaves the way the founders intended. As far as what caused us to stray, it seems to me that, as a growing child will do, we began to look at the Constitution as a set of limitations instead of provisions. In other words, we just sort of assume we are free to do anything the Constitution doesn't expressly say we can't do, and if it does say we can't do it, we appoint judges who interpret things so creatively that we get around it. How is it that the Constitution describes such a limited range of things the Government can do, and yet they always seem to be able to do what they want? This spying thing is symptomatic of that- it seems obvious to the casual reader that the writers of the Constitution would have never wanted this. And yet, lawyers being lawyers, they found a way to make it fit. Or maybe they aren't even bothering with that on these deep a level, I don't know.
The other thing to consider here is that this does not come without a price. Monitoring everybody's phone calls, emails, and so on is going to get easier and easier as technology advances. How long before what the NSA is doing now becomes something that you can do in your living room? Do you even know whether or not that is the case right now? What I'm getting at is, there may be a point in the near future in which so many people are (or are capable) of spying on your communications that making it illegal for the Gov't to do so serves no purpose but to hinder intelligence gathering without any real improvement to privacy. I don't want the U.S. Government spying on me. But I like the idea of everybody EXCEPT the U.S. Government spying on me even less. I know you're Canadian, so there's a point here where our mutual interests diverge- I'd rather be in a situation where my Government retains it's ability to spy on you (and me to a lesser extent of course), if every criminal/enemy/creep out there is doing it anyway.
Yes, that is true.
with love,
sanjay
Moreno,
Now you are spitting hair.
Are we talking about the rulers or saints instead?
One cannot be behave like a monk or sage if he wants his regime to be in order and intact too.
One cannot offer the other cheek like Gandhi, if attacked by any enemy, either from outside or inside. He has to reply in a fitting way. Even a man like Gandhi himself askeded that Pakistan should be given fitting military reply if it ever attaks India. He did not ask to follow non-violence in that case.
Did you notice that i did not mention Alexgender and Ganges Khan, even though they brought far more victories to their countries than those i mentioned?
Given the circumstances and considerations of their era, all those were better by far than most of the democratically chosen Nixons, Regans and Bushs.
So, what is the point in democracy?
Moreno,
It is not the system that fails people, it is the people that use to fail systems.
If people are good, any system would work successfully.
Think of communism. What is bad in it theoretically?
If all participants of communism would be wise, it would work even better than democracy.
Communism is an Ideal state, while democracy is not.
There is no better solution to remove the shortcoming of the democracy other than filtering out unwise participants in one way or other. Let us focus more on the participants than the syatem itself.
Furthermore, a governing system is required only because the people are unwise. If all citizen of any country would become wise anyhow, there would be no need of any administration or ruler. Wise people will manage all by themselves.
If there were no crimes and culprits, there will not be any need of police and judges.
with love,
sanjay
And thus the high authority creates criminals and culprits so as to maintain his high authority.
One cannot have an anti-terrorist police state if one hasn’t any terrorists.
James, you still haven’t answered me. But you did say:
Have you ever read the Constitution in its entirety?
The Constitution was written (by extremely intelligent men) to establish a structure of a government that didn’t include a monarch. Amendments to the Constitution haven’t really changed that structure, and they are a part of the Constitution, as important a part as is Article I, Section 8. People tend to forget both these things, and only see the first ten amendments–the Bill of Rights.
There’s also a difference between having ‘social programs’ and being a Socialist country. Socialism is an economic system rather than a political system. It’s apples vs oranges.
One question for you, James. Why does the military budget come to a vote every 2 years?
Liz, are you aware that there is a “supposed to work this way” and a “does work this way” that are almost always different?
I have not been talking about what is supposed to be, but rather what is.
Realize that Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq were all “supposed to be” “policing actions”, yet in reality were wars. Congress did not declare them as wars until they were already wars, “Preemptive Strikes”. So the reality is that through merely the Executive branch, wars are arranged, started, and then declared. That wasn’t what was supposed to be.
In reality, Congress is merely manipulated into doing what foreign interests choose. Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense, told Congress flat out, “we use military action where the consensus of other nations allow. And we will tell you about it when we find it necessary to do so.” (paraphrased). He said it repeatedly even though the Senator at the Senate hearing reminded him of how serious the implications of those statements were. He was refusing to give information concerning a particular use of the military at that time.
Medical and Media issues are handled the same way - leveraging Congress into dictated laws and actions. Today the President of the USA is a Pharaoh (a priest-king), but still subject to the Globalist Goddictator.
What things are named is to appease an audience, the public.
What they are used for, is to accomplish a non-public goal.
The public is also leveraged into accepting what they would never be willing to choose. Pres. JFK (among a great many statesmen) made that statement as well. Today the sole purpose of the Media is to control public opinion. How does that compare to the Constitution?
Democracy means “by the people, for the people”, not “on the people, for other people” (socialism in the guise of social programs). But there is what was supposed to be and there is, what is. It was supposed to be Democracy and thus named. But it IS Serpentine Socialism, afraid of its name.
Gib, I’ve listened to #2 and #3 of what, I believe you said, James sent you. I haven’t had time to listen to the first.
My initial reaction is this is Ron Paul propaganda, aimed at potential voters and has nothing to do with ‘reforming’ the US government. He’s trying to generate fear, as does his son, Rand.
Propaganda is only partial truth.
That said, the Homeland Security Act, which established the cabinet position of the Director of the Office of Homeland Security, is, or appears to be, an internal spy organization with unlimited power. I can’t question that, because I haven’t yet researched enough about it. To me, Homeland Security is based on fear–the fear generated by the 9/11/2002 attacks on the WTC. Unfortunately, it can be extremely difficult to disassemble something a former President established while that fear still exists. It seems to me, the Paul family is now trying to fan those flames of fear.
But how many HS ‘whistle blowers’ have been hauled off to prison without due process? How many have been tortured?
How many terrorists, US citizens or otherwise, have been arrested, denied the right of habeas corpus, jailed, tortured, whatever, since 2002–other than the ‘terrorists’ taken during the Mid-East wars?
I read one of Ron Paul’s book written back when he was trying to re-write the Constitution, which was the Libertarian goal at the time. I questioned his ideas then and I question them now.
He complains without offering any solution to his complaints other than to ‘reform’ something for which we already have a ‘reformation’ guideline!
It’s in the Constitution. 
That is almost entirely backwards. The only exception being that the DHS truly is paranoid, yet given the right to label who is paranoid and isn’t along with the right to create fear for sake of National Defense. By DHS decree, you are a terrorist if you challenge our “internal structure”… meaning THEM.
My dear James,
You’re still not answering my questions!
What caused you to say I was influenced by Global Socialism, for example?
Of course, but weren’t we talking about the ‘intent’ of the US Constitution and the possible need for its ‘reform?’
Why is the Military budget voted on every two years?
I don’t know if what you’ve said is factual. Sorry. Korea and Vietnam were wars, yes, but wasn’t Korea Eisenhower’s reaction to what was called the ‘domino effect’ of Communism? I don’t know any more than I know that we went into it without the approval of Congress. The same was true of Vietnam, wasn’t it?
President Clinton sent US bombers to bomb Bosnia as part of a US effort, didn’t he?
Iraq is different, though. It was a continuation of Desert Storm, which was never ‘won’ and resulted in a ‘cease fire’ rather than a surrender. At least, as I understand, that was the ‘legal’ reason given. President Bush,II, attacked Iraq because the war hadn’t been resolved ten years before. I wonder if he ever thought of it as a ‘preemptive’ attack.
The thing is, James, you seem to want to ‘reform’ the political structure of the US Federal Government (the Constitution)–or reform the practices of the Federal Government. Which is it?
You and I both know that the Senate will never introduce legislation that in any way disturbs its power. Yet, the Senate is the only place where legislation can be introduced. If that legislation is approved, it becomes law. And, according to the Constitution (Article Six, Clause 2), the legislation becomes the Supreme Law of the Land.
Your speech on Ron Paul was enough by itself. But what I wrote was my answer to that question. To the DHS, Ron and Rand Paul are “potential terrorists” because they don’t believe in unlimited power for the government nor DHS. Unlimited power is Socialism and Globalism. Obama is a member of the G8 and they do not discuss with Congress what they are going to do, how they intend on doing it, nor to whom. They are “the Vampire that walks in daylight” utilizing the “black cross” (things you know nothing at all about).
These days, merely for appearances, just as everything Congress does. As I said, Congress is leveraged into doing all they do. Those “votes” will be determined by others, not the voters. Congress is a hypnotized mind. The Senate is regularly told that they can go stuff themselves by members of the military regime.
No. I just want you to realize that it isn’t working as it was intended, not even close, thus “reform” isn’t as good a word as “resurrect”. I did mention earlier one minor change to the original that would resolve ALL of these problems, and thus most certainly won’t be enacted.
Are you not listening?
It doesn’t matter what the Constitution states. Laws are made by foreign interests and then leveraged into “legitimate laws” after the fact, just like the wars. Also realize as example, the FED was illegally established simply by lying about its approval by the States when in fact, only two States even knew of it (and for sake of those same people). The Constitution is merely a front. Like all gangster activities, they always use a front for “plausible deniability” (“Crony Capitalism”). That was the Marxist design for world Socialist conquest.
Obama has publicly stated that Democratic Socialism is the way of the future and promotes it in the USA;
Crony Capitalism;
You can’t reform democracy because there is not anything to reform simply put.
All government isms are just elaborate covers for an oligarchy which is prevalent everywhere. Democracy as it exists in the present is working perfectly well, for the international oligarchy that is.
Communism = Oligarchy
Socialism= Oligarchy
Fascism = Oligarchy
Capitalism = Oligarchy
Feudalism = Oligarchy
Democracy = Oligarchy
The systematic controls and flow of production or centralization may differ but the end result is always the same.
Constitutionalism sounds great. It is a kind of reform (even if it’s nothing new), but if we want to prevent the system from deviating away from it again, we’re going to have to tweak the system somewhat, put measures in place to make that happen. But if what actually happened was that Americans began looking at the constitution as a set of limitation instead of provisions, I’m not sure what those measures would be (and besides, I think a nation needs to allow its constitution to change over time–perhaps the attitude to take is to think about what the founding fathers intended rather than what the constitution strictly says).
It’s not a technological barrier, it’s a legal one. The only way the NSA is able to spy on Americans is because they have legal rights to access that information–they had to get it from various ISPs. There may come a day when ISPs end up selling their clients’ information freely on the open market, but the law isn’t like technology: it doesn’t just uncontrollably make available more and more power to growing numbers of people over time.
That’s exactly what I said to James.
I don’t know. You tell me. (I’m seriously–being an American, you might see this happen all the time for all I know).
But what does that mean? Does it mean we should stop complaining, or should we remain open to solutions. Remember, solutions don’t always come right at the drop of a hat. Raising an issue (even in the form of complaining) keeps the issue alive in the public consciousness–it keeps people thinking about it–and after a while, solutions slowly emerge and evolve into something that seems “doable”. This could take years. And that’s the way it’s supposed to work. Slapping together a patchwork solution as a knee jerk reaction to recognizing a problem is the sloppiest and most ineffective way to come up with a solution. Good solutions need time to ferment. This is one of the reasons I started this thread. I wanted to get people thinking about the issue–not because I expect a solution to be borne by it before the thread dies, but because this thread will exist for as long as ILP stays up and running, and the people who are reading it now will have the ideas expressed therein in their minds for a long time. Any time anyone thinks of something new or has an original insight–even if it’s nothing big–they can always come back here and post it. I personally could keep it alive by the same means. I could also link to it from anywhere else on the net. I could go back to it and quote certain posts for other purposes. The last thing I want to do is shut up just because I can’t think of the perfect solution right now.
I agree with all of this. I would just like to add that the Constitution, as written, does have a process for allowing the Constitution to change over time. It’s a process where the individual congressional bodies of each State have to vote and ratify an amendment- quite democratic, thousands properly elected officials involved. So we just need to do that instead of the President just doing whatever the fuck he wants, and waiting for somebody to sue him so he can take it to the (appointed for life) Supreme Court.
It's a legal barrier right now. It's getting easier and easier for private individuals to spy on other private individuals. All I'm saying is, if checking out somebody's private emails becomes as easy as pirating music someday, there's not much point in making it illegal for the Government to do it. I think the only long term solution to privacy issues of this caliber is for people to accept that electronic communications are not private anymore.
Your democracy is a sham along with all other types of governments.
Stop kidding yourselves and blowing smoke up everybody’s asses.
Sounds so simple when you put it that way. But isn’t that what the people tried to do in the first place?
I’m going to dig up something I said to James in our PM exchanges:
That may be the most appropriate attitude to take under the circumstance, but let me just comment on your music piracy analogy. The reason why we can pirate so many songs and videos is because people make them available. And yes, people can make emails and phone calls publically available if they want too, but that’s still different from one person making every email and phone call publically available. If I send a private email to a friend, I may be risking that he’ll betray me and put that email up on the web somewhere, but this is far from guaranteed. What the NSA and the ISPs and phone companies have done is guarantee that every single email and phone conversation is available to at least the NSA (and whoever else they want to sell that information to–like the FBI). This doesn’t mean there’s a pair of human eyes constantly looking at all the data (there are literally exabytes of data to sift through), but it’s available.
I think saying “it doesn’t work” is more descriptive than “it’s a sham” but seeing as how it doesn’t work, it’s well on its way to shamdom.
Oh, and welcome back, Joker.
[size=104]
[/size]
[list][list][size=114]The globalists have too much success with their hypnosis propaganda.[/size][/list:u][/list:u]
People make music and videos available, yes. NOT the people who actually produced them, or who would stand to gain if you bought them instead, though. Arguably, the people who made them available for download are people who are[i] hostile[/i] to those other people. And I'm not talking about putting up your emails on a torrent site, so much as I am talking about the technology to crack the password to your email account, intercept traffic coming in and out of your computer, or record every keystroke you make and email the logs of that discretely to a stranger becoming [i]a little[/i] more publicly accessible than they are already. I've done all of those things, and I'm nobody special.
James, The Military budget comes up for a vote of the people–through their Congressional representatives–every two years because of Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 12.
You see, the US wasn’t supposed to have a standing Army. Further on, in the same Article 1, Section 8, Congress has the power to maintain and support a standing Navy and to “call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union…” Each state was to have a Militia headed by the Governor of the State and trained by the State. Each State has a militia, only it’s called the National Guard, now.
And now we have more than 4 military branches although they’re all grouped under Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines–except the Coast Guard and the Border Patrol, which are under Homeland Security.
If you don’t read any more of the Constitution than Article 1, Section 8, at least read that part. Please. If you read all the Articles, and the Sections of those Articles, you might understand me when I emphasize how the Constitution is concerned with the structure of our government–including state governments. Read about the history of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution–the Bill of Rights–and why and how they came about. I doubt seriously that every Congress person is thoroughly versed in and understands the Constitution, that’s why they have staffs. So if you read and understand the Constitution, you’ll be to Congress people what I am to other English majors. I read Moby Dick,all of it–including the whaling parts.
Part of what I’m saying is to show that while times are different now, I don’t believe it’s the fault of the Constitution so much as it’s the fault of the elected representatives in both houses of Congress, who’ve forgotten what their jobs are–if they ever knew them to begin with. The Constitution is very protean, as it must be. I wish our politicians were, as well.
I think you’re being rather unfair to me and your other readers when you repeat the words–or your interpretation of the words–of other people instead of using your own thoughts in your own words. I remember a story one of my profs told the class about a Q&A with a renowned author, wherein one of the audience gave his/her idea of what the author had said. The author, after listening, said, “Really? I don’t recall ever thinking that.” What came across, to me, was that the audience member came up with his/her own idea, based on his/her own interpretation of the author’s words. In effect, s/he ‘taught’ the teacher.
Do you understand me? I sincerely hope you do.
Duplicate post.
I don’t know of anyone, gib, other than the one or two ‘whistle blowers’ who left the country out of fear. Nor do I know of any ‘suspected terrorist’ who has been dragged off to jail, although I’ve read about at least one who says his life has been ruined because of the publicity given the suspicions of the FBI against him. It turned out the FBI wanted to believe the man was guilty and, so, only looked for confirmation of that guilt. His words were twisted, taken out of context, etc., but the damage was done.
Should people stop complaining? Certainly not; however, complaints justified by things such as I heard it here or I read it there don’t do much good, do they? Nor do complaints justified with the declaration–“Everyone know this is true! I was talking with a couple of guys at work and they believe it!” See what I mean, see what I mean? Poke, poke. Wink, wink.
The Power of the President of the US is outlined in Article II, Sections 1-5, of the US Constitution. As CoC of the Military, s/he can call on the Military in times of War against the Nation. The Bush-Cheney administration, in my mind, created a state of emergency shortly after 9/11. They were able to do so for 2 reasons: The population was afraid (As we have been since WWII, if not before) and the Administration fed that fear. And they were able to justify the invasion of Iraq by saying, truthfully, that the Mid-East war had not ended decisively. It ended with a cease fire, rather than a surrender.
Why did it all happen? I believe, based on how I’ve interpreted what I’ve read from many sources, it was because of oil.
The Saudi’s were threatening to change the petro-dollar from the US dollar to the Euro. This would have put many countries in jeopardy because their stockpiles of Euros was much less than they were of US dollars. Beyond that, it would have stripped the US of much of it’s ‘prestige.’ The Administration, thinking it could ‘win’ a ‘war’ in six days–as had the Israelis earlier–put boots to the sand to teach the Saudi’s not to mess with them, to guarantee the US Dollar would remain the world’s petro-dollar, and (of course) to gain oil rights in Iraq.
The legality of what the Bush/Cheney administration did will be decided only by history. Congress, which should have, but didn’t, stop it, all sat on their bums and twiddled their thumbs–or vice-versa. 
What does this have to do with reforming/resurrecting Democracy? I think it has a great deal to do with the subject, if the US is considered the ‘epitome’ of Democracy–if we’re considered to be a role model for other modern states.
But it’s now almost 4 AM, and I have to go to bed. I’ll write again tomorrow, if you’d like.