a new constitution

[jt1]

Our constitution is not an adequate government model of governance for the 21'st century.

Here are some reason why: 1) Congress can spend money it doesn't have nor plans to have. 2) Social issues like abortion and homosexuality have hijacked the federal government. 3)Incumbents have an unfair advantage over challengers. 4)Campaigns have more to do with manipulating perception than fostering an objective debate. 5) Groups that don't vote pay a higher taxes to services ratio than those that do.

Explanation: 1) Any system that doesn't have its legislative body fund programs based on a percentage of expected revenue will inevitable run up unhealthy deficits. 2)The social difference between Rurual and Urban, North and South is too vast to settle at the Federal level. Individual communites should be allowed to settle divisive issues on their own before the issues explode into a national debate which can only weaken the country. 3)Any system that gives an advantage to one candidate over another cannot be called a representative democracy...In other words, America is not a representative Democracy 4) When perception becomes more important than reality, a democracy is doomed to fracture and inertia. 5)People may argue that groups that are too ignorant too vote don't deserve their proportion of funds, and they have a point. However, I believe that ignorance is institutional within these groups and you can't expect ignorance to combat ignorance.

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]

1) Any system that doesn't have its legislative body fund programs based on a percentage of expected revenue will inevitable run up unhealthy deficits.

[/ QUOTE ] That's true of any business, so why not hold Congress to the standard of, at least, a non-profit entity where it HAS to break even, or it goes out of business?

[ QUOTE ]
2)The social difference between Rurual and Urban, North and South is too vast to settle at the Federal level. Individual communites should be allowed to settle divisive issues on their own before the issues explode into a national debate which can only weaken the country.

[/ QUOTE ] First of all, government social programs tend to be ill-conceived at any level, be they federal, state, or local. Secondly, division and debate are, contrary to popular belief, good things. The American process is about coming to agreements and decisions about what is most important. Debate is very much integral to our very fabric.
[ QUOTE ]
3)Any system that gives an advantage to one candidate over another cannot be called a representative democracy...In other words, America is not a representative Democracy

[/ QUOTE ] I'd like some proof of this assertion based on a definition of representative democracy, please. Also...since when does the reigning champion not go in with an advantage?

[ QUOTE ]
4) When perception becomes more important than reality, a democracy is doomed to fracture and inertia.

[/ QUOTE ] The problem with this is that reality tends to reflect perception, not the other way around. You can't eliminate perception, because humans are perceptive creatures. [ QUOTE ]
5)People may argue that groups that are too ignorant too vote don't deserve their proportion of funds, and they have a point. However, I believe that ignorance is institutional within these groups and you can't expect ignorance to combat ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ] I really don't know what this has to do with anything...please explain.

[jt1]

You make good points that I'll need time to address. I'm busy right now, but I'll respond in a few hours.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Congress can spend money it doesn't have nor plans to have.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not a new sentiment. One of the Founding Fathers (Jefferson? don't remember which...) said one of his regrets about the constitution was that it did not require the government to balance a budget. I would support an amendment to the contstitution that said the budget needs to at least balance except in a time of war. Reasonable?

[ QUOTE ]
2) Social issues like abortion and homosexuality have hijacked the federal government.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, but that is not a fault of the constitution. That is a product of constituents making certain demands of their representatives.

[ QUOTE ]
3)Incumbents have an unfair advantage over challengers.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this also. I think term limits for the Senate and House would be a good thing (something like 4-5 terms). There's no reason people like Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, and Ted Stevens should still be in government. I think it would lower the corruption and the mutual pork-passing done.

[ QUOTE ]
4)Campaigns have more to do with manipulating perception than fostering an objective debate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, not a fault of the constitution and I don't see how you could reverse this with a 'new' constitution without markedly reducing free speech.

[ QUOTE ]
5) Groups that don't vote pay a higher taxes to services ratio than those that do.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. If someone doesn't vote and suffers consequences, that's their problem, not the constitution's...

[BadBoyBenny]

[ QUOTE ]
I would support an amendment to the contstitution that said the budget needs to at least balance except in a time of war. Reasonable?

[/ QUOTE ]

What constitutes a war? The war on terror? Vietnam?
What about off balance sheet spending that Congress loves so much?
What about a major non-war natural disaster?
What about a depression?
How can you control the revenue forecasts?
What would the punishment be to Congress if they overspend? Just stop paying federal employees? Put them in prison?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
What constitutes a war?

[/ QUOTE ]
war
n.
1.
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

[ QUOTE ]
What about off balance sheet spending that Congress loves so much?

[/ QUOTE ]
Get rid of it?

[ QUOTE ]
What about a major non-war natural disaster?

[/ QUOTE ]
Make the needed cuts in budget.

[ QUOTE ]
What about a depression?

[/ QUOTE ]
Let it be. If you think the Great Depression ended because of the New Deal, you're mistaken.

[ QUOTE ]
How can you control the revenue forecasts?

[/ QUOTE ]
Revenue is forcasted in the private sector all the time. I see no reason why government cannot do the same.

[ QUOTE ]
What would the punishment be to Congress if they overspend?

[/ QUOTE ]
What punishment is there if Congress made a law that said women couldn't vote anymore?

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
What would the punishment be to Congress if they overspend

[/ QUOTE ]


What punishment is there if Congress made a law that said
women couldn't vote anymore?

[/ QUOTE ]

People are already pissed at the courts for "legislating from the bench" and you want to give them the power of the purse. To each his own, I guess./images/graemlins/confused.gif

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
What would the punishment be to Congress if they overspend

[/ QUOTE ]


What punishment is there if Congress made a law that said
women couldn't vote anymore?

[/ QUOTE ]

People are already pissed at the courts for "legislating from the bench" and you want to give them the power of the purse. To each his own, I guess./images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
That's an interesting way to spin what I said, I guess...

[lastchance]

I think the government should borrow as much as the private sector. However, having a hard cap against how much you can borrow (based on GDP) should be +++EV.

I really like the term limit idea. I think it'd be very useful to cut down on corruption. 10 years for House, 20 for Senate?

[BadBoyBenny]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

What constitutes a war?

[/ QUOTE ]


war
n.
1.
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so does Congress have to declare this or can it be a Vietnam type of thing?


[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

What about a major non-war natural disaster?


[/ QUOTE ]

Make the needed cuts in budget.


[/ QUOTE ]

Even if cutting the budget would mean people dying, or our military not getting their paychecks? I am talking about a serious disaster.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

What about a depression?

[/ QUOTE ]


Let it be. If you think the Great Depression ended because of the New Deal, you're mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you misunderstand me here. Let's say we have certain long term programs forecasted and government revenue drops because of an unexpected depression. We could end up needing to choose between things like Social Security, the Army, or Food Stamps.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


How can you control the revenue forecasts?

[/ QUOTE ]


Revenue is forcasted in the private sector all the time. I see no reason why government cannot do the same.

[/ QUOTE ] \

No, you misunderstand me again. There is accountability via stock price for corporations to accurately forecast revenue. There will be no such accountability for politicians. It is already proven that voters like the government spending on them more than the Constitution. None of the same controls will exist.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

What would the punishment be to Congress if they overspend?

[/ QUOTE ]


What punishment is there if Congress made a law that said women couldn't vote anymore?

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you would leave it up to the courts to decide which goverment agency gets a paycheck and which one doesn't?

[lastchance]

I agree on points 1 and 2 (except we already need to cut Social Security).

As for 3 and 4, a hard count is up to Congress, yes, but what I am saying is that government should not be allowed to spend way more than they borrow without a requisite tax cut.

There should be a law that says government cannot borrow more than x% of national GDP to pay for their programs. If a budget is sent that does not follow this law, it is sent back to the drawing board, and Congress must make up a budget that has this law in place.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2)The social difference between Rurual and Urban, North and South is too vast to settle at the Federal level. Individual communites should be allowed to settle divisive issues on their own before the issues explode into a national debate which can only weaken the country.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, government social programs tend to be ill-conceived at any level, be they federal, state, or local. Secondly, division and debate are, contrary to popular belief, good things. The American process is about coming to agreements and decisions about what is most important. Debate is very much integral to our very fabric.


[/ QUOTE ]

Honest debate is good, but fanatics don't debate. And fanaticism is as human as love and hate. So let the fanatics control their own communities so they can leave the rest of us alone. A renewed clear cut federalism is one way to force a truce between the ACLU and Pro-choice groups and the Christian coalition. The other way is to constitutionaly mandate how elections are to be organized so that each faction gets a equal chance of expressing their point of view without having to compromise to each parties fat cats.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)Any system that gives an advantage to one candidate over another cannot be called a representative democracy...In other words, America is not a representative Democracy


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd like some proof of this assertion based on a definition of representative democracy, please. Also...since when does the reigning champion not go in with an advantage?


[/ QUOTE ]

I may have over stated myself here, but I beleive that several factions are underrepresented in proportion to their numbers. Furthermore, incumbency creates cronyism. Senators and Presidents should only get one term. 6 years for the President and 15 years for Senators. The House would need a different system and the cronyism that would naturally exist in that chamber would be checked by both campaign and election reform and the Executive branch and the Senate who would not have that problem.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4) When perception becomes more important than reality, a democracy is doomed to fracture and inertia.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem with this is that reality tends to reflect perception, not the other way around. You can't eliminate perception, because humans are perceptive creatures.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused by your language here. But this problem too will be solved by election and campaign changes.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5)People may argue that groups that are too ignorant too vote don't deserve their proportion of funds, and they have a point. However, I believe that ignorance is institutional within these groups and you can't expect ignorance to combat ignorance.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really don't know what this has to do with anything...please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]


I contend that poor people are dumber than financially secure people. You can't expect dumb people to vote therefore there has to be some instituional controls to make sure that these peoples voices are represented.

[jt1]

A lot of talk in this thread is about a balanced budget amendment. We don't just need an amendment but a new constitutional convention. The new document should require that congress express all spending programs in terms of a % of the expected revenue rather than monteary value. It should gurantee that certain priorities get a certain percentage of revenue each year. For example defense 20% of each years expected revenue, infrastructure 20%. Let Congress and the Executive brance decide how to spend the exact dollars and the Judical branch has the final say as to whether a certain program realistically falls under the stated constituional priority.

Naturally 100% of expected revenue would be the budget cap. The cap would have to be soft but only a formal declaration of emergency by the Senate that has to renewed every year coupled with a 60 vote majority to approve government borrowing would allow the government to exceed the cap.

[BadBoyBenny]

Dude, here's the deal. There is going to be no new Constitution no matter what you or anyone else in this forum thinks. Really, how many people in this country could you get to ratify anything? The 2 parties would spend 100 years debating the finer points while the rest of the country was glued to CNN. It's kind of silly to debate what it should be even. Should we try and make a constitution that wil be relevant in 2100, or should we just make one that covers the current issues and let that time take care of itself? Why don't we just ammend the one we have? Oh yeah, because we don't have the votes to change it, but it might be realistic to scrap the whole thing and start over? Come on.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't we just ammend the one we have? Oh yeah, because we don't have the votes to change it, but it might be realistic to scrap the whole thing and start over? Come on.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's easier to just pack the supreme court like we repubs are doing now. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, here's the deal. There is going to be no new Constitution no matter what you or anyone else in this forum thinks. Really, how many people in this country could you get to ratify anything? The 2 parties would spend 100 years debating the finer points while the rest of the country was glued to CNN. It's kind of silly to debate what it should be even. Should we try and make a constitution that wil be relevant in 2100, or should we just make one that covers the current issues and let that time take care of itself? Why don't we just ammend the one we have? Oh yeah, because we don't have the votes to change it, but it might be realistic to scrap the whole thing and start over? Come on.

[/ QUOTE ]


Agreed. but nothing but a paradigm shift will solve the worlds problems. I'd rather talk about the new paradigm and clarify the issues that divide us than continually weigh in on small and relatively meaningless battles.

Humanity will either destroy itself or gain a collective wisdom that will forever avert that. If no one talks about what that piece of wisdom is then humanity can't ever come to accept it.


I can also express my point of view another way. Our accomplishments will be meaningless once we're dead. The a-political Christian gains entry into Heaven as does the conservative Christian. And surely Heaven is fantastic enough to divert our thoughts away from our lives on Earth. And the amoral atheist disolves into non-existence just like the agnostic political activist. So why do we do what we do? Because it's who we are. Hopefully, it isn't to actually change the world.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Our constitution is not an adequate government model of governance for the 21'st century.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so what's your proposal?

Here's mine:

Article 1: Don't steal.

Article 2: Don't kill.

The end.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so does Congress have to declare this or can it be a Vietnam type of thing?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure yet. My gut reaction would be yes. I'd have to think about it some more.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if cutting the budget would mean people dying, or our military not getting their paychecks? I am talking about a serious disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know what you meant. At this point, we could definitely make the cuts needed to relieve a serious Katrina-style disaster.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say we have certain long term programs forecasted and government revenue drops because of an unexpected depression. We could end up needing to choose between things like Social Security, the Army, or Food Stamps.

[/ QUOTE ]
And the problem is...?

[ QUOTE ]
There is accountability via stock price for corporations to accurately forecast revenue. There will be no such accountability for politicians.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ballot box

[ QUOTE ]
So, you would leave it up to the courts to decide which goverment agency gets a paycheck and which one doesn't?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, have the court tell Congress to try again.

Bear in mind this is just something I'm thinking about. I don't have every detail worked out and every possible scenario planned for.

[caretaker1]

I agree with most of your points, however it is a long (too long) gap from them to why the Constitution should be changed. The idea of Const. change is very dangerous.