|
|
#1
11-04-2005, 06:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
a new constitution
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. 
|
|
#2
11-04-2005, 07:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: a new constitution
[ 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.
|
|
#4
11-04-2005, 08:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: a new constitution
[ 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...
|
|
#5
11-04-2005, 08:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: a new constitution
[ 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?
|
|
#6
11-04-2005, 08:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: a new constitution
[ 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?
|
|
#7
11-04-2005, 08:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: a new constitution
[ 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.[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
|
|
#8
11-04-2005, 08:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: a new constitution
[ 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.[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] That's an interesting way to spin what I said, I guess...
|
|
#9
11-04-2005, 08:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: a new constitution
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?
|
|
#10
11-04-2005, 10:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: a new constitution
[ 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?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
