the scary thing is

It might not be perfect but you can't point to a better one.

And, short of bringing a government framework of your own design to the table that's been peer reviewed and validated to overcome the "hopelessly obsolete" U.S. Constitution how about at least providing something to substantiate the competence behind your opinion?

Otherwise, it's just another one, no better, no worse and soon forgotten.

 

US had a bloody civil war, therefore US political system cannot be deemed "perfect". Personally I prefer Swiss political system even though it will only work in one small country.

I don't like uber strong executives. When you elect an executive directly, you will frequently run into "cult of personality" issues. The presidency is a bad construct, something which was decisively proved by Karl Rove who had his way with the constitution.

Can you imagine Gordon Brown going on TV and proclaiming "I am the decider"?

P.S I am a loose constructionist for the simple reason that no matter how bright, at the end of the day the founding fathers were 19th century men.

 

u sh be able to find 24k gold sold in asian districts, like china town, indian ... etc, somehow the asians r able to import such pure gold, though they r usually in the form of jewellery rather than bars

 

The Civil War was bloody, not because of the Constitution, but because of advances in war technology such as rifled bullets.

The Constitution also didn't cause the war, it came down to the differences between the industrialized North and the agrarian South -- power and money, as with all wars.

However, the U.S. is the only nation in the written history of Man to have both its borders and system of government survive a civil war unchanged.

I'll take battle (war and mind) tested over perfect any day.

The founding fathers were well acquainted with the problems a direct democracy can cause on a large scale, notably the tyranny of the majority over the minority.

That's why they developed, at the federal level, a representative democracy founded on a constitutional republic of member states that each have elements of direct democracy in their state constitutions.

Again, that was anticipated by the founding fathers. And, this particular power grab isn't the first attempt either, read your history on Andrew Jackson and what he tried to do.

It's why the Supreme Court is a life appointment and not an elected base. In fact, no other representative democracy does it this way.

It, and Congress both serve to, if not outright prevent, at least slow down, the attempt of usurping power.

In the lens of history this will all pass no matter how permanent it may seem right now.

Bully for you. I'm content with what we have, warts and all.

 

I don't need to read US history my knowledge of it far exceeds that of an average US citizen. I pointed to a bloody civil war where father went against son and brother against brother as a failure of the political system to resolve differences through the ballot box.

And the political systems AND borders did change. Don't you know anything about West virginia? It was taken from Virginia(technically annexed the same way Texas was...) Slavery in the South was changed by force. Andrew Johnson was saved removal from office by 1 senate vote because of his perceived obstructionist policies in respect to reconstruction.

Andrew Jackson was basically a red neck ("tribune of the people") and his famous "Supreme Court made its decision now let them enforce it" flew in the face of rule of law.

Dick Cheney recently claimed that the vice president was part of the legislative and not executive branches. Just by saying that he demonstrated complete contempt of the US constitution.

The Constitution basically outlines broad guidelines and values without a robust judiciary US would fall apart. Things like Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) are needed to guide day to day life of average citizens.

 

All well and good, but no framework of government can ever prevent people from acting and doing stupid things.

I said national borders and system of government; the Constitution. Also, the right to practice Slavery and own slaves was never in the Constitution.

"Perceived?" He flat out wanted the President changed to a lifetime appointment, the same as the Supreme Court.

History is littered with stupid statements made by self-aggrandized dolts. And, as we're seeing now, the very pendulum they slapped away from them is going to boot them in the ass as it sways to the other side.

The NeoCons made a power grab and ended up screwing themselves over. Next up are the bleeding hearts, no better or worse, just different. Hopefully, within our lifetime, both fiscal and social moderation will take the place of the polarized perspectives that currently dominate the scene.

Exactly and the founding fathers thought of it by way of an appointed, not elected judiciary, so your point is?

 

deflation: cash bubble everybody hoarding yen and usd
once it blows, you will have inflation in stocks, commodities etc.
if banks lend out dollars theyll make less money then actually sitting on it, just having dollars means your getting more money everyday right now.
so i dont expect this to stop anytime soon its a vicious circle

 

Indeed, i can't point to a better one, as i have no knowledge of other constitutions.
As i said, i am not inclined to argue my position, nor am i inclined to waste hours enumerating all of the features of the present US Constitution that are in need of revision or replacement. I'll merely scratch the surface, and perhaps start you thinking, by mentioning three lesser problems, and one glaring problem with the current constitution that is of such serious nature that it could well result in the eventual collapse or dissolution of the Republic.

...The method of electing the President via the electoral College is obsolete, and allows for electing a President in contradiction to the wishes of the majority of citizens voting... This is no longer a method of election acceptable to most citizens, though they are obviously not sufficiently agitated to insist on a change..

...The second amendment -- woefully inadequate by modern standards and the source of endless debate and trouble -- can only have contemplated, by today's standards, rather primitive arms. The intent is rather clear to most, yet the debate rages on. This needs to be completely rewritten, taking into account the majority will, with a definition of what is meant by "Arms" to be included.

...A third problem, one of greater consequence, is that the present constitution is silent with regard to a mechanism for apportioning voting districts within states to provide competitive House races. This ommission has admitted of , especially in recent years, rather ridiculous -- and very harmful-- Gerrymandering that has led to the undesirable creation of "safe House districts.".

...A problem of catastrophic proportion is arguably the single most important part of the Bill of Rights --the First Amendment, which provides protection for free speech, freedom of the press, etc. It is this amendment, as now written, that prevents meaningful election and campaign financing reform. The undesirable, ultimate outcome has been a subversion of democracy by a taking over of the legislative process by lobbyists whose interests often clearly conflict with the interests of a majority of citizens. Another major failing, among several more in the First Amendment, is its failure to explicitly distinguish between those acting on their own behalf, and those acting individually to promote the interests of a larger body, such as a Corporation, or political action body. We should not need to make this distinction, because it is obvious that the framers were addressing the rights of individuals, but apparently we do.

I will agree that the main body of the Constitution was drafted with such care and economy of words that it is still today quite good. But taken as a whole to include the Amendments, the Constitution of the United States needs serious reworking to be suitable for a twenty-first century nation. This might even lessen the time wasted in arguments between the strict constructionists and the adherents to interpretive law.

P.S. While i'm on the subject of the Constitution, i should like to mention something that seems very curious to me.. The Twentieth Amendment (section 2) provides a clear solution to the problem we experienced with the Gore-Bush election in which the correct outcome was not available by January 20th. Congress is given the authority to choose an interim President in that case. The Supreme court is not mentioned. I've never understood why the Twentieth Amendment was swept under the rug. Obviously, i'm naive, because i've also never understood why Presidents have been permitted to wage endless war without a declaration of war by the Congress. This is also something not allowed by the Constitution. Perhaps our new constitution should be more emphatic with regard to these points.

 

A red herring argument that's often cited. While electoral votes are not mandated to follow the popular vote, there's only been three times that a president won without winning the nationwide popular vote.

The key to the process is that the members of the electoral college are elected by direct vote within each state after they've declared which candidate they'd vote for. Generally speaking, the college members cast their votes according to the popular vote within their state.

But, the reason a candidate can win the nationwide popular vote while losing the electoral vote is due to the way the Constitution protects the interests of smaller states from being overrun by larger states.

The college levels the playing field for all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Without it a popular vote will always be slanted to the more populated areas over the sparsely populated ones.

Actually, the second amendment is a codification of law that dates back to the 12th century when it comes to providing for armed militia at the state level.

It's actually the ninth amendment that enumerates the implicit individual right to bear arms for defense, hunting or sport.

The Constitution, backed by Supreme Court rulings, have held that each state may define laws and regulations regarding licensing and ownership of weapons consistent with the wishes of their residents.

The progression of weapons technology, be it an assault rifle, Tazer or some future phaser type weapon will similarly be the responsibility of the states to legislate accordingly.

Actually, reapportionment of congressional districts became law in '67 which requires redistricting after each census so that each area contains an approximately equal population. The Voting Rights Act made it illegal to gerrymander the district borders along racial and other minority lines.

Yes, a lot of house elections are essentially uncontested these days. Hard to say if it's due to voter apathy or because of political gerrymandering, which is somewhat different and not yet illegal.

However, you need to consider that the founding fathers split Congress in two; the House and the Senate, and gave unique powers to each, as well as different term lengths for the sole purpose of providing a check and balance between the two.

The first amendment is often used as an argument against it, but the most reasonable one is the unintended consequences that past attempts at reform have brought; less competitive elections, entrenchment of incumbents and discouraging grassroots efforts due to regulatory hurdles.

As with a lot of things, be careful of what you wish for because what you end up with is often nothing like what you expected.

Eventually, like a lot of things in the U.S., it gets so out of hand that you end up with a candidate like Lincoln, who bankrupted himself in the process of getting elected. Once we see a few of those people will try to put a serious effort into reform.

Lobbyists are hardly a new problem and much less than you're trying to make them out to be.

Madison observed and wrote about people being inclined to break off into factions in his Federalist papers.

Like he said, you can't stop them from doing it, the best you can do is limit their impact.

And, for every bad lobbyist that gets into the press there are many others who actually help the public by getting the clueless chuckleheads in Congress to make competent decisions on complex subjects that they could never hope to comprehend on their own.

That amendment only applies if the electoral college fails to elect a president. In the Gore-Bush race the problem wasn't with the electoral college, it was with Florida's popular vote, which was needed before you can assign their electoral votes.

The Supreme Court ultimately stepped in and ended it by stopping another recount.

 

Perino: “We’ll Just Trust Our Treasury Secretary” On Banker Takeover

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
October 25, 2008

As Douglas A. McIntyre wrote back in September, most dictator’s get to wear general’s uniforms, so Hank Paulson had better call his tailor.

According to Bush mouthpiece Dan Perino, Bush will trust Paulson and the bankers to implement the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

The banker takeover bill passed by the Senate and signed into law on October 3 makes Paulson a virtual economic dictator. Paulson is now authorized to purchase mortgage-related assets from any financial institution headquartered in the United States. “The power of the Judicial Branch as an element of the Constitution’s mandate for ‘checks and balances’ has been suspended, undercutting a critical principle established by the Founding Fathers,” writes McIntyre. In almost all ways, the bill places the Treasury Secretary outside the law and above Congress and the American people.

On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said Bush “is trusting his team at the Treasury Department to design this program, and he believes they are doing it the right way,” according to CNSNews. “I don’t have details for you on it. So, we’ll let them — we’ll just trust our treasury secretary and those he’s tasked with to implement the program.” In other words, the bankers, not Congress or the American people, will implement the the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

When Paulson picked Neel Kashkari to act as director of the so-called bailout plan, it became obvious the bankers are in control of the Treasury. Both Paulson and Kashkari are Goldman Sachs alumni. In addition, Paulson depends on Goldman Sachs executives Dan Jester and Ken Wilson, both financial institutions bankers, and Steve Shafran, who focused on corporate restructuring while at Goldman. Shafran joined the department in February 2008, while Paulson brought Jester and Wilson on board in July and August, respectively, as the credit crisis worsened, according to the Associated Press.

In the 1830s, president Martin Van Buren proposed that an independent treasury be set up and isolated from all banks. In 1844, the Democrats inaugurated measures to restore the Independent Treasury System in response to the banker engineered speculative crash of 1837. However, the bankers undermined the Independent Treasury System and the separation of the Treasury from the banking system was never completed. Finally, after the engineered Panic of 1907 and the establishment of the privately owned Federal Reserve in 1913, and act of Congress brought the Independent Treasury System to an end.

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies,” wrote Thomas Jefferson. “Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.”

The mislabeled Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 is a final coup de grâce to the idea of a Treasury separated from the “monied aristocracy” Jefferson warned about. In essence, Perino is telling us the bankers will decide how their takeover bill will be implemented and the American people will have no say in the process. Goldman Sachs controls the Treasury, the purse of the American people, and a former Goldman Sachs chief executive has a virtual carte blanche to do the bidding of the bankers behind closed doors.

Bush trusts the banksters to do the right thing, that is to say the right thing according to “a den of vipers and thieves,” as Andrew Jackson called the bankers in 1832.