New Continental Congress

[GowerND11]

If we are talking about constitutional issues. I would like to discuss is voting. This may seem weird to many but please I encourage everyone to think outside the box a bit here.

Essentially with our 2 party system we are surpressing new ideas because candidates that want a chance have stick to the party platform. Also with our primary system that is dominated by the hardcore bases or the party we are seeing more on the hard right, and the hard left as well (there is actually 84 progressive in the House, like 75 or so tea party candidates.) While many of my views would be considered hard left what the country needs to function is probably moderates that don't take an absolute "never ever stance" on anything from raising taxes to changes in social programs, etc.

We also as I mentioned could use candidates with new ideas, or at least a different mix of ideas. Basically right now when it comes improving the economy everyone falls into categories: 1-Just Cut Taxes or 2-Tax/Borrow and Spend/Invest. Reality wise it would be nice to see some sort of hybrid plan as well as ideas will do more to create competition and encourage innovation.

So to take away from the traditional Democrat vs Republican system. I encourage a different voting system that allows more candidates to run. More candidates equals more ideas and better debate.

Instant runoff voting would do just that.

FairVote.org | What is IRV?

I like this thinking. Americans need more choices politically. Too many politicians stick to the party platform making citizens have to choose "a lesser of two evils" when they vote. Getting more involved will allow the voter options, and, I believe, the ability to research more into the topics and the views of the parties.

 

[chicago51]

With proportional voting as I said you are voting for party more than candidate which I don't like, so I prefer instant runoff. However I suppose a fix for that would be to vote for party seats and then members of their own party can elected their candidates. So essentially you would do the general election before the primaries. If we did it that way I think proportional voting may be the way to go.

What I do like about proportional is you end up with a good representation of the country. Not a half red / half blue type of thing. But something more like this:

With multiple parties it is likely that you may have several parties not as far about as the two parties are now which may enable some more compromising.

Yes instant runoff largely fixes that. You basically have your first choice, then you next choice if first choice is not there and so on.

Proportional democracy also would work. Essentially you have to make your representative districts bigger and then you elected multiple representives from that district based on party vote. I believe the UK does something like this but I'm not sure. So if your district voted 40% conservative, 40% center to center left, and 20% far left. If you had 5 seats they would be 2 conservatives, 2 moderates, and 1 progressive. With that system you are essentially voting for party and not candidates which is why I am not a fan.

Proportional democracy though does encourage voter turnout. Say if one is a conservative in a very liberal district. Why vote a liberal is going to get at least 50% of the vote. However in my example if losing 59% to 41% and 61% to 39% was meaningful because it means one extra seat then voter turnout would in that district actually means something. It gives alot more incentive to vote.

Reality wise they the districts are drawn (right now it favors the Republicans but it is and has always been done by both sides) there are very few safe seats. Ultimately candidates are worried more about primaries that the general elections here in the US. It encourages absolutism and no compromise instead of moderatism which is ultimately what it takes in a divided government to get things done.

I think multiple parties and more ideas are a good thing. Our current voting system discourages that greatly.

 

[BGIF]

I don't represent anyone or anything but my own (twisted?) self.

I was born in Manhattan, lived six years on Lung Aye-Lund, "grew up" in Flaw-ri-duh, spent four years in Indiana at a small, private university and landed in Minnesota in '78, where I felt comfortable. Well ... the waters don't taste like wine ,the winters could be a tad shorter and less severe, but the social and political climate suited my bones.

If acceptable, I'm in. I think.

Too much cogitation these days makes me long for a nap.

There's a reason the water doesn't taste like wine ...

Minnesota lakes contaminated with all kinds of chemicals | StarTribune.com

 

[Cackalacky]

bump. Reminder that the window closes 5/22/13.

 

[irishpat183]

You sons-of-bitches thought you could pass this by while I was dealing with twins?

I'm IrishPat, and while your vote really won't count, I'll make you think it does. Individual freedom first...You have the right to be selfish in this country!

I approve this message.


Oh, and I get to argue with that hippie, BobD.....LOL

 

[chicago51]

You sons-of-bitches thought you could pass this by while I was dealing with twins?

I'm IrishPat, and while your vote really won't count, I'll make you think it does. Individual freedom first...You have the right to be selfish in this country!

I approve this message.


Oh, and I get to argue with that hippie, BobD.....LOL

You saw right through our evil socialist plan.

Seriously man, congratulations. That is awesome!

 

[irishpat183]

You saw right through our evil socialist plan.

Seriously man, congratulations. That is awesome!

Thanks brother!!!

 

[Cackalacky]

Thanks brother!!!

So you are in I take it?

 

[RDU Irish]

I'm in. Someone has to stand up for the great State of North Carolina.

 

[Cackalacky]

I'm in. Someone has to stand up for the great State of North Carolina.

I was hoping you would make it with your financial background. Thanks.

 

[NDBoiler]

bump. Reminder that the window closes 5/22/13.

I'm in Johnny Reb.

 

[RDU Irish]

Washington would never let economics get in the way of a good emotional argument.

 

[Cackalacky]

Washington would never let economics get in the way of a good emotional argument.

We are going for well-reasoned arguments based on logic. We'll see how far we get. LOL.

 

[irishpat183]

Washington would never let economics get in the way of a good emotional argument.

Exactly!

 

[NDBoiler]

So are we ready to start now? Just checking.

 

[Cackalacky]

So are we ready to start now? Just checking.

I was gonna let today pass just for any stragglers. We can start tomorrow.

I have been working 3rd shift the past few days and I will be back to normal shift tomorrow. So lets let anyone else have this final day to join. If you think you know someone else, let them know and I will add them.

 

[NDBoiler]

I was just hoping to start with this...

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xoirV6BbjOg?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Cackalacky]

I was just hoping to start with this...

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xoirV6BbjOg?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Who's bringing the pole?

 

[Cackalacky]

Alright honorable gentlemen......Let's get this started. I wanted to start this thread to initiate a listing of grievances in form and manner similar to the 1st and 2nd Continental Congresses. I do not want this to be about the current day topics, so much as how far have we traveled (for the positive or negative) under our existing social contract provided by our founding fathers. I think we all can agree that they believed the document as a general set of guidelines as they wrote it in the form of Amendments, meaning they knew the document to be necessarily imperfect and requiring amending as the people saw fit. But they also made it a terribly hard process so that not one state or group would have a particular control over another. They also restricted the powers given to the three branches of government and protected the press for free speech as they knew this to be the most crucial element of a society.... the free and open expression of ideas and commentary by the people. I think we can all agree that the government has succeeded in certain areas and miserably failed the people in others.

We now have this wonderful thing called the internet which is essentially an open arena for the debate and sharing of ideas and information. I move to use this forum and this thread to air our grievances against US governments, both past and present since the finalization of the Constitution. I am hoping to use this thread as something to unite us as we are all very divided internally now.

So let's have a lively debate and please lets stick with grievances (not changes to the existing contract) now and move on to their merits at some later point. I would like to compile a list, at least initially, for later debate. I must say I am looking forward to this and let's keep it civil with no personal attacks. I have much respect for all y'all and I aim to maintain that through this thread and through the future debate. I would like to thank those that signed on and for those who did not I just ask for as little derailment as possible.

I now open the floor.

 

[Cackalacky]

To start things off, in my opinion I feel that there has become a merger of the federal government and private/multinational corporations where profits are of more consequence than than the public's well-being and that the risks (environmental, monetary, and societal) associated with both's ventures have become spread out to the citizens, denying life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is evident to me that through actions by all three branches of government that we now live in a corporatocracy, not a republic. (Note I have chosen corporatocracy and not corporatism, as there are varying definitions of corporatism).

"Privatized profits and socialized risk!"

 

[chicago51]

Okay here I go:

1 - It is not clear in the language written in the Constitution the Supreme Court has the power to strike down laws. Further more the Supreme Court sure the heck has no right to legistlate new law from the bench, which is essentially what they did with Roe v Wade (I'm pro choice by the way but I don't agree with insulated elected officials legistlating from the bench).

1a- The power of constitutionally should be left with the people of the United States. I propose an amendment where citizens through the ballot box should be able to approve and repeal law, with exception of the actual budget resolution. To ensure large populated areas don't overrun small areas I propose that an ballet iniative law being passed or repealled must have both a majority vote and a majority vote in a majority of states.

2- Scrap the electoral college college and elected the President on popular vote.

3- Go to a system of instant runoff voting for all federal elections, while allowing the states to determine how they want state and local officials to be elected.

4- I want an amendment for caps on donationation limits for federal elections with even greater restrictions on multi-national corporation donations. Imagine if the British East India Tea company could donate unlimited funds in our early elections, the founders wouldn't have stood for that.

5 - I want an amendment saying that the state shall not deny essential medical care (which was very different in 1787) based the basis of wealth.

Note: I'm not talking about what kind of plan we should do to accomplish that, rather it should private, public, public but state, I am talking about the simple right of essential care for legitimate illiness.

 

[chicago51]

To start things off, in my opinion I feel that there has become a merger of the federal government and private/multinational corporations where profits are of more consequence than than the public's well-being and that the risks (environmental, monetary, and societal) associated with both's ventures have become spread out to the citizens, denying life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is evident to me that through actions by all three branches of government that we now live in a corporatocracy, not a republic. (Note I have chosen corporatocracy and not corporatism, as there are varying definitions of corporatism).

"Privatized profits and socialized risk!"

Jefferson had some stuff to say about this:

Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Pennsylvania Democratic-Republicans, 1809.

"Our lot has been cast by the favor of heaven in a country and under circumstances highly auspicious to our peace and prosperity, and where no pretense can arise for the degrading and oppressive establishments of Europe. It is our happiness that honorable distinctions flow only from public approbation, and that finds no object in titled dignitaries and pageants. Let us, then, endeavor carefully to guard this happy state of things by keeping a watchful eye over the disaffection of wealth and ambition to the republican principles of our Constitution, and by sacrificing all our local and personal interests to the cultivation of the Union and maintenance of the authority of the laws." --


6 Apr. 1816Writings 14:466

Whether property alone, and the whole of what each citizen possesses, shall be subject to contribution, or only its surplus after satisfying his first wants, or whether the faculties of body and mind shall contribute also from their annual earnings, is a question to be decided. But, when decided, and the principle settled, it is to be equally and fairly applied to all. To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it." If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it.

Not part of the constitutional debate but for the record Jefferson is one of my favorite political figures ever. He was very much for states rights, civil liberties (including gun ownership and would probably disagree with me on assualt weapons), and was very fiscally conservative. Yet Jefferson also talked about the importance of ensuring education, having good roads and canals (which were big at the time), as well as taxing property in a geometric manner based on value, essentially progressive taxation.

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is
to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the
higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they
rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.

 

[Cackalacky]

Okay here I go:

1 - It is not clear in the language written in the Constitution the Supreme Court has the power to strike down laws. Further more the Supreme Court sure the heck has no right to legistlate new law from the bench, which is essentially what they did with Roe v Wade (I'm pro choice by the way but I don't agree with insulated elected officials legistlating from the bench).

1a- The power of constitutionally should be left with the people of the United States. I propose an amendment where citizens through the ballot box should be able to approve and repeal law, with exception of the actual budget resolution. To ensure large populated areas don't overrun small areas I propose that an ballet iniative law being passed or repealled must have both a majority vote and a majority vote in a majority of states.

2- Scrap the electoral college college and elected the President on popular vote.

3- Go to a system of instant runoff voting for all federal elections, while allowing the states to determine how they want state and local officials to be elected.

4- I want an amendment for caps on donationation limits for federal elections with even greater restrictions on multi-national corporation donations. Imagine if the British East India Tea company could donate unlimited funds in our early elections, the founders wouldn't have stood for that.

5 - I want an amendment saying that the state shall not deny essential medical care (which was very different in 1787) based the basis of wealth.

Note: I'm not talking about what kind of plan we should do to accomplish that, rather it should private, public, public but state, I am talking about the simple right of essential care for legitimate illiness.

chicago51,
Lets stick with grievances for right now not changes.
For example, as a synopsis of the above, you think the election process is unfair or corrupted, that the government should provide a minimum level of healthcare for its citizens and is failing to do so, and legislating from the Courts has done to harm citizens and overstepped it boundaries initially established by the Constitution?

(we can get into the "changes" later).

 

[BobD]

Flat tax.

Term limits.

The right to bear arms was a misspelling, they meant bare arms.

Caps on political contributions and strict controls on lobbyists.

I'll add more after work.

 

[Cackalacky]

Jefferson had some stuff to say about this:



Not part of the constitutional debate but for the record Jefferson is one of my favorite political figures ever. He was very much for states rights, civil liberties (including gun ownership and would probably disagree with me on assualt weapons), and was very fiscally conservative. Yet Jefferson also talked about the importance of ensuring education, having good roads and canals (which were big at the time), as taxing property in a geometric manner based on value, essentially progressive taxation.

Me as well. I believe the only thing he feared more than a large and burdensome federal government was an aristocracy of corporatists

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Thomas Jefferson

 

[chicago51]

chicago51,
Lets stick with grievances for right now not changes.
For example, as a synopsis of the above, you think the election process is unfair or corrupted, that the government should provide a minimum level of healthcare for its citizens and is failing to do so, and legislating from the Courts has done to harm citizens and overstepped it boundaries initially established by the Constitution?

(we can get into the "changes" later).

Fair enough my friend:

My issues:

1- Framers hand no way of knowing but the two party system has limited Democratic ideas.

2- SC should not be able to legistlate from the bench in my opinion constitutionality should rest in the hands of the population.

3- Medical care is unattainable for many because of lack of wealth.

4- Electoral college is not the most accurrate voice of the population of determining who they want to as commander and chief.

 

[chicago51]

Flat tax.

Term limits.

The right to bear arms was a misspelling, they meant bare arms.

Caps on political contributions and strict controls on lobbyists.

I'll add more after work.

There is nothing in the constitution keeping us from doing a flat tax if we wanted to, which I personally don't.

I agree with Bobs points on term limits and caps on political contributions and lobyist controls. I would say though YOU CANNOT HAVE TERM LIMITS WITHOUT CONTROLS ON LOBYIST!!! otherwise enacting term limits will give the lobyist will: 1- Know more about how Congress works than the people in Congress 2- Post employment jobs offered by lobyist will give them even more influence over the members of Congress because they will looking for something to do when there limits expire. So I would support term limits only if it meant throwing the lobyist off Capital Hill.

 

[irishpat183]

-Term limits. This one is huge. Most of the problems we have in government are due to career politicans that are bought and paid for

-Fix the entitlement system. We need to correct the trend. Too many people (a record number) are depending on the government/tax payers to provide for them.

-Limit the power of the Supreme Court. They should only be involved with Constitutional cases.

-Immigration. Fix it. As someone who is not only married to an immigrant, but living in a boarder state, somehthing needs to be done.

-Tax loopholes for corporations....but also reduce the red tape they deal with.

-Allow the states to deal with matters like health care and education.


Some to start.

 

[BobD]

There is nothing in the constitution keeping us from doing a flat tax if we wanted to, which I personally don't.

How dare you disagree with me young man!

 

[Black Irish]

Our laws need to be reviewed and revisited periodically. Our politicians are able to sit on their hands and not address serious issues because they don't have to. They can just let things ride and keep business as usual going. So citizens of today are stuck with the consequences of grand bargains struck decades ago. Also, the sausage making of legislation needs to be more streamlined and open. We shouldn't have 1000 page bills cobbled together by lobbyists and aides that are full of tertiary riders and pork barrel giveaways. And something needs to be done about the maze of red tape that exists at all levels of government that makes it hard for average citizens and businesses to get things done without hiring a team of lawyers, accountants, and consultants. Politicians should make sure that the labyrinth they create can be navigated by the members of the population. I now yield the floor.