Healthcare Defeated

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
enchilnada wrote:
I have always contended that perhaps we should take the relevant portions that our forefathers left us but to throw out or ammend things that aren’t very useful or make for difficult application. It just seems so odd and downright absurd to try to live life today utilizing doctrine written centuries before when things were much different than today.

Can you please name which parts of the Constitution you consider “dated?”[/quote]

Please re-read my previous entry. My broader point is to question how we know that our forefathers wanted us to take their Constitution and apply it to our present day and how exactly are we to be certain that we’re interpreting it 100% correctly.

This is not to say that most of what our forefathers established is not applicable today or useful, as certainly the majority of what they established was superb and transcends time. Furthermore, one would be remiss not to note the fact that one must start somewhere, from something. Certainly, the separation of religion and government, and free speech are wise as well. Yet, it seems to me that many things which our founding fathers laid forth were not likely to be directed at a generation centuries into the future. One might point to the third amendment of the Bill of Rights as an example. It states, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law”. It seems obvious this was a law unique to the time it was written in (i.e., 1791) and unlikely to have application to our current America. Yet another example is the seventh amendment, where there is the reference of a specific dollar amount of twenty U.S. dollars, as the minimum value for suits in common law to which the right to a trial by jury is still allowed. Certainly, our forefathers were not naive with respect to basic notions of economics and would have realized that a specific dollar amount in the Constitution would have been a mistake, unless it wasn’t intended to be directly used by future generations, or, alternatively, they realized that future generations would likely amend this to fit their own modern monetary system, as they would any other amendments as needed.

This all again brings me back to my original points:

Number one, what exactly is the correct way to interpret it? How can we ever be 100% certain what they meant?

Secondly, how do we know that is what the founders wanted us to do?

22

[quote]enchilnada wrote:
Sloth wrote:
enchilnada wrote:
The Mage wrote:

What we really need to do is follow the Constitution based on what it says, and not on one or another political party being able to define, or change its meaning, just because they happen to be in the right position at the right time.

Now, this is a bit off of the main topic, but it is something that interests me. I have to say that I have two problems with following the Constitution based on what it says. Number one, what exactly is the correct way to interpret it? How can we ever be 100% certain what they meant? Secondly, how do we know that is what the founders wanted?

Jefferson made it quite clear in the following statments that he didn’t favor sticking to one golden set of laws that each successive generation was obligated to follow.

“A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.”

“Can one generation bind another and all others in succession forever? I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter unendowed with will.”

“I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self-evident: ‘That the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;’ that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it… We seem not to have perceived that by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independent nation to another.”

“The generations of men may be considered as bodies or corporations. Each generation has the usufruct of the earth during the period of its continuance. When it ceases to exist, the usufruct passes on to the succeeding generation free and unencumbered and so on successively from one generation to another forever. We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.”

I have always contended that perhaps we should take the relevant portions that our forefathers left us but to throw out or ammend things that aren’t very useful or make for difficult application. It just seems so odd and downright absurd to try to live life today utilizing doctrine written centuries before when things were much different than today.

Doesn’t this binding go both ways? Binding future generations to huge government entitlements they won’t be able to pay for?

Absolutely! I’m just unclear as to where I said anything about being a proponent for any sort of government entitlements. [/quote]

You didn’t. I wanted to throw something in about binding/obligatin future generations.

23

Funny quote I read: “Universal healthcare would prolong most people’s lives? OK, I’m against it.” - Jim Goad

24

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
you can still buy your 5 yer old kid a gun, [/quote]

Legally, guns can only be owned by adults.

25

[quote]enchilnada wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
enchilnada wrote:
I have always contended that perhaps we should take the relevant portions that our forefathers left us but to throw out or ammend things that aren’t very useful or make for difficult application. It just seems so odd and downright absurd to try to live life today utilizing doctrine written centuries before when things were much different than today.

Can you please name which parts of the Constitution you consider “dated?”

Please re-read my previous entry. My broader point is to question how we know that our forefathers wanted us to take their Constitution and apply it to our present day and how exactly are we to be certain that we’re interpreting it 100% correctly.

This is not to say that most of what our forefathers established is not applicable today or useful, as certainly the majority of what they established was superb and transcends time. Furthermore, one would be remiss not to note the fact that one must start somewhere, from something. Certainly, the separation of religion and government, and free speech are wise as well. Yet, it seems to me that many things which our founding fathers laid forth were not likely to be directed at a generation centuries into the future. One might point to the third amendment of the Bill of Rights as an example. It states, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law”. It seems obvious this was a law unique to the time it was written in (i.e., 1791) and unlikely to have application to our current America. [/quote]

It may seem obvious but it isn’t. I know that in the 40’s the Brits quartered troops in private homes. I can’t back whether or not it was with or without permission though. That said, it does go to show that there is a need for it from time to time. I could quite readily have seen a need for it when the guard and Blackwater(although they aren’t troops in the traditional or legal sense) would be needed housing an a Katrina-like event. You aren’t seeing a need for the 3rd amendment because of the current nature of things, not because of the era. I trust there wasn’t a fear of quartering troops in homes in the 1730’s.[quote]

Yet another example is the seventh amendment, where there is the reference of a specific dollar amount of twenty U.S. dollars, as the minimum value for suits in common law to which the right to a trial by jury is still allowed. Certainly, our forefathers were not naive with respect to basic notions of economics and would have realized that a specific dollar amount in the Constitution would have been a mistake, unless it wasn’t intended to be directly used by future generations, or, alternatively, they realized that future generations would likely amend this to fit their own modern monetary system, as they would any other amendments as needed. [/quote]

Or perhaps they were aware of this. As I see it, the $20 amount is even better now than it was when the BoR were ratified. As it stands now, the courts can’t take your money for a civil suit without a jury…period. That’s a good thing.[quote]

This all again brings me back to my original points:

Number one, what exactly is the correct way to interpret it? How can we ever be 100% certain what they meant? [/quote]

The Constitution wasn’t meant to be “interpreted”. It was written in English. The concept behind the Constitution was that ANY citizen can pick it up and and point out where the .gov can or cannot do what it’s doing. This idea of interpreting it has been a canard forced upon the people to allow unconstitutional acts to pass without scrutiny, hoping the citizens will concede the points because they don’t speak “legalese”. [quote]

Secondly, how do we know that is what the founders wanted us to do?[/quote]

Read their words. Many of them left countless volumes. One thing we do know they wanted us to do was to amend the damned thing. Yet we avoid that like the plague. The founders are often contradictory for sure, but many of the principles are pretty well agreed upon.

mike

26

[quote]enchilnada wrote:
The Mage wrote:

Now, this is a bit off of the main topic, but it is something that interests me. I have to say that I have two problems with following the Constitution based on what it says. Number one, what exactly is the correct way to interpret it? How can we ever be 100% certain what they meant? Secondly, how do we know that is what the founders wanted? [/quote]

Yo yo, what up enchie?

Ok, we do need interpretation, and that is the purpose of the judges. What I am specifically referring to is the intentional misinterpretation, twisting, or even finding loopholes around it.[quote]

Jefferson made it quite clear in the following statments that he didn’t favor sticking to one golden set of laws that each successive generation was obligated to follow. [/quote]

This is why we are able to change the Constitution. It is designed to be hard to change, but it is not set in stone. If a serious majority are capable of seeing that it needs to be changed, it can, and will be changed.[quote]

I have always contended that perhaps we should take the relevant portions that our forefathers left us but to throw out or ammend things that aren’t very useful or make for difficult application. It just seems so odd and downright absurd to try to live life today utilizing doctrine written centuries before when things were much different than today.
[/quote]

Yes, amend. It is called amending the Constitution. And as such, it actually is not a centuries old document, as it has changed, and is not exactly like it was before.

The whole idea of throwing it out just because it is “old” is foolish. I kind of like having freedom of speech.

27

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Bondslave wrote:

Nobody asked you, foreigner.

If your not going to add anything intelligent to the conversation, please don’t participate.[/quote]
Oh yessir boss!

If you don’t like what I have to say, please don’t address me directly. Just move to the next post and carry on with your super intellectual discussion. It’s riveting.

There were no signs of intelligence in the post I replied to. Certainly nothing worth spending time responding to, like you did. I still wanted him to know how much his opinion of Americans means to me though. Coincidentally I value your opinion about the same as his.

BTW it’s you’re

28

[quote]The Mage wrote:

Seriously it should be taken from both the Democrats and the Republicans. While I am quite libertarian myself, the Libertarian party may not be much of a choice, as too many of them seem quite fucked in the head. (Why the hell would anyone show up at a National Convention in a Star Fleet uniform?)[/quote]

QFT. I’d love to see a strong, realistic libertarian party. When I first came to DC, I went to a few CATO events to see what there was to see. And what I saw was…well… not realistic. People arguing that China was “not a success” because of “liberty.” They argue vociferously for a flat tax…without ever putting forward interim steps. I wish they would stop trying to shout from the wilderness and start giving concrete, specific policies that could be made a reality (in the political realities of the USA).

Yesterday I had a conversation with a friend who is a huge Ron Paul supporter, bumper sticker still on the truck and hundreds of conversations. She was trying to convince me that 911 was an inside job. When I made a joke about Obama being born in Kenya, she asked if I was joking, with a look that told me she really wasn’t sure where he was born.

Sure, these are just a couple of examples and not all libertarians are like this, but I’m just seconding the mage’s point here.

29

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
enchilnada wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
enchilnada wrote:
I have always contended that perhaps we should take the relevant portions that our forefathers left us but to throw out or ammend things that aren’t very useful or make for difficult application. It just seems so odd and downright absurd to try to live life today utilizing doctrine written centuries before when things were much different than today.

Can you please name which parts of the Constitution you consider “dated?”

Please re-read my previous entry. My broader point is to question how we know that our forefathers wanted us to take their Constitution and apply it to our present day and how exactly are we to be certain that we’re interpreting it 100% correctly.

This is not to say that most of what our forefathers established is not applicable today or useful, as certainly the majority of what they established was superb and transcends time. Furthermore, one would be remiss not to note the fact that one must start somewhere, from something. Certainly, the separation of religion and government, and free speech are wise as well. Yet, it seems to me that many things which our founding fathers laid forth were not likely to be directed at a generation centuries into the future. One might point to the third amendment of the Bill of Rights as an example. It states, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law”. It seems obvious this was a law unique to the time it was written in (i.e., 1791) and unlikely to have application to our current America.

It may seem obvious but it isn’t. I know that in the 40’s the Brits quartered troops in private homes. I can’t back whether or not it was with or without permission though. That said, it does go to show that there is a need for it from time to time. I could quite readily have seen a need for it when the guard and Blackwater(although they aren’t troops in the traditional or legal sense) would be needed housing an a Katrina-like event. You aren’t seeing a need for the 3rd amendment because of the current nature of things, not because of the era. I trust there wasn’t a fear of quartering troops in homes in the 1730’s.[/quote]

Well, we’ll just have to disagree there, but the more important question is whether the forefathers intended it to be “needed” in the future. It’s almost as if we are using them as Nostradomi-like characters that could somehow see into the future and know that what they were writing was going to be completely relevant to future generations. Below (yes I know it’s from wiki but I think it’s correct as it’s what I was always taught), it points out that they were writing this amendment specifically because it was completely relevant to their present experiences:

“The Founding Fathers’ intention in writing this amendment was to prevent the recurrence of soldiers being quartered in private property as was done in Colonial America by the British military under the Quartering Act before the American Revolution (1775-1776).”

“The Third Amendment is among the least cited sections of the U.S. Constitution. A product of its times, its relevance has greatly declined since the American Revolution. In particular, military operations occurring on U.S. territory have been increasingly infrequent, especially after the Civil War in the 19th century.”

[quote]This all again brings me back to my original points:

Number one, what exactly is the correct way to interpret it? How can we ever be 100% certain what they meant?

The Constitution wasn’t meant to be “interpreted”. It was written in English. The concept behind the Constitution was that ANY citizen can pick it up and and point out where the .gov can or cannot do what it’s doing. This idea of interpreting it has been a canard forced upon the people to allow unconstitutional acts to pass without scrutiny, hoping the citizens will concede the points because they don’t speak “legalese”.

Secondly, how do we know that is what the founders wanted us to do?

Read their words. Many of them left countless volumes. One thing we do know they wanted us to do was to amend the damned thing. Yet we avoid that like the plague. The founders are often contradictory for sure, but many of the principles are pretty well agreed upon.

mike[/quote]

Finally! I feel like I’m on crazy pills. Yes, that is the question, why is amending “avoided like the plague” as you put it?

And I agree that it shouldn’t be interpreted. If however, there is any visceral interpretation to be made from what our forefathers wrote, it would be that our government should be exactly what we, as a democracy, decide it should be. That is the principle that transcends time, which our forefathers likely knew would be the best message considering they had no way of predicting the future. Furthermore, instead of allowing the use of semantics to get around such laws from long ago and attempts to derive multiple levels of meaning from words that were so plainly written, the current population today should use logic or reason to decide what is relevant today, as opposed to sticking with tradition in this particular case. Yet, proposing such change, it seems, sparks criticism from the government and many citizens as unpatriotic, despite the fact that questioning policy is exactly what our founders intended as a main principle.

30

[quote]The Mage wrote:
enchilnada wrote:
The Mage wrote:

Now, this is a bit off of the main topic, but it is something that interests me. I have to say that I have two problems with following the Constitution based on what it says. Number one, what exactly is the correct way to interpret it? How can we ever be 100% certain what they meant? Secondly, how do we know that is what the founders wanted?

Yo yo, what up enchie?

Ok, we do need interpretation, and that is the purpose of the judges. What I am specifically referring to is the intentional misinterpretation, twisting, or even finding loopholes around it.[/quote]

But, what exactly makes these judges so correct in their interpretations? Doesn’t it at all seem a bit odd and at the very least, a little inefficient to take an amendment written a couple of centuries ago and then have these priest-like characters that are able to interpret these laws in a special manner, far above and beyond what the common man could? Wouldn’t it be a bit more efficient to simply amend it to mean exactly what today’s people, or the majority, wish it to mean, so long as it doesn’t impeded upon the basic and self-evident rights of the minority?

[quote]Jefferson made it quite clear in the following statments that he didn’t favor sticking to one golden set of laws that each successive generation was obligated to follow.

This is why we are able to change the Constitution. It is designed to be hard to change, but it is not set in stone. If a serious majority are capable of seeing that it needs to be changed, it can, and will be changed.

I have always contended that perhaps we should take the relevant portions that our forefathers left us but to throw out or ammend things that aren’t very useful or make for difficult application. It just seems so odd and downright absurd to try to live life today utilizing doctrine written centuries before when things were much different than today.

Yes, amend. It is called amending the Constitution. And as such, it actually is not a centuries old document, as it has changed, and is not exactly like it was before.

The whole idea of throwing it out just because it is “old” is foolish. I kind of like having freedom of speech.[/quote]

Oh really?! Please tell me more about this “amend” word. I just can’t believe it! Well, I thought perhaps you could have a serious discussion but instead of reading my previous entries where I’m clearly NOT suggesting that we simply throw out everything because it’s “old” including freedom of speech, but I’m obviously wrong.

No, it seems most of the hotly contested items of the Constitution are exactly the same as they were written centuries back and if one dare suggest that we “amend” them (maybe you could explain that word to me again), they are thought to be crazy.

Why must we be forced to interpret these things when we could simply change them to whatever the majority wishes?

The second amendment for example: If the majority of citizens wish to possess guns and even carry them in a concealed fashion, without government interference, why do we need to rely upon these special judges to indicate whether that is what the founders would have allowed or not? If it’s what the people want, then that should be the case, no?

I even question the article regarding representation of up to 30,000 men by a single person. In the late 1700s this was logical as the societies at the time dictated that such a system exist. They were limited by primitive travel and the people had to work constantly to maintain the basic necessities of life. The citizens did not have the time nor would there be any feasible way to have thousands upon thousands of people cast their votes for every little piece of legislation. We still follow this tradition, yet, it seems that through this, the will of the people has been lost, making one question not only whether we are in desperate need of change, but whether we are truly “free” in a complete sense of the word, since what we as a people “will” is often not what comes to fruition. Instead of representing the will of the people, politicians often times will vote with their own interests or those of special interest groups in mind. It is not uncommon for laws to be passed in which the majority of citizens are very much against it, that is, if they are even aware of the legislation in the first place. Yet, with today’s technology, I wonder how easy it would be to set up a system which would allow all U.S. citizens the right to cast their vote on any given issue, allowing the people and not the elected officials to dictate our lives and policies. Perhaps in cases where a required amount of citizens have not voted, only then would the decision be left up to elected politicians. If a basic notion of democracy is that rule by many is often better than rule by one or a few then certainly the decisions and laws involving our country should be made by the majority of citizens. It is obvious that with the investment of power with respect to the people of the U.S. into so few individuals, it is very easy for those elected to go against the will of the people. By the time the elected official may come up for re-election, the damage has already been done and there is another person of similar character to take their place.

Anyhow, I will openly admit that this is an area in which I am not an expert and only know the little I have learned in the past, but I often wonder about these things, however naive I may come off as.

31

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

If you’re gonna attack YOUR own leader that atleast provide some evidence to back up your agrument and not just some propoganda.[/quote]

You’re in the wrong forum for that kind of talk amigo.

32

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Gettnitdone wrote:

If you’re gonna attack YOUR own leader that atleast provide some evidence to back up your agrument and not just some propoganda.

You’re in the wrong forum for that kind of talk amigo.[/quote]

Plus, I would never defy our reptilian masters!

What are you, crazy?

33

[quote]enchilnada wrote:

But, what exactly makes these judges so correct in their interpretations?[/quote]

What makes anyone so correct in their interpretations about anything? In this case it is their job. I just think there should be a better way that would filter out the activist judges.[quote]

Doesn’t it at all seem a bit odd and at the very least, a little inefficient to take an amendment written a couple of centuries ago and then have these priest-like characters that are able to interpret these laws in a special manner, far above and beyond what the common man could? Wouldn’t it be a bit more efficient to simply amend it to mean exactly what today’s people, or the majority, wish it to mean, so long as it doesn’t impeded upon the basic and self-evident rights of the minority?[/quote]

We have the ability to do this at any time. (Although now we would have pages and pages of legalese.) There is a process to change it. It is a very complex process, and it was designed to be that way, but this makes sure people are serious about changing it.

But the point is still the same, if the people want it changed, it will be changed.[quote]

Oh really?! Please tell me more about this “amend” word.[/quote]

You didn’t learn about this in elementary school?
How to Amend the Constitution—About the Process [quote]

I just can’t believe it! Well, I thought perhaps you could have a serious discussion but instead of reading my previous entries where I’m clearly NOT suggesting that we simply throw out everything because it’s “old” including freedom of speech, but I’m obviously wrong.[/quote]

The way you talk about it gives the impression you just want to throw the whole thing out.[/quote]

No, it seems most of the hotly contested items of the Constitution are exactly the same as they were written centuries back and if one dare suggest that we “amend” them (maybe you could explain that word to me again), they are thought to be crazy.[/quote]

Why does anyone care that others think they are crazy? Every person who has ushered in change was thought to be crazy. (Hell, half the people I know think I should be committed.) But if a majority of people think this way, then that means they do not want it changed.[quote]

Why must we be forced to interpret these things when we could simply change them to whatever the majority wishes?[/quote]

I see you don’t understand that no matter how it is written, and how clearly, how concise, or even detailed, it will still need to be interpreted. Somebody is still going to have to rule that it means “this in this case and that in that case”.[quote]

The second amendment for example: If the majority of citizens wish to possess guns and even carry them in a concealed fashion, without government interference, why do we need to rely upon these special judges to indicate whether that is what the founders would have allowed or not? If it’s what the people want, then that should be the case, no?[/quote]

And this is where activism come in. Instead of simply interpreting, they are now deciding new meanings, or finding loopholes. [quote]

I even question the article regarding representation of up to 30,000 men by a single person. In the late 1700s this was logical as the societies at the time dictated that such a system exist. They were limited by primitive travel and the people had to work constantly to maintain the basic necessities of life. The citizens did not have the time nor would there be any feasible way to have thousands upon thousands of people cast their votes for every little piece of legislation. We still follow this tradition, yet, it seems that through this, the will of the people has been lost, making one question not only whether we are in desperate need of change, but whether we are truly “free” in a complete sense of the word, since what we as a people “will” is often not what comes to fruition. Instead of representing the will of the people, politicians often times will vote with their own interests or those of special interest groups in mind. It is not uncommon for laws to be passed in which the majority of citizens are very much against it, that is, if they are even aware of the legislation in the first place. Yet, with today’s technology, I wonder how easy it would be to set up a system which would allow all U.S. citizens the right to cast their vote on any given issue, allowing the people and not the elected officials to dictate our lives and policies. Perhaps in cases where a required amount of citizens have not voted, only then would the decision be left up to elected politicians. If a basic notion of democracy is that rule by many is often better than rule by one or a few then certainly the decisions and laws involving our country should be made by the majority of citizens. It is obvious that with the investment of power with respect to the people of the U.S. into so few individuals, it is very easy for those elected to go against the will of the people. By the time the elected official may come up for re-election, the damage has already been done and there is another person of similar character to take their place.[/quote]

So what you want is a true democracy, instead of a representative democracy. You do realize this would actually weaken the minority. It also would mean that our political system would turn into American Idol, where daily whims dictate policy.[quote]

Anyhow, I will openly admit that this is an area in which I am not an expert and only know the little I have learned in the past, but I often wonder about these things, however naive I may come off as.[/quote]

I actually started having similar thoughts when I was in jr high school. This was about the same time I though putting Ben Gay on my biceps before curls might make them grow. (Bad, bad idea.)

34

[quote]The Mage wrote:
enchilnada wrote:

But, what exactly makes these judges so correct in their interpretations?

What makes anyone so correct in their interpretations about anything? In this case it is their job. I just think there should be a better way that would filter out the activist judges.

Doesn’t it at all seem a bit odd and at the very least, a little inefficient to take an amendment written a couple of centuries ago and then have these priest-like characters that are able to interpret these laws in a special manner, far above and beyond what the common man could? Wouldn’t it be a bit more efficient to simply amend it to mean exactly what today’s people, or the majority, wish it to mean, so long as it doesn’t impeded upon the basic and self-evident rights of the minority?

We have the ability to do this at any time. (Although now we would have pages and pages of legalese.) There is a process to change it. It is a very complex process, and it was designed to be that way, but this makes sure people are serious about changing it.

But the point is still the same, if the people want it changed, it will be changed.

Oh really?! Please tell me more about this “amend” word.

You didn’t learn about this in elementary school?

I just can’t believe it! Well, I thought perhaps you could have a serious discussion but instead of reading my previous entries where I’m clearly NOT suggesting that we simply throw out everything because it’s “old” including freedom of speech, but I’m obviously wrong.

The way you talk about it gives the impression you just want to throw the whole thing out.

No, it seems most of the hotly contested items of the Constitution are exactly the same as they were written centuries back and if one dare suggest that we “amend” them (maybe you could explain that word to me again), they are thought to be crazy.

Why does anyone care that others think they are crazy? Every person who has ushered in change was thought to be crazy. (Hell, half the people I know think I should be committed.) But if a majority of people think this way, then that means they do not want it changed.

Why must we be forced to interpret these things when we could simply change them to whatever the majority wishes?

I see you don’t understand that no matter how it is written, and how clearly, how concise, or even detailed, it will still need to be interpreted. Somebody is still going to have to rule that it means “this in this case and that in that case”.

The second amendment for example: If the majority of citizens wish to possess guns and even carry them in a concealed fashion, without government interference, why do we need to rely upon these special judges to indicate whether that is what the founders would have allowed or not? If it’s what the people want, then that should be the case, no?

And this is where activism come in. Instead of simply interpreting, they are now deciding new meanings, or finding loopholes.

I even question the article regarding representation of up to 30,000 men by a single person. In the late 1700s this was logical as the societies at the time dictated that such a system exist. They were limited by primitive travel and the people had to work constantly to maintain the basic necessities of life. The citizens did not have the time nor would there be any feasible way to have thousands upon thousands of people cast their votes for every little piece of legislation. We still follow this tradition, yet, it seems that through this, the will of the people has been lost, making one question not only whether we are in desperate need of change, but whether we are truly “free” in a complete sense of the word, since what we as a people “will” is often not what comes to fruition. Instead of representing the will of the people, politicians often times will vote with their own interests or those of special interest groups in mind. It is not uncommon for laws to be passed in which the majority of citizens are very much against it, that is, if they are even aware of the legislation in the first place. Yet, with today’s technology, I wonder how easy it would be to set up a system which would allow all U.S. citizens the right to cast their vote on any given issue, allowing the people and not the elected officials to dictate our lives and policies. Perhaps in cases where a required amount of citizens have not voted, only then would the decision be left up to elected politicians. If a basic notion of democracy is that rule by many is often better than rule by one or a few then certainly the decisions and laws involving our country should be made by the majority of citizens. It is obvious that with the investment of power with respect to the people of the U.S. into so few individuals, it is very easy for those elected to go against the will of the people. By the time the elected official may come up for re-election, the damage has already been done and there is another person of similar character to take their place.

So what you want is a true democracy, instead of a representative democracy. You do realize this would actually weaken the minority. It also would mean that our political system would turn into American Idol, where daily whims dictate policy.

Anyhow, I will openly admit that this is an area in which I am not an expert and only know the little I have learned in the past, but I often wonder about these things, however naive I may come off as.

I actually started having similar thoughts when I was in jr high school. This was about the same time I though putting Ben Gay on my biceps before curls might make them grow. (Bad, bad idea.)[/quote]

Yet again, it seems you have missed my point(s) and made childish attempts at insults.

I’ll make sure to stay out of the areas you’re in.

35

[quote]enchilnada wrote:
The Mage wrote:
enchilnada wrote:

Yet again, it seems you have missed my point(s) and made childish attempts at insults.

I’ll make sure to stay out of the areas you’re in.
[/quote]

Yikes, if you take offense to that, I don’t think PWI is the forum for you. That was one of the least insulting responses you’ll get in these parts.

36

[quote]enchilnada wrote:

Yet again, it seems you have missed my point(s) and made childish attempts at insults.

I’ll make sure to stay out of the areas you’re in.
[/quote]

That was not an insult, it was a fact. I actually did have those ideas, and yes I actually tried the Ben Gay thing. The point is that my knowledge and understanding has evolved since then, and it means that I understand where you are coming from.

Generally I attempt to avoid getting into real insult arguments here, as they tend to go nowhere.

As you may have noticed, I was ignoring the comments of butslave above, and his idiotic attempt to justify the idea that we are a bunch of dumbfuck cow molesting KKK members like him.

Now you do say I missed you points, yet do not clarify. You have stated we should not have to follow rules set up if they are old, then you said we should not throw out the Constitution, just rewrite it to make it different to suit our times, then clearer to understand.

Are you sure you didn’t miss your points? (Ok, mild insult. I’m a bad man.)

Oh, and I am all over this forum, I just don’t always post. (Often if I would post, others have already made the point, or comment that I would have, so I don’t see any reason to parrot others.)