According to Jefferson, the 50 States assembled in constitutional convention. I would take this one step further, and rather than have the U.S. policing itself (like we have now), I'd create a separate Constitutional Council whose delegates are selected by the 50 Legislatures (and which selection can be recalled at any time). The sole purpose would be to take signed laws from the president, review them, and declare them "constitutional" or "unconstitutional".
In other the U.S. would be policed by the States which had initially created it.
>>>If you agree with everything someone says, there is something wrong.
I agree, which is why I left out the word "everything". I merely said they agree with what Limbaugh says, not that they agree with all of it.
>>>A lot of the problems in the world come from people agreeing with their party just because it is their party.
Yeah I see that with Obama a lot. When his Communication Director Anita Dunn said, "Chairman Mao is my favorite philosopher," and then goes on to describe how she admired his ability to overthrow the Chinese government, all kinds of posters across the net defended her words. Personally I think the words are INdefensible. To admire Mao makes about as much sense as admiring Hitler/
>>>Article 8 states that privacy shall not be infringed except as provided by law, for specific purposes only (among them fighting crime).
So the EU could pass its own version of the Patriot Act, and since that's a law intended to fight the crime of terrorism, begin searching european cars, homes, or wiretapping phones/computers randomly. No need to go get a warrant.
Quoting wikipedia: "The term Administration Party is sometimes used [by historians] to describe the supporters of the administration who joined the Federalist Party after its formation. This was not an actual political party; rather, this is used as a catch-all for a variety of diverse political factions."
The pre-1800 Congress had no parties. No Democrats or Republicans or Federalists. Nothing. I think it'd be great if we adopted that kind of Congress again. Let each representative be pledged to no organization, except the voters back home.
>>>Simultaneously controlling much of the world's power and other assets, while appearing weak and refusing to retaliate to direct attacks, is a suicidal combination.
Or... you could just wait for Bin Laden to get old and die. Problem solved. Instead we went over there, killed a bunch of dads and moms, and now the kids are just thirsting for revenge. We MADE terrorists.
>>>to say that we should not have done anything about Afghanistan is pure pacifism.
Strawman argument. That's not what I said. I said, "secured the border the same way you install a more-solid door on your house after a breakin".
And as we've learned from the Northern Island, killing doesn't solve the problem. All it does is create MORE terrorists. There are now orphans in Afghanistan and Iraq who want to get revenge against America because we killed their fathers or mothers. All we've done is create a bunch more Bin Ladens, not less.
>>>I have no problem with warrentless wiretaps if they are used against criminals, no one should.
Except the word "criminals" can be redefined into other things - "like jews" in the 1930s or "patriots" in the 1770s. These groups become criminals by default, and of course have no rights.
You seehe Constitution is not just the result of forward-thinking, but the result of people who experienced this stuff firsthand under the British Parliament. They didn't warrantless searches because THEY were the "criminals" in the previous decade, and didn't want a repeat of that in future decades.
>>>Most Democrats in the federal government are just less extreme authoritarian [fascists] than the average Republican
Let's say what we really mean. Fascist politician == partner with corporate CEOs = modern-day corporatism. It's not communism (government ownership) or capitalism (private ownership), but instead a third way halfway between.
Wikipedia says:
Mussolini denounced supercapitalism for causing the "standardization of humankind" and for causing excessive consumption..... "When difficulties arise, the capitalist enterprise throws itself like a dead weight into the state's arms. It is then that state intervention begins and becomes more necessary. It is then that those who once ignored the state now seek it out anxiously."..... "our path would lead inexorably into state capitalism, which is nothing more nor less than state socialism turned on its head. In either event, the result is the bureaucratization of the economic activities of the nation."
This could be fixed quite easily by limiting the right of free speech and monetary donations to individuals, not corporations or groups. i.e. Microsoft would have no right to lobby/donate to a campaign.
>>>Remember what happened when people decided to vote for a third candidate in Fla 2000?
No but back in the 1800s Florida elected several third parties to the Congress, including Conservatives, Liberal-republicans, and Progressives. Our ancestors weren't pussies, and they voted their conscience.
In the 1800s all kinds of third parties were present in Congress... so much so that in many cases neither the Dems or Reps held majority control. If our ancestors in the 1800s could put third parties into the government, then we can too. In fact it looks like New York is about to elect a Conservative Party to office.
We should have ignored Bin Laden the same way we ignore Internet Trolls. Don't feed them with a response. Was 9/11 a tragedy? Yes, and so was the challenger disaster, and the New Orleans flooding, and so on. Rather than declare war, we should have just picked up the pieces, secured the border the same way you install a more-solid door on your house after a breakin, and continued to live in peace.
>>>I can imagine cases where making information on the warrantless wire taps available could compromise ongoing law enforcement or terrorism efforts.
Too bad. The purpose of having to ask a judge for a warrant IS precisely to keep the law officers honest about their motives (or lack thereof), rather than allowing American version of the SS with nobody reining them in. Warrants == Checks and balances.
>>>Obama has stated, time after time, that he feels we should all just, you know, move on and get over it...
That's easy to say when you haven't had your life savings wiped-out, or previous years of your life spent in prison, as a result of these illegal searches. Those people want justice for the harm caused to them, not Obama's "jus'fuhgedd'abou'it" platitudes.
The difference is that in a representative Democracy, the white majority can vote 51% to kill all asians, or any other minority they don't like. In the Athenian Democracy Socrates was killed by just such a vote. They didn't like his writings, so they majority had him killed.
In the U.S. Republic where the law reigns supreme, and those laws protect individual rights, they above scenarios can not happen.
Well then don't vote either Libertarian or Constitutionalist. Vote Green. Vote Communist. Vote Socialst. I don't really give a damn who you vote for, as long as it's not the Republicrat Monopoly.
At this point having witnessed the Republican Congress and now the Democratic Congress in action, tyrants all, I think if you vote R or D in 2010 then you're a fool. Vote third party. Break the back of the R/D monopoly.
If we follow your logic to its conclusion, you should turn your back on the Republicans as well. After all they talk about religious matters as if they want to resurrect a Church-run government akin to middle-ages Europe.
And the Democrats are apparently trying to create a government modeled after Chairman Mao's communist philosophy.
If you're looking for a "perfect" party, you will NEVER find it.
For me - even though I think the Libertarians are somewhat radical and therefore not a perfect party - they best fit my views of allowing people to live their lives without government interference. Government is not supposed to be a modern version of the Manor Lords, treating the citizens as serfs on the plantation. That's neither freedom nor liberty. Government should be there, but barely noticeable in day-to-day routines, and libertarians embrace that idea.
There's no need for opinion; it's quite clear. The wiretaps were illegal, and the court case needs to be allowed to continue to its conclusion so the U.S. officials responsible can spend a couple months in jail, just like any criminal. The AG's attempt to stop the court case means justice will be denied for the innocent victims.
So in other words the United States government is covering-up its previous crimes. Gee. Golly. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I guess that makes it okay then.
And who the hell would represent ME in such a system? At least with the current design, my representative lives within walking distance of my house. We don't need to change that. All we need to do is convince people they don't "have" to vote for R or D, and that it's okay to pick one of the third parties to be your Congressional representative
Actually both the Greens and Libertarians had ~500 members up for election in state and local offices. Eve if you didn't like their presidential choice, you still could have voted for one of the lower-level offices.
Sounds like an improvement to me. Members of Congress would be following their own conscience (and the directions of the constituents back home), rather than just blindly following the D or R party line.
>>>Where was the tea party during the Bush administration.....
There were a number of anti-war/anti-Bush protests. I know because I attended one of them.
>>>I support Obama, except for this.
I don't. He's raising our national debt from $120,000 to $200,000 per U.S. home, in just eight short years (2016). We're never going to be able to pay that off. First we wasted money on war; now we're wasting it on other shit. We need fiscal restraint.
>>>Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps. Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration's initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens. >>>
I just noticed that European citizens have no such protection. The EU Charter of Rights has no requirement for the general government to obtain a warrant. It can search cars, homes, or wiretap phones/computers at will.
Hmmmm.
Maybe Obama is just trying to make our Union look more like the European Union? Part of his new goal to unite the world.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>So to whom would *you* give this authority?
According to Jefferson, the 50 States assembled in constitutional convention. I would take this one step further, and rather than have the U.S. policing itself (like we have now), I'd create a separate Constitutional Council whose delegates are selected by the 50 Legislatures (and which selection can be recalled at any time). The sole purpose would be to take signed laws from the president, review them, and declare them "constitutional" or "unconstitutional".
In other the U.S. would be policed by the States which had initially created it.
>>>If you agree with everything someone says, there is something wrong.
I agree, which is why I left out the word "everything". I merely said they agree with what Limbaugh says, not that they agree with all of it.
>>>A lot of the problems in the world come from people agreeing with their party just because it is their party.
Yeah I see that with Obama a lot. When his Communication Director Anita Dunn said, "Chairman Mao is my favorite philosopher," and then goes on to describe how she admired his ability to overthrow the Chinese government, all kinds of posters across the net defended her words. Personally I think the words are INdefensible. To admire Mao makes about as much sense as admiring Hitler/
>>>Article 8 states that privacy shall not be infringed except as provided by law, for specific purposes only (among them fighting crime).
So the EU could pass its own version of the Patriot Act, and since that's a law intended to fight the crime of terrorism, begin searching european cars, homes, or wiretapping phones/computers randomly. No need to go get a warrant.
>>>You're a fucking idiot.
Quoting wikipedia: "The term Administration Party is sometimes used [by historians] to describe the supporters of the administration who joined the Federalist Party after its formation. This was not an actual political party; rather, this is used as a catch-all for a variety of diverse political factions."
The pre-1800 Congress had no parties. No Democrats or Republicans or Federalists. Nothing. I think it'd be great if we adopted that kind of Congress again. Let each representative be pledged to no organization, except the voters back home.
>>>Simultaneously controlling much of the world's power and other assets, while appearing weak and refusing to retaliate to direct attacks, is a suicidal combination.
Or... you could just wait for Bin Laden to get old and die. Problem solved.
Instead we went over there, killed a bunch of dads and moms, and now the kids are just thirsting for revenge. We MADE terrorists.
>>>to say that we should not have done anything about Afghanistan is pure pacifism.
Strawman argument. That's not what I said. I said, "secured the border the same way you install a more-solid door on your house after a breakin".
And as we've learned from the Northern Island, killing doesn't solve the problem. All it does is create MORE terrorists. There are now orphans in Afghanistan and Iraq who want to get revenge against America because we killed their fathers or mothers. All we've done is create a bunch more Bin Ladens, not less.
>>>I have no problem with warrentless wiretaps if they are used against criminals, no one should.
Except the word "criminals" can be redefined into other things - "like jews" in the 1930s or "patriots" in the 1770s. These groups become criminals by default, and of course have no rights.
You seehe Constitution is not just the result of forward-thinking, but the result of people who experienced this stuff firsthand under the British Parliament. They didn't warrantless searches because THEY were the "criminals" in the previous decade, and didn't want a repeat of that in future decades.
>>>Most Democrats in the federal government are just less extreme authoritarian [fascists] than the average Republican
Let's say what we really mean. Fascist politician == partner with corporate CEOs = modern-day corporatism. It's not communism (government ownership) or capitalism (private ownership), but instead a third way halfway between.
Wikipedia says:
Mussolini denounced supercapitalism for causing the "standardization of humankind" and for causing excessive consumption..... "When difficulties arise, the capitalist enterprise throws itself like a dead weight into the state's arms. It is then that state intervention begins and becomes more necessary. It is then that those who once ignored the state now seek it out anxiously."..... "our path would lead inexorably into state capitalism, which is nothing more nor less than state socialism turned on its head. In either event, the result is the bureaucratization of the economic activities of the nation."
Sound familiar? Bailouts. State intervention.
This could be fixed quite easily by limiting the right of free speech and monetary donations to individuals, not corporations or groups. i.e. Microsoft would have no right to lobby/donate to a campaign.
Okay. Well maybe we should ban parties in Congress completely. The first 4 Congresses (and also the pre-1789 Congresses) has no parties of any kind.
>>>Remember what happened when people decided to vote for a third candidate in Fla 2000?
No but back in the 1800s Florida elected several third parties to the Congress, including Conservatives, Liberal-republicans, and Progressives. Our ancestors weren't pussies, and they voted their conscience.
You give up too easily.
In the 1800s all kinds of third parties were present in Congress... so much so that in many cases neither the Dems or Reps held majority control. If our ancestors in the 1800s could put third parties into the government, then we can too. In fact it looks like New York is about to elect a Conservative Party to office.
In my opinion there was no need for war.
We should have ignored Bin Laden the same way we ignore Internet Trolls. Don't feed them with a response. Was 9/11 a tragedy? Yes, and so was the challenger disaster, and the New Orleans flooding, and so on. Rather than declare war, we should have just picked up the pieces, secured the border the same way you install a more-solid door on your house after a breakin, and continued to live in peace.
>>>I can imagine cases where making information on the warrantless wire taps available could compromise ongoing law enforcement or terrorism efforts.
Too bad. The purpose of having to ask a judge for a warrant IS precisely to keep the law officers honest about their motives (or lack thereof), rather than allowing American version of the SS with nobody reining them in. Warrants == Checks and balances.
>>>Obama has stated, time after time, that he feels we should all just, you know, move on and get over it...
That's easy to say when you haven't had your life savings wiped-out, or previous years of your life spent in prison, as a result of these illegal searches. Those people want justice for the harm caused to them, not Obama's "jus'fuhgedd'abou'it" platitudes.
The difference is that in a representative Democracy, the white majority can vote 51% to kill all asians, or any other minority they don't like. In the Athenian Democracy Socrates was killed by just such a vote. They didn't like his writings, so they majority had him killed.
In the U.S. Republic where the law reigns supreme, and those laws protect individual rights, they above scenarios can not happen.
Well then don't vote either Libertarian or Constitutionalist. Vote Green. Vote Communist. Vote Socialst. I don't really give a damn who you vote for, as long as it's not the Republicrat Monopoly.
At this point having witnessed the Republican Congress and now the Democratic Congress in action, tyrants all, I think if you vote R or D in 2010 then you're a fool. Vote third party. Break the back of the R/D monopoly.
If we follow your logic to its conclusion, you should turn your back on the Republicans as well. After all they talk about religious matters as if they want to resurrect a Church-run government akin to middle-ages Europe.
And the Democrats are apparently trying to create a government modeled after Chairman Mao's communist philosophy.
If you're looking for a "perfect" party, you will NEVER find it.
For me - even though I think the Libertarians are somewhat radical and therefore not a perfect party - they best fit my views of allowing people to live their lives without government interference. Government is not supposed to be a modern version of the Manor Lords, treating the citizens as serfs on the plantation. That's neither freedom nor liberty. Government should be there, but barely noticeable in day-to-day routines, and libertarians embrace that idea.
No warrant; no search.
There's no need for opinion; it's quite clear. The wiretaps were illegal, and the court case needs to be allowed to continue to its conclusion so the U.S. officials responsible can spend a couple months in jail, just like any criminal. The AG's attempt to stop the court case means justice will be denied for the innocent victims.
So in other words the United States government is covering-up its previous crimes. Gee. Golly. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I guess that makes it okay then.
And who the hell would represent ME in such a system? At least with the current design, my representative lives within walking distance of my house. We don't need to change that. All we need to do is convince people they don't "have" to vote for R or D, and that it's okay to pick one of the third parties to be your Congressional representative
Actually both the Greens and Libertarians had ~500 members up for election in state and local offices. Eve if you didn't like their presidential choice, you still could have voted for one of the lower-level offices.
Sounds like an improvement to me. Members of Congress would be following their own conscience (and the directions of the constituents back home), rather than just blindly following the D or R party line.
>>>Where was the tea party during the Bush administration.....
There were a number of anti-war/anti-Bush protests. I know because I attended one of them.
>>>I support Obama, except for this.
I don't. He's raising our national debt from $120,000 to $200,000 per U.S. home, in just eight short years (2016). We're never going to be able to pay that off. First we wasted money on war; now we're wasting it on other shit. We need fiscal restraint.
>>>Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps. Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration's initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens.
>>>
I just noticed that European citizens have no such protection. The EU Charter of Rights has no requirement for the general government to obtain a warrant. It can search cars, homes, or wiretap phones/computers at will.
Hmmmm.
Maybe Obama is just trying to make our Union look more like the European Union? Part of his new goal to unite the world.