It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The NEO Constitution of the United States of America
page: 4share:
originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: TheNewRevolution
If our original Constitution has failed what's to stop future leaders from doing the same with a new one? Some of what you responded to me in your prior post was covered by the 10th Amendment reserving to the states all rights not named in the Federal Constitution. That too was ignored and trampled upon.
It seems to me the original Constitution was fine, the real problem lies in human nature; namely greed and lust for power.
Until we can create a society where those traits are contained no political system will work equitably for all. Which may be my most pragmatic argument in favor of religion come to think of it.
Amen!
Corruption is at every level of society.
Double Post
edit on 5 2 15 by TheNewRevolution because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Aazadan
Thank you for reading it and discussing. Though I don't agree with all of the things you said, I will at least try to address them.
I changed the Legislative branches, not to reflect the reality of which we currently live, but to create a new reality. The fact of the matter should be that for people to be able to stand in charge and control over an entire country, they should be required to have the education and experience to do so. A comparison would be teaching a newcomer to firearms to fire a gun. Do you give them the highest caliber rifle on their first day and tell them to deal with it, or do you work them up from a lower caliber until they have a feel for how the system works? I'm pretty sure the later option is better and will bring about better results.
Second with that issue is your remarks on the amounts of representation. This "district representation" is not something that should be brought to federal government. The point is to lower the amount of legistlation that comes out of the federal government and limit it to ONLY the powers delegated in the Constitution, which includes not singling out particular districts in the country unless absolutely necessary. That power is to be delegated to the state and state representatives, bringing about a confederation of states rather than a centrally run country off an enormous size. The entire purpose of the document is to decentralize power and return it to the states, not appease the current system and try to continue down the same path with a better outcome. This is a new path entirely.
As for the suggestion of 1:20,000 - it is something that is completely unsustainable and will only bring about higher taxes and more federal government power. Not to mention the actually voting of bringing such a number to fruition would be disastrous.
The compensation part I could not disagree with any more. Government is not supposed to be a career, a get rich quick scheme, or motivated by money. By limiting the compensation it will attract only those who are in it for the right reasons. The idea of opening more for corruption is accounted for in the limitations section, making it a punishable offense to accept any kind of gifts from corporate interests. Not to mention the fact that accepting bribery is now akin to treason. I'm sure that the corruptible ones will think twice.
When it comes to plain English, I'm trying to make government accessible to the PEOPLE, not only college educated lawyers. This is where the main separation of government comes from. People cannot read or interpret the laws that are being passed against them, and even if they tried they cannot understand them. This is how legislation is passed against the will of the people without them even knowing. Shorter, plainer laws - ones that do not need interpretation, should be the new norm. If there is some debate about what the law means, then they can clarify it in footnotes and what not. It isn't too complicated.
I agree with the clause about borrowing money with a balanced budget. It was an oversight. It should be the authority to borrow money in the time of wartime or other emergency.
You are also correct about the "useful arts" clause, but it will be up to the Congress to determine what "useful" is. After all, they already decide where our money is distributed without our consent so by limiting that to what a quorum can be considered useful, such as technological advancements and culturally significant things, we prevent backdoor money from going all over the place where it is not necessary. Perhaps it could be more specific, but honestly it would be a campaigning point. Certain people will be for science while others might be for the arts. The people can decide which representatives best support their interests as they have always done.
The executive office has the power given to one person to strike down laws and represent our nation. This should not be a position that is taken likely. Regardless of the "separation of powers" and how they should be equal in yours eyes, they are not. They never have been for the past 200 years. The executive office has always been portrayed as the supreme power of the nation, whether it is truth or not. The same checks and balances still exist, the new Constitution simply limits the pool to people who have proven track records as government servants and not just some corporate shmuck or daddy's boy who fell into money and can campaign because of it.
There will be no more party politics because there will be no more party lines. The power of the federal government will be limited STRICTLY by the Constitution and there will be very little breathing room for politicians to sway from side to side. Party politics can be reserved to the power of the states and they can decide how best to govern themselves if they choose to do so.
I agree 100% with your take on the petition for removal of office of the executive branch. It will be changed.
As for the Judicial side of things. As I said, my take is to remove the stigma of a government for and by lawyers and move it to one of the people and by the people. The Supreme Court will exist for the common people to say what does and what does not comply with the Constitution, in plain English. With the simplifications of laws, it will not require lawyer minded people to interpret and reinterpret every word to annotate its multiple meanings and see if MAYBE it passes a Constitutional limitations, it will be straight up - does this single, simplified law go against anything written in this 18 page document? Yes? It's gone. Explain why. No. Success. New law.
When it comes to the criminal hearings, it is only for treason. It is a ready made jury of 50 elected people who will determine exactly what they do with laws - did said person violate anything written in this 18 page document? Simple and sweet.
Section 7 only complies with what I said above. Each law is given a single review by the Supreme Court when signed by the President. They is now infinite review of the law. Once and done and passed.
The tax system is the most fair system I know of. If there is anything better, I would gladly hear suggestions. If you think the current system is anywhere near acceptable, then we have irreconcilable differences.
I touched on it before but as for your "House doing business" with earmarks and local issues - no. Local issues are to be removed from federal government. If you have local issues deal with it in the local, county, or state levels. This Constitution removes the age old reach of federal government to micromanage every single thing across the country, ultimately restoring states right to the maximum that they can be.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on education reform. The reform section is only a foundation for a later bill to be established, with simple guidelines beings set in the Constitution. Education itself does really change so much, it simply will be removed from the extreme control that the federal government now has. Political Education is to teach would be government workers the limitations of the new Constitution since it seems that people of today do not seem to understand limitations. It is simple - if it doesn't say that you can do it in this document - YOU CAN'T DO IT. If it explicitly says you can't do it, then you DEFINITELY CAN'T DO IT.
Once again, thanks for feedback. We need more discussion like this.
Thank you for reading it and discussing. Though I don't agree with all of the things you said, I will at least try to address them.
I changed the Legislative branches, not to reflect the reality of which we currently live, but to create a new reality. The fact of the matter should be that for people to be able to stand in charge and control over an entire country, they should be required to have the education and experience to do so. A comparison would be teaching a newcomer to firearms to fire a gun. Do you give them the highest caliber rifle on their first day and tell them to deal with it, or do you work them up from a lower caliber until they have a feel for how the system works? I'm pretty sure the later option is better and will bring about better results.
Second with that issue is your remarks on the amounts of representation. This "district representation" is not something that should be brought to federal government. The point is to lower the amount of legistlation that comes out of the federal government and limit it to ONLY the powers delegated in the Constitution, which includes not singling out particular districts in the country unless absolutely necessary. That power is to be delegated to the state and state representatives, bringing about a confederation of states rather than a centrally run country off an enormous size. The entire purpose of the document is to decentralize power and return it to the states, not appease the current system and try to continue down the same path with a better outcome. This is a new path entirely.
As for the suggestion of 1:20,000 - it is something that is completely unsustainable and will only bring about higher taxes and more federal government power. Not to mention the actually voting of bringing such a number to fruition would be disastrous.
The compensation part I could not disagree with any more. Government is not supposed to be a career, a get rich quick scheme, or motivated by money. By limiting the compensation it will attract only those who are in it for the right reasons. The idea of opening more for corruption is accounted for in the limitations section, making it a punishable offense to accept any kind of gifts from corporate interests. Not to mention the fact that accepting bribery is now akin to treason. I'm sure that the corruptible ones will think twice.
When it comes to plain English, I'm trying to make government accessible to the PEOPLE, not only college educated lawyers. This is where the main separation of government comes from. People cannot read or interpret the laws that are being passed against them, and even if they tried they cannot understand them. This is how legislation is passed against the will of the people without them even knowing. Shorter, plainer laws - ones that do not need interpretation, should be the new norm. If there is some debate about what the law means, then they can clarify it in footnotes and what not. It isn't too complicated.
I agree with the clause about borrowing money with a balanced budget. It was an oversight. It should be the authority to borrow money in the time of wartime or other emergency.
You are also correct about the "useful arts" clause, but it will be up to the Congress to determine what "useful" is. After all, they already decide where our money is distributed without our consent so by limiting that to what a quorum can be considered useful, such as technological advancements and culturally significant things, we prevent backdoor money from going all over the place where it is not necessary. Perhaps it could be more specific, but honestly it would be a campaigning point. Certain people will be for science while others might be for the arts. The people can decide which representatives best support their interests as they have always done.
The executive office has the power given to one person to strike down laws and represent our nation. This should not be a position that is taken likely. Regardless of the "separation of powers" and how they should be equal in yours eyes, they are not. They never have been for the past 200 years. The executive office has always been portrayed as the supreme power of the nation, whether it is truth or not. The same checks and balances still exist, the new Constitution simply limits the pool to people who have proven track records as government servants and not just some corporate shmuck or daddy's boy who fell into money and can campaign because of it.
There will be no more party politics because there will be no more party lines. The power of the federal government will be limited STRICTLY by the Constitution and there will be very little breathing room for politicians to sway from side to side. Party politics can be reserved to the power of the states and they can decide how best to govern themselves if they choose to do so.
I agree 100% with your take on the petition for removal of office of the executive branch. It will be changed.
As for the Judicial side of things. As I said, my take is to remove the stigma of a government for and by lawyers and move it to one of the people and by the people. The Supreme Court will exist for the common people to say what does and what does not comply with the Constitution, in plain English. With the simplifications of laws, it will not require lawyer minded people to interpret and reinterpret every word to annotate its multiple meanings and see if MAYBE it passes a Constitutional limitations, it will be straight up - does this single, simplified law go against anything written in this 18 page document? Yes? It's gone. Explain why. No. Success. New law.
When it comes to the criminal hearings, it is only for treason. It is a ready made jury of 50 elected people who will determine exactly what they do with laws - did said person violate anything written in this 18 page document? Simple and sweet.
Section 7 only complies with what I said above. Each law is given a single review by the Supreme Court when signed by the President. They is now infinite review of the law. Once and done and passed.
The tax system is the most fair system I know of. If there is anything better, I would gladly hear suggestions. If you think the current system is anywhere near acceptable, then we have irreconcilable differences.
I touched on it before but as for your "House doing business" with earmarks and local issues - no. Local issues are to be removed from federal government. If you have local issues deal with it in the local, county, or state levels. This Constitution removes the age old reach of federal government to micromanage every single thing across the country, ultimately restoring states right to the maximum that they can be.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on education reform. The reform section is only a foundation for a later bill to be established, with simple guidelines beings set in the Constitution. Education itself does really change so much, it simply will be removed from the extreme control that the federal government now has. Political Education is to teach would be government workers the limitations of the new Constitution since it seems that people of today do not seem to understand limitations. It is simple - if it doesn't say that you can do it in this document - YOU CAN'T DO IT. If it explicitly says you can't do it, then you DEFINITELY CAN'T DO IT.
Once again, thanks for feedback. We need more discussion like this.
a reply to: Asktheanimals
The new Constitution expands the checks and balances and returns it to the people and states rather than career politicians. It removes career politicians almost completely, limits the accumulation of money from said positions, and makes any kind of bribery or compensation from outside sources illegal. It will limit the people who work in government to those who truly want to work for betterment rather than those looking for power or get rich quick schemes.
There are plenty of other protections in the document that the original lacked. It contains pretty much everything from the original as well so there is no oversight, it simply gives protections over itself so that it is near impossible to be infringed or overstepped when the proper channels are taken. The major factor is the change in the Supreme Court which acts as a door for all politicians and laws to make sure they adhere to the Constitution.
The new Constitution expands the checks and balances and returns it to the people and states rather than career politicians. It removes career politicians almost completely, limits the accumulation of money from said positions, and makes any kind of bribery or compensation from outside sources illegal. It will limit the people who work in government to those who truly want to work for betterment rather than those looking for power or get rich quick schemes.
There are plenty of other protections in the document that the original lacked. It contains pretty much everything from the original as well so there is no oversight, it simply gives protections over itself so that it is near impossible to be infringed or overstepped when the proper channels are taken. The major factor is the change in the Supreme Court which acts as a door for all politicians and laws to make sure they adhere to the Constitution.
a reply to: WarminIndy
1. There will be free education and minimally mandated curriculum, however there is an opt out clause for anyone to choose their own education so long as it includes the mandated curriculum. The mandated stuff isn't to be indoctrination or anything of the sorts, it will be simplified stuff such as voter education and Constitutional education. The point is to make sure that all people are informed and eligible to take part in the voting system, getting people involved from an early age in their government so that we don't end up with what we have now - people who feel their voices don't matter and a less than 50% voter turn out.
2. Political Education will be mandatory for those who with to take office in the House, Senate, Supreme Court, President, Vice-President, or other executive positions. It is optional if you don't want to take part in these things.
3. The Supreme Court will be made up of 50 people, elected from people who have had Political Education and who have not served in other federal office. It is the 3/4 rule on Constitutionality and they are reelected every 5 years.
4. The new Constitution gives them their rights back and takes away the power that the federal government took over the states.
5. I'm not in the business of getting people interested in education. That should be up to the educators. I am in the business of making sure that the youth of our country are educated in how our country works and take part it in, and they are all afforded to pursue their education if they want to without financial limitations.
6. Flat sales tax of 20% on non-essential goods and services to be determined be interim government and Congress on a regular basis. 15% of all of that goes to federal government while 5% goes to the state of origin. It would be filed by the business and would eliminate the need for individual tax returns. Corporate tax would be 20% flat as well with 5% of that distributed amongst the states as necessary. Property tax is outlawed on residential plots up to 2 acres and agricultural plots that are in use. The rest of property taxes are left up to the state. They is also a reform on import export taxes to promote keeping resources materials in the US and promote US manufactured goods.
7. The powers of the Interim Government our outlined in the final section as to what they can and will be doing. They are limited to 10 years in power or earlier if the Constitution is fully implemented and a vote takes place. It will be a minimum 6 year transition time in order to get education and voting set up, however. The only way to extend that time is via assembly of the people and a 3/4 state acceptance of an extension.
As to how, revolution. Peaceful or violent. That is up to the current government.
1. There will be free education and minimally mandated curriculum, however there is an opt out clause for anyone to choose their own education so long as it includes the mandated curriculum. The mandated stuff isn't to be indoctrination or anything of the sorts, it will be simplified stuff such as voter education and Constitutional education. The point is to make sure that all people are informed and eligible to take part in the voting system, getting people involved from an early age in their government so that we don't end up with what we have now - people who feel their voices don't matter and a less than 50% voter turn out.
2. Political Education will be mandatory for those who with to take office in the House, Senate, Supreme Court, President, Vice-President, or other executive positions. It is optional if you don't want to take part in these things.
3. The Supreme Court will be made up of 50 people, elected from people who have had Political Education and who have not served in other federal office. It is the 3/4 rule on Constitutionality and they are reelected every 5 years.
4. The new Constitution gives them their rights back and takes away the power that the federal government took over the states.
5. I'm not in the business of getting people interested in education. That should be up to the educators. I am in the business of making sure that the youth of our country are educated in how our country works and take part it in, and they are all afforded to pursue their education if they want to without financial limitations.
6. Flat sales tax of 20% on non-essential goods and services to be determined be interim government and Congress on a regular basis. 15% of all of that goes to federal government while 5% goes to the state of origin. It would be filed by the business and would eliminate the need for individual tax returns. Corporate tax would be 20% flat as well with 5% of that distributed amongst the states as necessary. Property tax is outlawed on residential plots up to 2 acres and agricultural plots that are in use. The rest of property taxes are left up to the state. They is also a reform on import export taxes to promote keeping resources materials in the US and promote US manufactured goods.
7. The powers of the Interim Government our outlined in the final section as to what they can and will be doing. They are limited to 10 years in power or earlier if the Constitution is fully implemented and a vote takes place. It will be a minimum 6 year transition time in order to get education and voting set up, however. The only way to extend that time is via assembly of the people and a 3/4 state acceptance of an extension.
As to how, revolution. Peaceful or violent. That is up to the current government.
originally posted by: fixitwcw
a reply to: TheNewRevolution
non-repealable, mandatory death sentence for any government official caught being corrupt.
I'd agree with this 100%. I bet the nation changes for the better almost overnight.
originally posted by: TheNewRevolution
a reply to: Asktheanimals
The new Constitution expands the checks and balances and returns it to the people and states rather than career politicians. It removes career politicians almost completely, limits the accumulation of money from said positions, and makes any kind of bribery or compensation from outside sources illegal. It will limit the people who work in government to those who truly want to work for betterment rather than those looking for power or get rich quick schemes.
There are plenty of other protections in the document that the original lacked. It contains pretty much everything from the original as well so there is no oversight, it simply gives protections over itself so that it is near impossible to be infringed or overstepped when the proper channels are taken. The major factor is the change in the Supreme Court which acts as a door for all politicians and laws to make sure they adhere to the Constitution.
I agree, term limits for congress.
And wage caps for congress.
If I were president, I would suggest to make it law that rent has a cap, fairly executed by district of incomes and not because Re/Max or 21st Century is making a lot of money.
There are a lot of renters who can't afford to rent and those who own the houses barely afford the mortgage for the house owned. Which is another thing I would change, while some people like to own more than one house and live in one for six months and another six months and have many houses they don't live in except maybe a few days a year, that needs to change.
And I would do away with companies building model houses that sit while there are homeless people. If a construction company can afford to build a house to sit empty, then they can afford to build houses that can be used.
originally posted by: TheNewRevolution
a reply to: WarminIndy
1. There will be free education and minimally mandated curriculum, however there is an opt out clause for anyone to choose their own education so long as it includes the mandated curriculum. The mandated stuff isn't to be indoctrination or anything of the sorts, it will be simplified stuff such as voter education and Constitutional education. The point is to make sure that all people are informed and eligible to take part in the voting system, getting people involved from an early age in their government so that we don't end up with what we have now - people who feel their voices don't matter and a less than 50% voter turn out.
2. Political Education will be mandatory for those who with to take office in the House, Senate, Supreme Court, President, Vice-President, or other executive positions. It is optional if you don't want to take part in these things.
3. The Supreme Court will be made up of 50 people, elected from people who have had Political Education and who have not served in other federal office. It is the 3/4 rule on Constitutionality and they are reelected every 5 years.
4. The new Constitution gives them their rights back and takes away the power that the federal government took over the states.
5. I'm not in the business of getting people interested in education. That should be up to the educators. I am in the business of making sure that the youth of our country are educated in how our country works and take part it in, and they are all afforded to pursue their education if they want to without financial limitations.
6. Flat sales tax of 20% on non-essential goods and services to be determined be interim government and Congress on a regular basis. 15% of all of that goes to federal government while 5% goes to the state of origin. It would be filed by the business and would eliminate the need for individual tax returns. Corporate tax would be 20% flat as well with 5% of that distributed amongst the states as necessary. Property tax is outlawed on residential plots up to 2 acres and agricultural plots that are in use. The rest of property taxes are left up to the state. They is also a reform on import export taxes to promote keeping resources materials in the US and promote US manufactured goods.
7. The powers of the Interim Government our outlined in the final section as to what they can and will be doing. They are limited to 10 years in power or earlier if the Constitution is fully implemented and a vote takes place. It will be a minimum 6 year transition time in order to get education and voting set up, however. The only way to extend that time is via assembly of the people and a 3/4 state acceptance of an extension.
As to how, revolution. Peaceful or violent. That is up to the current government.
It can't be mandatory and optional at the same time.
How about this, let's get back to the basics of education and make that free. Supplementary courses could be paid for by the people who choose to send their kids to those schools. It is my understanding that Hebrew school and Greek school is optional but geared toward a particular language and culture. So then to diversify the population and encourage cultural heritage, allow neighborhoods to have those schools offered by the community.
I would then say the city in which that school is offered, to allow buildings to be given with no charge to the school, with the condition that the city can oversee it so that no abuse of children can happen.
Second, I would also put a limit on day care costs. Right now, private day care is outrageous. I know that a lot of people make a living off that, but the cost is so high that parents are struggling with working, paying bills and paying day care.
Third, if we recognize St. Patrick's day and Cinco de Mayo, which is the Mexican day of Independence, then we should recognize every month the various ethnic holidays. I just don't know why the Mexican (a completely different and separate sovereign nation) gets to celebrate its independence here. So to be fair, we also allow recognition of Bastille Day.
While Cinco de Mayo can be considered cultural, it is also their day of Independence. We don't go to Mexico on July 4 and expect them to set of fireworks and eat BBQ. Do away with Cinco de Mayo or recognize all days of independence.
Then I would say that every month a different ethnic group celebrates their culture. We have Oktoberfest for Germans, so every year have a pow wow for Native Americans.
I say do away with recognizing the political holiday of Cinco de Mayo, have a different cultural day for Mexicans. And then as we have several territories, recognize their cultures as well. Why is it that we hear little from Guam and American Samoa, but we know more about Cinco de Mayo?
That's the problem I have with that day, it is not really cultural, it is political. Save the celebration for Mexico's independence to Mexico, unless we also celebrate Bastille Day.
a reply to: WarminIndy
OK well the curriculum of the education system is mandatory, not the system itself. You can home school or send your children to private schools, however, all schools will have a minimum mandatory curriculum that they must meet to be acceptable.
As for your rent and day care issues, this is something that can be dealt with on a state or local level and will change when we remove corporations from government. The holiday argument you pose is fickle and pointless.
The point of this Constitution is to remove powers from federal government and limit them, not give them more assets to micromanage the lives of everyday Americans. You don't like the price of day care? Find a babysitter. You don't like a particular holiday? Don't celebrate it. If you have a holiday you do like, nothing is stopping you or another group from celebrating it.
In America we don't "celebrate" Cinco de Mayo, we simple accept it as a part of melting pot culture.
OK well the curriculum of the education system is mandatory, not the system itself. You can home school or send your children to private schools, however, all schools will have a minimum mandatory curriculum that they must meet to be acceptable.
As for your rent and day care issues, this is something that can be dealt with on a state or local level and will change when we remove corporations from government. The holiday argument you pose is fickle and pointless.
The point of this Constitution is to remove powers from federal government and limit them, not give them more assets to micromanage the lives of everyday Americans. You don't like the price of day care? Find a babysitter. You don't like a particular holiday? Don't celebrate it. If you have a holiday you do like, nothing is stopping you or another group from celebrating it.
In America we don't "celebrate" Cinco de Mayo, we simple accept it as a part of melting pot culture.
originally posted by: TheNewRevolution
a reply to: WarminIndy
OK well the curriculum of the education system is mandatory, not the system itself. You can home school or send your children to private schools, however, all schools will have a minimum mandatory curriculum that they must meet to be acceptable.
This is what we currently do. The problem is that different areas have different ideas as to what counts as appropriate. This is why Texas yells states rights when they want to teach creationism while calling evolution an alternative fringe theory. What happens when those students try and go elsewhere to learn though? Their science education is subpar. You get the same issue with Common Core which is not only trying to teach smarter, but establish a national baseline.
I've been in college a long time and we have that issue there too. Ohio (where I am) has a program where classes are supposed to transfer to any other school in the state but that doesn't always happen. I have about 400 credit hours but only 200 of those actually transferred to my new school when I went there this year.
States rights and national educational standards are mutually exclusive concepts. One is taking power from the feds while the other is giving it to them. You can't do both.
edit on 4-5-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)
a reply to: TheNewRevolution
Why shouldn't it? The current system is that a group of people (a district) have their interests represented at a federal level by a congressman. The constitution mandates 1:20,000 people but the reality these days is very different. The reason gerrymandering exists today is to group people of like mindedness so that they have a representative who reflects their values. The side effect of this is that general elections become landslides and only the primary matters. The larger the district, the more of an issue this becomes. With smaller districts such a thing isn't necessary, there are also advantages in regards to corruption. In general with a binary system such as yes/no or R vs D 40% of the people will vote for one option while 40% vote for the other. The remaining 20% are the swing votes that matter. With a body of 435 people that's 87 swing votes which means that in order to buy a vote a person needs to successfully lobby 44 votes. With a 1:20,000 ratio there are 15,500 votes which means there's 3110 swing votes. In order to successfully lobby that means you have to buy 1556 votes... a significantly more expensive prospect. This is also completely sustainable with the introduction of virtual meetings so that reps don't have to physically get together in DC, it can all be online (which also keeps them in their district all year). But, I still see where you're going with the unsustainability.
Managing near 16,000 people can be a mess however it can be done primarily through compartmentalization by making small committees of say 20 people each. Each of those committees manages a certain part of the US (there would be 775 in this case). For example you could divide the current federal agencies up into regional jurisdictions with each committee having oversight on one. Such as the road/bridge networks in the northwest being covered by some reps from Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana while in the south east another group of 20 works on the dam system in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and so on. This gives each member a small slice of power and a purpose. The small amount of power also limits the scope of any corruption if it does turn up. Draconian laws aren't necessary.
Here's a thread I wrote on the subject last year, the first part is on a public voting system and the second is on representation www.abovetopsecret.com... My thoughts on it have changed a little, I've realized being quite so draconian isn't necessary, but I still agree with the overall sentiment. More people in congress and more pay for those who go.
We will just have to agree to disagree then. I realize that my solution isn't a popular sentiment, in fact no one on ATS has ever agreed with me on it that I can remember. However, I strongly believe that one of the best ways to counter corruption is to offer law makers a better deal by sticking to their constituitents wishes. Draconian laws just make it go undetected, 99% of white collar crime isn't caught and this is no different. Better pay means an elected official has an incentive to stay in office, and it means a corporation has to spend more to buy the person. It also has another effect that better pay tends to bring about higher public scrutiny so that the population is more politically aware. I believe the phrase is "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar", treat politicians like human beings who hold high value jobs and you'll get better results. Treat them like parsites that need to be starved and the relationship will be antagonistic.
In the spirit of this, what I would like to see is a law that limits how long a particular piece of legislation can be. Glass-Steagall was two pages and some of the best legislation ever written. It's replacement Dodd-Frank was 14,000 pages and less effective. Rather than plain English I want to see bills that are no longer than 10 pages, with 5 pages being preferable. One of my hats is being a technical designer and there are a couple quotes that instantly come to mind.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. -Leonardo da Vinci
A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
To this end I would write the law as follows: A bill needs a majority vote to pass congress and +1% to the required vote percentage for every 5 additional pages of legislation past 6. Thus it would need 51% at 10 pages, 52% at 11, 53% at 16, and so on up to requiring a 100% vote from Congress at 251 or more pages. Similarly, the vote needed to overturn a presidental veto would also increase at this same rate.
originally posted by: TheNewRevolution
Second with that issue is your remarks on the amounts of representation. This "district representation" is not something that should be brought to federal government. The point is to lower the amount of legistlation that comes out of the federal government and limit it to ONLY the powers delegated in the Constitution, which includes not singling out particular districts in the country unless absolutely necessary. That power is to be delegated to the state and state representatives, bringing about a confederation of states rather than a centrally run country off an enormous size. The entire purpose of the document is to decentralize power and return it to the states, not appease the current system and try to continue down the same path with a better outcome. This is a new path entirely.
As for the suggestion of 1:20,000 - it is something that is completely unsustainable and will only bring about higher taxes and more federal government power. Not to mention the actually voting of bringing such a number to fruition would be disastrous.
Why shouldn't it? The current system is that a group of people (a district) have their interests represented at a federal level by a congressman. The constitution mandates 1:20,000 people but the reality these days is very different. The reason gerrymandering exists today is to group people of like mindedness so that they have a representative who reflects their values. The side effect of this is that general elections become landslides and only the primary matters. The larger the district, the more of an issue this becomes. With smaller districts such a thing isn't necessary, there are also advantages in regards to corruption. In general with a binary system such as yes/no or R vs D 40% of the people will vote for one option while 40% vote for the other. The remaining 20% are the swing votes that matter. With a body of 435 people that's 87 swing votes which means that in order to buy a vote a person needs to successfully lobby 44 votes. With a 1:20,000 ratio there are 15,500 votes which means there's 3110 swing votes. In order to successfully lobby that means you have to buy 1556 votes... a significantly more expensive prospect. This is also completely sustainable with the introduction of virtual meetings so that reps don't have to physically get together in DC, it can all be online (which also keeps them in their district all year). But, I still see where you're going with the unsustainability.
Managing near 16,000 people can be a mess however it can be done primarily through compartmentalization by making small committees of say 20 people each. Each of those committees manages a certain part of the US (there would be 775 in this case). For example you could divide the current federal agencies up into regional jurisdictions with each committee having oversight on one. Such as the road/bridge networks in the northwest being covered by some reps from Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana while in the south east another group of 20 works on the dam system in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and so on. This gives each member a small slice of power and a purpose. The small amount of power also limits the scope of any corruption if it does turn up. Draconian laws aren't necessary.
Here's a thread I wrote on the subject last year, the first part is on a public voting system and the second is on representation www.abovetopsecret.com... My thoughts on it have changed a little, I've realized being quite so draconian isn't necessary, but I still agree with the overall sentiment. More people in congress and more pay for those who go.
The compensation part I could not disagree with any more. Government is not supposed to be a career, a get rich quick scheme, or motivated by money. By limiting the compensation it will attract only those who are in it for the right reasons. The idea of opening more for corruption is accounted for in the limitations section, making it a punishable offense to accept any kind of gifts from corporate interests. Not to mention the fact that accepting bribery is now akin to treason. I'm sure that the corruptible ones will think twice.
We will just have to agree to disagree then. I realize that my solution isn't a popular sentiment, in fact no one on ATS has ever agreed with me on it that I can remember. However, I strongly believe that one of the best ways to counter corruption is to offer law makers a better deal by sticking to their constituitents wishes. Draconian laws just make it go undetected, 99% of white collar crime isn't caught and this is no different. Better pay means an elected official has an incentive to stay in office, and it means a corporation has to spend more to buy the person. It also has another effect that better pay tends to bring about higher public scrutiny so that the population is more politically aware. I believe the phrase is "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar", treat politicians like human beings who hold high value jobs and you'll get better results. Treat them like parsites that need to be starved and the relationship will be antagonistic.
When it comes to plain English, I'm trying to make government accessible to the PEOPLE, not only college educated lawyers. This is where the main separation of government comes from. People cannot read or interpret the laws that are being passed against them, and even if they tried they cannot understand them. This is how legislation is passed against the will of the people without them even knowing. Shorter, plainer laws - ones that do not need interpretation, should be the new norm. If there is some debate about what the law means, then they can clarify it in footnotes and what not. It isn't too complicated.
In the spirit of this, what I would like to see is a law that limits how long a particular piece of legislation can be. Glass-Steagall was two pages and some of the best legislation ever written. It's replacement Dodd-Frank was 14,000 pages and less effective. Rather than plain English I want to see bills that are no longer than 10 pages, with 5 pages being preferable. One of my hats is being a technical designer and there are a couple quotes that instantly come to mind.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. -Leonardo da Vinci
A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
To this end I would write the law as follows: A bill needs a majority vote to pass congress and +1% to the required vote percentage for every 5 additional pages of legislation past 6. Thus it would need 51% at 10 pages, 52% at 11, 53% at 16, and so on up to requiring a 100% vote from Congress at 251 or more pages. Similarly, the vote needed to overturn a presidental veto would also increase at this same rate.
a reply to: TheNewRevolution
The branches have never been equal, power has ebbed and flowed. Right now the presidency is at a high point but 115 years ago it was largely ceremonial. One thing I do want to point out however is that sometimes outsiders have value. I just don't think you're going to get good people in government with your plan. It's designed to not be a career path, but at the same time it requires treating it as a career path in order to fill the higher offices. What this is going to largely do is put it only in the hands of those who have struck it rich as young people, and can then devote 30 years to projecting their will onto others. No one else can afford to disrupt their career in the ways necessary. Political offices should be open to all.
Parties will always exist as long as voting blocks exist, to take the low hanging fruit of your example... "useful arts". That is open to interpretation and groups will form in order to increase their voting power.
Well, here's a counter argument. Judges are for the most part supposed to be wise, most people don't have the necessary wisdom to be a judge. Let me give an example, the majority of people do not want to give basic rights to a person accused of molesting a child. They would happily throw away the fifth amendment just to make them say they did it, or to make them commit perjury for an even greater offense. They are also quite happy with the convicted getting raped in prison over and over... it never even comes across as cruel and unusual punishment. I do not want random members of the public to be judges, they aren't qualified. The path to represntation for "the people" is the federal or state legislature. Legal training, wisdom, and freedom from political affiliation are all requirements of being a judge in my mind. In fact, I would go as far as to say the crown jewel of our current constitution and our government in practice isn't the Bill of Rights... it's the judiciary. As proof of this I would like to point out that the only area of our federal government that HASN'T run off the rails has been the judges (excluding the FISA court which is really part of the executive), and in particular the Supreme Court which is almost completely free from political squabbles.
I do not agree with the current tax system, but I do believe it's better than a flat tax. I have a very low opinion of flat taxes. I actually just wrote a thread detailing a new tax system. I'll link it but the main point was that people were taxed according to the share of the nations wealth that they own. If a person owned 1% of all of the nations wealth, then they should pay 1% of the total tax burden. It moved all taxes to a tax on net worth (though with minor adjustments this could also be financial worth or income) to be paid by anyone living in or working in the US. Here's the thread on it www.abovetopsecret.com...
My counter point to this is that certain multinational corporations have more power than countries at this point. For example Exxon has more negotiating power with the US than a nation like France does and they're a nuclear power. If we take too much power away from the feds, each state which is only 2% as powerful as the federal government will be in a much weaker position when dealing with that multinational. Lets say they demand $10 billion in kickbacks or they will move their business out of the US. The feds are powerful enough to oppose that move, but a state is not.
The executive office has the power given to one person to strike down laws and represent our nation. This should not be a position that is taken likely. Regardless of the "separation of powers" and how they should be equal in yours eyes, they are not. They never have been for the past 200 years. The executive office has always been portrayed as the supreme power of the nation, whether it is truth or not. The same checks and balances still exist, the new Constitution simply limits the pool to people who have proven track records as government servants and not just some corporate shmuck or daddy's boy who fell into money and can campaign because of it.
The branches have never been equal, power has ebbed and flowed. Right now the presidency is at a high point but 115 years ago it was largely ceremonial. One thing I do want to point out however is that sometimes outsiders have value. I just don't think you're going to get good people in government with your plan. It's designed to not be a career path, but at the same time it requires treating it as a career path in order to fill the higher offices. What this is going to largely do is put it only in the hands of those who have struck it rich as young people, and can then devote 30 years to projecting their will onto others. No one else can afford to disrupt their career in the ways necessary. Political offices should be open to all.
There will be no more party politics because there will be no more party lines. The power of the federal government will be limited STRICTLY by the Constitution and there will be very little breathing room for politicians to sway from side to side. Party politics can be reserved to the power of the states and they can decide how best to govern themselves if they choose to do so.
Parties will always exist as long as voting blocks exist, to take the low hanging fruit of your example... "useful arts". That is open to interpretation and groups will form in order to increase their voting power.
As for the Judicial side of things. As I said, my take is to remove the stigma of a government for and by lawyers and move it to one of the people and by the people. The Supreme Court will exist for the common people to say what does and what does not comply with the Constitution, in plain English. With the simplifications of laws, it will not require lawyer minded people to interpret and reinterpret every word to annotate its multiple meanings and see if MAYBE it passes a Constitutional limitations, it will be straight up - does this single, simplified law go against anything written in this 18 page document? Yes? It's gone. Explain why. No. Success. New law.
Well, here's a counter argument. Judges are for the most part supposed to be wise, most people don't have the necessary wisdom to be a judge. Let me give an example, the majority of people do not want to give basic rights to a person accused of molesting a child. They would happily throw away the fifth amendment just to make them say they did it, or to make them commit perjury for an even greater offense. They are also quite happy with the convicted getting raped in prison over and over... it never even comes across as cruel and unusual punishment. I do not want random members of the public to be judges, they aren't qualified. The path to represntation for "the people" is the federal or state legislature. Legal training, wisdom, and freedom from political affiliation are all requirements of being a judge in my mind. In fact, I would go as far as to say the crown jewel of our current constitution and our government in practice isn't the Bill of Rights... it's the judiciary. As proof of this I would like to point out that the only area of our federal government that HASN'T run off the rails has been the judges (excluding the FISA court which is really part of the executive), and in particular the Supreme Court which is almost completely free from political squabbles.
The tax system is the most fair system I know of. If there is anything better, I would gladly hear suggestions. If you think the current system is anywhere near acceptable, then we have irreconcilable differences.
I do not agree with the current tax system, but I do believe it's better than a flat tax. I have a very low opinion of flat taxes. I actually just wrote a thread detailing a new tax system. I'll link it but the main point was that people were taxed according to the share of the nations wealth that they own. If a person owned 1% of all of the nations wealth, then they should pay 1% of the total tax burden. It moved all taxes to a tax on net worth (though with minor adjustments this could also be financial worth or income) to be paid by anyone living in or working in the US. Here's the thread on it www.abovetopsecret.com...
I touched on it before but as for your "House doing business" with earmarks and local issues - no. Local issues are to be removed from federal government. If you have local issues deal with it in the local, county, or state levels. This Constitution removes the age old reach of federal government to micromanage every single thing across the country, ultimately restoring states right to the maximum that they can be.
My counter point to this is that certain multinational corporations have more power than countries at this point. For example Exxon has more negotiating power with the US than a nation like France does and they're a nuclear power. If we take too much power away from the feds, each state which is only 2% as powerful as the federal government will be in a much weaker position when dealing with that multinational. Lets say they demand $10 billion in kickbacks or they will move their business out of the US. The feds are powerful enough to oppose that move, but a state is not.
a reply to: TheNewRevolution
Well, one of the first points I want to address is what education is. For a bit of background here, I am by most standards highly educated. I was in the gifted and talented program, I want to an elite private high school, and while I don't hold a Masters or Doctorate which is indicative of deep knowledge I do have 4 and closing in on 5 undergrad degrees with about 400 semester credit hours which is more of a cross discipline or polymath approach (though the degrees are all somewhat related to each other). I bring this up not to brag but because I think when you mention education we each think of different things. When I see education what I see is people being taught why and how something works the way it does. The problem is that the deeper you go into any field of knowledge the more you realize you don't know. For example it is quite common for phd's to feel very inadequete because of how much they know they don't know about even their own field. Our current constitution for example is a work of genius that forged completely new territory (sidenote, none of the original signatories felt it could stand the test of time). Political Education that simply teaches one to repeat what is already there is not education in my mind, it is repetition. To me education means teaching people how to create their own constitution which is even better than what already exists, and for that you don't need to know the document word for word but rather the intent behind those words. As a sidenote this is part of why I believe Obama hasn't been a successful president. He is a constitutional lawyer but he only knows the document and how to manipulate it, he doesn't know how to do better than it says.
Basically, I see any proposed Political Education not as something that teaches who can do what, but rather it teaches how to determine where we are currently deficient and how to fix those problems. Political Education should be creating new Madisons, Adams', and Jeffersons. Not yes men who can only repeat what they were taught (do note that all three of them were lawyers). To put this another way, education is nothing more than a starting point... it makes you a mindless drone (not what I want in a politician), what really matters is how a person can add to the body of knowledge after learning the system.
Now for the other part of education. Lets start with grade school. I should start by saying that what I've seen from Common Core in Math is very good. The way they are teaching math is precisely the way it should be taught, it's using the exact same process I use to calculate (roughly 100 of my credit hours are in math classes) but that process is something I had to come up with on my own and teach myself. It is an extremely good system and without the standardization of it, the states who do follow it will have graduates far more capable than those who don't. If graduates of schools from Mississippi aren't on par with those from Massachuetts we have a very big problem. Just as interstate commerce needs to be regulated by an organization that stands above the states so does education. Now, in other subjects I don't think I can say much as I'm too far removed from the issue. I graduated HS in 2000 and have no kids so I don't see grade school on a day to day basis.
In general though the things I would like to see are:
1. Increase the school day by 1 hour
2. Reduce homework to no more than 1 hour per night (roughly 10 minutes per subject).
3. Slow down the pace of class.
4. Add mandatory HS level courses on logic, computer applications, personal finance, theology (covering all major religions), current events, and media bias.
5. Beginning with the second semester of grade 11, tailor HS courses to each students desired future (college prep, mechanic, farmer, or anything else) to provide a more specialized education by the time a person graduates.
6. Emulate a Scandanavian model (particularly Finland) rather than an Asian model.
I may or may not support future CC initiatives like reading and writing. I'll have to see them first to decide.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on education reform. The reform section is only a foundation for a later bill to be established, with simple guidelines beings set in the Constitution. Education itself does really change so much, it simply will be removed from the extreme control that the federal government now has. Political Education is to teach would be government workers the limitations of the new Constitution since it seems that people of today do not seem to understand limitations. It is simple - if it doesn't say that you can do it in this document - YOU CAN'T DO IT. If it explicitly says you can't do it, then you DEFINITELY CAN'T DO IT.
Once again, thanks for feedback. We need more discussion like this.
Well, one of the first points I want to address is what education is. For a bit of background here, I am by most standards highly educated. I was in the gifted and talented program, I want to an elite private high school, and while I don't hold a Masters or Doctorate which is indicative of deep knowledge I do have 4 and closing in on 5 undergrad degrees with about 400 semester credit hours which is more of a cross discipline or polymath approach (though the degrees are all somewhat related to each other). I bring this up not to brag but because I think when you mention education we each think of different things. When I see education what I see is people being taught why and how something works the way it does. The problem is that the deeper you go into any field of knowledge the more you realize you don't know. For example it is quite common for phd's to feel very inadequete because of how much they know they don't know about even their own field. Our current constitution for example is a work of genius that forged completely new territory (sidenote, none of the original signatories felt it could stand the test of time). Political Education that simply teaches one to repeat what is already there is not education in my mind, it is repetition. To me education means teaching people how to create their own constitution which is even better than what already exists, and for that you don't need to know the document word for word but rather the intent behind those words. As a sidenote this is part of why I believe Obama hasn't been a successful president. He is a constitutional lawyer but he only knows the document and how to manipulate it, he doesn't know how to do better than it says.
Basically, I see any proposed Political Education not as something that teaches who can do what, but rather it teaches how to determine where we are currently deficient and how to fix those problems. Political Education should be creating new Madisons, Adams', and Jeffersons. Not yes men who can only repeat what they were taught (do note that all three of them were lawyers). To put this another way, education is nothing more than a starting point... it makes you a mindless drone (not what I want in a politician), what really matters is how a person can add to the body of knowledge after learning the system.
Now for the other part of education. Lets start with grade school. I should start by saying that what I've seen from Common Core in Math is very good. The way they are teaching math is precisely the way it should be taught, it's using the exact same process I use to calculate (roughly 100 of my credit hours are in math classes) but that process is something I had to come up with on my own and teach myself. It is an extremely good system and without the standardization of it, the states who do follow it will have graduates far more capable than those who don't. If graduates of schools from Mississippi aren't on par with those from Massachuetts we have a very big problem. Just as interstate commerce needs to be regulated by an organization that stands above the states so does education. Now, in other subjects I don't think I can say much as I'm too far removed from the issue. I graduated HS in 2000 and have no kids so I don't see grade school on a day to day basis.
In general though the things I would like to see are:
1. Increase the school day by 1 hour
2. Reduce homework to no more than 1 hour per night (roughly 10 minutes per subject).
3. Slow down the pace of class.
4. Add mandatory HS level courses on logic, computer applications, personal finance, theology (covering all major religions), current events, and media bias.
5. Beginning with the second semester of grade 11, tailor HS courses to each students desired future (college prep, mechanic, farmer, or anything else) to provide a more specialized education by the time a person graduates.
6. Emulate a Scandanavian model (particularly Finland) rather than an Asian model.
I may or may not support future CC initiatives like reading and writing. I'll have to see them first to decide.
edit on 4-5-2015 by Aazadan
because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
non-repealable, mandatory death sentence for any government official caught being corrupt.
I'd agree with this 100%. I bet the nation changes for the better almost overnight.
I bet you would see the opposite. Rather than a corporation giving a politician a house to live in, the corporation will keep it and the politician just acts as a house sitter. Now they have an ongoing relationship to influence their vote rather than a 1 shot action. Furthermore, the board members of Walmart have the constitutional right to express their opinion, and that opinion can be whatever they wish. How are you going to legislate corruption if that persons opinion is "Senator X listens to my issues and addresses them, I like having him in office"? That's an opinion the wealthy individual has that the Senator has no bearing on other than listening to the person (something they're supposed to do).
I think what you would find is that blackmail would skyrocket. Incidents of corruption would be found, and those incidents would be used to influence votes under the threat of a death penalty. This would give an agency like the NSA with their domestic spy powers ENORMOUS influence.
edit on
4-5-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Aazadan
Yes but the point is to make it a simplified and federal standard. By adding the education article in the Constitution, it gives the power to federal government to regulate the mandatory curriculum and set a baseline that the states cannot change. Whatever other curriculum can be determined by the schools and should be an individual, not even a state involved process.
There can also be, mandatory credit transfers among all accredited schools, which would make the whole process that much easier and baseline.
But do not be confused, the education reform is not to create intelligence standards and processes like common core attempts to do, it is simply to set a minimum to the education standard provided by schools and home schooling. Government should not be in the business of telling children HOW to learn or think, but rather set a standard for what they should learn on their own accord and the accord of their instructors.
Yes but the point is to make it a simplified and federal standard. By adding the education article in the Constitution, it gives the power to federal government to regulate the mandatory curriculum and set a baseline that the states cannot change. Whatever other curriculum can be determined by the schools and should be an individual, not even a state involved process.
There can also be, mandatory credit transfers among all accredited schools, which would make the whole process that much easier and baseline.
But do not be confused, the education reform is not to create intelligence standards and processes like common core attempts to do, it is simply to set a minimum to the education standard provided by schools and home schooling. Government should not be in the business of telling children HOW to learn or think, but rather set a standard for what they should learn on their own accord and the accord of their instructors.
a reply to: Aazadan
The Constitution is designed to destroy lobbying completely. It's outlawed. If lobbying is found, that person is no longer working in government. Therefor, to stop corruption we need to do nothing but enforce the laws of the document. Corruption in its current form will be destroyed in the new layout.
Lastly, about representatives working on roads in some state or dams in another - no. Once again, limits of federal government. The control of travel for federal government will be limited to interstate highways and international transportation. The control of energy applications and travel regulations and maintenance will be returned to the states and their legislatures, removed from the federal level - as it should be.
As for pay, federal employees are already payed much higher than average Americans and that has so far not quelled any of their lust for greed or power, I hardly doubt handing them more money is going to change it either.
I do like your idea for limiting the size of laws, however, for great endeavors such as tax, education, or healthcare reform, these ideas may end up taking many pages. I believe there should be limitations, but not so low as you place them. I also believe you referred to keeping it simple, and then gave an idea for an unnecessarily complicated Congressional voting procedure.
The Constitution is designed to destroy lobbying completely. It's outlawed. If lobbying is found, that person is no longer working in government. Therefor, to stop corruption we need to do nothing but enforce the laws of the document. Corruption in its current form will be destroyed in the new layout.
Lastly, about representatives working on roads in some state or dams in another - no. Once again, limits of federal government. The control of travel for federal government will be limited to interstate highways and international transportation. The control of energy applications and travel regulations and maintenance will be returned to the states and their legislatures, removed from the federal level - as it should be.
As for pay, federal employees are already payed much higher than average Americans and that has so far not quelled any of their lust for greed or power, I hardly doubt handing them more money is going to change it either.
I do like your idea for limiting the size of laws, however, for great endeavors such as tax, education, or healthcare reform, these ideas may end up taking many pages. I believe there should be limitations, but not so low as you place them. I also believe you referred to keeping it simple, and then gave an idea for an unnecessarily complicated Congressional voting procedure.
a reply to: Aazadan
Simply put - political offices will be open to all. All they will have to do is take an education course to enter the running. If government managed to raise the standard of living of US citizens, their standard will rise as well. Government will not be the full time job that it is today. If people do not feel comfortable making a living wage for government work, then they will be able to get a second job like other Americans. With the minimizing of government responsibility, this will be possible and perhaps even promoted in the workforce.
And yes, parties may exist but certainly not along the lines they do today. Their divisions will be menial and opinionated, more tastes of individuals rather than dealing with divisive issues that separate them today. Those divisive issues that are hot button topics today will be limited to states control.
The judicial system as a whole will remain untouched. The Supreme Court will be the only thing affected. The issue with the Supreme Court is that today they are lifers and it is unknown how touched or untouched by corruption and lobbying they are. It is a small, private circle and it is hard to see what goes on behind closed doors. Would it be better to you if say the original Supreme Court existed as a sort of council, and the 50 elected people would be the "jury" so to speak?
As for the international corporations and their power - the federal government still deals with all international interests, corporations included. If any business demands $10 billion to do business here, they won't be doing business. I'm sure if a company like Exxon doesn't want to provide their goods to the largest consuming nation in the world, there will certainly be another company that does, especially considering that import taxes will be nothing for resource based commodities. In the true free market, governments do not have to deal with corporate terrorists to provide to their citizens.
Simply put - political offices will be open to all. All they will have to do is take an education course to enter the running. If government managed to raise the standard of living of US citizens, their standard will rise as well. Government will not be the full time job that it is today. If people do not feel comfortable making a living wage for government work, then they will be able to get a second job like other Americans. With the minimizing of government responsibility, this will be possible and perhaps even promoted in the workforce.
And yes, parties may exist but certainly not along the lines they do today. Their divisions will be menial and opinionated, more tastes of individuals rather than dealing with divisive issues that separate them today. Those divisive issues that are hot button topics today will be limited to states control.
The judicial system as a whole will remain untouched. The Supreme Court will be the only thing affected. The issue with the Supreme Court is that today they are lifers and it is unknown how touched or untouched by corruption and lobbying they are. It is a small, private circle and it is hard to see what goes on behind closed doors. Would it be better to you if say the original Supreme Court existed as a sort of council, and the 50 elected people would be the "jury" so to speak?
As for the international corporations and their power - the federal government still deals with all international interests, corporations included. If any business demands $10 billion to do business here, they won't be doing business. I'm sure if a company like Exxon doesn't want to provide their goods to the largest consuming nation in the world, there will certainly be another company that does, especially considering that import taxes will be nothing for resource based commodities. In the true free market, governments do not have to deal with corporate terrorists to provide to their citizens.
a reply to: Aazadan
I like your education ideas, truly and I do agree with your sentiments on creating the next Founding Fathers. The Political Education course is pretty much idealized to be exactly as you put. In fact, in the first draft of the Constitution I had called it "Philosophy Education" instead, but for the sake of that broad term I changed it to be a little more clear. The idea is to not only to teach the boundaries of The Constitution but to instill the ideas of broad thinking and less stoic thought.
The only thing I do not agree with is Common Core, especially on the K-12 curriculum. I have seen some of the poor systems they are trying to implement with an iron fist, especially in math and they are a detriment to current education. They sacrifice the ideologies of free thought and problem solving to implement a straight on approach and less of an explanation of how and why they are doing the processes they are doing. It is a travesty in my opinion. I have not seen reading and writing as of yet either, so I cannot comment on that.
I like your education ideas, truly and I do agree with your sentiments on creating the next Founding Fathers. The Political Education course is pretty much idealized to be exactly as you put. In fact, in the first draft of the Constitution I had called it "Philosophy Education" instead, but for the sake of that broad term I changed it to be a little more clear. The idea is to not only to teach the boundaries of The Constitution but to instill the ideas of broad thinking and less stoic thought.
The only thing I do not agree with is Common Core, especially on the K-12 curriculum. I have seen some of the poor systems they are trying to implement with an iron fist, especially in math and they are a detriment to current education. They sacrifice the ideologies of free thought and problem solving to implement a straight on approach and less of an explanation of how and why they are doing the processes they are doing. It is a travesty in my opinion. I have not seen reading and writing as of yet either, so I cannot comment on that.
a reply to: TheNewRevolution
Sorry it has taken me some time to respond. This is finals week so things have been hectic with tests and last minute cramming, and many other things have happened to keep me busy too. Plus I'm not really in the right state of mind to write this right now but... now is when I have the time
I say this from experience, credit transfers don't work well in practice. In my classes (many computer classes) I needed the syllabus for the class, then I needed any projects I made. Then I need the things my class covered to line up favorably with the things the other class covered. One of the causes of these issues that I can think of is my various 3d modeling classes.
I'm good with Maya and average with 3dsMax (bit out of practice). I have an art class right now that I'm trying to determine if it will transfer. It's a basic 3d graphics class... modeling, texturing, rigging, keyframe animation. At my previous school I had a similar class with modeling and texturing but I used a mix of 3d and 2d textures opposed to them using entirely 2d. On top of that the animation I used was different. I would use motion capture and animate combined with animation curves as an alternative to keyframes.
If you have no knowledge of this stuff, what I was doing is far more advanced but it doesn't line up entirely with what the class is doing. That means it may or may not be accepted. Furthermore, there's a second level class where you do use these techniques but if I use the class as credit on the prereq, I cannot use it on the advanced class.
All of those issues in Ohio where all college credits are designed to transfer between any university. It is a far more difficult thing to fix than it seems. Colleges teach different subjects, colleges have different passing criteria, and different grading scales this all combines to create a gigantic mess. To a lesser degree this also exists with grade school alternatives. I think we should move away from the constant testing but there's no other way to generate metrics on how schools are doing so it's a balancing act. I believe it's 3 major tests per year in grade school right now? Why can't we just go back to one? Or better yet, digitize teachers gradebooks and link scores over time. It would reveal good teachers, good methods, and bad students. With a bit of social network analysis on the students it would be trivial to implement.
Take it from a math person, the extra hoops they added are a good thing.
This might not be the best video on it, but it does go over the process
www.youtube.com...
The last minute shows how to do it, and that's what they're trying to teach. It is an extremely good process once you've learned it, I was able to multiply their example problem in 5-10 seconds in my head, and that's after being up all day, having taken sleeping pills that are knocking me out, and burned out on math for the night (I do a lot of it for fun). It took me less time to solve the problem in my head than it took them to write it out. That is the process common core attempts to teach, and it is a very good one.
I think we have different ideas on lobbying. I don't see it as us vs them, I see it as us and them. Corporations are lobbying their representative in the same way you or I goto them with our issues. If it weren't corporate lobbying it would be that business owner. From there decisions are made like, if you support my issue I'll give $1,000,000 to PACs supporting you, if you don't I'll give $2,000,000 to those against you.
But the average citizen (of which there are many of us) choose to give very little, and argue against the money we're already giving them in salary. Thus there's a group going to them with issues, and that group is funding them. Then there's this other group going to them with issues and that group isn't funding them.
The people are currently losing because we're not playing the lobbying game. We can outspend the corporations and it will barely cost us a dime. Lobbying works, but only when the top lobby is the American People. Part of our responsibility as citizens is making sure that those we elect are working for us. Right now we aren't doing that but if we paid them more, it would happen.
Lastly, about representatives working on roads in some state or dams in another - no. Once again, limits of federal government. The control of travel for federal government will be limited to interstate highways and international transportation. The control of energy applications and travel regulations and maintenance will be returned to the states and their legislatures, removed from the federal level - as it should be.
As for pay, federal employees are already payed much higher than average Americans and that has so far not quelled any of their lust for greed or power, I hardly doubt handing them more money is going to change it either.
I do like your idea for limiting the size of laws, however, for great endeavors such as tax, education, or healthcare reform, these ideas may end up taking many pages. I believe there should be limitations, but not so low as you place them. I also believe you referred to keeping it simple, and then gave an idea for an unnecessarily complicated Congressional voting procedure.
Bridges and dams are a national security concern, that's why I say they should be under the federal government, because the fed takes care of defense. These items are currently under the control of the states and are deteriorating rapidly. Most bridges in the US are no longer considered to be structurally sound but the states have no way to fix it... the budgets don't exist.
Sorry it has taken me some time to respond. This is finals week so things have been hectic with tests and last minute cramming, and many other things have happened to keep me busy too. Plus I'm not really in the right state of mind to write this right now but... now is when I have the time
I say this from experience, credit transfers don't work well in practice. In my classes (many computer classes) I needed the syllabus for the class, then I needed any projects I made. Then I need the things my class covered to line up favorably with the things the other class covered. One of the causes of these issues that I can think of is my various 3d modeling classes.
I'm good with Maya and average with 3dsMax (bit out of practice). I have an art class right now that I'm trying to determine if it will transfer. It's a basic 3d graphics class... modeling, texturing, rigging, keyframe animation. At my previous school I had a similar class with modeling and texturing but I used a mix of 3d and 2d textures opposed to them using entirely 2d. On top of that the animation I used was different. I would use motion capture and animate combined with animation curves as an alternative to keyframes.
If you have no knowledge of this stuff, what I was doing is far more advanced but it doesn't line up entirely with what the class is doing. That means it may or may not be accepted. Furthermore, there's a second level class where you do use these techniques but if I use the class as credit on the prereq, I cannot use it on the advanced class.
All of those issues in Ohio where all college credits are designed to transfer between any university. It is a far more difficult thing to fix than it seems. Colleges teach different subjects, colleges have different passing criteria, and different grading scales this all combines to create a gigantic mess. To a lesser degree this also exists with grade school alternatives. I think we should move away from the constant testing but there's no other way to generate metrics on how schools are doing so it's a balancing act. I believe it's 3 major tests per year in grade school right now? Why can't we just go back to one? Or better yet, digitize teachers gradebooks and link scores over time. It would reveal good teachers, good methods, and bad students. With a bit of social network analysis on the students it would be trivial to implement.
originally posted by: TheNewRevolution
The only thing I do not agree with is Common Core, especially on the K-12 curriculum. I have seen some of the poor systems they are trying to implement with an iron fist, especially in math and they are a detriment to current education. They sacrifice the ideologies of free thought and problem solving to implement a straight on approach and less of an explanation of how and why they are doing the processes they are doing. It is a travesty in my opinion. I have not seen reading and writing as of yet either, so I cannot comment on that.
Take it from a math person, the extra hoops they added are a good thing.
This might not be the best video on it, but it does go over the process
www.youtube.com...
The last minute shows how to do it, and that's what they're trying to teach. It is an extremely good process once you've learned it, I was able to multiply their example problem in 5-10 seconds in my head, and that's after being up all day, having taken sleeping pills that are knocking me out, and burned out on math for the night (I do a lot of it for fun). It took me less time to solve the problem in my head than it took them to write it out. That is the process common core attempts to teach, and it is a very good one.
originally posted by: TheNewRevolution
a reply to: Aazadan
The Constitution is designed to destroy lobbying completely. It's outlawed. If lobbying is found, that person is no longer working in government. Therefor, to stop corruption we need to do nothing but enforce the laws of the document. Corruption in its current form will be destroyed in the new layout.
I think we have different ideas on lobbying. I don't see it as us vs them, I see it as us and them. Corporations are lobbying their representative in the same way you or I goto them with our issues. If it weren't corporate lobbying it would be that business owner. From there decisions are made like, if you support my issue I'll give $1,000,000 to PACs supporting you, if you don't I'll give $2,000,000 to those against you.
But the average citizen (of which there are many of us) choose to give very little, and argue against the money we're already giving them in salary. Thus there's a group going to them with issues, and that group is funding them. Then there's this other group going to them with issues and that group isn't funding them.
The people are currently losing because we're not playing the lobbying game. We can outspend the corporations and it will barely cost us a dime. Lobbying works, but only when the top lobby is the American People. Part of our responsibility as citizens is making sure that those we elect are working for us. Right now we aren't doing that but if we paid them more, it would happen.
Lastly, about representatives working on roads in some state or dams in another - no. Once again, limits of federal government. The control of travel for federal government will be limited to interstate highways and international transportation. The control of energy applications and travel regulations and maintenance will be returned to the states and their legislatures, removed from the federal level - as it should be.
As for pay, federal employees are already payed much higher than average Americans and that has so far not quelled any of their lust for greed or power, I hardly doubt handing them more money is going to change it either.
I do like your idea for limiting the size of laws, however, for great endeavors such as tax, education, or healthcare reform, these ideas may end up taking many pages. I believe there should be limitations, but not so low as you place them. I also believe you referred to keeping it simple, and then gave an idea for an unnecessarily complicated Congressional voting procedure.
Lastly, about representatives working on roads in some state or dams in another - no. Once again, limits of federal government. The control of travel for federal government will be limited to interstate highways and international transportation. The control of energy applications and travel regulations and maintenance will be returned to the states and their legislatures, removed from the federal level - as it should be.
Bridges and dams are a national security concern, that's why I say they should be under the federal government, because the fed takes care of defense. These items are currently under the control of the states and are deteriorating rapidly. Most bridges in the US are no longer considered to be structurally sound but the states have no way to fix it... the budgets don't exist.
a reply to: TheNewRevolution
If government isn't a full time job, what do you expect the person to do? I've heard this sentiment many times. Congress should be a part time job. When they're not meeting they go back to their lives and perform their main occupation. How many people does that work for though?
What if we elect a mathematician and his main job is teaching at a university? Do you think he can just leave from august-december to sit in Congress? How about we elect a guy who works in construction, will his boss let him just randomly leave work for a few months per year?
Under such a system, the only people who have the freedom to move back and forth between congress are the entrepreneurs and even then only a small subset of them... the ones who already have people to manage the day to day affairs of their business. So the owners of large corporations. This seems like a gigantic mess.
Being a politician needs to be a full time job, and it needs to be a career. It's only the career politicians who really care about winning elections for the next 30 years, and they win those by making your life better.
As for the pay, like it or not these positions come with a bit of power. Unless the person has the morals of Jesus, Socrates, and Buddha combined they will use the power they have to exert influence. Laws against it won't stop it, and probably can't even be written to do so. That power is worth money. That's the whole problem we have now, the corporations recognize the value of the power of a congressman while the ordinary people don't.
If government isn't a full time job, what do you expect the person to do? I've heard this sentiment many times. Congress should be a part time job. When they're not meeting they go back to their lives and perform their main occupation. How many people does that work for though?
What if we elect a mathematician and his main job is teaching at a university? Do you think he can just leave from august-december to sit in Congress? How about we elect a guy who works in construction, will his boss let him just randomly leave work for a few months per year?
Under such a system, the only people who have the freedom to move back and forth between congress are the entrepreneurs and even then only a small subset of them... the ones who already have people to manage the day to day affairs of their business. So the owners of large corporations. This seems like a gigantic mess.
Being a politician needs to be a full time job, and it needs to be a career. It's only the career politicians who really care about winning elections for the next 30 years, and they win those by making your life better.
As for the pay, like it or not these positions come with a bit of power. Unless the person has the morals of Jesus, Socrates, and Buddha combined they will use the power they have to exert influence. Laws against it won't stop it, and probably can't even be written to do so. That power is worth money. That's the whole problem we have now, the corporations recognize the value of the power of a congressman while the ordinary people don't.
new topics
-
Where should Trump hold his next rally
Politicians & People: 27 minutes ago -
Shocking Number of Voters are Open to Committing Election Fraud
US Political Madness: 1 hours ago -
Gov Kristi Noem Shot and Killed "Less Than Worthless Dog" and a 'Smelly Goat
2024 Elections: 1 hours ago -
Falkville Robot-Man
Aliens and UFOs: 2 hours ago -
James O’Keefe: I have evidence that exposes the CIA, and it’s on camera.
Whistle Blowers and Leaked Documents: 2 hours ago -
Australian PM says the quiet part out loud - "free speech is a threat to democratic dicourse"...?!
New World Order: 3 hours ago -
Ireland VS Globalists
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 4 hours ago -
Biden "Happy To Debate Trump"
2024 Elections: 4 hours ago -
RAAF airbase in Roswell, New Mexico is on fire
Aliens and UFOs: 4 hours ago -
What is the white pill?
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 6 hours ago
top topics
-
A Warning to America: 25 Ways the US is Being Destroyed
New World Order: 14 hours ago, 21 flags -
Blast from the past: ATS Review Podcast, 2006: With All Three Amigos
Member PODcasts: 6 hours ago, 11 flags -
Mike Pinder The Moody Blues R.I.P.
Music: 7 hours ago, 8 flags -
Biden "Happy To Debate Trump"
2024 Elections: 4 hours ago, 8 flags -
Australian PM says the quiet part out loud - "free speech is a threat to democratic dicourse"...?!
New World Order: 3 hours ago, 7 flags -
James O’Keefe: I have evidence that exposes the CIA, and it’s on camera.
Whistle Blowers and Leaked Documents: 2 hours ago, 6 flags -
What is the white pill?
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 6 hours ago, 5 flags -
Ireland VS Globalists
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 4 hours ago, 4 flags -
RAAF airbase in Roswell, New Mexico is on fire
Aliens and UFOs: 4 hours ago, 4 flags -
Putin, Russia and the Great Architects of the Universe
ATS Skunk Works: 10 hours ago, 3 flags
active topics
-
Biden "Happy To Debate Trump"
2024 Elections • 37 • : WeMustCare -
University of Texas Instantly Shuts Down Anti Israel Protests
Education and Media • 302 • : Xtrozero -
Shocking Number of Voters are Open to Committing Election Fraud
US Political Madness • 2 • : xuenchen -
Candidate TRUMP Now Has Crazy Judge JUAN MERCHAN After Him - The Stormy Daniels Hush-Money Case.
Political Conspiracies • 810 • : Annee -
Where should Trump hold his next rally
Politicians & People • 3 • : theatreboy -
Do you ever just get "bored" of everything?
Rant • 22 • : JonnyC555 -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 701 • : Thoughtful3 -
This is our Story
General Entertainment • 2 • : ByeByeAmericanPie -
Mike Pinder The Moody Blues R.I.P.
Music • 2 • : DontTreadOnMe -
The functionality of boldening and italics is clunky and no post char limit warning?
ATS Freshman's Forum • 14 • : Encia22