The taboo subject none of the candidates have dared to broach....

a reply to: nwtrucker

I agree that constitutional amendments are tough to pass, and for good reason but I think they erred a little too far on the cautious side by requiring a 2/3's majority. It's better to be too cautious than for them to happen too easily but it is a flaw in the document, and not one that can really be changed. The correct percentage is probably somewhere between 60% and 67% but I don't know what it is other than knowing that in voting distributions it becomes exponentially harder to gain every percentage point so for example the jump between 66% and 67% is much harder to attain than the jump from 62% to 63% which suggests the correct number is probably somewhere between 63% (average of 67% and 60%) and 67%. 65% vs 67% for example is one entire states agreement in the Senate. Note that if we had an easier time of changing the constitution we would also end up with fewer situations in which judges reinterpret the existing words for the sake of political convenience.

When it comes to the issue of the Second I really don't know the fix, I just know that the current interpretation is flawed. Selling surplus gear to the citizens at heavy discounts doesn't fix it because much of the cost of equipment is tied up in high maintenance costs and unless we were willing to give up all force projection we can't limit our military to only gear that civilians can purchase. It's also a waste of resources on all sides of the issue to have a civilian owned air force that sits around just incase it's needed against the government.

If you want other examples of flaws in the Constitution there's the 1:20,000 representation which is great with a population of 1 million but unmanageable with 300+ million, it encourages weak and inconsistent foreign policy, the Bill of Rights is another flaw as people have adopted the mindset that those are a persons only rights (and government has adopted the mindset that it has claim to everything not mentioned), there is no right to privacy or unrestricted travel in the event people want to leave the country (see my Bill of Rights complaint), and there's a lack of protections on electronic communications (this isn't a new one either, it goes back over 100 years).

As far as WW2's outcome goes I can point to the French Revolution, the Napoleonic wars, the fall of the British empire, and the US Civil War and say that had there been no Constitution those would have all had different results as well. But in the case of WW2 specifically, even if the US hadn't gotten involved beyond the lend lease program, Russia would have won the war, it just wouldn't have been as quick, and it would have been much more bloody. But at the same time the US never would have gotten involved in provoking Japan. All of this also ignores the issue of nuclear weapons which we'll never know the answer to. Japan and Germany were both working on them, and they were both close when they fell.

Hmmm, no comment on any superior document out there...interesting.

IMO, Russia cannot win without the threat of a second front tying up a huge percentage of Germany's military in the west. It is debatable, however. What isn't debatable is it would have taken Russia far longer to 'win' even if your opinion was correct. In any event, a Russian 'win' gives Stalin all of Europe. A far different cry from a NATO coalition blocking further expansion we did have.

As far as Japan goes. I view the "provocation" as the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The U.S. was criticized for maintaining oil supplies to Franco and also criticized for cutting off oil supplies to Japan. Damned if you do, damned if you don't....

The fact is Japan decided...DECIDED to attack Pearl Harbor, not 'forced'. A poor choice on their part.

Frankly, you are starting to sound like an academic.

Quoting other battles, etc., is merely a continued minimizing of the effects the U.S. and it's fundamental, the Constitution has had on this world. It is without peer.

A question. I'd fight to preserve the Constitution. Would you to change or remove it?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Hmmm, no comment on any superior document out there...interesting.

I've never read the Constitutions of other nations so I can't give an informed opinion on it. There's many countries however which are based on the rule of law, a democratic process, and individual freedoms. The US has actually fallen behind in freedoms granted over the past couple decades. My only real problem with most of those other nations is that they still have a monarch. I had an opportunity recently to do some foreign study and turned it down, because I just wouldn't feel right about contributing to a country that has a king... I suppose that's a very American viewpoint.

IMO, Russia cannot win without the threat of a second front tying up a huge percentage of Germany's military in the west. It is debatable, however. What isn't debatable is it would have taken Russia far longer to 'win' even if your opinion was correct. In any event, a Russian 'win' gives Stalin all of Europe. A far different cry from a NATO coalition blocking further expansion we did have.

The world would look a lot different if the US didn't get involved in WW2, but even without the Constitution, the states likely would have gotten involved, though probably not to the same extent.

As far as Japan goes. I view the "provocation" as the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The U.S. was criticized for maintaining oil supplies to Franco and also criticized for cutting off oil supplies to Japan. Damned if you do, damned if you don't....

Pearl Harbors was an attack on us, no doubt. They realized they couldn't contend with our navy, and that it would likely be turned against them before long so they struck us intending to destroy our naval fleet, and it was very successful. The Japanese had logistics issues though, where they never really built any new ships, they only cannibalized the existing civilian boats to keep their navy running. So after Pearl Harbor even though we were outnumbered, every day that passed got us new ships while their navy was reduced in strength. It was only a matter of time.

What I was getting at with Pearl Harbor though is that I don't think a group of states without a centralized military would have any navy in the first place. No one would ever reach an agreeable cost sharing burden as ships are very expensive and even if we did, every state would have their own agenda. 50 parties to a war each of which have their own goals, attack with a lot less precision than with 1 united strategy, especially when certain states start losing more vessels than other states bringing politics into the picture. My Pearl Harbor argument is mainly that it wouldn't have happened because the US wouldn't be able to make any moves into the Pacific Ocean. We wouldn't have been sending oil to cut off, and we wouldn't have had a base to be attacked.

A question. I'd fight to preserve the Constitution. Would you to change or remove it?

I would argue politically to change the constitution, I wouldn't pick up a gun to do so. Fighting to preserve the Constitution is another matter, it all depends on the fight. If some foreign nation invaded, that's grounds to do what I can to help kill the enemy. If it's just a political squabble I suppose it all depends on what the replacement plan is. If it was like Obamacare and people wanted to repeal it with nothing to replace it, I would definitely argue for what we have now. If there was a legitimate good plan for reform, I suppose I would weigh the merits of it first. I should probably end this by saying I'm very skeptical any group from Congress today could write something on par with the Constitution, which is rather sad... but it is the truth. You may not have understood this but I actually do like the Constitution, I just don't understand the reverence for it at all. Maybe if it was a work of perfection I could see that, but it's not.

a reply to: Aazadan

Since he was referencing what I wrote, I wasn't meaning men in the gender sense but rather human. The difference between the Constitution and the Bible is that the words transcribed came from God if you believe in it. The words in the Constitution instead came from a bunch of people debating and deciding what they thought would work best.

Yes, was not calling you on that, just our vernacular in those terms always bothered me. Also agree that many things in the Constitution should not be taken literally, but in context. Certainly, they had no idea of the kind of technology that was to come.

a reply to: Aazadan

Ah, a 'perfect' Constitution. Perfect is subjective. In reality, nothing is perfect.

Reverence. I say again, sans the Constitution, what is there to hold in esteem? The presidency? Congress? The Union, itself? I think not.

That is your answer. Obviously, it isn't sufficient for you. It is the glue, the agreement, that holds this union together. It isn't and never will be 'perfect'.

Yes, things have changed. Technology, so on. Yet other things haven't changed. The concept that freedoms are innate. Not empowered by a Constitution, but beyond and more basic than a document authorizing freedoms. That gov'ts need restriction, less so the people themselves.

The idea that gov't is to protect their freedoms, not 'take care of them'.

Obviously a far different view than the current lot see things, apparently you as well.

Without that Constitution, the U.S. is just another country, if it would be a country at all. That, in itself, shows the incredible power that 'idea' holds. "Deeply flawed" not withstanding.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Reverence. I say again, sans the Constitution, what is there to hold in esteem? The presidency? Congress? The Union, itself? I think not.

I suppose I would lean towards the union itself. It's pretty unique. Then again I'm probably a nationalist since I think one should put the good of the country above even the good of their family.

Yes, things have changed. Technology, so on. Yet other things haven't changed. The concept that freedoms are innate. Not empowered by a Constitution, but beyond and more basic than a document authorizing freedoms. That gov'ts need restriction, less so the people themselves.

The constitution argues otherwise by including a Bill of Rights that specifically calls out certain freedoms, others like a right to travel and a right to privacy are considered to not exist by the government because they aren't specifically mentioned. Many take the absence of a right being mentioned in the constitution to mean that you don't have it, for example one of the popular arguments in the debate over health care is that no one has the right to health care. That is an interpretation that the Constitution authorizes certain freedoms rather than them being innate to the individual.

a reply to: Aazadan

A 'right to health care'?

All I can say is stay out of my life. stop telling me I HAVE to go on Medicare and what coverage I can have, pay for and be limited to.

Don't tell me at age 67 that a major expense must be reviewed by a 'committee' that decides if it's warranted based on life expectancy guide lines.

Nothing but a vote garnering tactic by a collection of power hungry elite.

A stellar example of gov't intrusion. At the most, a state by state issue....as are most issues.

We are advisaries.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Aazadan

A 'right to health care'?

By a right to health care I'm not referring to Obamacare, that's just an implementation of government provided health care. I'm referring to the concept that everyone can go see a doctor in some fashion and get needed medical treatment, perhaps even by paying for it. Some rights such as the 2nd are very much pay to play but that doesn't make them less of a right. Either you believe you and others have the freedom to go get medical care even though it isn't in the Constitution or you don't. If you don't believe in a right to health care, you should presumably be fine with the state using it's resources to deny you access should they wish to.

By your interpretation, assuming you understood what I was getting at you're saying that because the Constitution doesn't specifically mention that people have a right to medical care, that medical care is a privilege and not a right? So in your opinion the government is allowed to say that you cannot see a doctor, because there is no constitutional protection claiming that you can?

a reply to: Aazadan

Please, that's nothing but spin.

You have the 'right' to procure services for anything that isn't prohibited by law. Or not. Your call.

It isn't a 'right'. It's an option. A choice. Positioning it as a right is political, at best. That makes it a freedom, not a right.
That 'freedom' is curtailed by ObamaCare and that includes any other form of gov't supplied or mandated medical system anywhere in the world. Limits in service in every one.

We even lose our 'right' to not have or pay for medical insurance! Our choice.

Still, that's my opinion and it's not shared by all. The people, In the case of this system, didn't even get a say in it. An arbitrary that would never have occurred , at least at the Federal level, if proper Constitutional considerations had been observed.

It should be left to each state to decide, based on the views/votes of each, whether or not to create a socialized medical plan.

There is nothing democratic about this process whatsoever, and you know it. It even opens the door to a political shift to the right that both you and I would disagree with.

Our elected officials do not observe the Constitution and do not consult us in their decision process.

I would go as far as to say an elected official that ignores the Constitution, is already pre-disposed to also ignoring us, the people.

Yet you decry that Constitution even when claiming to 'like' it. EVERYBODY would change some aspect of that document based on their own views and preferences. It restricts all of us in some way or another.

That's the price we pay for a 'more perfect union'.....

a reply to: nwtrucker

What is a law other than a limitation on where your right ends? You have no right to privacy because the state mandates certain information to be turned over. You have no right to certain arms because they are considered too deadly. You have no right

Insurance is a completely different issue from getting treatment. Insurance is about what will be paid for and how it will be paid for where treatment is all about identifying the problem, the available solutions and the effectiveness of those solutions.

A freedom in this example is in choosing a treatment plan, not in getting a doctors advice and assistance with whatever treatment you choose to pursue.

So again it comes down to a question. The Constitution makes no mention of medical care for all, so is there no right to medical care because the Constitution doesn't mention it or is there a right to medical care meaning people have certain rights that the Constitution doesn't mention?

If the former is the case, then you must accept that the government can say you are not allowed to seek treatment of any particular ailment. Furthermore, believe it or not the Constitution doesn't explicitly give you the right to vote. It says that people can't be denied a vote based on age (if an adult), gender, or race, and it says you cannot have a poll tax, there's a few other things too that it says cannot be used to deny a vote but the Constitution never explicitly grants a right to vote. If we want to take the intent of the founders into consideration they thought that most people shouldn't vote. This thought goes against the political views of today, but that means we're giving rights that don't exist in the constitution which implies the latter, that people have rights outside of what the Constitution specifies.

Your opinion here is that of states rights, but that isn't an opinion it's merely limiting who can decide. That's saying that each state can choose for itself what rights the citizens have so that Californians aren't impacting the lives of Texans, but it's not saying what your view is for Texans (if you're from Texas). If each state is granting their own rights, you still have to ask the questions: Is there a right to vote? Is there a right to medical care? If you take the view that the Constitution grants a persons rights then the answer is no, but if you take the view that it doesn't then the debate on those points and many others is wide open.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: nwtrucker

What is a law other than a limitation on where your right ends? You have no right to privacy because the state mandates certain information to be turned over. You have no right to certain arms because they are considered too deadly. You have no right

Insurance is a completely different issue from getting treatment. Insurance is about what will be paid for and how it will be paid for where treatment is all about identifying the problem, the available solutions and the effectiveness of those solutions.

A freedom in this example is in choosing a treatment plan, not in getting a doctors advice and assistance with whatever treatment you choose to pursue.

So again it comes down to a question. The Constitution makes no mention of medical care for all, so is there no right to medical care because the Constitution doesn't mention it or is there a right to medical care meaning people have certain rights that the Constitution doesn't mention?

If the former is the case, then you must accept that the government can say you are not allowed to seek treatment of any particular ailment. Furthermore, believe it or not the Constitution doesn't explicitly give you the right to vote. It says that people can't be denied a vote based on age (if an adult), gender, or race, and it says you cannot have a poll tax, there's a few other things too that it says cannot be used to deny a vote but the Constitution never explicitly grants a right to vote. If we want to take the intent of the founders into consideration they thought that most people shouldn't vote. This thought goes against the political views of today, but that means we're giving rights that don't exist in the constitution which implies the latter, that people have rights outside of what the Constitution specifies.

Your opinion here is that of states rights, but that isn't an opinion it's merely limiting who can decide. That's saying that each state can choose for itself what rights the citizens have so that Californians aren't impacting the lives of Texans, but it's not saying what your view is for Texans (if you're from Texas). If each state is granting their own rights, you still have to ask the questions: Is there a right to vote? Is there a right to medical care? If you take the view that the Constitution grants a persons rights then the answer is no, but if you take the view that it doesn't then the debate on those points and many others is wide open.

You omit the very simple fact that the gov't doesn't and hasn't placed any restriction on medical care(until the Affordable Care Act, that is), your choice, your ability to compensate for that care, or car, or house.....

You spin. You twist and create question where there was none. Supply and demand is senior to any legislation, always has been, always will.

Medical care has always been out there. You ignore that fact to create the argument that every, so-called right should be articulated.
Get the gov't out of the way and the market place will supply as demand dictates.

The underlining motive is more control, alt least by the feds, and political advantage by those that promote it.

Dissolve this Union. I'd be done with you...

a reply to: nwtrucker

Actually, the government has placed restrictions on medical care. It's rare but it does happen from time to time, particularly in cases where a person wants to kill themselves rather than go through a long debilitating treatment. In those cases the government has gone as far as to prosecute the doctor who gives that patient a painless end.

At other times the government has stepped in and said a families treatment plan for their child is medically unsound and refused to let them proceed, a case comes to mind a few years back regarding a group of Christian Scientists that wanted to pray away their childs cancer. The state forced chemotherapy on the child. Here's another example that happened earlier this year.

In other cases the government has outlawed entire treatment plans despite there being a market demand for them, dismissing them as quackery and making them illegal to practice. Supply and demand can't dictate everything, I've mentioned this other times but I'll do so again. The average voter isn't capable of determining the best course of action on any given policy (and I include myself in this group, I am not an expert on anything). The same holds true for the average consumer. Steve Jobs made a fortune and one of the biggest companies in the world not off of making a good product, but out of marketing. His product is outright terrible, but it is aesthetically appealing which makes it attractive to many people... not all too different from unworkable campaign rhetoric.

a reply to: Aazadan

So this somehow equates to the Constitution being deeply flawed?

I refer to a broad-stroke over-view. You nit-pick minutia completely ignoring that without this document it is unlikely the thirteen colonies ever form a union. Indeed, probably end up fighting each other in proxy wars back by European nations.

I hold my view on this. Far, FAR more right about it than wrong.

a reply to: nwtrucker

It does. We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but the Constitution itself is not perfect, it's nowhere close. I hold no reverence for it, and would replace it in an instant if something better were to come along.

I find it odd for example that you support the Bill of Rights yet your opinion on just about everything else is states rights. Is this an admission that there should be a certain minimum standard between each state that the voters and competition would be unable to create on their own? If so, how do you reconcile this with for example our wildly disparate education policies which have no minimum standard?

a reply to: Aazadan

The 'reverence' is based on nothing better out there.

Respect it. If something better comes along, sobeit. (Not that we'd ever get consensus of it....

While imperfect, my guideline for state rights lies in the tenth. Simply put. butt out, feds....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
While imperfect, my guideline for state rights lies in the tenth. Simply put. butt out, feds....

Why is this your guideline? Do you support the federal government taking certain rights away from the state but leaving others? That's what the 10th does, yet it doesn't specify why those rights it doesn't leave up to the states are in a special category of their own, only that they are.

a reply to: Aazadan

LOL. It was the agreed upon rights. PERIOD.

I did say 'imperfect'. The difference is I will accept imperfect and hold to that bar while you, on the other hand, would argue white is in fact black, depending on light conditions.

In addition, you 'imperfect' argument is used as a justification/rational to mess with the rest of the Constitution by those in the past.

If you can't come up with an improvement, then all your 'reasoning' is for naught and merely lowers the respect/reverence to a level where even more mess with the basic intent.

All fine and good within the confines of academic discussion. Fraught with peril where the rubber meets the road....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I did say 'imperfect'. The difference is I will accept imperfect and hold to that bar while you, on the other hand, would argue white is in fact black, depending on light conditions.

White is in fact black. White is the reflection of all light, therefore none is retained by the object, which creates an absence of light... blackness while the object absorbs the whiteness, a white object will absorb nothing and send it all back, leaving nothing (subject to the color of light you're shining on the object).

That's not what I'm arguing here though, When most people speak of the Constitution they're generally referring to the Bill of Rights. Is the Bill of Rights a net benefit to the country and the Constitution? When it was signed there was a substantial segment of those who were ratifying it that believed it to be a negative, that's why they're amendments (that were added shortly afterwards) rather than a part of the original document... oddly enough, a compromise.

The argument against is that those amendments which were designed to specify rights to the people have been twisted into saying those are the only rights that people have. There is no right to travel, privacy, medical treatment, or anything else unless specifically outlined, we don't even have the right to vote. If there had been no Bill of Rights, and the question of rights were left up to the states we would have had 13 back then and 50 now different bodies determining what is and isn't allowed in their districts which would bring about competition that would make each state strive to be a nice place to live.

The argument for is that the states can't be trusted, so we need something held above the individual state governments that can guarantee rights for the individual. What if Massachusetts for example doesn't want gun ownership or due process and Pennsylvania makes it a crime to criticize the governor? Can we really be said to be a unified nation if freedoms and quality of life are so wildly different from one state to the next?

Based on this, I find a person who both supports states rights and the second amendment (not sure if you do, but the two generally go hand in hand) to hold a completely contradictory opinion. Part of their opinion is wanting the state to determine the rights of it's citizens, but also looking to an external body to dictate to the states what they can do. In the abstract what is the difference between the right to not quarter troops and the right to not be subject to eavesdropping? Or the right to due process vs the right to seek out your preferred medical treatment? Why are two of these protected and two of those not?

If you can't come up with an improvement, then all your 'reasoning' is for naught and merely lowers the respect/reverence to a level where even more mess with the basic intent.

I think it's a bit fair to expect me, someone who is at best a hobbyist at politics, and not particularly smart to revamp an entire political system in the course of a single discussion but... why not? Since you want improvements to the Constitution, here's the simplest fix I see. Change election season.
The House would remain every 2 years with no term limit.
The Senate 8 year terms, 50% up for reelection each time, 2 term limit
The President every 4 with a 2 term limit.
State and Local are also every 4, with term limits decided on by the state, but not the year they fall on.

Elections would then be staggered following this pattern.
1 - Local elections
2 - House elections, Senate elections (0-50%)
3 - State elections
4 - House elections, President
5 - Local elections
6 - House elections, Senate elections (51-100%)
7 - State elections
8 - House elections, President

The problem is that right now midterm elections are completely ignored. Pretty much the only thing people care about is the Presidency, but most of our elections don't involve the presidency. This changes the process so that the President is only up for election in 25% of the cycle rather than 50%, and there are other very important campaigns going on at other times. And hopefully, by giving state/local their own time where no one else is campaigning, they can get more attention and actually receive votes, as those are the most important offices to scrutinize.

I would reduce the requirement for a Constitutional Amendment from 67% to something lower... 64% or 65% looks to be the correct range.

Also, I would remove Congress's exclusive control over DC, instead giving it to their mayor, and giving them a voting member in Congress.

So all in all... make it easier and more attractive for people to vote for what they want.

a reply to: Aazadan

Sigh, what you find 'contradictory', I see as a point of balance.

Further term limits opens the door to agenda driven individuals that no long modify their individual beliefs as they can't be re-elected anyways.

We already have 'term limits', it call the election process. ( A point, I believe, you've also made in past posts.)

As far changing the Constitution goes, it's being done as we speak. Rather than formalized changes, we now have ignored aspects, re-interpreted aspects and flat out invented ones.

The reason we don't have formalized changes isn't due to the percentile required. It's due to the fear that other aspects would could also be changed worsening the Constitution, at least from their view of it. The bigger problem being the current lot would change the Constitution based on political agenda as opposed to holding the Constitution above political agenda.

Which brings me back to my point. One cannot at the same time lower the esteem that the Constitution is held and expect that same document be held higher than the political agendas.

That is the real contradiction.....

a reply to: nwtrucker
what actually creates the right of healthcare FOR ALL is the fact that the gov't decided that it should pick and chose amoung the less fortunate as to whom should receive taxpayer help and who shouldn't, along with also providing funds to the healthcare industry that covers everything from research to equipment purchases.

when you have over 50% of the revenues in the healthcare providers coming from gov't subsidized benefits like we do here in my area, I am sorry, I don't buy the idea that the gov't doesn't have a way to control the higher inflation rate in healthcare we see than most other industries out there.

the constitution might not mention healthcare as a basic right, but I do believe you find a few things within it that could be used to argue that taking the money some would spend on their basic necessities including healthcare, and giving to others the gov't sees more deserving of those necessities and by doing so increasing the costs of those necessities making it even harder for those people who can't afford as well as creating more people who can't afford, goes contrary to what the constitution does say!!!!!

don't like the idea of healthcare being a right for all people, then take the taxmoney out of the healthcare industry!