Have we waited too long?

a reply to: mamabeth

But if everyone else is doing the same thing, who is actually out there getting things done?

a reply to: chr0naut
You need to cite a few sources. Just you saying this opinion piece doesn't make it so. The country was wide open and full of personal danger. Every citizen had the right to defend life and liberty from whatever threatened them be it a foreign invasion, government suppression of liberties, a bear, mountain lion or even a skunk that walks on 2 legs.

You see, my opinion is just as logical and valid as yours and I think yours stinks.

a reply to: CharlesT

Well said. But he doesn't get it. He is so hung up on finding ways to invalidate the Constitution that the practical application of liberty doesn't exist any more. Its just an arguing point now...which is pretty much what I was trying to say in the first place. The concept is still there but the actual liberty itself is gone. We waited too long to defend it.

a reply to: Vroomfondel
It is certainly late in the game.
I'm an old man but I have a nephew that served 8 years in the army as an Apache helicopter pilot and got out as a Capitan. He served tours in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
When he and his beautiful wife moved back home they came down to my house via motorcycle. This gave me the perfect opportunity to earnestly suggest he run for his district US House of Representatives. He told me he didn't know our history. I'm now prodding him with a book I had mailed to him 2 days ago about God and Dwight D. Eisenhower. He should get it in another 2-3 days. His opponent would be Bruce Westerman, a forestry industry plant.

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: chr0naut
You need to cite a few sources. Just you saying this opinion piece doesn't make it so. The country was wide open and full of personal danger. Every citizen had the right to defend life and liberty from whatever threatened them be it a foreign invasion, government suppression of liberties, a bear, mountain lion or even a skunk that walks on 2 legs.

You see, my opinion is just as logical and valid as yours and I think yours stinks.

The Role of France in the American Revolutionary War - Thought Co.

Influence of the French Revolution
- United States, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How France Helped Win the American Revolution - American Battlefield Trust

France and the Origins of American Political Culture - VQR

The New American Republic - Lumen, United States History

Republicanism in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Foundations of American Government - US History.org Where it mentions the influence of the philosophies established by Hobbes, Locke, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau, specifically Montesquieu's concept of a government separated into several branches allowing for separation of powers.

Effects of the French Revolution on America - The American Society for the defense of Tradition, Family and Property

Historical Influences on the U.S. Constitution - Preceden

U.S. History The New Republic, 1790–1820 - Open Educational Resources

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: CharlesT

Well said. But he doesn't get it. He is so hung up on finding ways to invalidate the Constitution that the practical application of liberty doesn't exist any more. Its just an arguing point now...which is pretty much what I was trying to say in the first place. The concept is still there but the actual liberty itself is gone. We waited too long to defend it.

"Practical application of liberty"?

That word, liberty, in the way you use it, is meaningless sloganism.

The US incarcerates more of, and a higher percentage of, its citizens than any other country on Earth. There's no 'liberty' in that.

The US was one of the last countries to abolish slavery and while the US Constitution spoke of liberty, it didn't actually cover all of its citizens. There's no liberty where there is slavery. The constitution was, and is, just a nice lie you really wanted to believe was law.

The truth is that the "concept" was there but has been used by the privileged to assuage their conscience while they maintain their dominance. Nothing has changed much since then. It was always too late, from the start.

Privilege and wealth still control the average American citizen, locked fast into debt slavery, fear of being called unpatriotic, or of violence by fellow citizens (quick, buy a gun, look at the death toll!), as has always been.

Revel in your freedom.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Are you guys part of "A well regulated milita"?

Otherwise as I see the second amendment, you are not part of the people who have the right to bear arms.

As I see it there is already a "well regulated milita" which is the National Guard. As long as you have those, you have no direct right to bear arms as a private person not being a member of the National Guard.

Alexander Hamilton wrote 1788 "If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security." and "A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it." Source

Wrong, all the way to SCOTUS wrong.

a reply to: chr0naut

The US incarcerates more of, and a higher percentage of, its citizens than any other country on Earth. There's no 'liberty' in that.

You were free to commit the crime and now you are free to enjoy the consequences. Punishment for criminal behavior is not the same as a loss of liberty. Liberty is more than just being able to come and go as you please. But yes, we do incarcerate more than many other nations. Perhaps we should just chop the hands off thieves off instead of putting them in jail...

The US was one of the last countries to abolish slavery and while the US Constitution spoke of liberty, it didn't actually cover all of its citizens.

Yes, but we were also the most recently formed nation. And in terms of how long it took to end slavery we were the quickest by far. Many still haven't stopped it.

The concept has always been there. And there have always been those in power who sought to serve themselves rather than their constituents. That is why we were meant to be governed by many rather than a few or one. It was believed that the voice of the honest would outnumber the voice of the corrupt. We have the numbers and we have the desire. What we are missing is will to take back what is ours.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: chr0naut

The US incarcerates more of, and a higher percentage of, its citizens than any other country on Earth. There's no 'liberty' in that.

You were free to commit the crime and now you are free to enjoy the consequences. Punishment for criminal behavior is not the same as a loss of liberty.

But incarceration is loss of liberty. You may as well argue that those who are executed aren't actually dead, because they deserved it.

Liberty is more than just being able to come and go as you please. But yes, we do incarcerate more than many other nations. Perhaps we should just chop the hands off thieves off instead of putting them in jail...

Or, how about:
- Act to disincentivise crime.
- Decriminalize the personal use of fairly harmless drugs.
- Ensure that no-one starves and that everyone has shelter.
- Assist the bankrupt to pay off debts.
- Don't allow bankrupts to continue to startup businesses or personally invest until all debts are cleared.
- Don't let bankrupts assume any public office.
- Fully compensate the victims from the assets and accounts of the culprits. A sentence is not served until everything is repaid.
- All court costs are bourne by those found guilty.
- End the bail system where money buys you out of jail. All people get a court agreed reasonable time to defend themselves and/or prepare a defense.
- Reoffenders don't get third chances.

There's a few ideas.

The US was one of the last countries to abolish slavery and while the US Constitution spoke of liberty, it didn't actually cover all of its citizens.

Yes, but we were also the most recently formed nation.

Not an excuse:

List of sovereign states by date of formation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And in terms of how long it took to end slavery we were the quickest by far. Many still haven't stopped it.

America is one of those countries that still hasn't fully abolished slavery. That's fairly slow by my reckoning: Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But, officially, and by legal definition, there are no countries left in the world where slavery has not been outlawed, the last being Mauritania in 1981. Doesn't really stop it from still happening, though. There are many underage sex workers bought and sold for prostitution right there in the US. It's illegal but still happening.

The concept has always been there. And there have always been those in power who sought to serve themselves rather than their constituents. That is why we were meant to be governed by many rather than a few or one. It was believed that the voice of the honest would outnumber the voice of the corrupt. We have the numbers and we have the desire. What we are missing is will to take back what is ours.

There are many Americans here on ATS that decry proper democracy and instead support the now outdated and purposeless Electoral College. They don't want New Yorkers and Californians to have equal representation. They call it "the tyranny of the majority", another example of the sloganism that is used by those vested interests now in power:

Tyranny of the majority
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a reply to: chr0naut
What has always struck me as contradictory is that the EC is only used to choose one position.

Out of the 545 people proposing, passing and upholding laws only 1 (POTUS) and 9 (SCOTUS) are not chosen by "Tyranny of the Majority".

Stranger still is the idea that the other 535 can be in bed with anyone (special interests) and they can overrule a veto by the one chosen by the EC.

Now if we do some quick math and take into account that these people are "upper class" and the population of the US is 327.2 Million:
545/327,200,000
Americans are ruled by the .00016%

That is a very small minority, where the average person has NO SAY. Many complain about it every day and yet they denounce a system where their vote counts and it might make a difference for one where they place their faith in these 545 people over their fellow citizens.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: chr0naut
What has always struck me as contradictory is that the EC is only used to choose one position.

Out of the 545 people proposing, passing and upholding laws only 1 (POTUS) and 9 (SCOTUS) are not chosen by "Tyranny of the Majority".

Stranger still is the idea that the other 535 can be in bed with anyone (special interests) and they can overrule a veto by the one chosen by the EC.

Now if we do some quick math and take into account that these people are "upper class" and the population of the US is 327.2 Million:
545/327,200,000
Americans are ruled by the .00016%

That is a very small minority, where the average person has NO SAY. Many complain about it every day and yet they denounce a system where their vote counts and it might make a difference for one where they place their faith in these 545 people over their fellow citizens.

It's even less of a percentage than that.

It' almost like faithless voters are the only real nod to statistical democracy.

Think of how few people you would have to bribe to absolutely ensure you had the Presidency? Consider how much a modern US President makes in their first term of office. If you paid off half of the EC voters a million dollars each, it is an assured investment.

a reply to: chr0naut
My main point was really more about how every position, other than POTUS and the Supreme Court, is chosen by "Mob rule". Why is it ok then?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: chr0naut
My main point was really more about how every position, other than POTUS and the Supreme Court, is chosen by "Mob rule". Why is it ok then?

I would counter that the greater percentage of people are not a mob. They have ethical constraints, they desire fairness to themselves and others, they work hard for their subsistence and yet they still give generously.

The criminal and the anarchic are, and will always be, in the minority.

This is more the case as the population base broadens to encompass all.

There is no demographic evidence of a tyranny of the majority in human history. Every human evil has been dependent upon selfish, and therefore insolationist, greed; of one usurping 'us' over 'them'. If there is no 'them' and there is only 'us' then we all want an equal share, as is right.

Charities could not prosper if we were a mob.

a reply to: chr0naut
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm disagreeing with them. They are the ones who think that "the people" choosing for themselves is "tyranny of the majority" or "mob rule".

I pointed out that they are suspicious of the people living on their block or neighborhood, or maybe those living down the road but they trust in a minority, maybe the minority you called "criminal and the anarchic".

ETA: The EC is not even a band-aid to that wound. It only provides the illusion that the mob (fear mongering) will be held at bay while the minority of elected officials will fight for their rights. It is only used for one position which can be overturned by Congress.

The contradiction I see is that they keep complaining about how these people don't "work" for them but choose to keep a system where they keep handing their voice/vote to those people.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: chr0naut
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm disagreeing with them. They are the ones who think that "the people" choosing for themselves is "tyranny of the majority" or "mob rule".

I pointed out that they are suspicious of the people living on their block or neighborhood, or maybe those living down the road but they trust in a minority, maybe the minority you called "criminal and the anarchic".

ETA: The EC is not even a band-aid to that wound. It only provides the illusion that the mob (fear mongering) will be held at bay while the minority of elected officials will fight for their rights. It is only used for one position which can be overturned by Congress.

The contradiction I see is that they keep complaining about how these people don't "work" for them but choose to keep a system where they keep handing their voice/vote to those people.

I did understand where you were coming from, but this is a public forum and many who will read it have their minds set in the slogans which sound reasonable if you don't challenge them.

So, I was trying to be very unambiguous in a situation where language is 'flexible' and it is uncritically perceived that a majority viewpoint must be fact (and those who challenge it must be wrong).

As far as a "criminal anarchic minority", that is very much an 'us against them' tactic to divide and polarize opinion. Inflating such a trivial and unlikely risk is signalling an unreasonable distrust in others. Perhaps the paranoid belief that 'everyone else is against them' and are obsessed with demolishing them, rather than the truth that everyone instead is more concerned with themselves, not others.

As evidenced in the 2016 elections, for 230 million people to only have a choice between two sub-optimal candidates shows that there is something wrong with the system. By the time the EC is involved, the many and various voices have been silenced and removed. The question of governance (which are predominantly local issues - i.e: the roading infrastructure issues in Alaska are vastly different than those in Wyoming, yet the national level of governance is expected to budget and adjudicate for both with the same criteria/outcome) is filtered down to two choices and neither of those candidates could possibly be cognizant of all the issues of governance which are assumed to be part of their remit. And so, the government sets policy up, assuming every state and local council's needs are the same.

a reply to: chr0naut
You are focusing on one office. The POTUS isn't a king or emperor. He can be put in check by congress, who are elected by direct vote.

Also, there were 4 choices for POTUS in 2016.

Things like roads are usually state issues handled at that level and my point is that those officials are elected by simple majority.

The EC is also hyped by both sides. It has only ever conflicted with the popular vote 4 times in the entire history of the US.

watchitburn:

It's okay that you don't understand our Constitution, since you're not an American.

What a conceited response. Thus, to understand the document called the 'Constitution', one must be an American to understand it! Clearly, you don't understand English, because you are not English. Don't blame me, It's your befuddled reasoning, you pillock!

Gryphon66:

When the Constitution was ratified the only Americans who could participate in government (i.e. vote) were property owning White free men 21 years of age or older.

Funnily enough, very little has changed. A further qualifying condition to add to your sentence to bring it into line with modern parlance is that they must also be fabulously wealthy. It amuses me how the less well-off continue to elect those who have so little in common with them, those who don't care about them. Americans don't choose amongst themselves the candidate they can elect, that choice is made for them by elitists who want to maintain control. The role of the 'common' American is to simply exist to serve the elitists and keep the elitist system of 'bread and circuses' going.

In the end, the Constitution was written by educated men, for educated men, who would govern (allegedly) in a benign way all those not educated. Today, it is rich men and women, governing on behalf of less rich Americans in a (supposedly) benign way. They tell you what you need, you don't tell them. All your 'checks and balances' put in place at the beginning to ensure a fair and free and benign government, check and balance no such government. Your government is beign only in the sense that it needs you to keep the systems going at lower levels. And you so meekly do so.

a reply to: chr0naut

But incarceration is loss of liberty. You may as well argue that those who are executed aren't actually dead, because they deserved it.

That is a very narrow definition of liberty. The only thing lost is the ability to move about freely. They still have freedom of speech, religion, press, and within the limits of their incarceration, assembly. They have by far the majority of rights, or liberties, as anyone else. Liberty is more than just the ability to come and go as you please.

You are attempting to use overly specific points to indicate a much broader idea. It doesn't work.

The question is really very simple: have we waited too long? Is the government too big, too powerful, too grounded in disregard for the American people and their wishes for us to ever take back control and set this nation back on course as our founding fathers intended?

In other words, has our government rendered our Constitution moot? Sure, they are quick to point out the Constitution when it serves their purpose. But when it reigns in their power and stops them from abusing their position, do they hold that document sacred? Sadly, the answer is no. When it proves deleterious to their agenda the Constitution is nothing more than an antiquated piece of some long forgotten ideal that should be ignored.

When elected officials openly declare that they are aware of the wishes of their constituents but are acting in opposition to them - we have lost an essential piece of what is supposed to make our government work.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
When elected officials openly declare that they are aware of the wishes of their constituents but are acting in opposition to them - we have lost an essential piece of what is supposed to make our government work.

Would it be better if they didn't openly declare it?

The question then is, how long have they been acting in opposition to the wishes of their constituents? Maybe always, even the FF.

There were at least a couple federalists in that group. Hamilton and Adams come to mind.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: chr0naut

But incarceration is loss of liberty. You may as well argue that those who are executed aren't actually dead, because they deserved it.

That is a very narrow definition of liberty.

No, I actually had a very broad definition of liberty which included two species of birds, tampons, cigarettes and a number of kitchen and housewares appliances.

The only thing lost is the ability to move about freely. They still have freedom of speech, religion, press, and within the limits of their incarceration, assembly. They have by far the majority of rights, or liberties, as anyone else. Liberty is more than just the ability to come and go as you please.

Sure but you need all those things and the ability to come and go as you please, or you don't have liberty.

But also, the convicted do have fewer rights than the general public. For one thing, they may still be legally enslaved according to article 13 of the US Constitution (the US still has legal slavery. it hasn't been fully abolished yet).

You are attempting to use overly specific points to indicate a much broader idea. It doesn't work.

The question is really very simple: have we waited too long? Is the government too big, too powerful, too grounded in disregard for the American people and their wishes for us to ever take back control and set this nation back on course as our founding fathers intended?

Your founding fathers never intended that all citizens have liberty. The themselves had slaves and were committed to a class system with them at the top.

Ask yourself some searching questions, why did the Sons of Liberty dress as Indians if they wanted to protest politically and had public support?

The truth is that tea was a much desired commodity and that the British lowered its price by reducing taxation on the British 'official' supplier, giving a trade advantage to the East India Company, but this also reduced the overall profitability to the company and to England. The people of America were happy to get cheaper tea. The movement against the British importers wasn't actually popular at all, it was the the smugglers and the pirates who were gouging the public who weren't happy.

That's right, they were smugglers. The mafiosi of their day, protecting their business by destroying the property of their competitors. Also, the ships they attacked - they were 100% American. None of the tea was even owned by the King. Even George Washington denounced them as lawless, violent and vandals.

Not a good start for 'liberty' there.

In other words, has our government rendered our Constitution moot? Sure, they are quick to point out the Constitution when it serves their purpose. But when it reigns in their power and stops them from abusing their position, do they hold that document sacred? Sadly, the answer is no. When it proves deleterious to their agenda the Constitution is nothing more than an antiquated piece of some long forgotten ideal that should be ignored.

Right from the start, the US Constitution was challenged and disregarded. There were a few lackluster amendments and then the heat went off it. No one was particularly abiding by it.

When elected officials openly declare that they are aware of the wishes of their constituents but are acting in opposition to them - we have lost an essential piece of what is supposed to make our government work.

While ever there is not true democracy, with 'one person, one vote' there is always the question of privilege unequally controlling others. The imbalanced situation supported by the Electoral College is now so ingrained into people (and misunderstood mathematically) that Americans actually think it defends the mandate of the citizenry, instead of overriding it.