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.

 

How should the Constitution be modified for the next go-around?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   
If anyone's suggesting that the government provide them with things, I say forget it.

What about self-sufficiency and personal responsibility? You don't work, you don't have a "high" standard of living! You shouldn't expect hand-outs if you're too lazy to go get a job! (That's assuming work is available and you are able to work.)

Get rid of Big Pharma, FDA, Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, and all that other nonsense.




posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst

Get rid of Big Pharma, FDA, Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, and all that other nonsense.


So you'd be ok with obtaining medicine that hasn't been tested, regulated or the quality verified?

I'm curious, Am


I realise the FDA is an imperfect machine (as you know, I have first, second and third hand experience with this), but at least they do have in place safeguards to guarantee, for example, a uniform dosage/content for a particular drug.

What if half of your bp-lowering pills were of a lesser dosage than it said on the bottle?

(I'm not touching on the safety of pharmaceuticals at this point - that's less to do with the FDA as it has to imperfect methods of clinical trial management)



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
There's nothing wrong with the Constitution, except a couple of amendments (14th and 16th) that were never really ratified.

The real problem is apathy.


Pretty big problem, though, don't you think? One that maybe shouldn't be thrown to the side, for which we should just cross our fingers and hope people maintain active roles. I think localizing government alone would help this a lot, since a lot of apathetic positions center around "I'm only one vote."


Curme,

That list of proposals reminded me pretty quickly of Communism. Communism wouldn't really be my first choice while picking a government to live under, even if on a local level where it may potentially work very well. And yes, I am suggesting being able to enact different styles of government locally as they're agreed upon by their communities, whether conservative or socialist or libertarian or communist or etc. What an amazingly radical concept, that people should pick their governments.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   
bsbray11, I suggest you pick up the book; "Direct Legislation: Voting On Ballot Propositions In The United States", "Direct Democracy: The Politics Of Initiative, Referendum, And Recall" and "The Initiative: Citizen Law-Making" and also maybe even "The New England Town Meeting: Democracy In Action".

In 49 states you can pick your own Government. The laws have been in place since 1912. The Government however has stoped the people from being educated about the Direct Democracy that exists within the U.S...



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Thanks for the book suggestions, Odium.


I enjoy reading, but government is admittedly something that I know little about, save what they teach us in High School, and things I've read in books pertaining to our Revolution.

If local governments already have sufficient power, then I suppose my only problem is how much power and thereby abuse of power the federal system has access to.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Source
In various states, referenda through which the people rule include:

  • Election of representatives (constitutionally used in all 50 states).
  • Referrals by the legislature to the people of "proposed constitutional amendments" (constitutionally used in 49 states, excepting only Delaware — Initiative & Referendum Institute, 2004).
  • Referrals by the legislature to the people of "proposed statute laws" (constitutionally used in all 50 states — Initiative & Referendum Institute, 2004).
  • Constitutional amendment initiative is the most powerful citizen-initiated, direct democracy governance component. It is a constitutionally-defined petition process of "proposed constitutional law," which, if successful, results in its provisions being written directly into the state's constitution. Since constitutional law cannot be altered by state legislatures, this direct democracy component gives the people an automatic superiority, and their rightful sovereignty, over representative government (Magelby, 1984). It is utilized at the state level in eighteen states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and South Dakota (Cronin, 1989). Among the eighteen states, there are three main types of the constitutional amendment initiative, with different degrees of involvement of the state legislature distinguishing between the types (Zimmerman, December 1999).
  • Statute law initiative is a constitutionally-defined, citizen-initiated, petition process of "proposed statute law," which, if successful, results in law being written directly into the state's statutes. The statute initiative is used at the state level in twenty-one states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming (Cronin, 1989). Note that, in Utah, there is no constitutional provision for citizen lawmaking. All of Utah's I&R law is in the state statutes (Zimmerman, December 1999). In most states, there is no special protection for citizen-made statutes; the legislature can begin to amend them immediately.
  • Statute law referendum is a constitutionally-defined, citizen-initiated, petition process of the "proposed veto of all or part of a legislature-made law," which, if successful, repeals the standing law. It is used at the state level in twenty-four states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming (Cronin, 1989).
  • The recall is a constitutionally-defined, citizen-initiated, petition process, which, if successful, removes an elected official from office by "recalling" the official's election. In most state and sub-state jurisdictions having this governance component, voting for the ballot that determines the recall includes voting for one of a slate of candidates to be the next office holder, if the recall is successful. It is utilized at the state level in eighteen states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2004, Recall Of State Officials).



Just read that list...

Look at the power you have in the United States of America, look how easily it is getting abused through ignorance.

You can make laws. You can remove laws. You can withdraw your troops from Iraq if they are from your state...yet through lack of knowledge people do not take part in such things.

Best bet is to get those books, read over them and show more people. Push for them to learn if it is the will of the State and the majority of its people you can change things.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by Amethyst

Get rid of Big Pharma, FDA, Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, and all that other nonsense.


So you'd be ok with obtaining medicine that hasn't been tested, regulated or the quality verified?

I'm curious, Am




Considering what the FDA deems safe, we're much better off without them.

And considering what the FDA won't deem safe--we're REALLY better off without them.

They promoted RU-486 as being safe, for example. That 18-year-old girl out in California was one of many who died taking that human pesticide/poison.

The FDA will not let you market Stevia as a sweetener but as a supplement. Stevia is a safe alternative for sugar. On that note, why does the FDA allow poisons such as aspartame and sucralose (Splenda) to be on the market?

If you know nature, and know what does what, and what not to consume, you don't need the FDA.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Odium,

Living in Virginia, most of those apparently won't apply to me unless I could get it applied. If I'm not mistaken, these powers were mostly legally introduced back when unions and workers' rights were big, no? It would be interesting to see how successful one would be to try to get them through again today, especially in a state as conservative as Virginia.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
They promoted RU-486 as being safe, for example. That 18-year-old girl out in California was one of many who died taking that human pesticide/poison.


They - accurately - considered RU-486 safe for most people - just the same as any other drug. They approved it for a particular purpose, and it has side effects which were always known; these side effects were/are printed on the package inserts as well as being available online virtually everywhere. Just as some women can suffer deadly consequences of taking BCP, so it is with RU-486 and virtually any other drug (even those based on herbal/natural remedies).

By their very nature, drugs are going to have side effects. Even aspirin (from willow bark) and digoxin (from foxglove) can kill you in the wrong dosages...wouldn't you rather this part alone was regulated somehow?



On that note, why does the FDA allow poisons such as aspartame and sucralose (Splenda) to be on the market?


Probably because the health risks related to both are ambiguous at best; millions of people worldwide consume both products regularly without any ill effects.



If you know nature, and know what does what, and what not to consume, you don't need the FDA.


Except nature doesn't cure cancer, AIDS, syphilis, herpes, type I diabetes, certain thyroid conditions....nature can help many things, but sometimes natural remedies just don't cut it. And perhaps more importantly, "natural" does not mean "safe", by any means.

Would I be right in thinking that you're basically saying, because of the iffy safety of some drugs, that we should do away with the FDA completely?

Who's going to guarantee uniform quality of the medicines you take?

Who's going to ensure you're not being given drugs which have been cut with various substances?

Believe me, I know the problems with the FDA. But unless you have a viable alternative (and I'm sorry Ame, but "nature" just doesn't cure everything), it's about the best chance we have of ensuring the drugs we do need are manufactured and distributed as safely was we can manage.

Do you think there could be a middle ground? Like...gah, I'm thinking on my feet here. Maybe something similar to the FDA, but perhaps with safeguards in place to ensure they aren't "encouraged" to pass certain drugs at the expense of our health? An international body, maybe?

What do you think?



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
How about some good old-fashioned education? People can write books on what herbs/plants work, which don't, which are poisonous, etc. Whatever did our ancestors do?

BTW there IS a natural cure for cancer. B17. Except the FDA forbids it--go figure!

Maybe what should be done is get the FDA out of bed with Big Pharma.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   
NM.

I'm not going to turn this into a B17 yea or nay debate, as there have been several threads about this already.

Peace out



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   
bsbray11, that could be a problem however it never hurts to push and try...you can at least push for new laws if they get public backing.

It was in fact put into places because of the control big business had on Government officers. It was placed there to take the control back to the people, however through lack of education to it, two/three generations down the line people forgot about it and no longer use it.

It is a sad day when we allow the power we have to be taken away from us through ignorance.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   
It's also rather sad that only around 20 of our 50 states have given such authority to the people, even when these kinds of reforms were at their peak. But yeah, that it's poorly taught is certainly no help, either.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   
The FDA.. Sounds like a great thing. Test the safety of drugs and food items etc.

The problem is.. the FDA will not allow a person to "spread the knowledge" of any natural treatment of any known desease. Unless proven by FDA approved studies.

The FDA has not the greatest track record of approving drugs.. There are many examples of "approved" drugs that cause harm to humans.

More FDA officials have been indicted in charges of bribery and colusion with drug companies than many doctors accused of the same thing across the country.

Department of Education.. Sounds like a great thing.. having a government agency oversea the education of our children.

Problem is.. Since this agency has come into being.. the education level of the average high school unit has gone from the top ten in the world stage to about 35 or something...

Department of the Education has spent Millions of federal dollars and not provided the education of One Child...

Most disturbing of all.. Some of that money has been used to circumvent the oversight of education of children from local school boards to a "federal" plan of what should be taught to children.

Just because a government agency exists.. does not mean that it is doing the mission that everyone believes it does....



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
GradyPhilpott, could the problem with the document be that it is so easily open to interpretation?


No, the problem is that so many people prefer to remain ignorant on the document. People scream about "rights" that do not exist while at the same time attempting to deny that which is clear - if one took the time to learn.

On the same token, I believe that if you don't know what your God-given rights are, you don't deserve to enjoy them. The nation will persih for lack of knowledge.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
No, the problem is that so many people prefer to remain ignorant on the document. People scream about "rights" that do not exist while at the same time attempting to deny that which is clear - if one took the time to learn.


But why are these rights not there also?


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
On the same token, I believe that if you don't know what your God-given rights are, you don't deserve to enjoy them. The nation will persih for lack of knowledge.


Your rights...not God given.

The founding fathers were not God, did not do it on his word and direct word but what they viewed he might have wanted. If anything it is about time we make rights that apply to people as human beings and not as a bi-product of any force we can't measure. Otherwise it is open to abuse from every religious organisation.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join