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 US is not governable

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
The United States of America is too large for a centralized government to govern.

At least for the last 70 years or so...

The population is too diverse now for our federal government to have as much power as they do.

My solution would be (fantasy land)

-Completely deconstruct the federal government.
-Leave the military as-is run by a congress filled with equal numbers or representatives from each state.
-Allow for FBI and CIA to run under state rules and regs


Now i say let the FBI and CIA run because anyway you slice it we need international intelligence agencies to operate to gain vital intelligence... And the FBI will exist purely to assist the states in enforcing their laws. That being said, all fed laws will be repealed and state law is the law of the land that you stand on.

The IRS will be abolished being replaced by a "voted on" state income tax ONLY.
The states will pay for the military by a revenue to capita ratio.

All citizens of the state will have the ability to challenge any and all laws set forth by their elected officials and each district has the right at any time to hold a special vote for their districts representatives.

I have no idea if this form of government would work


Discuss...




posted on May, 3 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I like it were do we sign?



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
You already voted for radical change...

Keep your eyes open for even more radical attempts at change.

YES WE CAN!



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by BingeBob
 



The fact is, we don't want a nation that is ultimately governed by the fed's. Give more power back to the states. The federal gov't is way too large as it is; it needs to be trimmed back.

The 50 states are doing just fine being independent members of the United States. Sometimes we forget that.

My solution? Bring the federal gov't back down to size. It's obligations should be defense of our borders and enforcement of contracts, and not much more.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
I hope you're not suggesting that we actually return to the Constitution, follow Constitutional law, and let the States have the authority the Constitution gives them.

This would mean the Federal Government would be reduced to providing for the common defense, establishing and regulating a medium of exchange, and providing for the general welfare.

Not Welfare in general.

Holy crap!

What a revolutionary idea!

States rights! (Didn't we fight the War of Northern Aggression over this already?)



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by BingeBob
 



The fact is, we don't want a nation that is ultimately governed by the fed's. Give more power back to the states. The federal gov't is way too large as it is; it needs to be trimmed back.

The 50 states are doing just fine being independent members of the United States. Sometimes we forget that.

My solution? Bring the federal gov't back down to size. It's obligations should be defense of our borders and enforcement of contracts, and not much more.


I agree, the federal government has to much power for their own good. We need to take away alot of that power and give it back to the state as you have said.

I agree with what you said and I really can not say it anybetter, so I will just try to emphasize that you are correct (IMO).

A federal government with too much power is not a good thing. It leads to the abuses of power that we have seen on both sides of the fence (dems and reps).

Anyway, hey, how about that, you and I agree on a political issue! Who would have thought?

Seriously though, I agree, to much government and too much power to the government is a bad thing and that needs to be fixed.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I think things as a whole have become much too complicated as well...

Example: Pick a grievance with the govt...Ok ill pick one...uhhhhh The budget...

How exactly do i petition the federal government for a redress of my grievance???

Shouldnt it be as easy as going down to the statehouse and saying "hey, this budget sucks and i dont like it"

and then having someone (like an elected representative) listen to and bring forward your complaint with gusto??? How about hold a district wide townhall style meeting and vote to see if there are alot of people that feel the same???


[edit on 3-5-2009 by BingeBob]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by BingeBob
 


In this case if the Federal can rule the US or if it should are two differnt issues . When the US was founded a central government that governed the US was impractical due to the slow method of communications . Clearly this isnt the case today . It is up to Americans to decided what kind of government they want there governing there country .



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Yeah except that at this point we cant control it effectively...

When we vote for president we get to choose between 2 people in the end. It just so happens that you need to be incredibly rich to run for president so we get to choose between 2 rich guys that have been selected by a group.

Look at whats going on in Mass. right now...

The Kennedy's are fighting over who in the family gets to have the senate seat when Teddy kicks the bucket...If it was the way things are supposed to be, there wouldnt be a question of which Kennedy gets the seat it would be a question of when the citizens of Mass get to vote on the best qualified canidate for senate that runs against the Kennedy's.

As it is plainly visible, our government is run by people who could care less about "The Right Thing To Do". And we get a choice of voting for one rich guy who has no clue whats going on in my middle class life or another guy who has no idea whats going on in my middle class life...



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I'd take it a step further and break up the states. You can't have people in the densely populated cities voting in high numbers to alter the lives of the people living in the rural areas. I don't want to be in a New York or California situation where a bunch of urban dependents vote to take away my guns or toss me in jail because I have a gallon of unpasteurized milk.

The fed is the greatest evil by far but it isnt just evil as a matter of course alone it's evil because those with the means and power are generally selfish and controlling. If they lost the outlet the fed gives them they'll move into controlling positions in state government. It's already happened in many of the nations "blue" states where dynasty politicians have taken over and are using the state as their own plaything.

As long as we have these densely populated areas being more valuable vote wise we'll always be subjected to the idiocy of mob rule at the state level.

I wont be happy until I have sovereign citizenship free of all kings.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   
TPTB wants us to be part of a one world government, and that can't happen if the United States isn't ruled as a single entity. The first step towards minimizing federal rule is to elect people who aren't part of the traditional two party system. Not just as president, but into Congress, as well. We'll never regain our rights granted by the Constitution as long as a Republican or Democrat is in office.

So, how do we go about electing a third party when the majority of America is brainwashed into believing that big government is good? Education. Distribute literature, go to protests, talk to as many people as you can about the blatant disregard for the constitution that the current and past administrations have shown.

Will it be enough? I don't know, but I do know that if we do nothing then nothing will change.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Ah yes, but when i say citizens of a state voting i mean ONLY citizens...so the states would have to be held accountable for allowing NON-citizens to vote as we know happens all the time.

And with the feds deregulated a state such as Mass or Cali could not affect your rights in NH because State Law is the Law of the Land where you stand!

Im with you 100%



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I'd take it a step further and break up the states. You can't have people in the densely populated cities voting in high numbers to alter the lives of the people living in the rural areas. I don't want to be in a New York or California situation where a bunch of urban dependents vote to take away my guns or toss me in jail because I have a gallon of unpasteurized milk.

The fed is the greatest evil by far but it isnt just evil as a matter of course alone it's evil because those with the means and power are generally selfish and controlling. If they lost the outlet the fed gives them they'll move into controlling positions in state government. It's already happened in many of the nations "blue" states where dynasty politicians have taken over and are using the state as their own plaything.

As long as we have these densely populated areas being more valuable vote wise we'll always be subjected to the idiocy of mob rule at the state level.

I wont be happy until I have sovereign citizenship free of all kings.


I couldn't agree more. It's not just people in other countries that wonder what the big deal is about having guns, it's people in the big cities in this country, as well. Until you live in a rural area, you will never understand the pleasure and necessity of owning a gun. Could I live without it? That's like saying could I live without a truck; sure, I could do it, but I shouldn't have to.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
don't like your idea

how about we genetically unlock the junk DNA within the tribes of israel so their arks of the covenant can be built within them and they can evolve into the next level up from human.. the holy city of jerusalem being their bodies..
holy people that will rule with justice and compassion, and unmatched POWER.

how about we do that.

deal?

-

[edit on 6-5-2009 by prevenge]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
One big hurdle I already see with that idea is that when you allow any citizen to grieve a passed bill or law every single thing that is passed will be grieved.

On that note you could leave it up to mayors of each town or representatives of each county to lead grievance votes and then if the vote is the majority submit the grievance and go from there. That way you don't have 600,000 of them every time a law is passed in the bigger states.

There could also be an emergency grievance process where a bill may seriously impacting the rights or well being of a group of people then the representative under his own decision could submit it without a vote.

If he doesn't and the people feel that it is legit then they could have it submitted through a local mayor or city employee who would have the right to submit it over the Representative head as kind of a checks and balances thing.

Edit: to add you could also do away with parties and do this. 1 Person from every state is placed in the presidential election. There will be 50 candidates to choose from and chances are the one that has worked most with the other states to help them along with his own state will get the majority vote. Vote decided by the total number of votes in the US as who wins no more states required to get elected so to speak just pure numbers.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by Darthorious]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by BingeBob
 


That state law is influenced far more by the urban dependents in Concord, Nashua and Manchester than it is by the folks in Pittsburg, Berlin and Lancaster. Thereby putting the good folks of rural NH under the thumbs of the urbanites.

It's ensuring mob rule. Worse yet it's ensuring the lowest common denominator mob rule. All these urban people want is slavery and wealth redistribution. By virtue of their dense populations they have the power to confiscate the property and rights of anyone in the state. Maybe if there were some sort of system that balanced the votes of the counties that wasnt based on population I'd be more open to the idea but as it stands it's mob rule. Better yet, divide NH into three separate territories. Southern NH for the Mass-minded slaves, Central NH and Northern NH. The state is too big and diverse to be governed by a mob elected state government.

I dont want the state dictating how I should live my life and within what parameters the one and only life I have to live shall be lived any more than I want the fed to.

No kings. I don't care if it's a President, Governor, Mayor or some bully a few streets down. No kings.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
great ideas

but

The people who occupy offices and positions in government love the power they wield and the only they'd give up their power is if you took it from their cold lifeless fingers...




posted on May, 6 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


If you add up all the Senators, all the Representatives, and the White House, you're talking about less than 650 people.

650 people are ruining this country.

Only 650.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by dooper]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


This is what needs to happen for America to survive, we either evolve or perish and that's the bottom line.

650 is what to our numbers? Nothing.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I think the US is actually five or six or possibly more fledgling nations that are put together under a flag and supposed mission.

I also think the difference between the US and Canada isn't as important as the regional differences in North America.



[edit on 6-5-2009 by Donnie Darko]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join