what would america be like if restored to a republic

i would like to promote the idea that we should brainstorm what the effects would be if the constatutional movement has already completed restoration of our rights as granted by the founding documents.

an example is middle eastern energy policy

example
if the constatution states no aggresive wars are to be fought and only wars santioned by congress are allowed

then if america pulls out of the middle east wars, to secure oil reserves for the nation you must uncap your explored oil reserves at home.you would need to train and supply alies to defend themselfs to allow for a withdraw of troops without a power vacume

by tapping the us internal oil supply it lowers domestic imports and increases the gdp
the return of the troops will save billions but what will the solders do upon return?

example
if the fed reserve is unlawfully printing us notes at interest and is against the constitution does that mean money would be printed for the benifit of the people
and loaned out by the govenment as in New Zealand

please leave any questions of will this work or is this legal
im asking for forward thinkers to find the changes in policy that would bring the U.S. back inline with the constitution and what requires change and how that may work

edit this is my first thread



no left right please
XPLodER

[edit on 5-4-2010 by XPLodER]

This post is way too confusing to help you with, is English your primary language?

Originally posted by XPLodER
i would like to promote the idea that we should brainstorm what the effects would be if the constatutional movement has already completed restoration of our rights as granted by the founding documents.

My examples are slander and liabel laws.

Repeal them all. Currently it is illegal for our
elected representatives to tell us the truth as there is
always some group that can sue them for what it implies.
Ever wonder why they _have_ to speak in generalities and jingoism.


David Grouchy

Originally posted by XPLodER
i would like to promote the idea that we should brainstorm what the effects would be if the constatutional movement has already completed restoration of our rights as granted by the founding documents.

an example is middle eastern energy policy

example
if the constatution states no aggresive wars are to be fought and only wars santioned by congress are allowed

then if america pulls out of the middle east wars, to secure oil reserves for the nation you must uncap your explored oil reserves at home.you would need to train and supply alies to defend themselfs to allow for a withdraw of troops without a power vacume

by tapping the us internal oil supply it lowers domestic imports and increases the gdp
the return of the troops will save billions but what will the solders do upon return?

example
if the fed reserve is unlawfully printing us notes at interest and is against the constitution does that mean money would be printed for the benifit of the people
and loaned out by the govenment as in New Zealand

please leave any questions of will this work or is this legal
im asking for forward thinkers to find the changes in policy that would bring the U.S. back inline with the constitution and what requires change and how that may work

edit this is my first thread

no left right please
XPLodER

[edit on 5-4-2010 by XPLodER]

Gonna do the best I can here so bare with me.
The soldiers would come here and be deployed to secure our borders. Technically it would have to be soldiers from their respective states as the U.S. as per the constitution can only have an army standing for two years.

Oil would not really be a problem. With a dramatic change we would surely see many oil giants (among other corporations held up by the US government) fall due to our new ways and oil would be replaced by alternates such as hemp or ethanol or even algae.

The end of the fed would just mean that our money would be backed by actual resources instead of market value. I am not an economist so I personally have no idea on this one.

Among other things, in order to go back to the constitution would mean a dramatic increase in state power and a drastic decrease in federal power. Among these would be social security and medicare so new alternatives would have to come out in order for it to work.

This is all speculation on my part btw, there really is no telling exactly what would or could happen. The biggest thing about going strictly back to the constitution as how our forefathers saw it would mean isolationism. I don't see where that could happen in today's world personally.

Originally posted by Happyfeet
This post is way too confusing to help you with, is English your primary language?

english is my second language
i speak maori as my first language and english as my second
i find speaking english easy but writting it harder

ps sorry if my grammer or spelling is bad

reply to post by ventian


i beleive isolationism was installed in the founding documents to protect the country from cheep goods and labour from other countries displacing the nateral balence of goods and services inside the country

the globalization model seams to favour any country who promotes slave labour. countries without envionmental and living standard concerns can always out produce you
it stands at the moment that china has stolen all your jobs and can flood your markets with goods cheaper than you can make. the type of
isolationism described would mean americas standard of living and environmental considerations would not have to lower to compete on the world stage

solution
only products that cannot be produced at the same level of social responcability and environmental care are allowed in the country as an import. this protects jobs and stops money leaving the us for foreign countrys

Good job on posing some real brain burners

Policy is really tough because it's established by the executive branch and implemented by congress empowering agency regulations or making law. Changing policy is a change in attitude, the devil is in implementation. I would have to guess that the methodology is a back-end one: examine the implementation issues that need to be brought in line, change or fix them and then see how to make the policy coherent. Bureaucrats don't rethink or change thought process orientation very well. Task orientation works great for bureaucrats as long as their guidelines are clear. Politicians probably aren't too great at thinking about the general welfare or the "little guy" so I don't know about reformulating policy with that group. Sorry I don't have a more solid thought here to contribute and I appreciate your thought provoking post. Thanks!

gj

reply to post by ganjoa


on energy policy considerations

new zealand is going to uncap our oil feilds and start pumping
strange obama is drill baby drill as well
i wounder if this is part of a larger commitment to remove dependance from middle eastern oil supplies

XPLodER

what we have now will suffice, obama is doing alright for a reform president, not great but doing what he has to.

reply to post by tektek2012


from the other side of the earth it looks like a slow motion train wreak is happening and obama is driving that train into the side of a cliff at high speed

I think ganjoa is right about bureaucrats and politicians having limitations in their thought processes.

If you were a surgeon who wasn't very good with hygine and your dirty hands infected patients wounds, you would be re-trained or kicked out. Bureaucrats and politicians are supposed to be professionals, yet they are don't seem to have any formal training at all. They make mistakes all the time and get people killed.

Not being able to think about the welfare of the 'little guy' should not be seen as part of a political stance or a question of focus. It should be seen as the incompetence of an untrained person.

Everybody else has to take courses and exams to do the most basic jobs these days - especially when they have a duty of care to the public - but our rulers seem to be an exception.

reply to post by barney808


i am impressed with your opinion
it is well put and very perceptive

thank you

Thanks XPLodER!

I've been wondering for quite a few years now whether being part of the decision making process in government (politicians etc.), can be classed as a profession.

The way that world leaders are chosen, may in some cases be democratic, but shouldn't they be tested to see if they can manage the basics. For example, if you are running the economy, shouldn't you have the financial skills of a sucessfull CEO, whilst at the same time knowing what it is like to be poor? Not doable I suppose?

Originally posted by barney808
Thanks XPLodER!

I've been wondering for quite a few years now whether being part of the decision making process in government (politicians etc.), can be classed as a profession.

The way that world leaders are chosen, may in some cases be democratic, but shouldn't they be tested to see if they can manage the basics. For example, if you are running the economy, shouldn't you have the financial skills of a sucessfull CEO, whilst at the same time knowing what it is like to be poor? Not doable I suppose?

if countrys were run more like companys then the peoples welfare is balanced against profit (evil people covert money) and the people always lose out

if run as a non profit for the people type arrangement then normal people can be representitives and govern but the way it stands you need to have a law degree to understand what they are up to

i beleive a lottery with a caviat that any damaged caused by serving is personal to the representitive and falls to him or her personally

personal responsability is forced an wages for the job is at the rate of that persons normal job