1. A recalcitrant and cynical major party that views every issue through the fun house mirror of religious dogma and because they are literalists, they are pre-disposed to reject science – all science (natural and social). Academic studies mean nothing because with every issue they head to the bible for an answer. And since the bible is to them absolute truth,, the real, testable facts are rejected. Everything becomes a matter of opinion and nothing is a matter of fact, save for their Truth. Rational discussion and problem solving become impossible
I hear comments like, "At least in the U.S. we have freedom." Well, more than half the world has freedom at least as equal to ours, some greater. But more than that, is our modern American definition of freedom even real freedom? In the U.S., "freedom" actually translates into "no government intervention."
A European definition instead looks at human well being: "I am free to do what I love and follow my dreams because I need not factor in if that work gives me access to health insurance." By contrast, an American faces a Hobson's choice: "I am free to do what I want, but if that leaves my family without healthcare, that's life." It is like saying, you are free to live or die, which will you choose? Consequently, Americans stay in jobs they hate and their dreams are harder to achieve. Sadly, many in the U.S. will say, "tough luck," a decent, humane life is only deserved by those either skilled enough, lucky enough or dogged enough to earn it.
3. The American obsession with unfettered capitalism such that anything that deters maximum profit must necessarily equal “bad” or even “immoral.” We’ve long ago forgotten that economic models are creations by people invented to serve society, not the other way around. We have elevated it so much, it is not only orthodoxy, but actually codified in law, that corporations are people.
A media too integrated into and cozy with the power structure to do much more than showcase conflict and construct false equivalence because they now think truth to be mutually exclusive of objectivity. Imagine modern media moderating a debate between Hitler and Churchill. “Mr. Prime Minister, Chancellor Hitler says Jews are a lesser, subhuman race, you say they are not. Why is his opinion any less valid than yours?”…
An insatiable Mil/NatSec sector leveraging both fear and American arrogance (see #2) to breed a militaristic, intrusive, gear-up-shoot-first culture -- both domestically against its own citizenry and overseas – to keep itself the unquestioned top budget priority. One byproduct is a vulgar and dangerous erosion of the most basic civil liberties and rise of the police state: the militarization of law enforcement, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, forfeiture laws, the War on Drugs, etc. The other is the militaristic, arrogant foreign policy: extrajudicial and unilateral killings with drones (even of American citizens) in sovereign nations, the oxymoronic Bush Doctrine of “preventative war.” Does anyone really believe this has done anything other than breed hatred of us the world over, degrading us from a nation with some argument of holding a moral high ground to now a pariah that is more feared than respected?
Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by METACOMET
I don't understand your point. I am very familiar with what's required to amend the Constitution.
Further, as literalists, they are only able to view the Constitution and its parts in the same literal context versus allowing it to be a living document whose tenets can be thoughtfully applied to modern challenges. Theirs is a world without nuance, without adaptability.
the dept. of education was created by democrats during the carter admin. it's been downhill ever since.
Where is the guy/gal who just wants to give the rest of us a "Hand up"?
Originally posted by METACOMET
reply to post by pajoly
Since the constitution is no longer law, the point is moot. That being said, the viewpoint that the constitution is a living, fluid document is just incredibly careless on your part.
The very purpose of drafting a constitution and a bill of rights is to specifically withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy. Their meanings cannot be altered without the consent of The PEOPLE. If rights only mean what you personally think they should mean, and not what is explicitly written, they are worthless. Your OP is courting disaster by suggesting a portion of society can just haphazardly eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like without following the lawful procedure written into the document.
The US is a representative Republic, I'm sure you know this. This is elementary school stuff. If you and so many others want it changed then vote to amend the constitution via article 5.
The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. – South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)
On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. -Thomas Jefferson
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. – James Madison
To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. – Thomas Jefferson
I cannot assent to the view, if it be meant that the legislature may impair or abridge the rights of a free press and of free speech whenever it thinks that the public welfare requires that it be done. The public welfare cannot override constitutional privilege. – John Marshall Harlan, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Patterson v. Chicago
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
edit on 26-8-2012 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by TDawgRex
But this does nothing to solve the problem. You cannot affect your proposed solution due to the barriers presented by the core problems. To say, we'll just cut off the money, that'll fix everything. That fixes nothing because it is not a realistic solution unless it can be done.
Originally posted by GambitVII
reply to post by pajoly
I lurk these forums and occasional I make posts here and there. Don't expect a response because I won't be back in this topic to see it.
If I were to find a problem, all I'd have to do is look at what people say in the Internet where they are 'protected' by 'anonymity'.edit on 27-8-2012 by GambitVII because: (no reason given)
If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. -- George Carlin