If our forefathers had better foresight, would we have more accountability now?

I was just having some discussion with my brother this morning and wanted to share my thoughts. I would love to hear some thoughts from you on whether this would be a good or bad idea.

Here goes:
Washington, Napolean, Henry V, Edward III led their troops into battle as did many others before the formation of the United States of America and our constitution. They all did it so our forefather's were much aware of this expectation that leader's would be placed at the front lines of a battle alongside our fighting troops. Yet, knowing this, our constitution was created in a way that removed the highest in office from having to serve in the trenches. In the days of old, battles were typically decided upon a surrender or a capture/kill of the king and/or his immediate forces, this certainly is helpful in deciding "mission accomplished" and actually meaning bring the troops home.

Today, the presidents and highly elected officials and high ranking members of the military all get the privilege of being involved from thousands of miles away. It is my opinion that had the forefathers written requirements into the constitution that those who hold offices of the highest kind, such as president, VP. Secretary of State, Cabinet members and advisors as well as any legislative members who advocate for the use of force or invoke a war scenario that they go to work for their constituents by backing up their vote with time on the front lines. In the case of the highest members, they would have to alternate their duties so that they are not all in the theater at the same time.
I would imagine that many conflicts would have had much different outcomes if we still had a system in place which did just that, perhaps even be solved diplomatically without a loss of life. Many of the people in government may have served our countries when they were younger and, perhaps, did not understand the intricacies of the world. Now they are older and in office where instead of reflecting upon their service years and making better decisions regarding the use of troops and warfare, they send more young citizens off to die in places they should not even be.

If there were a way to amend the constitution to make them all physically accountable for their own actions, we might just become the country our forefathers envisioned.

What do you think?

PS: flying in to speak to the troops or landing on an aircraft carrier in an S-3B jet to say mission accomplished (and to get to wear a flight suit )do not count as active duty on a front line or even near a front line.

The Constitution already holds the people accountable. We the people just choose to not uphold it against them. There is no amendment needed in that regard.

The document is simple. It lists, explicitly, the powers that the federal government has. Everything not explicitly listed should not be available to them and should be punished as such. We the people instead chose to let these usurpations slide over the years instead of standing and holding the leaders responsible. Now it is so bad that it hardly resembles anything included in our Constitution and still, no one is willing to stand up and say enough is enough.

You can tell by various quotes from our Founding Fathers that they had incredible foresight, and everything happening today was predicted by them in event that the people did not hold their government accountable. But accountable does not mean going to a protest and yelling to nobody as nobody listens. It means making demands and holding to them, or ousting the current regime from office until there is one that follows the laws of our land.

But people are too afraid to hold these people accountable. They are too afraid to make demands. They are too afraid to fight for freedom that they are supposed to be guaranteed.

Sadly, most of the people get what they deserve while a small portion who will stand and fight gets lost in the sea of the majority monotony.

reply to post by evc1shop

IMO there should be a standing prerequisite for any potential Presidential candidate - A few years in the military - not necessarily a career but a free years.

Though you’re on the right track? Modern wars are fought mostly behind the desk - control panels, computers, communications, etc. I don’t see how putting the President into a live conflict in the line of fire is a good thing.

Hey wait. Let me think about that some more.

peace

The Founder's gave us a Republic that has stood the test of time.

To blame them is a stretch.

Following the Constitution is what will get us through this mess.

Our Founder's were brilliant. It's modern man who is failing...

The founding fathers had plenty of foresight. The ones in charge just told us that their foresight does not apply and teach this to our young.....I remember this conditioning even when I was young. Anyone who does not follow this conditioning were considered insane if they challenged it.......Which I guess is true to a certain point.

The system in place to change this practice was designed by the ones in charge....go figure

reply to post by silo13
I think that is part of the problem. The war desk is tucked away out of harm's way. I think that they should spend time in a war zone that they have created. I do realize that the war machine of today is not of horses and troops etc.. My bigger point is about them taking it more seriously when they decide to use war as an answer to something that might have been solvable by a lesser means.

reply to post by evc1shop


I am not a pacifist and I do believe there are times to go to war such as when war is declared upon us.

The truth is, we aren't even supposed to have a standing army in times of peace (much less a domestic federal police force of any kind, not even the FBI).

We just haven't had peace since the end of WWII. That is, unless you take that literally and don't count 'police actions' but, that would require our congress to take responsibility and make declarations of war instead of granting nearly unlimited power to the executive branch.

We don't need an amendment, we need to follow the constitution and the existing amendments.

As far as putting the Commander in Chief in a HUMVEE on the front line? It wouldn't hurt.

reply to post by evc1shop

Despite all evidence to the contrary, I will assume you are serious about this and have spent some time thinking about it.

Very few politicians, if any, are physically capable of combat duties. Their presence risks their own lives and those around them.

We have not elected them to kill the enemy, we have elected them to vote, listen to us, provide constituent services, etc. I don't want him on a six-month, mandatory "vacation" getting shot at.

So, the suggestion is to tell legislators that if you vote "yes" on this bill, you will be shot at and a certain proportion of you will be killed, but if you vote "no," you're safe? And you're concerned that politicians are only thinking about themselves now?

How about applying that to other bills? For example, law makers who vote for renewable energy have to bike to work. Voting for gun control, means you lose your security detail. Voting against the 1% means you have to sell all of your homes, donate the proceeds to the government, and move into an apartment.

I'd better stop with the examples, I'm starting to have too much fun.

Originally posted by whyamIhere
The Founder's gave us a Republic that has stood the test of time.

To blame them is a stretch.

Following the Constitution is what will get us through this mess.

Our Founder's were brilliant. It's modern man who is failing...

Our empire is a young one, there were many empires in history that lasted much longer than the USA has. All of them mostly crumbled, with small countries with limited power often still existing.

I can't say that this is a bad country, if anything, they are allowing people to have more than they deserve which has resulted in a lot of debt. Taking care of the needy did not cause much of this debt, stimulating economical growth when it was not needed was the problem. Counties let road maintenance go so they could get more road replacement money in the county. We need to take care of our roads, not blow money replacing them. I see this locally a lot, I thought it would change with the recession but it didn't, they are still not repairing them when they crack.

This is not easy, people got spoiled. People want extravagant parks in their neighborhoods instead of just a couple of tables and some cheap long lasting well built metal swingsets and a couple of tetertotters. (sorry if I did not spell that right, I have never spelled that word before. Many communities have gone insane trying to look better than their neighboring communities. I thought we were all in this together.

reply to post by TheNewRevolution
reply to post by whyamIhere

reply to post by rickymouse
I agree with all of you on this. I think my use of "accountability" is not what I should have argued. There clearly is a lot more to the constitution that we citizens are not holding them to.

reply to post by charles1952


Ooooo!, I like it, I like it, I like it!!!

Don't stop! Anti-hypocrisy porn!

reply to post by charles1952
I may not have given this as much thought as you might be giving me credit for but I am serious that these people that wanted to run for office and whom we ultimately elected, they wanted to serve us but they seem disconnected from the rest of us and it is here where I think they ought to put themselves in the shoes of the women & men who put their lives on the line for whatever decision these elected officials make.

I realize that many of the old folks in office can't serve anymore, term limits leading to better turnover could help that.

reply to post by TheNewRevolution

The Constitution already holds the people accountable. We the people just choose to not uphold it against them. There is no amendment needed in that regard.

If by "the people" you mean congress, where does the constitution give "We the people" the authority to uphold anything in it? They are held accountable only to each other. They can only be censured or thrown out of office by their colleagues, not by US citizens despite overt misfeasance, nonfeasance, or malfeasance of office.

As far as limited goes, congress was given total authority over commerce and while one could argue that that power was intended to be limited, it isn't worded that way and since 1913 that one single clause covers everything any of us might earn, buy, sell or trade.

(Article I, section 8), the authorization of the Congress “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes.” It is the legal foundation of much of the U.S. government’s regulatory authority.

Foreign nations, the several states and the Indian tribes are all hitched to a debt currency created by the federal reserve.

Bottleneck.

So yes, federal reserve notes have long been deemed legal tender, but nowhere does it say they can be the ONLY legal tender. There are detours available and you're right, no amendment is necessary.

www.publicbankinginstitute.org...

reply to post by rickymouse
I am not saying that this country is bad either. I am simply looking for a better way to "help" politicians see what the rest of us can see when a war is to be decided.

As far as our citizens wanting to be extravagant with things like the parks, where I am currently living in the Twin Cities, the towns are building all of these beautiful playgrounds but then you go down the streets in every direction from one and you see plenty of people that have just put up their own play structure in their backyard. I suppose it may be because they are too lazy to walk their kids to the park or maybe they would have to interact with kids of other ethnicities at the community one's. I almost think that is a waste of money except for the fact that they are used daily by many kids who don't have their own.

The people are indeed spoiled if you ask me. A lot of them take things for granted, one of them being our country's freedoms; what a lot of folks haven't figured out is that having freedom comes with responsibilities like that of voting and keeping the government in check. so that the freedoms can endure. There seems to be a lot of people dropping their responsibilities to uphold that freedom and we are seeing the results of it.

reply to post by evc1shop

Dear evc1shop,

Please forgive my harshness, it was because I didn't understand you, but that's no excuse.

Let me start by saying I agree completely with your most recent post. Many have lost touch. I think that's why Bill Buckley said he would rather be governed by the first 400 names in the Boston phone directory than the faculty of Yale. That might be why "Joe the Plumber" was such a big hit.

My own feeling is that politicians should have a few principles. (Sure, I'll spring for the cost of dictionaries so they can look the word up.) They should firmly believe in the Constitution as it was written and intended. They should desire the maximum amount of individual freedom consistent with a safe and just society. Well, you get the idea, and they may be two or three more absolute principles that our representatives should be able to agree on by virtue of their position as American law makers.

Politicians should be able to express clearly and honestly how their positions support these basic principles. The next law maker who says "It depends on what the definition of "is" is." Is automatically fired.

If politicians spent less time in Washington and more in their home districts, two good things would happen. They'd be able to pass fewer laws and would know their people better. Maybe three days in Washington, four days home?

A politician who listens to too many pollsters, professors, and pundits, has lost his roots. Let his staff listen to that stuff while the politician is listening to his people.

On the other hand, (There's always another hand, isn't there.) the politician has to keep his principles in the front of his thinking. If the majority of his constituents tell him to take someone's freedom for their benefit, he has to be able to tell them, "Sorry, not this time."

You know, an amazing discussion could spring up from all this, thanks for showing me where I misunderstood you.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by TheNewRevolution
The Constitution already holds the people accountable. We the people just choose to not uphold it against them. There is no amendment needed in that regard.

The document is simple. It lists, explicitly, the powers that the federal government has. Everything not explicitly listed should not be available to them and should be punished as such. We the people instead chose to let these usurpations slide over the years instead of standing and holding the leaders responsible. Now it is so bad that it hardly resembles anything included in our Constitution and still, no one is willing to stand up and say enough is enough.

You can tell by various quotes from our Founding Fathers that they had incredible foresight, and everything happening today was predicted by them in event that the people did not hold their government accountable. But accountable does not mean going to a protest and yelling to nobody as nobody listens. It means making demands and holding to them, or ousting the current regime from office until there is one that follows the laws of our land.

But people are too afraid to hold these people accountable. They are too afraid to make demands. They are too afraid to fight for freedom that they are supposed to be guaranteed.

Sadly, most of the people get what they deserve while a small portion who will stand and fight gets lost in the sea of the majority monotony.

Not to mention each takes an oath of office, when Violated their asses should be thrown in the streets and or jail.

All the Checks and Balances are there, we just allowed them to go unused, we allowed them to slowly secure their power through our own apathy.

Everything we see now, is not the Founding Fathers fault, its Ours for not listening to them.

reply to post by charles1952
Charles1952, No worries on how your message came across. It is I who chose to post on here and I knew that not every response is going to be what I want to hear. Your post did let me know that I did not do enough to be clear in what my thoughts were. I am not the most articulate writer especially going on days with little sleep as I race to finish a software project here.

I do respect your postings on ATS and do not feel you need apologize for my lack of clarity. It is discussion and follow ups like this that help people get past these misunderstandings without starting an online war of sorts.

Respectfully.
EVC

PS: Have you ever read the book Mind of the Raven? Wondering because every time I see your avatar I am reminded of it.

reply to post by evc1shop

Dear evc1shop,

I'm going to go off-topic (although, maybe can save it) because you've pointed out something important that needs to be repeated.

It is I who chose to post on here and I knew that not every response is going to be what I want to hear.

It is discussion and follow ups like this that help people get past these misunderstandings without starting an online war of sorts.

Your approach is valuable, sane, and should be emulated by our politicians. (There. I managed to get it back on topic. No one can say or write anything and expect to get a universal chorus of "Ditto" in response. Sometimes it's misunderstanding, sometimes it's honest disagreement, occasionally it's an idiot who is just trying to make trouble.

Your approach of listening, thinking, and reasonably responding is how we're going to make any progress at all. Thank you for demonstrating that. Mods, put this guy down as an up and coming star.

The avatar? Sorry, I haven't read the book, and can't tell the difference between a raven, a crow, and a blackbird. It was chosen for me my FortAnthem, who didn't like the one I picked for myself:



I had to dust this off and spend time trying to figure how to get it into a post, but I kind of like it. What do you think? Go back to the man walking to (off?) the end of the dock? Or stick with the birds?

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by rickymouse
Our empire is a young one, there were many empires in history that lasted much longer than the USA has

Hold the phone,

Who in Government has declared us as such?

Seriously who? I keep hearing this "Empire" talk and how it was supposed to last '1,000' years yadda yadda blah blah blah. Now can someone ANYONE quote me where this was declared by anybody in the US Government?!

Please.

reply to post by benrl

All the Checks and Balances are there, we just allowed them to go unused, we allowed them to slowly secure their power through our own apathy.

Everything we see now, is not the Founding Fathers fault, its Ours for not listening to them.

Which checks and balances would you recommend? Where in the rule of law did you find the checks and balances we are failing to use?

We are listening to what the founders said, at least to their writings (the federalist papers) that made promises they knew at the time wouldn't and couldn't be kept.

The founders actually had this argument before the document was signed. Maybe we should listen to them a little harder.

No constitution could expressly enumerate all powers without appending an endless list of minutiae. There must be implied powers — and that’s the danger of any constitution. Implied powers of course must be inferred, and inference requires interpretation. Who is likely to have the inside track in that process: those who seek to restrict government power or those who seek to expand it? fff.org...

The "Necessary and Proper" clause leaves them quite a few options that we may not like and that we may not be able to stop, like going to war without legitimate cause.