A message to our Leadership in America

[TwistedTails]

Wingnuts are devices that secure the smaller parts of a larger whole together, and by design they work in the simplest, most straight forward manner. American politics could use more wingnuts.

Cheers
Twisted.

[steelish]

Wingnuts are devices that secure the smaller parts of a larger whole together, and by design they work in the simplest, most straight forward manner. American politics could use more wingnuts.

Cheers
Twisted.

Oh, and I completely took it as a compliment!

[MMI]

Wingnuts ... work in the simplest, most straight forward manner ...

Twisting.

ian ... don't you like being a Scottish colony? Ah well ... now you know how the Scots have felt since 1707. Not nice, is it?

Well, like many other nations, the USA has a two party system, one to the right of the political spectrum, and the other, further to the right. It is not conceivable that either of them can reflect everyone's political viewpoints , in fact, it is not likely that they can reflect anyone's viewpoint exactly. I guess you just have to accept the system is imperfect and your choices are, trying to make changes within the system - by voting for the candidate whose policies you are closest to - or by starting a revolution. As the writer of the above list of policy changes / law amendments presented most of them with the words "I [do not] want ...", I recommend revolution: allowing other people a vote would be too dangerous.

Constitution as it was written? Sounds like fundamentalism to me. Next you'll be saying it's the word of God! That document is over two hundred years old. Life has changed since then. So has politics. So, too, should the Constitution. It is not a pefect document. It is not immutable, and it is capable of different interpretations. The interpretation of the party in power is the one you have to live with, but only for the time being.

[steelish]

That document is over two hundred years old. Life has changed since then. So has politics.

Yes, it is. Life has changed only in the fact that technology has changed it. Basic principles remain the same.

So, too, should the Constitution. It is not a pefect document. It is not immutable, and it is capable of different interpretations. The interpretation of the party in power is the one you have to live with, but only for the time being.

On the first part of this statement, I disagree. The Constitution doesn't need to change at all. It still applies.

As to "The interpretation of the party in power is the one you have to live with, but only for the time being." So true. But their power is quickly going to come to an end.

[SadisticNature]

Any document with a political process for amendments isn't really a protection at all. Ask any former slave owner about their constitutionally protected property and the lack of compensation (except you can't because they are dead).

If in 2240 America's demographics are dominated by Islam and they elect a majority in the house, senate and control the presidency, do you think a piece of paper is going to stop a constitutional amendment imposing sharia law?

The Treaty of Troyes did nothing to stop Valois from taking the throne of France from Plantagenet. That was a flimsy paper shield too.

As for the letter, I'm perhaps not as familiar with US politics as I should be, but to me I don't see how that person finds the republicans unappealing?

Is that points 3 and 9 through 12?

I think America would improve greatly if they had a Constitutional amendment protecting its citizens from pork spending.

[steelish]

[QUOTE=SadisticNature;836633I think America would improve greatly if they had a Constitutional amendment protecting its citizens from pork spending.[/QUOTE]

Now THAT would help! (But it would be considered unconstitutional, so it will never happen)

[steelish]

If in 2240 America's demographics are dominated by Islam and they elect a majority in the house, senate and control the presidency, do you think a piece of paper is going to stop a constitutional amendment imposing sharia law?

I won't be around in 2240, but I would hope that the people of Islam faith that are born and raised American citizens would respect the Constitution enough to follow it.

[Bren122]

That was a flimsy paper shield too.

When Sir Edward Grey informed the German Ambassador of the conditions Germany had to accept in order for Britain to stay out of World War One, the German Ambassador replied that "[You] are going to war over a piece of paper."
it is not the paper or the words that are important but the spirit of the process; a commitment to the principle that all are equal before the law and that disputes can be resolved without resorting to "Rule .303"
It is why a Bill of Rights is a limiting document; it sets out those elements that seem so important today but "in the future some fool will be of the belief that we are seeking to define the limits of freedom."
The post-modernist trendies of the left want to redraw the political landscape by modernising or introducing a Bill of Rights that set out the individual's obligations to the state and its members while doing away with those freedoms of choice that are inconvenient to the state. Such a document, far from reflecting the Rights of Man, are seeking to proscribe the model citizen and turning government from the servant of the people into the arbitor of the common good.

[steelish]

it is not the paper or the words that are important but the spirit of the process; a commitment to the principle that all are equal before the law and that disputes can be resolved without resorting to "Rule .303"

I could not have said it better. I think most people who do not live in the states and even some who do, fail to understand this. Our pride and sense of ownership as a U.S. citizen is being threatened by the very politicians who we (as a whole) elected to keep our nation great. I think this is what is most disappointing. A few bad apples in a barrel is understandable, but when almost the entire barrel is bad, it's crushing.

[DuncanONeil]

You are incomplete in your understanding of the document, as are the vast majority of the left. THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION IS A LIMITING DOCUMENT!!!

When Sir Edward Grey informed the German Ambassador of the conditions Germany had to accept in order for Britain to stay out of World War One, the German Ambassador replied that "[You] are going to war over a piece of paper."
it is not the paper or the words that are important but the spirit of the process; a commitment to the principle that all are equal before the law and that disputes can be resolved without resorting to "Rule .303"
It is why a Bill of Rights is a limiting document; it sets out those elements that seem so important today but "in the future some fool will be of the belief that we are seeking to define the limits of freedom."
The post-modernist trendies of the left want to redraw the political landscape by modernising or introducing a Bill of Rights that set out the individual's obligations to the state and its members while doing away with those freedoms of choice that are inconvenient to the state. Such a document, far from reflecting the Rights of Man, are seeking to proscribe the model citizen and turning government from the servant of the people into the arbitor of the common good.

[Energizer]

You are incomplete in your understanding of the document, as are the vast majority of the left. THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION IS A LIMITING DOCUMENT!!!

Saying things like "as are the vast majority of the left" is completely unfounded, and downright ignorant to say on anyones part.

Just present a counterargument and let people decide for themselves.

[Bren122]

You are incomplete in your understanding of the document, as are the vast majority of the left. THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION IS A LIMITING DOCUMENT!!!

I am not a leftie, Duncan.
"Freedom must be defined in order that it may be grasped."
A constitution or treaty is only as effective as the spirit that motivates it; the British in WW1 felt strongly about the preservation of the Belgian political entity from its long association with Flanders in general. Germany had no such feelings and thus, despite being a co-signatory of the Brussels Treaty, had no compunction about violating it.
If America did not have an underlying belief in the concepts of equality, liberty and fraternity then the documents themselves would mean nothing. we know this for the US constitution, as important a legal and political milestone as it is, has only worked once. the constitution and the Bill of Rights are meant to be a formalisation of underlying principles; as perspective on those principles has changed, so the documents have been changed, whether by judicial judgement or the ammendments process.
courts, police, parliaments, etc only work when they are allowed to work; if you did not agree with a judgement in a legal case you can easily go into a court room and redress that judgement with a gun. but if everyone does that why have a court system in the first place? similarly the first move in a dictatorship is to ensure the political compliance of the judiciary as an entity. the American system can be biased by political appointments but not to the point of removing opposing judges in order to replace them with your appointees.
The British and Australian (and NZ and Canadian) systems are built on common law and parliament, etc but, really, they are defined by the collective understanding that the alternative is chaos. you don't need a Bill of Rights unless you are trying to impose a certain point of view as being the sole basis of argument; the beauty of the Westminster System is that it can move back and forth between the two opposites and find a middle ground that might not make everyone happy but is a workable solution to diametrically opposed views. if you look at the gun debate in America, which is severely limited by the 2nd Amendment, it promotes extremist positions that ultimately fail to address some of the legitimate concerns that an unlimited gun control policy has allowed to foster. (why does the average citizen NEED a grenade launcher?)

[Bren122]

Yes, it is. Life has changed only in the fact that technology has changed it. Basic principles remain the same.

Technology brings about changes in human attitudes; the widespread use of the clock made us more concerned with the passage of time. The invention of the deep sowing plough and the shoulder yoke changed the way we used agriculture; similarly the development of fertilisers and pesticides. this is not just a way of doing things but a way of thinking about things; something that we all seem to have forgotten in the last century.
The constitution has a procedure for its own amendment precisely because it was seen that what was known and thought necessary in the 18th century might be very different in the 21st century.

[DuncanONeil]

The constitution has a procedure for its own amendment precisely because it was seen that what was known and thought necessary in the 18th century might be very different in the 21st century.

True! But that does not alter the fact that rights are being created by a liberal reading of sections of the document that are not there, because they are not, not there. That violates Amendment Ten.

[Bren122]

True! But that does not alter the fact that rights are being created by a liberal reading of sections of the document that are not there, because they are not, not there. That violates Amendment Ten.

And the Right has been just as guilty of the same notions. Equal but Separate, et al are only justifiable by ignoring major sections of the constitution and selectively rendering other sections. it is unlikely that those who drew up the constitution, had they been aware of the changes in weapons technology to come, would approve of the idea that the average citizen be allowed access to ammunition known colloquially as cop-killer bullets. or a grenade launcher or a landmine. The 2nd amendment was inspired by the English notion of militia, which grew out of the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, not an individual's free for all collection of weapons. the way the Yeomanry of the Napoleonic and Revolutionary periods operated was essentially how the 2nd Amendment was envisaged to operate.

the fact is that there is a strong anti-intellectualism about the modern right that has effectively limited its opposition to these liberal uses of the constitution. too often the opposition to these progressive positions have been defined by the far right in total denial of a need for change. the moderates need to take a cue from the moderate left and stop trying to mollify the extremists on every issue and recapture the idea that being conservative is not the same as being anti-progress.

[DuncanONeil]

Look I know that this is a somewhat unique issue to the US. But the right in the Second Amendment does not accrue to militia but to the people. It is clear in that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The purpose of the Amendment is not have an armed militia available for defense of the nation but to provide a means, should it become necessary to defend the nation from the Government.
The left's "progressive" positions are often issues that are completely without the scope of this nations Constitutional role for its Government.

And the Right has been just as guilty of the same notions. Equal but Separate, et al are only justifiable by ignoring major sections of the constitution and selectively rendering other sections. it is unlikely that those who drew up the constitution, had they been aware of the changes in weapons technology to come, would approve of the idea that the average citizen be allowed access to ammunition known colloquially as cop-killer bullets. or a grenade launcher or a landmine. The 2nd amendment was inspired by the English notion of militia, which grew out of the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, not an individual's free for all collection of weapons. the way the Yeomanry of the Napoleonic and Revolutionary periods operated was essentially how the 2nd Amendment was envisaged to operate.

the fact is that there is a strong anti-intellectualism about the modern right that has effectively limited its opposition to these liberal uses of the constitution. too often the opposition to these progressive positions have been defined by the far right in total denial of a need for change. the moderates need to take a cue from the moderate left and stop trying to mollify the extremists on every issue and recapture the idea that being conservative is not the same as being anti-progress.

[steelish]

The constitution has a procedure for its own amendment precisely because it was seen that what was known and thought necessary in the 18th century might be very different in the 21st century.

Wrong. You know why the Constitution will never be obsolete? Because it is about providing freedom from abuse by those in authority. Anyone who says the American Constitution is obsolete just because social and economic conditions have changed does not understand the real genius of the Constitution. It was designed to control something which HAS NOT CHANGED AND WILL NOT CHANGE - NAMELY, HUMAN NATURE.

[MMI]

I am in no doubt the British authorities allow [ethnic tribunals] to be set up within those communities. But they have no legal standing in the UK, and all findings must be presented to a British court to have the final say.

Of course they have no legal standing per se, but if both parties have agreed to be bound by the tribunal's decision, the courts will not disturb it. Approval by the courts is unnecessary.

I would like to point out that it has not stopped honour killings

It woudn't, would it? The tribunals do not order honour killings where they feel a girl has disgraced her family. And I would suggest that in the countries where honour killings are accepted by custom, they are still illegal in the countries of origin.

The UK is a very racially tolerant country ...

Then let us not fall into the trap of believing racist propaganda purveyed by the nazi parties on the right, or swallowing tall stories spread in pub arguments by readers of the gutter press. Let us live up to our honourable and noble reputation of providing a safe haven for people of all persuasions and colours; and let us also live up to our promises to the people whose national histories are so closely linked to ours, and who made this country as great as it once was by treating them like real people - like the British citizens they are or aspire to be.

... Sharia Law has no minimum, what is said is done and sometimes to the extreme, it has no place in the civilised world.

Islamic law constitutes the third most influential legal system in the world, after Civil Law and Common Law. What do you mean, it has no place in the civilised world?

Sharia encompasses much more than a legal system, but all aspects of moslem life, including economic matters, family matters, politics and so on and it is founded on justice and faith, not hate, power and bloodlust. OK, some of the penalties seem harsh, but how far removed are they from our own punioshments? When did we abandon judicial torture ... the USA practiced it under the previous regime. What about the death penalty? The USA still practices that. What about amputations? Well, England practiced dismemberment in mediaeval times for certain crimes. There's no getting away with it: Western law was once as cruel as Sharia law can be.

Now look at the countries where Sharia law is praccticed in its strictest forms. Can you see any resemblence to the underdeveloped nations of Europe in centuries past?

The crimes are different maybe, but that's due to different societies having different moral values. Who's to say which is the better these days?

... or are sweeping assumptions and statements the sole province of the left?

Works for me ...

... [the American Constitution] ... was designed to control something which HAS NOT CHANGED AND WILL NOT CHANGE - NAMELY, HUMAN NATURE.

But, of course, the Constitution can be changed, or even erased, if enough Americans will it. The list of amendments already enacted demonsrate this, and denying it is futile

[Bren122]

Wrong. You know why the Constitution will never be obsolete? Because it is about providing freedom from abuse by those in authority. Anyone who says the American Constitution is obsolete just because social and economic conditions have changed does not understand the real genius of the Constitution. It was designed to control something which HAS NOT CHANGED AND WILL NOT CHANGE - NAMELY, HUMAN NATURE.

i never said it was obsolete.
human nature has changed- or do you still think it is morally wrong for women to vote? morally right for children as young as six to work down mines or in textile mills or for negroes to be slaves?
once upon a time the working day was from sun-up to sun-down; the distribution of tolling clocks changed that and people began to think of terms of a fair day's work throughout the year. it was a fundamental shift in the way people thought about time and their obligations as defined by time. it is no coincedence that many modern sports trace their revival or invention to games first played soon after the proliferation of clocks in Europe- suddenly there was 'time' for recreation.
every year lately we are presented with technologies that change the fundamental nature of our existence.
the beauty of the constitution is not that it never changes but that it is adjustable enough that new technologies that change our understanding of our rights do not change our access to those rights.

[steelish]

i never said it was obsolete.
human nature has changed- or do you still think it is morally wrong for women to vote? morally right for children as young as six to work down mines or in textile mills or for negroes to be slaves?

Ah, but Amendments that gave women the right to vote and gave African Americans equal rights were not changes in human nature. They were an re-affirmation of God's Law, which is what our Constitution is based upon.

once upon a time the working day was from sun-up to sun-down; the distribution of tolling clocks changed that and people began to think of terms of a fair day's work throughout the year. it was a fundamental shift in the way people thought about time and their obligations as defined by time. it is no coincedence that many modern sports trace their revival or invention to games first played soon after the proliferation of clocks in Europe- suddenly there was 'time' for recreation.
every year lately we are presented with technologies that change the fundamental nature of our existence.
the beauty of the constitution is not that it never changes but that it is adjustable enough that new technologies that change our understanding of our rights do not change our access to those rights.

The proliferation of clocks did not change the work day for many American workers. Farmers, loggers, miners, etc. still worked sunup to sundown. And most modern sports came about as a result of economics. Gambling, to be exact. It was another way for people to make money.

[DuncanONeil]

None of that has changed "human nature"!

i never said it was obsolete.
human nature has changed- or do you still think it is morally wrong for women to vote? morally right for children as young as six to work down mines or in textile mills or for negroes to be slaves?
once upon a time the working day was from sun-up to sun-down; the distribution of tolling clocks changed that and people began to think of terms of a fair day's work throughout the year. it was a fundamental shift in the way people thought about time and their obligations as defined by time. it is no coincedence that many modern sports trace their revival or invention to games first played soon after the proliferation of clocks in Europe- suddenly there was 'time' for recreation.
every year lately we are presented with technologies that change the fundamental nature of our existence.
the beauty of the constitution is not that it never changes but that it is adjustable enough that new technologies that change our understanding of our rights do not change our access to those rights.

[MMI]

Constitution as it was written? Sounds like fundamentalism to me. Next you'll be saying it's the word of God! That document is over two hundred years old. Life has changed since then. So has politics. So, too, should the Constitution. It is not a pefect document. It is not immutable, and it is capable of different interpretations. The interpretation of the party in power is the one you have to live with, but only for the time being.

On the first part of this statement, I disagree. The Constitution doesn't need to change at all. It still applies.

I take it, then, that you consider the right of free speech and freedom of assembly are unconstitutional, as is freedom of religion and of the press, not to mention the right to bear arms or women's suffrage.

[steelish]

I take it, then, that you consider the right of free speech and freedom of assembly are unconstitutional, as is freedom of religion and of the press, not to mention the right to bear arms or women's suffrage.

As denu said, Amendments are part of the constitution once approved. Also - amendments that support freedom are a good thing, such as the amendments you mention.

[DuncanONeil]

Interpretation is one thing inference is something else all together. By doing such an "understanding" of the Constitution you are in direct violation of the Tenth Amendment!

You really want to go on record as saying there is no left based politics in the US???

Twisting.

ian ... don't you like being a Scottish colony? Ah well ... now you know how the Scots have felt since 1707. Not nice, is it?

Well, like many other nations, the USA has a two party system, one to the right of the political spectrum, and the other, further to the right. It is not conceivable that either of them can reflect everyone's political viewpoints , in fact, it is not likely that they can reflect anyone's viewpoint exactly. I guess you just have to accept the system is imperfect and your choices are, trying to make changes within the system - by voting for the candidate whose policies you are closest to - or by starting a revolution. As the writer of the above list of policy changes / law amendments presented most of them with the words "I [do not] want ...", I recommend revolution: allowing other people a vote would be too dangerous.

Constitution as it was written? Sounds like fundamentalism to me. Next you'll be saying it's the word of God! That document is over two hundred years old. Life has changed since then. So has politics. So, too, should the Constitution. It is not a pefect document. It is not immutable, and it is capable of different interpretations. The interpretation of the party in power is the one you have to live with, but only for the time being.