|
Post by POA on Nov 3, 2004 16:41:29 GMT -5
I'm bumping this back up to the top. It seems those of us from here (assuming that the site doesn't get shut down by the government) are going to need this quite soon.
|
|
|
Post by Ropegun on Nov 9, 2004 9:59:03 GMT -5
I agree.
Although I think there are those who don't really care about a constitution, and will rewrite it to suit what they want.
I think we need to figure out a plan for getting this thing adopted, or at least how to get moving in that direction.
Coup, anyone?
Peace.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 10, 2004 4:49:24 GMT -5
I think you are right that there is a need for comprehensive counter-proposals, that address what we want this country to be and how we want it to operate.
|
|
|
Post by POA on Nov 15, 2004 15:16:30 GMT -5
I agree. Although I think there are those who don't really care about a constitution, and will rewrite it to suit what they want. I think we need to figure out a plan for getting this thing adopted, or at least how to get moving in that direction. Coup, anyone? Peace. I've definitely been thinking about this for a while. I might have a lot more to say on the issue quite soon, once I get it correctly assembled in my head.
|
|
|
Post by Ropegun on Nov 15, 2004 21:35:09 GMT -5
Lets hear some of your ideas POA. Throw what you have onto the table and lets hash them out. We've done some good brainstorming in the past together.
I'd like to do it again.
Peace.
|
|
|
Post by POA on Nov 24, 2004 0:20:59 GMT -5
Lets hear some of your ideas POA. Throw what you have onto the table and lets hash them out. We've done some good brainstorming in the past together. I'd like to do it again. Peace. OK. Here's what I've been thinking about so far: 1) Disconnect as many of the states that might be viable as independent entities with somewhat sane governments from the federal system of the duopoly and the Bush administration. This would take several different forms: Economic: State governments are, iirc, limited in terms of the preferences in terms of how they can deal with each other. However, that doesn't prevent individuals or individual businesses within the states themselves from selectively doing business. In turn, they could generate business with each other, and strengthen each other along these lines. Demographic: I think there's already been some of discussion of this elsewhere, but states could be strengthened in terms of the numbers of sane people that live there, instead of scattered across the entire country-which dilutes our power further. They'll always have 'more' states by number. Political: On a state-by-state basis, state governments could be strengthened with the kinds of reforms that we would want. This would include state-based progressive (instead of regressive) tax systems, the security infrastructure, protection of privacy rights, et cetera. One idea I had was that in the states that have initiative processes, it could be made illegal for candidates there to recieve donations from out-of-state donors. This would have several different effects: 1) It would harm both major parties, since they're both heavily money driven. 2) It would turn Republican rhetoric about 'states' rights' completely against them, because it would force them to argue that states don't have a right to essentially ensure that their own candidates actually take money from the people who vote for them. Just some starting thoughts...
|
|
|
Post by POA on Nov 24, 2004 10:53:16 GMT -5
I would also like to add that I'm trying to work on a comprehensive state of what (based on commonalities that we all share) we actually want. In and of itself, that isn't actually real-world action, but it's a start at least.
|
|
|
Post by camaxtle on Nov 29, 2004 20:06:21 GMT -5
POA, d**n dude you've done your homework. I was just thinking though, when reading through article 7 and the responsibilities of the President. Why not give the president a term of six years instead of 4? This has been a complaint of many since the beginning, that 4 years just isn't enough to get things done, there is always a second term but I believe that certain presidents if they had been given a six year term would have been able to accomplish a lot. Jimmy Carter I think is a good example. I really believe that if he had more time he could have turned it around. But I was just a kid then, and I've always looked up to Carter as a excellent statesman. And limit a president to one six year term. I think six years is sufficient time for one person to be president, regardless of how the people feel. I think it helps keep things in check. I was thinking also about how to go about introducing a new constitution. It is tricky, but I agree this countries' constitution needs a new evaluation. It just isn't working. Times have changed and we need something new. I imagine a movement throught the congress, quiet, quiet, letting Bush and company hang themselves and then when they are impeached and all thrown in jail, the congress comes out with the new constitution. Okay so I'm a dreamer. What else is new.
|
|
|
Post by POA on Dec 1, 2004 11:27:11 GMT -5
POA, d**n dude you've done your homework. I was just thinking though, when reading through article 7 and the responsibilities of the President. Why not give the president a term of six years instead of 4? This has been a complaint of many since the beginning, that 4 years just isn't enough to get things done, there is always a second term but I believe that certain presidents if they had been given a six year term would have been able to accomplish a lot. Jimmy Carter I think is a good example. I really believe that if he had more time he could have turned it around. But I was just a kid then, and I've always looked up to Carter as a excellent statesman. And limit a president to one six year term. I think six years is sufficient time for one person to be president, regardless of how the people feel. I think it helps keep things in check. I agree with your point regarding a term limitation, and I might change it to a six-year term in the next revision (which is due somewhat soon, since it's been a while since I've worked on it and I also want to address some new issues I've seen, such as eliminating the executive branch's power to make 'recess appointments' which has also been abused. This is also an issue that I think there's going to be a lot of debate regarding as this goes forward. Actually, that's sort of what Daniel Lazare (the author of The Frozen Republic) proposed in the last chapter of his book. Essentially, he thought that over-representation of what would be called now the 'red states' would force the blue states (specifically California in the book) to seriously consider peaceful separation in order to get a sane government composed of people who didn't hate us, speaking as a leftist Californian myself. One particular member of Congress responded by pointing out that the previous Constitution was actually adopted in a way that wasn't Constitutional itself, and also violated the Articles of Confederation, and that his strategy was to draft it and take the issue directly to the people for approval. He also has a point with this. If a Constitution was actually drafted with a Constitutional Convention drawn up on a 'states' basis, it would empower the kinds of elites that are effectively destroying the country right now. It would be only through making it clear that the people, in whatever form, wanted essentially a new social contract because the old one is stunningly irrelevant to outcomes, that any kind of real improvement could be made.
|
|
|
Post by camaxtle on Jan 20, 2005 12:51:41 GMT -5
Hey Poa, When are you going to continue with the constitution thread? Do you have any new thoughts? I would love to read them. On another thought, you mentioned California seceeding from the union. Well, I think the U.S. is just too big and disparate from region to region. I originally came from Massachusetts. I now live in southern New Mexico, not 10 miles from the Mexican border. The two areas are completely dissimilar andI have often thought that regionalizing the U.S. and creating smaller countries would help a lot. I've also notice that that is what is happening throughout the world. Large conglomerates are now breaking up into more secular parts, where people have a common history and culture. okay
|
|
|
Post by POA on Jan 22, 2005 13:15:02 GMT -5
Hey Poa, When are you going to continue with the constitution thread? Do you have any new thoughts? I would love to read them. On another thought, you mentioned California seceeding from the union. Well, I think the U.S. is just too big and disparate from region to region. I originally came from Massachusetts. I now live in southern New Mexico, not 10 miles from the Mexican border. The two areas are completely dissimilar andI have often thought that regionalizing the U.S. and creating smaller countries would help a lot. I've also notice that that is what is happening throughout the world. Large conglomerates are now breaking up into more secular parts, where people have a common history and culture. okay I'm still working on some new thoughts. I do have a question for you, however. Does New Mexico have initiatives or referenda processes, and what is the state of your voting system right now? Is it all Diebold-run or similarly fraudulent?
|
|
|
Post by Ropegun on Jan 27, 2005 1:33:46 GMT -5
I think, at this point in the game, secession is a good option to consider for those of us on the left coast.
This is something I've been thinking about alot lately, and this thread, along with brother POA's constitutional experiment, give me hope that it could work. Even if it were just as a city state like Danzig used to be, or the vatican is now, it would be better than living under republocrat politics as we have now.
I have been doing some research on this, and will have more at a later date.
Washington state does have an initiative process, so this may be an avenue to check out.
Anyway, good work POA.
Peace
|
|