What Type Of Government Would You Have..

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

States Rights are not a republican idea. They are written right into the Constitution. The Republican party didn't exist when the Constitution was drafted.

The Republican party didn't exist until around 1850 and was formned as an Anti-Slavery party. It became a national party in 1856 and got it's first president elected in 1860 (Lincoln). Lemme just check when the Constitution was written... right... a long time before then...

The 10th Admendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

As I have said before, The Fedearal governemnts powers are definded (but not clearly enough) in the constitution... all else is delegated to the individual states and the People to decide.

I think you have problems with the idea of States Rights because it's a Republican cause. If people throughout the history of this country thought like that.. well... We would still own slaves (13th Admendment). The 14th (which makes sure the laws apply toe veryone equally) and 15th (gives Blacks the right to vote) admendments would not exist. Nor would the 19th (givens women the right to vote). It was the Republicans that fought FOR desegragation. The EPA was formed by Nixon...

So, with the Republicans spear heading so many causes that secure the Rights of the people.. I can see why you dislike them so much.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

BTW BF.. You made a comment about political partys not playing a major part in early American politics... That my dear, is a very ignorant statement.

The Democratic-Republican Party was founded in 1792 by Jefferson. (You might know them as Democrats)

The Federalist Party was founded in 1793 by Alexander Hamilton.

There were many other partys...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Here is alist of the early political parties:

Federalist Party (c.1789–c.1820)

Democratic-Republican Party (1792–c.1824)

Anti-Masonic Party (1826–1838)

National Republican Party (1829–1833)

Nullifier Party (1830–1839)

Whig Party (1832–1856)

Liberty Party (1840–1848)

Free Soil Party (1848–1855)

Anti-Nebraska Party (1854)

American Party (“Know-Nothings”) (c.1854–1858)

Opposition Party (1854–1858)

Constitutional Union Party (1860)

National Union Party, (1864–1868)

Liberal Republican Party (1872)

Greenback Party (1874–1884)

Anti-Monopoly Party (1884)

Populist Party (1892–1908)

National Democratic Party/Gold Democrats (1896–1900)

[BrassFusion]

Yes, thank you, I know there were other parties. When did I say they didn't play a "major part?"

I also know that "state's rights" aren't a "republican idea." I said, and I believe, that they got co-opted into a republican "ideal" as a result of the outcome of the civil war. I believe that the "ideal" itself is meaningless anymore, particularly since the advent of instant communication coast to coast. Conservatives today only use the term "state's rights" to court the vote of hayseed rednecks who think the phrase has meaning.

[hellequin]

hmmm... I'm all about combining ingredients. it usually makes for the most well rounded, um, anythings. but in general, i think I'd combine socialism, democracy, with a bit of a republic thrown in, and a touch of a free market society baked in a libertarian oven with red curry paste. red curry paste makes everything taste better. except cherry cobbler.. but that's a different story.

although, I'd have an emphasis on experimenting. got an idea on how to run the country? let's use, oh say, Detroit on the whole "I would wipe out the human race, including myself, and let nature start all over again."

aaaaah.. who doesn't like fresh starts?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I'm not sure why you think it was co-opted by anyone. It's a core concept of the Constitution that ignorant people who don't understand the benefit of have been trying to get rid of without going through the admendment process since the begining of the country.

you would rather have some all powerfull federal governemnt deciding your every move. you want Tyranny.

I want Freedom and Equality.

Without States Rights, local state governments have no Power at all. No local laws or law enforcement. no local authority. No state Constitutions. no States at all really. One great big government that controls everything... How would anything get done? More and more red tape... bueracracy...

You keep thinking it's only red necks that want to have control of thier lives. give your life over to the government if you like.

I'm staying free and keeping the government as small as possible.

[Homicidalheathen]

I would wipe out the human race, including myself, and let nature start all over again.

LOL I am with Marc. I don't think any of us is wise enough to run the world. That is ridiculous.

[creatureofthenyte]

I have been thinking and so far Ive come up with these deducements:

The reasons why politics & government is so fucked up in this country today are

Money & Religion.

I believe, that giving money to politicians' campaigns is nothing more then a legal form of Bribery.

And as far as religion goes,

in relation to being President of the USA,

wtf does religion have to do with running the country????

I'm not gonna say that Bush stole the election.

But it seems like to me, that he manipulated enough peoples' minds, by using religion, to get their votes.

So if I were in power, money for campaigns would be strictly overseen, and religion would not play any role in government decisions or politics in general.

[Hellion]

Oil companies are the ones who have alot to do with how the government is run.IMO.

I would rather have George Carlin run this nation,IMO.LOL!!

[Hellion]

I'm not sure why you think it was co-opted by anyone. It's a core concept of the Constitution that ignorant people who don't understand the benefit of have been trying to get rid of without going through the admendment process since the begining of the country.

you would rather have some all powerfull federal governemnt deciding your every move. you want Tyranny.

I want Freedom and Equality.

Without States Rights, local state governments have no Power at all. No local laws or law enforcement. no local authority. No state Constitutions. no States at all really. One great big government that controls everything... How would anything get done? More and more red tape... bueracracy...

You keep thinking it's only red necks that want to have control of thier lives. give your life over to the government if you like.

I'm staying free and keeping the government as small as possible.

Good call Marc,I totally agree

[BrassFusion]

mark, if you really believe you're better off under the absolute control of a state government as opposed to a federal one, you have been seriously manipulated. not to be cynical, but the state of florida doesn't give a shit about your OR your rights any more than the feds do. all they care about is money and power.

[n0Mad]

OK, I would wait for Phee's socialist government to collapse into the Dictatorship they all seem to... and when your true democracy is busy counting votes while the left hand is constantly bitching about what the right hand is doing because there are too many people for it to actually govern...

I would set up a Constitutional Democratic Republic with checks and balances. I would go for a direct vote for all officials though and campaign finaces would be equal. As in, a set amount no matter what the source is. The Bill of Rights would be directly incorperated into the Constitution with the only way to change it being a popular vote.

The President would have control of the military, law enforcement and set all Policy in regards to the rest of the world as we have now, but would add Line item veto power.

Judges would judge cases based on the Law and not on what seems right to them.

Congress would be responsible to the people they represent.

All government officals would have clearly defined powers, responsiblitys and dutys. If something new comes up, then a body would be created to do with that problem... if it was a permanent problem, then the People would decide how it will be taken care of. This would be done in much the same way that Admendment to the Bill of Rights are done now.

There would be no permanent Political partys. if people of common mind want to join together for a certain cause.. fine. But they would get no special political clout becaue of it. Nor special governemnt favors.

lobbyist and thier ilk would be outlawed.

The Federal Government would have little to do with the common man. States Rights. A Republic. the Feds would deal with other countrys, defense and relations between the member states.

Everything else would be handled by local state governments.

So, where can I get my T-shirt that says, "Gaf in '08!"?

The government should only do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

State governments are smaller and more localized. Closer to the people. They answer to the people far more than the Federal government does. I have never said I trust any level of government anymore more or less than any other. Governemnt is nothing more than people with power and people with power tend to abuse it. That is the exact reason I beleive in states rights. A smaller governement means the power is not all in one place. States rights means the Feds cant do anything they want. It bring the power down to the State level... which means closer to the actual people. It's not perfect, but it's better than handing all the power to a government so removed from the common man that there is a dissconnect.

Think of it this way.. Do you want the Feds controlling your water source? Repairing your local streets? Or would you rather there be a local authority that has to think only about the water in your town.. the streets in your town? Do you want to pay taxes to repair the streets in Walla Walla? I don't.

I'm sorry you don't seem to be able to understand my point of view. I'm not sure if it's that you can't or won't. The end result is the same...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Thanks Spook. Thats two votes for me...

[BrassFusion]

State governments are smaller and more localized. Closer to the people. They answer to the people far more than the Federal government does. I have never said I trust any level of government anymore more or less than any other. Governemnt is nothing more than people with power and people with power tend to abuse it. That is the exact reason I beleive in states rights. A smaller governement means the power is not all in one place. States rights means the Feds cant do anything they want. It bring the power down to the State level... which means closer to the actual people. It's not perfect, but it's better than handing all the power to a government so removed from the common man that there is a dissconnect.

Think of it this way.. Do you want the Feds controlling your water source? Repairing your local streets? Or would you rather there be a local authority that has to think only about the water in your town.. the streets in your town? Do you want to pay taxes to repair the streets in Walla Walla? I don't.

I'm sorry you don't seem to be able to understand my point of view. I'm not sure if it's that you can't or won't. The end result is the same...

lol, i'm pretty sure some of my tax dollars are going to repair streets in iraq, so whatever the fuck! let's do it! more power to walla walla!

and as for infrastructure shit, that's the sort of thing i'm sure the fed. government would be happy to delegate to states under almost any circumstances. it's from a standpoint of civil liberties that i feel federal control is more important. like when black people could chill out in ohio in relative harmony, but if they crossed the state line, BAM, they were property again. i think gay couples who get married in massachusetts should be afforded the same rights as any married couple if they vacation in miami or soho or wherever the fuck gay people vacation. that seems like basic respect of human rights to me, and it's definitely a federal issue that our administration has inappropriately delegated to the states

edit: misspelled massachusetts cuz well... i guess i'm "retahded"

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

"and it's definitely a federal issue that our administration has inappropriately delegated to the states"

See, right there is your fuck up. The part where you can't seem to understand how our government is setup or you are just so far into your own hatred that you refuse to see it.

It's not in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights... so, as outlined in the Constitution, It falls under the jurisdiction of the individual States to decide. If you want to change that.... Amend the constitution. Only the People have the power to do that. Not Congress, Not the Courts and Not the President. That, that is the true power of our system. The people are the only ones that can trully change the governement.

I really am shocked with how many people with high school diplomas and higher education dont know how their own government works.

[know_buddy_kares]

"and it's definitely a federal issue that our administration has inappropriately delegated to the states"

See, right there is your fuck up. The part where you can't seem to understand how our government is setup or you are just so far into your own hatred that you refuse to see it.

It's not in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights... so, as outlined in the Constitution, It falls under the jurisdiction of the individual States to decide. If you want to change that.... Amend the constitution. Only the People have the power to do that. Not Congress, Not the Courts and Not the President. That, that is the true power of our system. The people are the only ones that can trully change the governement.

I really am shocked with how many people with high school diplomas and higher education dont know how their own government works.

Really now? Tell that to Bush please.. I sure as hell haven't seen him obey the constitution once.

[BrassFusion]

"and it's definitely a federal issue that our administration has inappropriately delegated to the states"

See, right there is your fuck up. The part where you can't seem to understand how our government is setup or you are just so far into your own hatred that you refuse to see it.

It's not in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights... so, as outlined in the Constitution, It falls under the jurisdiction of the individual States to decide. If you want to change that.... Amend the constitution. Only the People have the power to do that. Not Congress, Not the Courts and Not the President. That, that is the true power of our system. The people are the only ones that can trully change the governement.

I really am shocked with how many people with high school diplomas and higher education dont know how their own government works.

if the federal government can amend the constitution to turn black people into human beings, they can do the same for gay people, but as i'm not a congressperson, i can't personally draft bills. at least that's how i remember the system works from schoolhouse rock. my part in "bills becoming laws" is to contact congresspersons and voice my opinions on the matter, which yes, I have and do.

and... hatred? for what exactly?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)

Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)

Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]):

The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

BF - As you can see... the Feds can't change the Constitution. Only the States can. The Feds can only propose changes.

I'd like to see some proof that Bush has changed the Constitution without anyone noticeing. While your at it.. show me where he has broken any constitutional laws.

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)

Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)

Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]):

The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.

I'd like to know what you have to say about the IRS, the DEA, or the Federal Reserve for that matter....

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

If you read all my posts you will note that I believe our money should be backed by Gold, not promises. That should about cover the Federal Reserve.

I also don't beleive we should have to pay Federal Taxes. That would mean we would have to cut all social programs at the Federal level. I'm cool with that. The States would have to take up the slack.

As for the DEA.. well... This is a tough question. I do believe that Meth, Cocaine, Heroine and other highly addictive and dangours drugs should be controlled. I thinkt he DEA should be more concerned with making sure they are not brought into the country rather than arresting citizens.

As I have always said... As much power as possible should be held by the people, but not so much that nothign ever gets done. The Federal government should be as small as possible and nearly invisible tot he common man. Most government functions that directly affect people should be at the State level.

[BrassFusion]

mark, this is starting to get insulting to my intelligence. have i even used the phrase "the president" or "bush" in this thread? I KNOW he has no part in the amendment process, except for veto power. and as for the "feds?" they're all americans. they're all state representatives who propose and vote on bills based on the interests of their constituents, the citizens of the states they each represent.

so, there has to be an amendment guaranteeing civil rights to gay couples. it won't happen this soon after a failed amendment to ban gay marriage entirely (what a joke), but it will happen some day, and when it does, it will eventually have to be approved by congress.

i say that because most of the states in the union will NOT support gay marriage on anything deeper than a surface level until decades after they're forced to recognize its validity. the "constitutional convention" would never work on this issue. it's the populous, progressive cities in the blue states that'll get it pushed through, then all the rednecks will have to get used to having respect and tolerance for people who are different from them- AGAIN.

[ZhukovCodeslinger]

Luckily i decided againt joining this argument (and edidted my one and only statment to leave out all the snarky comments)

[Steven]

I have been thinking and so far Ive come up with these deducements:

The reasons why politics & government is so fucked up in this country today are

Money & Religion.

I believe, that giving money to politicians' campaigns is nothing more then a legal form of Bribery.

And as far as religion goes,

in relation to being President of the USA,

wtf does religion have to do with running the country????

I'm not gonna say that Bush stole the election.

But it seems like to me, that he manipulated enough peoples' minds, by using religion, to get their votes.

So if I were in power, money for campaigns would be strictly overseen, and religion would not play any role in government decisions or politics in general.

religion did all that? wow.