Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal Loki_1929's Journal: The New America 14

Journal by Loki_1929

---

DISCLAIMER: What I write below is in no way meant to incite any sort of violent action on anyone's part. Violence is never the only way, and a truly strong person will accomplish his or her goals through peaceful means regardless of how much more difficult it makes things. What comes below is specifically designed to provoke thought and a response; nothing more. Please, do NOT go out and do something stupid because of anything that comes from this thread.

---

So I started thinking about things a bit after starting this thread which has 18 replies thus far. Someone said that the US government isn't fucked up past the point of no return, yet. That got me thinking about what happens once it is. Should all freedom-loving people move somewhere else? Where? There is no "New World" left on planet Earth where we can set up our own government and our own way of life. What else is there then? Revolt? Not exactly a viable option when the police in this country could easily crush most any revolt. Then factor in the FBI, CIA, Army, Navy, Marines, etc, etc.

So I'm left thinking that we can do one of three things. Option one is to sit on our hands and see what happens. Maybe things get turned around in 20 years or so. Maybe it goes back to being good ole' America before we're dead. Or perhaps we resign ourselves to telling our granchildren about what it was like to be able to go anywhere you want or say anything you want without being taken away by government agents.

Option two is a full out revolt. "Great idea", except everyone who joined in would be dead or jailed within days if not hours. Even if it somehow succeeded, the cost would be too high. To win a war in modern times, you pretty much have to obliterate the place of conflict. The result? Our homes, our businesses, everything we own is destroyed. In the War of 1812, this pretty much happened. The English burned the White House to the ground, along with much of the rest of our country. In the end, it worked out well for most of them, but something like that has massive potential to be a Pyrrhic victory. Ultimately, I think this option is ridiculous, unworkable, and undesirable.

The thid option, and the one I'd suggest as the only sane alternative to option one is to fashion a new government, with a new Constitution which draws on all the knowledge we've gained from more than 200 years with our original US Constitution and to prepare to put this government in place if the time comes that our current government is beyond redemption. This differs from a revolt in that it requires broad support from the citizens of this country as well as the police and the military. The idea is that if the police, the military, and most citizens support the new government, the old government becomes irrelevent with no one left to enforce its decrees. Hence, a peaceful transition to a new and (hopefully) improved government.

Now, if we are to entertain the possibility of a new government (assuming it one day becomes necessary, and no I don't think we're anywhere near there yet - as in at least 5 or 10 years away), we'd need several things. One: a formal declaration of the rights and powers of the government, its structure, and its limitations. Two: a method of trasition (ie. how do we get from gov A to gov B without violence?). And thirdly: a list of potential people to head up the new government. Personally, I think the formal declaration should be based on the US Constitution; specifically a constitution of enumerated powers for the government, broad by its very nature, but taking into account instances where it's failed over the last 200 years. Think McCarthyism; think Japanese internment camps; think dept of Homeland Security; think indecision 2000; think DMCA. Lastly: We need a specific, yet somewhat vague list of absolute rights and privilages of all citizens, as well as those visiting, etc. Think Geneva convention; think basic human rights; think Amendments to the US Constitution. The difference here is that these would be more thoroughly explained (without being too specific as to preclude allowances for not-yet-imagined technologies and ideas), and completely absolute with some sort of fail-safe mechanism to prevent any loopholes or lapses.

Please post comments, thoughts, ideas, and suggestions. All constructive posts are welcome, even if they're controversial in nature.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The New America More

The New America

Comments Filter:
  • What I think is needed is a few choice amendments to the Constitution.

    Disclaimer: these are my ideas, and are not fully thought out. I could easily be missing something trivial, or I could just be being plain stupid. Read, judge, comment. Don't flame. Also, I'm extremely tired, so I apologize in advance for spelling, grammatical, and sensical mistakes. If you can't follow me, let me know, and I'll try and clarify in a few hours after I've gotten some sleep.

    First off, political parties should be outlawed. The Founding Fathers thought they were an horrific idea (they read their Montesque [sic (it's been a while)]) even though they eventually joined parties themselves. Political groups can be formed over issues (an anti-abortion party, a rights for homosexuals party, etc.), but nothing broader than a single issue, and nothing which would last for more than, say, 10 years (meaning the group could only officially last for 10 years). This is very controversial, and would be the hardest to enact, but would probably produce the most benefits.

    There needs to be a panel belonging to some branch of government (preferably judicial) which can review bills and judge their constitutionality before being signed into law by the President. In other words, judicial review before the lawsuits. If the panel unanimously believes a law is unconstitutional, it should be sent to the Supreme Court. If the Court finds it unconstitutional, it should be blocked from ever getting to the President's desk. [There is real potential for abuse here, this idea needs to be thought out much more.]

    There need to be term limits for all public offices. Career politicians must be no more.

    The money must be taken out of politics. Free advertising must be given to candidates. A constitutional solution to limiting the funding of candidates (i.e. a version of McCain-Feingold which would be upheld by the Supreme Court) is needed.

    If changes like these could be comitted to the Constitution, with clauses keeping them from being overridden by other Amendments for a reasonable period of time (20-50 years would be my estimate), I think there's a real chance of very positive change.

    • While I admire your optimism, I must point out that several major parts of the Constitution have already been violated. Freedom from illegal search and seizure, trial by jury, right to an attorney, etc have all been obliterated lately. Quite frankly, the current government is ignoring its own charter. While I would like to believe that they're simply misunderstanding the Constitution, and can therefore be stopped by clearing up ambiguities, I cannot possibly see that being the case here. All I've seen in the way of law and order from this administration lately is defensive statements where they've had to stretch previous court cases to make their actions appear legal. The Constitution wasn't written for people to waltz into office and say "gotcha" with silly loopholes; these people who hold office are supposed to try to work within the intentions of those who wrote the Constitution. It has become painfully obvious to me that they intend nothing of the sort. This is why I propose something completely new.

      That being said, you came up with some good ideas here, and perhaps some that need some more thought. Outlawing political parties, while certainly beneficial to the process of government, violates the right to peaceful assembly, as does setting limits on their existance. Besides, at what point to you define it as a political party? All current Republicans could no longer call themselves Republicans, but would that really change who they are? One thing I can see is changing the way we vote. In Maryland, they make it very easy to vote along party lines. In fact, with the pull of one lever, you can vote completely Republican or completely Democrat. That, I think, needs to be eliminated. If you're going to vote, you're going to vote for a person; not a party. Perhaps eliminating party affiliations from the ballots would best serve the public interest, as well as eliminating "primaries". If each political party wants to see who they should run in the election, let them do it on their own time.

      I think you brought up an excellent point about Judicial review. What sense does it make to allow an unconstitutional law to be used for years and years without someone from the judicial branch having looked it over? Rather than a single panel, I think perhaps we should use a pool of judges who can be assembled as needed to look at incoming bills before they hit the President's desk. Perhaps a 3-judge panel for each bill, with more judges being pulled from the pool when more bills are coming out of Congress and vice versa. If 2/3 of the panel vote it unconstitutional, it goes to another panel or perhaps 10 judges, where say 7 out of 10 must decide it's unconstitutional before sending it to the Supreme Court. Otherwise, it's sent to the President's desk to be signed/vetoed/etc. This is obviously a very rough idea of the process, but more input from folks would be very much appreciated.

      As far as term limits, I can't say as though I agree with you there. I think that if a certain politician is serving his constituents so well that they choose to vote him into officer again and again for 50 years, then so be it. Why take a potentially good politician away from voters? I understand where you're coming from, but I think informed voters solve this problem better than forcing potentially good people out of office. Would you put a term limit on George Washington or Thomas Jefferson were they still here to serve as President?

      With regards to money in politics, I've been kicking around an idea to solve this problem. Outlaw direct contributions to a single individual over say $100 for a political campaign. Instead, have those who wish to contribute send their contributions to a pool of money available to all candidates. How this pool is done is up for debate, but one idea is to have one pool of money for the Presidential election, and one for each state for reps and senators. Then, each potential candidate must submit a certified petition with a minimum of say 5% of their constituents (5% of the national registered voters for president, 5% of the state district for a rep, etc) to have access to the pool of money. Once all possible candidates are in (by a certain deadline), the pools are distributed to each candidate evenly for use in campaigning in the manner in which they choose. If any given pool does not reach a certain amount, the government will supply the remainder. As far as what the minimum amount is, well that's certainly debatable, but I would have to say that a minimum would be however much it would cost to advertise yourself at least one time to each registered voter (in your state, district, etc) in the least expensive manner. That being said, this allows for better advertising than the minimum for your specific target audience. It also cuts down on the number of negative ads, as no one has a bottomless pit of money with which to dig in for fodder to throw at the other person. This would REALLY have to be tweaked to be made workable, but I think it has real potential for leveling the playing field and getting more views out to the public. It should really make for more lively public debate on issues.

      Please continue all, to let me know what you think about these issues. Perhaps someone could be so bold as to suggest some language for the new Constitution? Come on now, how about a Preamble? ;)

    • I disagree. I think what we need isn't so much revisions of the Constitution as adherence to it. We're having blatantly unconstitutional legislation being enacted, as well as enforced, and [some] people are tolerant of it. I'd prefer a law-abiding system, myself. The laws as originally set forth were, and are, just fine. We're getting legislation beyond the realm of regulating interstate disputes by a government agency created to do just that, and now getting any sort of additional legislation they can find an excuse to create within the auspices of counterring terrorism. Convincing to some, perhaps, but to say that a thing is convincing to many uninformed people is not to say that it is lawful. I've got http://www.livejournal.com/users/limboboy [slashdot.org], and there's actually a link there which presents quite an effective remedy to Loki's message of being dissatisfied with government officials who aren't keeping to the duties they are sworn to protect (It's right here. [state-citizen.org]). Seemed relevant.

      - Limbo
      • I understand what you're saying. That's sort of (but not completely) what I was getting at.

        I feel that my addendums to the Constitution (once fully thought out) would make it much harder for people (let's say, oh, government officials) to move so far away from or blatantly ignore the Constitution. With the changes I've proposed, it just makes it that much more blatantly obvious to Joe Blow that something's being violated.

        The President has signed a bill the Supreme Court has just said is unconstitutional and should never been placed on his desk for signing? Oh come on, that's illegal! A politician takes $50,000 from various officers of some corporation? Oh come on, that's illegal! Not the, "well, it might be shady, but they can still do that, can't they?" that's prevalent now. Get my drift?

        Oh, and I have one more little addendum as well. The Supreme Court shall not make any decision affecting the outcome of an election by the people, except by a majority of two thirds, or by unanimous vote in the case of a Presidential election. And then there needs to be language saying that the majority vote of the court, if it doesn't meet said thresholds, will not affect the current election in question, but will be precedent for all future elections.

  • I don't know your feelings or attitudes toward Objectivism, but those who subscribe to the Objectivist philosophy have known for decades that unless the United States began to recognize individual rights, the only possible fate of this once great nation would be destruction (similar to the fall of the Roman Empire). There's no way I can completely summarize Objectivism in just one comment, but there is a good summary here [aynrand.org]. If you choose to study Objectivism, you will find words to describe your love for what America was and your hatred for what America has become.
    • I make a clear distinction between America and the American government. Further than that, I also distinguish between the American government by design, and current perversion of that design which we, unfortunately, are witnessing daily. Once again, I love my country with all my heart and I truly cannot see myself living anywhere else in the world and being happy, but my government is being a real bitch right now. If it has the ability to heal from within, then all the more thanks to the incredible work of the original framers. If it comes to a point where its abuses are intolerable, then I sincerely hope it can peacefully be replaced by a new government based on the original design, but with the benefit of more than 200 years of mistakes from which to learn.

      • Unfortunately, one cannot distinguish between a nation's citizenry and its government, because it is ultimately the citizens that choose their government (directly or indirectly). In the case of the United States, people have chosen to default on the responsibility of choosing a government that best secures individual rights, and the result has been an emergence of a government which is all too happy to ignore the rights of man.
        • Actually, Bush lost the popular vote, and Ashcroft lost his Senate bid to a dead man. I'm not getting into an argument about the Electoral College, and yes, I know how it works. I'm simply pointing out that the citizens chose Al Gore (who may have done a much worse job; who knows?) and the good citizens of Missouri asked Ashcroft to take a seat. As a side note, the American Conservative Union (ACU), who was instrumental in getting Ashcroft appointed as AG, came out mid-2002 to say they regretted the decision and that Ashcroft is the single greatest threat to civil liberties at the present time.

          Is that to say the American people are completely without responsibility? Absolutely not; in the end, these people can only do what we the American people allow them to do. That being said, a massive FUD campaign is being waged by the current administration to scare the populace into submission. Until Americans wake up en masse and realize what's really going on here, we're in a bit of trouble.

          The actions of a government do not always reflect the will of its citizens. Look at Afghanistan post-Taliban; they completely changed their way of living immediately following the fall of their government. Look at China, or the old Soviet Union - prime examples of governments whose actions reflect nothing of their peoples' will.

  • everything we own is destroyed. In the War of 1812, this pretty much happened. The English burned the White House to the ground, along with much of the rest of our country.

    You're the first American I've ever met (albeit not in person) who is aware of the war of 1812.

    There was a news article I saw recently, where a Candadian reporter asked a bunch of Americans about the war of 1812. Not one of the people asked - including school children who were proud because they'd just studied this in class had any idea that the Presidential Palace (now known as the White House) was destroyed.

    Perhaps this is the reason that your country is in the state it is - too many people have forgotten (or simply don't know about) the lessons learned during the early part of your history?

    In any case, the fact that there are Americans like you gives me hope that the world isn't quite doomed to destruction just yet. (Yes, I do believe that if the US falls into a 'big brother' regime that the rest of the free world will soon follow - if not simply because we don't have the military ability to resist you.)

    Good luck.
    • I'm touched by your praise, and by your sympathy. Unfortunately, you're correct in that the rest of the world tends to go along with even the most insane ideas brought forth by the US government. I'm guessing that you're Canadian, and by your post, I would also assume that you know of Canada's role [mcmaster.ca] in the spy network usually referred to as "Echelon". Obviously, you are no more at fault for your government's actions than I am for mine, but I figured for anyone reading who's interested in liberty and privacy, it's good to mention that the US is not alone in it's efforts to end all privacy. Why it is that so many people don't understand the sacrifices made by those who've come before us is beyond me. We're a culture built on the present with little regard for the past. History classes stress memorization of names and dates; never truly capturing the magnitude of the events. This complete and total oblivity expresses itself through a nearly endless repetition of events.

      The most ignorant, yet commonly-used statement I've heard many times over is this: "The [US] Constitution isn't a suicide pact." People use this to justify the eroding of liberty during time of war. The idea expressed is that parts of the Constitution should be ignored in times of peril because the founding fathers of our nation never intended for us to intentionally put our very lives at risk for the sake of upholding the ideals by which it was created. This sentiment could not be further from the truth. The fact is that the US Constitution was a suicide pact in every sense. Those who signed it were essentially signing what would have been their death warrant had the revolution failed. They risked their homes, their property, their money, their status, their very lives and the lives of their families by putting their names to this document. To claim that it was not a suicide pact belies the absolutely incredible odds facing them. At the time, England arguably had the most powerful military in the world. A group of farmers and aristocrats were openly commiting treason against the empire that controlled that military force. At no time was this threat more real than when Washington was in flames and our military on the brink of collapse during the War of 1812. They risked everything imaginable for the slim chance of securing the rights they believed every human being deserved, and we now have people standing up claiming that those rights should be ignored because there's a possible threat being posed to us? The absolute cowardice of some people defies belief; at least for me.

      Most of the responses I've gotten to my rant and to this journal posting have been both comforting and inspiring, and your's is no exception. Thank you, and may God help us all.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker

Close