They could also end all these things by acknowledging the Constitutional limits to Federal authority and hanging those Federal officials that act in a treasonous, Unconstitutional way. (Please....all you morons...tongue in cheek....for god's sake, just chill....)

Obamacare is as constitutional as the Patriot Act

Annnnnnnd....who said the Patriot Act is Constitutional???

And.... - 15 for Fasces for the moronic input of the day....

@ Gobbledydook

"and leave the fighting to the US."

That system works great until America runs out of money or the international press starts to paint America as imperialist.

@ Fasces

I would argue that the Patriot Act is constitutional because it is a reasonable extension of federal power to protect the American people in wartime, just as Japanese internment was ruled to be constitutional during WWII. Obamacare forces the American people to buy a product, which is completely unconstitutional under any circumstances.

I am not entirely sure why appealing to the constitution has become such a phenomena for both sides of the argument as if it expressed the "original intent of the founding fathers..." the fact is that those known as the founding fathers disagreed with what the constitution said before the ink was even dry. Many of them engaged in what we would now call treason to have their view prevail. It's an imperfect document, a skeleton more then a fully fleshed system of governance. Which George Washington and his predecessors and many congresses struggled with constantly in the beginning. And why wouldn't it be? How is it possible that a group of men 200+ years ago could foresee all the many ramifications of what they set in motion? It is not a reasonable proposition. Therefore much of the rhetoric is spun of fantasy of a bygone age elevated to mythic proportions. Competing myths if you will. This is said not to diminish what they accomplished (which I believe was considerable) but simply to point out that they were human with the same capacity for self-delusion that we share as a common heritage.

The men who wrote the Constitution simply understood some timeless truths about government power that apply to today just as they did 200 years ago, and just as they did in ancient Rome and Greece. We deceive ourselves if we think that we live in a new day when the frailties and weaknesses of individuals wielding government power won't due more harm than good. The founding fathers understood that it was best to divide government power, put in checks and balances, and write down the separations in a formal document. Brilliant idea that still works. There isn't anything mythical about the effectiveness of the Constiution. It is easily understood and beautiful in its basic presumptions.

It was the best way they could think of at the time and it has done well. I think its triumphs are clear but it hasn't all been triumphs and we have had to modify it repeatedly. The checks and balances are an excellent idea but not infallible. I was not saying that the constitutions successes were a myth but rather the blind belief in the near omniscience of a group of men 200+ years ago and/or the belief that they all interpreted it the same way. Not to mention the someone's interpretation is THE founding fathers interpretation. A myth, when it exists, exists solely in one's mind.

Dividing government power is unworkable and hasn't worked in the United States. Policy is all over the place. No consistency. Plenty of gridlock. The US has survived because Americans have an unbelievable amount of patience for dysfunctional government.

Well actually the government the constitution set up was designed to be slow to get things done. All that about wiser heads prevailing at the end, but to say "Dividing government power is unworkable and hasn't worked in the United States" is a pretty broad brush to paint the situation....."workable" in what sense? There seems to be a lack of appreciation for nuance. As far as consistency...that can be a good or bad thing depending on what your doing. If the country is doing something bad...I pray for inconsistency.

The overlooked aspect of American government is federalism. In parliamentary governments they have one policy. In the United States there are fifty laboratories for policy. It is one of the greatest strengths of the system.

There are plenty of federal parliamentary systems. Germany is an example. Australia is another. Canada is another.

" It is one of the greatest strengths of the system."

Jim Crow was not a strength.

"."workable" in what sense?"

Workable in the sense that it is responsive to the needs/desires of the population. That it can manage complicated urgent problems in a timely manner.

Ask the Belgians how federalism is working for them.

It is responsive in some cases and not others.....not too mention that not all desires should be met....which, as I understand it, is a hallmark of a planned society. I don't understand the need to paint the situation in capitalist countries so black and white (nor communist countries as a whole.) If the facts are inconvenient to an ideology oh well......that goes for both ideologies, Capitalist and communist.....frankly I just have a poor opinion of ideology. It is always personal it seems. One always gathers what supports it and denies what doesn't. Doesn't seem like a great way to discern truth from fiction.

This has nothing to do with capitalism. I was talking about separation of powers & federalism. Jesus, are people just going to go on rants about their love of nuance without bothering to address the points made?

What's a good communist doing appealing to Jesus...what's the world coming too....:)

"Annnnnnnd....who said the Patriot Act is Constitutional???

And.... - 15 for Fasces for the moronic input of the day.... "
Noone did, they are both unconstitutional.

"I would argue that the Patriot Act is constitutional because it is a reasonable extension of federal power to protect the American people in wartime, just as Japanese internment was ruled to be constitutional during WWII. Obamacare forces the American people to buy a product, which is completely unconstitutional under any circumstances. "
I fail to see how that justifies the patriot act. This terrorism thing has really been blown out of proportion.

I despise the Patriot act. Its a violation of our rig... *crash* "Put your hands up!"

Fuck you krellin. I am not trolling. You are. Muted.

@ Putin33

You call the American government dysfunctional? That's mostly because it's too damned big, Putin. If the government was smaller, it would *gasp* work better! And the American government can function very well when it needs to.

The problem with a unified, non-separated government is that the majority can tyrannize the minority. In America, you really do have to have everybody on board for anything important to get done, which would be a blessing if we had the small government that the Constitution was designed for, but it is a curse because the government is too big.

Small governments aren't going to work any better, and don't. Belgium is a small state, and it is the most dysfunctional in Europe save the Bosnian Federation. They break records for not being able to put together a government at the national level. Why? Federalism. Federalism has destroyed more states than any other single government idea ever.

"The problem with a unified, non-separated government is that the majority can tyrannize the minority. "

As opposed to a small minority tyrannizing the majority, as we have now. I don't get the continual hate on majority rule. It demonstrates that certain people are absolutely unwilling to compromise on anything.

The Bill of Rights is another excellent example of enshrined protections in the Consitution. The misplaced faith that government power will be wielded for good by those that possess it ignores the historical examples of Franco, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Chavez, Castro, etc. Government power is malignant not benign.

'it ignores the historical examples of Franco, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Chavez, Castro, etc. Government power is malignant not benign.'

selective examples ignore those examples which contradict your position. This is confirmation bias.

As opposed to your Bill of Rights-run government that enslaved all black people in the country. It seems that property rights are malignant, not government. Government emancipates. Property enslaves.

<wonders why it is so difficult to understand the difference between "provide" and "promote". If I provide my daughter $1 Millions dollars, that is a HELL of a lot different than promoting her activities to earn $1 Million dollars herself...I suppose I should go back and read the thread....but then I'd want to shoot myself....or Putin, lol...

pro·vide/prəˈvīd/
Verb:
Make available for use; supply.
Equip or supply someone with (something useful or necessary): "we were provided with a map".

pro·mote/prəˈmōt/
Verb:
Further the progress of (something, esp. a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage.
Give publicity to (a product, organization, or venture) so as to increase sales or public awareness.

Seriously....you people need to buy dictionaries...

@ Putin33

The institution of slavery was held up by a majority, not property rights. Also, Jim Crow laws were upheld by the majority, not the minority.

Please give me a modern example of the minority tyrannizing the majority in the United States. I dare you.

"Federalism. Federalism has destroyed more states than any other single government idea ever."

That's funny. Communism has destroyed plenty of states as well. In any case, the federalist American government has functioned and functioned well for over 200 years. There's this false perception that everything is totally fucked up in America. That's simply not true. We have the most powerful military in the world. We are the wealthiest nation. We are producing more goods than ever before. We are in a recession, but unemployment is still relatively low (still way higher than it should be, but not catastrophic). The only real problem in America is our national debt. Our own spending will do more damage than any al-Qaeda terrorist could ever manage. And most of that spending is caused by your like-minded liberals and their policy, Putin33.

@Putin33 - The funny thing is that in your version of government, the people are essentially the property of the government. Therefore, slaves.

"The institution of slavery was held up by a majority, not property rights. Also, Jim Crow laws were upheld by the majority, not the minority."

The institution of slavery was defended via federalism. Jim Crow was defended via federalism. States rights was the clarion call of the Confederacy, states rights to enslave. They believed they were defending "constitutional government" against the big bad feds as soon as they lost an election.

Jim Crow laws were implemented to appease businessmen who sued the courts to allow for segregated services. The feds banned discrimination in 1875, that law was struck down thanks to bigoted businessmen who sued to strike it down. It was the notion of 'property rights' that allowed both slavery & segregation, opposing any federal interference.

"Please give me a modern example of the minority tyrannizing the majority in the United States. "

Let's see, how about the Court deciding that people can be strip searched for any reason. How about Republicans blocking unemployment relief. How about Republicans holding our economy hostage to get the debt package they want via the debt ceiling fiasco. How about Republicans blocking an unprecedented number of federal appointments from the democratically elected President via filibuster. How about Republicans filibustering virtually everything and anything simply because they can.

"The funny thing is that in your version of government, the people are essentially the property of the government."

Not really, in my version of government there are such things as labor laws and work regulations, which under your version of government would be struck down because workers rights are "tyranny".

But it's funny that you people whine about tyranny and call every government that isn't American "slavery" while lauding a government that *actually* enslaved an entire race of people and treated them like chattel to trade.

@ Putin33

"The institution of slavery was defended via federalism. Jim Crow was defended via federalism. States rights was the clarion call of the Confederacy, states rights to enslave."

State's rights is a CONfederate belief, not a federalist view. It was called the CONfederate States of America. Federalism is the system of government in which a group of relatively sovereign states submit to a central government under certain circumstances outlined in the Constitution. At the end of the day, the federal government is supreme. No one is disputing that. That being said, the federal government does have limited power, and for good reason. The government is far too big as is. Can you imagine how much bigger it would become if America were to abandon federalism and switch to some sort of nationalized (possibly socialist) parliamentary democracy?

"Let's see, how about the Court deciding that people can be strip searched for any reason."

I find it hilarious that a communist like you, someone who supports the most totalitarian system of government known to man, is bitching about civil rights and liberties to me. I have pointed out the hypocrisy of your statement, and see no reason to respond further, especially without details.

"How about Republicans blocking unemployment relief."

Well, they were stopping the majority from tyrannizing the minority with the subsequent debt burden and higher taxes necessary to pay off the aforementioned debt.

"How about Republicans blocking an unprecedented number of federal appointments from the democratically elected President via filibuster. How about Republicans filibustering virtually everything and anything simply because they can."

Democrats filibuster too. Don't give me that bullshit.

"But it's funny that you people whine about tyranny and call every government that isn't American 'slavery'"

That's funny. I don't recall saying that.

"while lauding a government that *actually* enslaved an entire race of people and treated them like chattel to trade."

You can't blame slavery on the federal government. You can blame the state governments of states that formerly allowed slavery, but you can't blame the government that *actually* fought a war against its fellow Americans to establish the superiority of the federal government once and for all (and liberated the slaves in the process)