[SaturnEternity]

I read the German Constitution and compared it to our own. I would personally say that the constitution of Germany is better. So if a new US Constitution is to be written, I would like to see it modeled after Germany's.

[thotpoizn]

Seems highly unlikely that a new constitution, even if perfect and beautiful, would find itself implemented as law. Perhaps a more viable project would be the creation and popularization of a new political party - one neither democrat nor republican, conservative nor liberal - whose chief campaign platform would be based on using logic and truth above all else to make rational decisions.
I would vote for such a party, even if I had to stand in line with Democrats (or even the French!) to do so.
:-)

[ElstonGunn]

	Originally Posted by thotpoizn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	whose chief campaign platform would be based on using logic and truth above all else to make rational decisions.

Isn't that exactly what every party already thinks that it is?

[TheLastMohican]

	Originally Posted by ElstonGunn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I also don't see why gun ownership requires a protective statement in the constitution any more than X-box ownership does, but that's not the point of this thread.

It would be nice to have a protective statement for a lot of things. I wish we had a way of limiting restrictions on goods and activities that don't involve violation of rights — essentially a "mind your own fucking business" clause. That would take care of the "war on drugs," sodomy laws, and the like.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	..or mexicans, or muslims, or homosexuals. Oh, wait...

Never heard a republican refer to a mexican, muslim or homosexual as 3/5s of a person or as someone that can be terminated because they are inconvenient.

Nice try, but not even close.

[Marlowe221]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Never heard a republican refer to a mexican, muslim or homosexual as 3/5s of a person or as someone that can be terminated because they are inconvenient. Nice try, but not even close.

You're right - but only because the Republican party did not exist when that clause was written.

The Republican/Conservative response has traditionally been (in no particular order) kicking them out of the country, throwing them in prison without the benefit of a trial, and pretending like hell that they don't exist.

When those don't work, there's always FEAR!!!!1!

Oh, btw, the Republicans used to be the "liberals" and the "Democrats" used to be the conservatives.

[Thrawn]

	Originally Posted by ElstonGunn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It is?

Do you have a better idea? Most of the world recognizes and incorporates corporations and gives them legal personhood for a reason, it is the best way we have come up with of creating an entity that allows for easy capital investment and limited liability. The burden rests with you to prove a better option since this is the norm.

---------- Post added 11-01-2010 at 06:35 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Marlowe221 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You're right - but only because the Republican party did not exist when that clause was written. The Republican/Conservative response has traditionally been (in no particular order) kicking them out of the country, throwing them in prison without the benefit of a trial, and pretending like hell that they don't exist. When those don't work, there's always FEAR!!!!1! Oh, btw, the Republicans used to be the "liberals" and the "Democrats" used to be the conservatives.

Strawman fallacy at best here. You are attempting to group all homophobes, racists, etc into a different group, Republicans. There are idiots on all sides of the aisle politically. But as a Republican I am rather disappointed that people will presuppose that I am a bigot because there have been bigots to share a political party which is after-all the very definition of intolerance.

[ElstonGunn]

	Originally Posted by Thrawn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do you have a better idea? Most of the world recognizes and incorporates corporations and gives them legal personhood for a reason, it is the best way we have come up with of creating an entity that allows for easy capital investment and limited liability. The burden rests with you to prove a better option since this is the norm.

Corporate personhood is a separate issue from the mere existence of corporations. Limited Liability Companies, for example, aren't legal persons. I'm sure there is some way to combine the tax advantages of LLCs with the capital investment strengths of publicly traded corporations.

If a conversation requires burdens of proof, I'm not interested in it. I saw this as more of a discussion than a debate. Sorry for wasting your time by questioning the status quo.

[Thrawn]

Originally Posted by ElstonGunn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Corporate personhood is a separate issue from the mere existence of corporations. Limited Liability Companies, for example, aren't legal persons. I'm sure there is some way to combine the tax advantages of LLCs with the capital investment strengths of publicly traded corporations. If a conversation requires burdens of proof, I'm not interested in it. I saw this as more of a discussion than a debate. Sorry for wasting your time by questioning the status quo.

LLCs are legal persons. LLC's are a separate entity built for tax flexibility and limited liability. They combine corporate personhood, with the flexibility and ease of use of a partnership, and the allowance for a choice between the default partnership tax route and corporate tax route. This was in response to the high costs associated with maintaining S-Corporations and the much higher risk of using traditional partnerships, plus the management requirements of being a partner.

Corporate personhood (or legal personality) is merely a tool that allows redress of grievances committed by or against a company and separates that company from its owners under law. A sole proprietorship is not considered a separate legal entity from its owner and thus there is unlimited liability (a person can lose their house if their business fails). Corporate personhood is there to establish that border and give the company the necessary legal tools to conduct business(they can sign contracts for instance).

So I guess what aspect of corporate personhood don't you agree with? What rights do you not want companies to have?

[Marlowe221]

Originally Posted by Thrawn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Do you have a better idea? Most of the world recognizes and incorporates corporations and gives them legal personhood for a reason, it is the best way we have come up with of creating an entity that allows for easy capital investment and limited liability. The burden rests with you to prove a better option since this is the norm. ---------- Post added 11-01-2010 at 06:35 PM ---------- Strawman fallacy at best here. You are attempting to group all homophobes, racists, etc into a different group, Republicans. There are idiots on all sides of the aisle politically. But as a Republican I am rather disappointed that people will presuppose that I am a bigot because there have been bigots to share a political party which is after-all the very definition of intolerance.

I see that someone doesn't know the definition of "strawman." Just because you don't agree with something (while making lots of massive assumptions) does not make it a strawman argument.

I have no particular love for either side of the "aisle" thank you. I did not say that ALL people who identify as Republicans have behaved in this way but I think it is fairly clear the that the leadership of the Republican party has behaved that way with regard to the groups mentioned in the post to which I was responding.

If your own personal beliefs and opinions are different then I commend you. If so, however, why do you continue to associate with a group whose leadership behaves in ways with which you do not agree?

P.S. - Before you go calling me a liberal, remember that I might have equally scathing views of the Democratic party as well....

[Angel1]

4 Branches of Government -

Judicial: This one can mostly be left alone, but have a few things actually written into the new constitution

Executive: This branch will now exist to enforce the laws, run foreign policy, and run domestic agencies.

Legislative: Leave them mostly unchanged, save for other changes that will impact them. Senators elected by the state legislatures from a selection of candidates elected by the people (say the top three or five).

States: Create a Prime Minister (elected with no campaigning by the Governors of the respective states with a simple majority). The Prime Minister will assume the presidents right to veto legislation and the vice-presidents right to cast the tie-breaking vote in the senate. The Prime Minister will also have the power to disolve one or both houses of congress (at which point, the governors would assume all federal legislative duties [treaties requiring additional passage by the state legislatures] that have been vacated until new congresspersons or senators are in place). The Prime Minister serves at the pleasure of the governors and if 3/5ths vote to do so, they may recall him immediately and select by simple majority a new prime minister.

The Prime Minister in addition shall lead investigations into the government. He shall have the authority to assume any congressional investigation (at which point the congress shall cease investigating until the states branch's investigation is over). However, the states branch may also be ordered (by the governors) to launch investigations. All civil servants and employees under the states branch will serve at the pleasure of the governors.

Concerning treaties proposed while the senate is disolved: The governors would each have one vote. The state legislatures would each have one vote. Two-thirds of the votes would be required to pass a treaty.

[titi monkey]

"Create a prime minister..." Sure, and let's call him or her Putin. Veto legislation? Dissolve Houses of Congress? Launch investigations? Having all of this power with nothing more to acquire it than the backing of 30 people? I say back to the drawing board with this idea.

[thotpoizn]

	Originally Posted by ElstonGunn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Isn't that exactly what every party already thinks that it is?

Not really. You have some who believe they have the mandate of a higher power, others with a Robin Hood complex who want to end both poverty and wealth in one fell swoop; most pursuing social and moral theories in abject disregard of empirical evidence or the scientific method. Let's have a little "who has tried this before, how well did it work for them, what would or could change the outcome, what is the probability of success" applied to decision-making. Eliminate the knee-jerk "God said to do it this way" along with the "Human dignity and decency demands we do it that way" and let's get down to some pure and simple rationalism. Yes, even if that means we have to kill and eat the sick and the old.

... OK, not really on that last part, but you get my drift.

[Nickator]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Excuse me but wasn't it a Republican(Lincoln) who freed the slaves and wasn't it a Democrat(Booth) who murdered him?

Way to apply the actions of one to everyone... I hate it when people use arguments by analogy, I hate that people take them as valid arguments even more.

[ElstonGunn]

	Originally Posted by Thrawn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So I guess what aspect of corporate personhood don't you agree with? What rights do you not want companies to have?

Mostly the political involvement. I think if people (the biological types) want a certain policy enacted, they have every right to work towards that as people. If a group of people want to donate a million dollars to a cause, I don't have huge problems with that, if they do it as individuals. Something about channeling the same amount of money through an intermediary organization bothers me. I think it lends itself to corruption, and "speaking" for people rather than on their behalf.

Say ten people each donate $10 to the same candidate or cause. The $100 doesn't bother me (at least not for the sake of this conversation). If the same ten people form a group, exchange their ten Hamiltons for one Franklin, and then decide in a six-to-four vote to give the same $100 to the same cause as in the first example, I think it's a less-accurate representation. Formerly, the $100 represented ten people offering support based on their own direct choice. In the second case, it's six people offering their own support, plus that of four other people-- four people who really don't support the cause.

It's an over-simplified illustration, but that's the gust of what I don't like about corporate involvement in the political process.

Originally Posted by thotpoizn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not really. You have some who believe they have the mandate of a higher power, others with a Robin Hood complex who want to end both poverty and wealth in one fell swoop; most pursuing social and moral theories in abject disregard of empirical evidence or the scientific method. Let's have a little "who has tried this before, how well did it work for them, what would or could change the outcome, what is the probability of success" applied to decision-making. Eliminate the knee-jerk "God said to do it this way" along with the "Human dignity and decency demands we do it that way" and let's get down to some pure and simple rationalism. Yes, even if that means we have to kill and eat the sick and the old. ... OK, not really on that last part, but you get my drift.

To me, that sounds like a description of why each side (or at least the cartoon versions of them that you suggested) thinks it's right. Whether I say that I'm right because of some sort of divine command/natural law or whether it's because I think I pragmatically have the most workable answer doesn't change the fact that I think I'm right. Each side is essentially saying, "I'm right because the criteria I've chosen to determine rightness and my interpretation of how reality fits those criteria say that I'm right."

The social sciences and politics being what they are, you can "prove" anything with an example. There's no shortage of seemingly contradictory responses to seemingly similar situations, with both responses producing arguably good results.

[Angel1]

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"Create a prime minister..." Sure, and let's call him or her Putin. Veto legislation? Dissolve Houses of Congress? Launch investigations? Having all of this power with nothing more to acquire it than the backing of 30 people? I say back to the drawing board with this idea.

Actually the idea would be the Prime Minister having the backing of 26 people (simple majority of state governors to select a Prime Minister). Furthermore, the governors have to be elected by the people. It's not just the backing of 26 people, it's the backing of 26 people who in turn answer to the people of their state.

The Prime Minister would have very limited power. When you consider how much power the other branches have, the Prime Minister would be very restricted indeed. The fact that he serves at the pleasure of the governors means that he is in many ways even more restricted. Basically the Prime Minister would be doing those things that the governors are just already too busy to take on as additional tasks.

[aku chi]

Originally Posted by Angel1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

States: Create a Prime Minister (elected with no campaigning by the Governors of the respective states with a simple majority). The Prime Minister will assume the presidents right to veto legislation and the vice-presidents right to cast the tie-breaking vote in the senate. The Prime Minister will also have the power to disolve one or both houses of congress (at which point, the governors would assume all federal legislative duties [treaties requiring additional passage by the state legislatures] that have been vacated until new congresspersons or senators are in place). The Prime Minister serves at the pleasure of the governors and if 3/5ths vote to do so, they may recall him immediately and select by simple majority a new prime minister. The Prime Minister in addition shall lead investigations into the government. He shall have the authority to assume any congressional investigation (at which point the congress shall cease investigating until the states branch's investigation is over). However, the states branch may also be ordered (by the governors) to launch investigations. All civil servants and employees under the states branch will serve at the pleasure of the governors. Concerning treaties proposed while the senate is disolved: The governors would each have one vote. The state legislatures would each have one vote. Two-thirds of the votes would be required to pass a treaty.

I understand that you're trying give more power to the states, but you're making some assumptions/restrictions that are not present in The Constitution, I think. For instance, you assume that all states will have a governor who is the chief executive body of the state. I don't believe that this is required by The Constitution. Suppose a state wanted to try a different organizational structure (two consuls, perhaps). This would be allowed under The Constitution at present but would not be allowed after your modifications.

As a point of clarification, what exactly do you propose would happen when one or two of the branches of Congress get dissolved? How do the state executives take over the federal legislature?

And aren't you concerned that your new proposal unfairly benefits less populous states? A prime minister that gains the favor of the 30 smaller states could safely disband the House of the Representatives and leave those states with just as much federal power as the others. That seems like a serious risk with your proposal.

[jdfpdx]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	1. Each Republican vote shall count as 3/5ths of one vote.

Sophomoric ignorant snarks (read: progressives) shall be skinned with a vegetable peeler and their hides cured with rock salt in a public place as an object lesson.

[Thrawn]

Originally Posted by Marlowe221 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I see that someone doesn't know the definition of "strawman." Just because you don't agree with something (while making lots of massive assumptions) does not make it a strawman argument. I have no particular love for either side of the "aisle" thank you. I did not say that ALL people who identify as Republicans have behaved in this way but I think it is fairly clear the that the leadership of the Republican party has behaved that way with regard to the groups mentioned in the post to which I was responding. If your own personal beliefs and opinions are different then I commend you. If so, however, why do you continue to associate with a group whose leadership behaves in ways with which you do not agree? P.S. - Before you go calling me a liberal, remember that I might have equally scathing views of the Democratic party as well....

Quoting wikipedia. "To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]" It was an attack on a misguided perception of republicans, not actual republican policy. So yes it very well could be a strawman.

You really ought to provide some evidence for your arguments.

I agree with the actual policies of the republican party, limited government, low taxes, fiscal responsibility, support of private charity and limited social welfare etc. I don't agree with every republican, or every action taken by them, but I agree more with the republicans than with the democrats in almost every case, and as you say the democrats are no better so there really are no more feasible options.

[Angel1]

Originally Posted by aku chi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I understand that you're trying give more power to the states, but you're making some assumptions/restrictions that are not present in The Constitution, I think. For instance, you assume that all states will have a governor who is the chief executive body of the state. I don't believe that this is required by The Constitution. Suppose a state wanted to try a different organizational structure (two consuls, perhaps). This would be allowed under The Constitution at present but would not be allowed after your modifications. As a point of clarification, what exactly do you propose would happen when one or two of the branches of Congress get dissolved? How do the state executives take over the federal legislature? And aren't you concerned that your new proposal unfairly benefits less populous states? A prime minister that gains the favor of the 30 smaller states could safely disband the House of the Representatives and leave those states with just as much federal power as the others. That seems like a serious risk with your proposal.

First, the whole point is to write and entirely new constitution. That being said, all your other points are quite good.

If a state wanted to do a different structure, then under this idea I would simply require them to designate which officer held this power

Executive assumption of legislative duties: Create 3 registries of proposed legislation that state executives would have access to. Any legislation that was actually written would be in the registries. One registry per house of congress and one registry for the whole congress (those bills that differences are being negotiated out of).

Unfair power distribution: I would not want the most populous states to have as much power as they have population. To fix this problem, we'd need a couple considerations.

Which house is disolved and what legislative duty is at stake?

If the senate is disolved, then population of the states means nothing and my proposal stands unchanged for this situation.

If the house is disolved, then maybe we take the highest government-ranking member of each party represented by that state gets to vote whatever number of seats their party held in the US House for that state. For example (from Tennessee): Governor Bredesen (D) would vote TN's 5 US House seats held by democrats and Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey (R) would vote TN's 4 US House seats held by republicans.

If it is a treaty at stake, then I'd still use the method I proposed. Give the legislatures a vote as well and require 2/3rds of the 100 votes.


I have not actually written what I would write for a Constitution because right now it's proposals that I'd like to have tested.

[Aronnax]

If greater population wouldn't increase political power why would the more populous states be interested in remaining in the Union? They carry a greater share of the tax load and supply more soldiers when there is a war. A strong argument could be made that California, Texas and New York carry the Union, are all perfectly capable of becoming independent nations and would actually benefit by going their own way.

What you're writing is a contract between states, many of the original structures (the ones you're considering dismantling) are compromises to keep all members engaged.

[BobG]

Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If greater population wouldn't increase political power why would the more populous states be interested in remaining in the Union? They carry a greater share of the tax load and supply more soldiers when there is a war. A strong argument could be made that California, Texas and New York carry the Union, are all perfectly capable of becoming independent nations and would actually benefit by going their own way. What you're writing is a contract between states, many of the original structures (the ones you're considering dismantling) are compromises to keep all members engaged.

True enough. A ranking comparing how much federal money each state gets compared to what they pay in:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


A lot of this is because what seems like small change in Congress is a lot of money for a sparsely populated state. In other words, people look at how much money a state requests; not how much money per person the state is getting. So it's easy for states like Alaska, New Mexico to get a little federal money, which is a lot of federal money per person.

When a state like California or New York wants federal money, it looks like an awful lot of money, and is - just not a lot of money per person.

Personally, I think the Congressmen in my state should be voted out of office for bringing in less federal dollars into the state than my state pays in federal taxes. Although, to be fair, that's only a recent trend. Incomes in Colorado have increased faster than federal dollars to Colorado have increased. The federal taxes per person doubled in 15 years while federal spending in our state only increased 50%.