Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

The United States Constitution

0 helpful
89 replies

by Member 25348569 1 view

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

This is the most quoted document in the threads in TR. There's not a thread goes ten posts without a reference to the constitution or one of the Amendments.

I come from a country without a written constitution. We have a mixture of written sources, constitutional conventions, legal precedent, royal prerogatives and simple custom making up the "British Constitution". We can change our constitution with an Act of Parliament in exactly the same way that we would enact any simple law. I like that as I feel that the constitution evolves with the country and the times. It also seems to work! It's only recently being threatened - at least in its uncodified form - by the Human Rights laws and (perhaps) a European constitution.

So my Stateside chums, what's so special about The Constitution? This thread was prompted by a post suggesting that the document should be part of your school curriculum. Should it? What does it give you that I don't have? Then I'll see if I can find something that I have that you don't!

Neil :)

p.s. As I'm on a course next week, I'll have to leave you to fight it out amongst yourselves during the day...

89 replies

by deepsand

The US is comprised of a federation of Sovereign States, each with its own constitution.

The US Constitution is intended to stipulate those specific Powers which are granted the Federal Sovereign, which are forbidden to the State Sovereigns, and to provide that all not granted the Federal Sovereign rest with the States and the People.

At least that's the underlying principle.

In practice much that had seemingly been reserved to the States and the People, as set forth in the 10th Amendment (set forth below) has been usurped by the Federal government, under the guise of being a power granted by the phrase "[b]provide . . . for the general welfare[/b]" as set forth in the Preamble (set forth below.)

This conflict is in fact one born of a dispute between 2 of the Founders, both Federalists, namely James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. The Madisonian view, also shared by Thomas Jefferson, came in time to be known as the strict construction doctrine while the Hamiltonian view is called the doctrine of implied powers.

[b]Preamble to the Constitution[/b]
"[i]We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[/i]

[b]Amendment X - Powers of the States and People[/b]
"[i]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/i]
"

For discussions re. this conflict see

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html

and, as regards the 1st great test of the doctrine of implied powers,

http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

by Member 25348569

I think I need to look more into the federal nature of the US as I don't quite appreciate what it means. We are - or were until Tony Blair started the devolution bollocks - a unitary nation and so our "constitution" applied right across the board.

Personally, I'd give Scotland full independence. We've had their oil and gas and now it's running out they cost us in the south a lot more than they're worth.

I'll read the links when I've got some spare time. Thanks again.

by deepsand

We, here in the US, seem to make a habit of using the terms England, Britian and Great Britian quite interchangeably, most with little to no knowledge that they are distinctions with a difference.

Even those of us who do know the difference are not really up to speed on the issues of sovereignty as they there apply. For example, Scotland has its own Parliment, much in the way that the individual states here have their own Houses, Senates and Governors; but, to what extent does Scotland hold true sovereignty?

If you've the time and inclination, give us a civics lesson on your sytem of government(s).

Inquiring minds want to know.

by x-marcap

That is the problem with all the new laws. They keep increasing the power of the federal government into things they should leave alone.

The three branches are to be co-equal. but the Federal Judiciary is appointed for life. They can only be removed via impeachment, or death... Most Federal judges die in office. Only a few have been removed. The last I know of was Alcee Hastings for the high crime of bribery. He then was elected to Congress with the rest of the crooks...

by jardinier

That has demystified for me a lot of issues that are discussed here which I have not understood.

Australia has a constitution -- set out in 1901. The states do not have separate constitutions, but the constitution, like yours, sets out which areas are the responsibility of the Federal Government and which are the responsibility of the states.

Our constitution makes it quite a bit easier to make amendments than yours, and the proposed amendments that have been rejected are mostly related to giving more powers to the federal government.

The Queen of England is our head of state, her representative in Australia being the Governor General.

This is by no means a purely titular role, as was demonstrated in 1975 when the Governor General sacked the then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam.

Under the Whitlam Labor Government (1972-5) our former national anthem "God save the King/Queen" was scrapped and replaced with "Advance Australia Fair."

Our left-wing party, the Australian Labor Party, is pressing for Australia to become a republic, independent of the United Kingdom.

PM John Howard held a referendum in 1999 regarding this matter, but it was clearly worded to ensure that it would not be passed.

[i][Edited to add content][/i]

by deadly ernest

1. The USA constistution is, technically, a constitution and contract of, and between, the people and it says that up front. It establishes a government and draws it authority from the people as a collective group.

2. The Australian constitution is a contract between the member states and establishes a limited government by having the states surrender some of their powers to the new government.

3. The plebecite held in 1974 (touted as a referendum at the time) was on a National Song that could be played instead of God Save the Queen when the Queen or her representative was not present. The matter had three questions 1 was to change the National Anthem and the answer was NO, 2 was to have a National Anthem and the answer was YES, 3 was Pick one of these four songs (words provided) and the answer was Advance Australia Fair.

In the mid 1980's Bob Hawke gazetted, without any prior public discussion or reference to the electorate, that Advance Australia Fair was now the National Anthem and even changed the words to suit his political point of view.

4. Bob Hawke spent many millions on a constitutional review committee and then did NOT put a single one of their recommendations to the public as recommended. He did put to the public some constitutional changes that were similar to the recommendation - all of which gave the parliament more power. None of them got passed in the referendum.

The referendum under Howard was for constitutional changes that did away with the monarchial links while not replacing them with any alternative safeguards that they provide. Unlike Hawke Howard put to the public what came out of the semi-public forum where the republicans discussed and voted on a republic form. You can not blame him for them NOT being able to agree on, and work out, changes that the people saw as 'the harmless little change of head of state' that the republicans claimed was all that we needed.

------

The main topis of the thread is the USA constitution and it is often raised by the USA citizens in matters as it is the main source of power and authority. I believe that every country should include an education in its constitution and form of government in its curriculum.

edited to corrected two typos - one of whichwas so nicely pointed out - country not counrty, thank you. BTW there is also a difference between a review (check over) and a revue (group of song and dance acts)- I noticed that myself on the reread - just a Freudian slip about how the politicians behave. This damn little window they give us, make it hard to check what I have typed.

by deepsand

1) Our Founders were well aware of the capacity of the people to be less than well reasoned, and sought to ensure against a tryanny of the majority as best they thought possible; and,

2) As our States are Sovereigns in their own right, with all powers not given to the Federal Sovereign by the US Constitution vesting to them and the people, Our Founders also sought to ensure that the individual States' rights were not easily trumped by way of Constitutional Amendments.

by tonythetiger

If not for our constitution, the various states would be seperate countries. Now think how hard it would be to get 50 countries to agree on anything :)

by too old for it

There has been occasional talk of chaning the United States national anthem form "The Star Spangled Banner" (the planets most un-singable anthem) to "America the Beautiful". My wife prefers "God Bless America", tho she is a Kate Smith (and Philadelphia Flyers) fan from way back.

I am rather fond of "The Stars and Stripes Forever", tho I have the feeling that some of the lyrics might not pass muster in todays overly-PC society:

"Hurrah for the flag of the free.
May it wave as our standard forever
The gem of the land and the sea,
The banner of the right.
Let despots remember the day
When our fathers with might endeavor
Proclaimed as they marched to the fray,
That by their might and by their right
It waves forever."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stars_and_Stripes_Forever_%28march%29

by therealbeadweaver2002

you mention powers "granted by the phrase "provide . . . for the general welfare" as set forth in the Preamble" but the tenth CLEARLY states that if it ain't in there, it DON'T BELONG with teh federal soverign but with the state or personal. The preamble was just a form of introduction and reasoning BEHIND the limits of power, not a part of the powers.

by deepsand

However, as pointed out in my post, our Founders were themselves split on this issue, with others holding to the doctrine of implied powers.

Please see the links that I provided for more detail, both historical and recent.

It is this tension between these 2 doctrines that is at the heart of most current political debate, with neither the Democrats nor the Republicans being consistent as to which camp they are in.

by too old for it

Most of the usurpation came from Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, as well as Reconstruction following the Civil War.

States rights remain today merely as hollow sentiments in the Constitution. No politician would raise the issue, as neither the congress, nor the president nor does the Supreme Court have any notion of what "limited government" is.

(yeah, I had to look up "usurpation" too)

by deepsand

It was the Supreme Court that opened the flood gates when, in 1937, it allowed the Social Security Act to pass muster, under the "general welfare" argument; prior to that, Congress and the Presidents had had but limited success in that arena.

Following that, it did'nt take too long for the states to follow suit.

See

http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

by jdclyde

It was recommened this week that it should be part of the curriculum (which sadly, it is) because the citizens should know the rules and govenrment that run the country.

The problem is it is boring and people just don't care.

It really is sad just how ingnorant many of our citizens really are.

by deepsand

1) In general, with respect to our form of government, most schools seem to teach the what, but not the how and why.

Ask most people about the Federalist papers, and you'll get blank stares. Ditto re. the 2 opposing doctrines, those of strict constuction & implied powers; this, despite the fact that such forms the basis of the difference between most political debate in the US.

2) Most people don't care to know. Some of this is owing to they're having resigned themselves to the notion that they are powerless to effect meaningfull change, and that any efforts in toward such are of no value. For others, it's a simple lack of desire to learn anything over and above the minimum required for their existence.

This is not a new problem. Our Founders were well aware of the fact that in order for a people to be self-governing they must first possess the requisite character for such. This was of such concern to them that they both set the bar for amending our constitution quite high, so as to guard against a tyranny of the majority; and, lest there be any doubt with regards to certain powers that the Federal Sovereignty did [b]not[/b] possess, they set forth the Bill of Rights, in the form of Amendments I through X.

by nighthawk808

...I didn't even realize we still HAD a Constitution. Didn't that thing just get in the way of the War on Drugs and the War of Terror? And besides, who wants freedom since it gets in the way of convenience so often?

Besides, don't Americans receive all their rights straight from God himself, so who needs a Constitution? After all, Christians are his chosen people--well, not any old Christian; Republican Christians--well, not any old Republican Christian; wealthy, campaign-donating Republican Christians, but you get the point. Bush told me that God said Americans don't just have the right, but they have the DUTY to drive MUV's (Moron Utilized Vehicles) that get 13 MPG while at the same time complaining about how high gas prices are. Apparently God isn't real good at the whole supply/demand economics thing.

Anyway, do you know how inconvenient it is to try to drive around a trophy wife, an AKC-registered Golden Retriever, and a girl who plays soccer, karate, piano, softball, lacrosse, and is a member of the glee club, ski club, and student government while at the same time having four bags of organic, pesticide-free, free range tofu in the back? Who needs a planet when you've got an MUV the size of a planet?! And if the Constitiution gets in the way of my Ford Excursion, I'll leave tire marks all over it during my 20-mile commute from my McMansion in the suburbs. I've got more important things to worry about than liberty; after all, there's paper to push, money to make, and tax loopholes to find. Let's see the Consitution say anything about _that_!

by jdclyde

you are ignorant. :D

[i]
---------------------------------------------
Edited because I forgot emoicon. It came off much harsher than intended without it, ya know? With it, it is funny as H E double stixs! B-) :^0

by cubeslave

The US Constitution is harder to change because it is supposed to function more like a computers BIOS. Each of the states is a component, which can do things internally as they see fit, so long as they follow the general rules.

You don't want people changing the basic underpinnings of how the nation is supposed to function willy-nilly any more than you want any old piece of software rewriting your system's BIOS.

Prohibition (and all the problems it caused) is just one example of what happens when the constitution gets changed because of political fashion.

As for your question, Yes, I think every US School child should have to study the US Constitution, Bill of Rights.

If we included Logic and Critical Thought that would really shake things up politically.

One of the reasons this nation is in the state it is in is because our educational system has stressed "the three R's" and giving the right answers on standardized tests.

No child being left behind seems to be more important than any children learning to think for themselves.

Unfortunately this means that an annoying number of voters are now conditioned to respond to a set list of buzzwords and canned phrases without any thought or discussion.

Personally, I think the "powers that be" like it that way.

by deepsand

After all, just think of the chaos that might result if the voters actually [b]thought[/i]!

Hmmm, reminds me of certain plantation owners, who ...

by therealbeadweaver2002

The United States constitution prevents one ruler from doing some VERY bad things to the citizens. King George(i forget which one) comes to mind as on such. Our constitution sets the limits of power of our ruling bodies. ONE thing it gives the citizens of the United States is the right to protect our persons and property with guns if justified. NO ONE but the criminals in England can even OWN a firearm.
But, as we based or system of government on YOUR system, there ARE obvious similarities.

by deepsand

While it is true that our form of Federal government, and that of many of the States, were modeled after that of England, our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were in great part based on the Swiss Federal Charter of 1291, known as the "[i]Schweizer Bundesbrief[/i]," which was the founding contract of the Swiss Confederation, a precursor to the modern Swiss Federal State.

by mjwx

was the king in question. He was also called the mad king. The lordship at the time thought they could stop your little rebellion with 5 frigates (the nuclear missile of the day).

Gun Laws in Australia, I have covered this before but here it is again. Our gun control laws are used to prevent massacres and gang wars by making illegal means the only way for criminals to get firearms. It is not actually that hard to get a gun in Australia (I myself used to own a rifle and pistol).

In order to get a firearm in Australia you must,
1. Have a place to use it (a large property or join a gun club).
2. Not have a criminal record or mental disability/impairment (Just plain common sense here people).
4. Have proper storage (A Safe that conforms to specifications and bolted to industrial thickness concrete (your houses foundation) which your gun club can provide)
3. Be a legal Australian citizen and be old enough to stand at the bar (that?s 18 in AU)

There are a few restrictions but they are just common sense as well (ban on assault rifles and automatic pistols with a barrel length of less than 120mm (Too easily concealable)) but that?s why we are having a 10 [b]year[/b] anniversary of a 30 people massacre and not a 10 [b]day[/b] anniversary. Also gang wars over here are played mostly with knives not guns because gang members are too poor and stupid to get guns (they aren?t any brighter in the US but guns are much easier to get, if they had brains they wouldn?t attack a hum-vee with a 9 mm).

As I said I used to own a few guns (I had to get rid of them when I moved (Didn?t have a safe)) but I feel perfectly safe without one.

A perfectly legit question (and not an atempt to be a smartarse) AS an Aussie citizen in the US (say on a working visa) would I then be able to buy a rifle or shotgun?

by x-marcap

You could get either a pistol or a Shotgun, or rifle. I might suggest a Remington 1187 or 1100. If you don't want to spring for a Beretta.

They shoot as well, if not better and jam nearly as rarely as the Beretta...

by deepsand

"[i]2. [b]Not have a criminal record[/b] or mental disability/impairment (Just plain [b]common sense[/b] here people).[/i]

Where is the logic here?

Do bear in mind the definition of "criminal."

by x-marcap

But you have to keep it at a club, and pay a fee annually, and a club membership, and you have to acceptable to the club...

Sad. So sad.

by too old for it

.. a Young Urban Male, all hopped up on crystal meth, is kicking down your door because you have the money he "needs" for his next dope purchase?

by jardinier

for correcting and clarifying my post. However regarding the 1999 referendum, the primary reason I voted against it was that we were required to agree to the insertion of a "preamble" and I am not aware that at any time were we informed of the wording or even intended content of said preamble. That is why I suggested that Howard counted on it being rejected, and that it was just a political stunt to temporarily placate pro-republicans.

I composed quite a nice little song for the anthem competition, but it was returned to me with the note: "The words will be chosen first, and then the music chosen later."

As I compose lyrics and music simultaneously, as do many song writers, I thought this was so dumb that I didn't try again.

And yes I emphatically agree that the constitution and form of government should be taught at school.

Of course no thanks to Bob Menzies for naming his conservative party the "Liberal Party" so that it is impossible to comment on Australian politics at this website without first explaining this unusual use of the word "liberal."

Regarding typos, I always copy my post into a Word document for checking before posting it. Alternatively it can be written in a Word document in the first instance.

by charliespencer

I've always wondered how a parlimentary government worked. Neilb's intro explains why I've never been able to find a single-source document covering the workings of the British government.

What's a "vote of no confidence"? Are elections scheduled on a regular basis? Sometimes the timing appears completely random. What does "forming a coalition" mean, why is it important, and what happens if you can't form one? Who selects prime ministers? For those of you who have both a prime minister and a president, what is the division of duties between them?

It would be helpful if you include your country in the reply title. I'm not looking for a better / worse comparison to the U.S. electoral system (please resist the temptation), just an explanation of the rules.

by onbliss

[b]Country:[/b] India
[b]Type:[/b] Sovereign Socialistic Secular Democratic Republic
[b]System:[/b] Constitutional Democracy with Parliamentary System.

In order to understand the powers/duties pertaining to the President and Prime Minister, it is only fair that I give an introduction. Feel free to skip directly to the sections listing the powers :-)

The Parliament consists of the following:
1. The President
2. Council of States (Upper House) a.k.a Rajya Sabha
3. House of the People (Lower House) a.k.a Lok Sabha

[b]President:[/b]
The President, the Head of the State is elected by the members of an electoral college consisting of: 1) Members of Parliament (both houses) and 2) Members of State Assemblies. {Note: There is a formula applicable for this election procedure}

[b]Lok Sabha[/b] - The members are directly elected by the people from electoral constituencies.

[b]Rajya Sabha[/b] - The State Legislatures from the State Assemblies elect these members. There is a formula that looks at the proportions from each State. In addition, 12 MPs are nominated by the President as representatives of literature, science, art and social services. The State Legislatures are in turn directly elected by the people of the state.

[b]State Assemblies[/b]:(a.k.a Vidhan Sabha) The Constitution gives the States and the Union Territories a good measure of control over their own government. The State Legislative Assemblies (a.k.a Vidhan Sabhas) are elected by the people from the State or Union Territory.

[b]Prime Minister:[/b] Is the Leader of the political party (or coalition of parties) that has the majority in the Lok Sabha.

[b]Presidential Duties/Powers:[/b]
[b]1.[/b]S/he has the Executive power of the Union (essentially control over Parliamentary laws)
[b]2.[/b]Supreme Commander of the Defence Forces of the Union.
[b]3.[/b]Power to grant pardons to any person convicted of any offence.
[b]4.[/b]Appoints the Prime Minister (PM).
[b]5.[/b]Then appoints other Ministers based on the advice of the PM.
[b]6.[/b]Appoints a Judge of the Supreme Court, who can become the Attorney-General of the country. AG gives advice to the Government on legal matters.
[b]7.[/b]Executive Orders and other instruments are made and executed in the name of the President.
[b]8.[/b]Has all the powers that can be exercised in an Emergency.
[b]9.[/b]His delegate to each State is the Governor, who recommend matters pertaining to the State. Also, note each State has a Chief Minister (CM), elected by the people when electing their state legislatures. The CM is the more powerful, and actually runs the State.

[b]Prime Minister?s Duties/Powers:[/b]
The duties/powers stems from the fact that a PM is the head of Council of Ministers. The ministers have to be Members of the Parliament. The Council is responsible for providing advice to the President. The President has to heed to the advice, generally. But the President can ask the Council to reconsider their advice.
[b]1.[/b]Communicate to the President all decisions of the CM pertaining to the Union administration and legislative proposals.
[b]2.[/b]Submits the request for reconsideration from the President back to the Council.
[b]3.[/b]S/he is the Chairman of the Planning Commission, the body that is responsible for the process of planning.
[b]4.[/b]Selects the Council of Ministers.
[b]5.[/b]Also advises the President on the appointment of Judges, Chief Election Commission, and Comptroller and Auditor General.

[b]Why the Prime Minister is almost the MOST POWERFUL?[/b]
[b]1.[/b]It is because of the legislative procedure. When a Bill passes both Houses of Parliament, the PM presents it to the President. The President agrees and signs, or disagrees and sends it back to the Houses via the PM with his recommendations. The Houses then look at those recommendations and may consider it. But they can submit the Bill with or without the recommendation. Now the President has to sign or agree. He can not withhold his assent.

[b]2.[/b] Being the leader of the Council of Ministers and the majority political party (or coalition of parties) in the Lower House, [b]essentially runs the country for the President[/b] ? helping to make laws, making legal recommendations. S/he is almost the choice of the people.
[b]3.[/b] The President is considered to ceremonial and apolitical. That is how the people view the Head of the State.

[b]Note:[/b] Election Commission, a constitutional body oversees and directs all the Election process in the country.

Sometimes the legalese that Indian Constitution contains is little bit too much, if you ask me. The school students should be exposed to an abridged version of it.

Hope this whets your appetite about one form of Parliamentary system.

by charliespencer

"Prime Minister: Is the Leader of the political party ... "

Interesting. In the U.S. the leaders (chairmen) of our two main political parties have no role in the legislative process. They are chosen by the party members, not by the electorate. They are responisible for the day-to-day management of the party: fund-raising, assisting party candidates, etc. They may or may not have any legislative experience.

Also, there is no formal connection here between the party of the president and the majority party in either legislative chamber. Sometime the president is the member of the party that has a majority in our House of Representatives (lower house, members chosen by voters in each state, number of Reps per state based on population). Sometimes our Pres. is a member of the party that has a Senate majority (upper house, members elected by the voters, two Senators per state). Sometimes a party has a majority in both houses but the Pres. is a member of the other main party. And rarely one party has the presidency and the majority in both houses. But it's all coincidental. Many people vote for legislative candidates from one party and a presidential candidate from a different one.

by heml0ck

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Parliament_of_Canada

In Canada, the leader of the political party which wins the most seats in the House becomes the Prime Minister. The leader of the party with the second greatest number of seats becomes the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

A coalition could be formed when no one party wins enough seats to form a majority (+50.1 % of the seats in parliament)government. In this case, we have a minority government (as we do presently.) A coalition government would be formed by two or more political parties to establish a majority. The coalition is formed by formal agreement between the parties to act as one and form a government. This is commonly seen in Israel. The coalition can be dissolved when one or more of the parties chose to end their agreement. Typically, the government will call an election at this juncture.

A non-confidence vote is a vote that takes place after the government loses a vote (gets less than 50.1%) on a matter of substance (eg a budget.) If the governing party loses the vote of no-confidence, the the government is said to have fallen, and elections must be called.

by deadly ernest

a good idea - then you could look at the United Nations or the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings. None are very nice.

by maxwell edison

.....who quote and/or reference our constitution have no idea what they're talking about, and have probably never even read the document, much less studied it and considered what it really means. Ignorance run amok, if you ask me, thanks to our outstanding government school system .

Okay, since you're thinking of asking, here's just one example. How many people have cited their "constitutional freedom of speech", in any context whatsoever, in regards to posting messages on this Web site? ALL of those people -- ALL of them -- are only a fraction of the ones I'm talking about. I could cite dozens of examples, but it's too sad to think about.

I will say this, however. There have been SO many laws passed over the decades, that there's probably not a single provision in the original constitution that hasn't been watered-down, at best, or rendered meaningless, at worst. And the same people who continually support those laws -- and even espouse expanding them -- are the same ignorant people who incorrectly cite the American Constitution. These people have no idea what "America" is supposed to be all about.

Then ask them about all the other aspects of our government, and they will continue to flounder. Most people couldn't even name our three branches of government, much less articulate their true function. Most people couldn't describe the intended relationship and/or difference between the federal government and state governments. Most people can't (or won't, in many cases) describe the intended role of government. And most people don't see themselves as being part of the "most people" of whom I speak. These people simply are not capable of self-governance, at least they don't think they are. Truth be known, I actually give them more credit than they even give themselves, but they still choose to wallow in ignorance and self-doubt.

by tonythetiger

"Most people couldn't describe the intended relationship and/or difference between the federal government and state governments."

... unfortunately, many politicians.

by maxwell edison

....it is something we should be concerned about.

Or there's another option?

It's said that when there is an irreconcilable difference, then the disagreeing parties should back-up and consider the premise. What's the "premise" of our disagreements?

by x-marcap

Being a member state of the USA became no longer the choice of a state when Lincoln decided the South couldn't leave the Union.

State's rights ended there at that point in time...

Other than that Lincoln wasn't too bad a President... He only sent political dissidents to Montgomery Alabama if they disagreed with him. In fact he sent a newpaper publisher and his whole family to Montgomery, ALA. Jeff Davis sent him on to France.

Didn't Alec Baldwin say he was moving to France...
Can I help him pack?

by x-marcap

I am not, I am a Libertarian.

I am farther right than most of the others who claim that label...

by onbliss

I did state things little confusingly or wrongly :-). My Bad.

The political party that gets the majority, by default elects its Leader as the PM. But it is not always the case. The leader of the political party wields so much power that, s/he sometimes is content with that :-) and recommends his/her party to nominate another person as a PM.

Just like in US, the leader of the Political party (chairmen, president or whatever they keep calling themselves) is elected by the party members. And they hold similar responsibilities that you mention.

Strictly speaking the leader of the political party does not always become the leader of the Council of Minister (i.e. the PM).

Also, when a single party does not get the majority, differnt political parties form a coalition and stakes to form the government as a unified block. In this scenario, the different political parties elect one person who they think fill satisfy all the political parties as the PM.

The parties in coalition, can pull themselves out and there by resulting in a non-majority. The President has to step in, and maybe announce fresh elections. One reason why a PM does not last the entire term of 5 years. And also there is the "vote of no confidence" :-)

by deepsand

there were 2 past issues on which we disagreed strongly.

The 1st was re. SUVs, in which you seemingly held that one had an unbridled right to drive whatever one chose, while I maintained that such right ended at the point where the exercise of such adversely affected another.

The 2nd was re. global warming, in which you stated that you required 100% proof, as demonstrated by unanimous concurrence of all scientists and climatologists, that man was the cause of such prior to your allowing that he should take any steps to change his effects on climate, while I maintained that such level of proof is neither likely nor even necessary in order to justify our moving to mitigate those effects that may prove harmful.

More recently, of course, are the issues surrounding GWB in general, and our invasion of Iraq and the "war" on terror in particular. In other matters you seemed to place yourself among those who hold to the constitutional doctrine of strict construction, while in these latter matters you seem to be advancing the implied powers doctrine (with exceptions coming on side issues, such as your question re. Social Security.) Given this apparent dichotomy, I'm not sure what the basis of our differences in these matters is.

by cubeslave

Reacting to climate change and shrinking oil reserves would involve a radical reworking of lifestyle and restructuring our infrastructure.

(For example, back at the beginning of the last century Big Oil and the auto industry systematically destroyed most of electric and rail mass Transit in the US so they could sell more cars, tires and Gas. We would have to play catch-up in that arena, not to mention how it would hurt the real estate market.)

On the other hand, it?s tradition to send soldiers (no one you know of course) off to another land to fight and in the process making great steaming piles of money for the people who facilitate it.

Of course the standard of proof before action is different.

by deepsand

And, you may have noticed that, rather than providing a substantive response, Max is off starting another discussion with an equally specious argument.

by jdclyde

with the title of your last post! :p

Was I typing too fast for you? :0

[i]disclaimer: too much coffee and redbull this morning or something, so watch our everyone, JD is coming through! :^0 B-)

by x-marcap

An excellent choice! The Marine band does such a stirring rendition of this that I get ready to grab my rifle and March...

by too old for it

Let martial note in triumph float
And liberty extend its mighty hand
A flag appears 'mid thunderous cheers,
The banner of the Western land.
The emblem of the brave and true
Its folds protect no tyrant crew;
The red and white and starry blue
Is freedom's shield and hope.

Other nations may deem their flags the best
And cheer them with fervid elation
But the flag of the North and South and West
Is the flag of flags, the flag of Freedom's nation.

Hurrah for the flag of the free!
May it wave as our standard forever,
The gem of the land and the sea,
The banner of the right.
Let despots remember the day
When our fathers with mighty endeavor
Proclaimed as they marched to the fray
That by their might and by their right
It waves forever.

Let eagle shriek from lofty peak
The never-ending watchword of our land;
Let summer breeze waft through the trees
The echo of the chorus grand.
Sing out for liberty and light,
Sing out for freedom and the right.
Sing out for Union and its might,
O patriotic sons.

Other nations may deem their flags the best
And cheer them with fervid elation,
But the flag of the North and South and West
Is the flag of flags, the flag of Freedom's nation.
Hurrah for the flag of the free.
May it wave as our standard forever
The gem of the land and the sea,
The banner of the right.
Let despots remember the day
When our fathers with might endeavor
Proclaimed as they marched to the fray,
That by their might and by their right
It waves forever.

by deepsand

trying to pick a favorite Beatles song.

The only good that can come of such is that of listening to them all over again!

by deepsand

While I both understand & concur with your assessment of the abuse of said clause, its application still requires a [i]physical[/i] nexus, whereas the doctrine of implied powers provides but a [i]conceptual[/i] one; the latter being exceedingly more vague & pliable than the former.

by too old for it

The South should have freed the slaves, [b]then[/b] fired on Ft. Sumter. The outcome might have been very different, and the U.S. a better place.

by x-marcap

5 shots in Remington 1100, #8,XXX,slug,XX,slug. 10 grain powder light on the shot. Magnum load on slugs. 8 XXX will put down most anyone without body armor.

If the #8 doesn't stop him the next four will stop him, and anything behind him for 100 feet.

The road is almost 300 feet away, and it isn't a problem through even 1/2" plywood... The deer slugs are for people who like body armor. They won't kill them, but they won't be getting up soon. If they do get up, I have a couple of incediary rounds for my old M1A1. Set them on fire and they tend to take it off.

If that doesn't work I have my big .55 cal Traditions Muzzle loader and a .55 BOYS Brit AT. I have only fired the BOYS about a dozen times as it hurts me. The cost of the Ammo is really high too. The .45 auto is for less serious intrusion.

My wife is pretty good with a .38. I think we are covered.

by navy moose

Great post.

I always consider the shotgun to be an area supression weapon. I learned to fire one in the Navy and I found it to be a great weapon.

One of my friends likes alternating #4 buckshot and slugs for a home defense load. He lives in NH and is a firm believer in "Live Free or Die".

Navy Moose

by too old for it

I knew a guy who used to load a mixture of 00 buck and birdshot in each round.

I was more wondering about the poor sap that has to keep his long gun down at the club's locker.

My personal preference is for revolvers, either .445 SUperMag or .454 Casull. Bomar sights help out when you are using flood lights at night.

by x-marcap

That would mean you'd need to increase the powder load as #8 would fill in holes and weigh more than 2.5 Oz. I once damaged a receiver doing just that...

by mjwx

cricket bat!

or swinging instrument of your choice. Because you cant buy a gun at the local K-Mart he cant either (I know that's an exaggeration). In fact the petty thief or drug addict will find it very hard to get a weapon at all. Besides the best defence is not to live in that neighbourhood to begin with.

Golf clubs are not just for golf. Great way to defend yourself and work on your drive at the same time.

by mjwx

[i][b]"2. Not have a criminal record[/b] or mental disability/impairment (Just plain common sense here people).[/i]

Insert the words "you must" before that sentence and it seems to make perfect sense (Don?t give guns to criminals)

Ok the definition of criminal is (from dictionary.com)
1. Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse.
2. Relating to the administration of penal law.
3.
1. Guilty of crime.
2. Characteristic of a criminal.
4. Shameful; disgraceful: a criminal waste of talent.

Focus on points 1, 2, and 3.1 particularly to 3.1.

As for the logic, would you hand a murderer a knife with which to cut your throat?

With criminal records, Juvenile records are sealed at 18. Parking fines and other misdemeanour crimes don?t go on permanent records, robbery, assault and other serious crimes do.

Even with a dangerous driving conviction you could probably get a firearm but with multiple dangerous driving convictions you would be classed as a menace to society.

by deepsand

A "crime" is simply an act that is, at a given moment in time, defined, by a subset of the whole, as being such.

I.e., a "crime" is a subjective judgement, not an objective one, and as such is temporal in nature.

So, if by "common sense" you really mean "the current general consensus," then your statement is logically sound; otherwise, flawed.

by mjwx

Over here in Australia we think that it is common sense [b]not[/b] to give weapons to dangerous people.

Now the term "common sense" as described by you as "the current general consensus" is not what most Australians would consider common sense.

"The current general consensus" is the fact that George W Bush is one of (if not the) worst presidents in US history. That is an opinion which is shared by the public in its majority, hence "consensus". "Common sense" on the other hand is not sticking a knife into a toaster when it is plugged in. "Common sense" describes the knowledge not to do something stupid. For example: "Don't use the hair dryer in the bath, its just common sense".

Maybe the use of "common sense" is different in the state but I hope this has cleared something up.

by navy moose

In Massachusetts it is difficult to get a license to carry, I think it is called a Class A license. If you live in Boston it is borderline impossible. In my town, all they cared about was no criminal record. But they still have to be approved by the State Police.

In MA, these licenses are maintained by the Criminal Records Division, which always makes me feel good when it comes time for the renewal. I have to go to the police station and get finger printed, and have my photo taken.....just like a common criminal.

FIDs are easier, but I don't know how much easier. They used to be good for life, now it has to be renewed every few years.

by x-marcap

She said I signed it last October...

I have no recolection... She puts 3000 peices of paper for me to sign in front of me and I play Governor LePetomaine from Blazing Saddles...

The wonders of haveing a good wife...

by deepsand

You've just equated "criminal" with "dangerous person." In so doing, you've made my point.

The two are quite different, and denying weapons to criminals while allowing them to others both denies them to some non-dangerous people while allowing them to some dangerous ones.

That one has violated a law does [b]not[/b] constitute proof that one is dangerous; conversely, that one has has not violated a law does not constitute proof that one is not dangerous.

So, while it may be "common sense" to not give a weapon to one who poses a physical "danger," it is only by "general consensus" that you withhold one from a "criminal."

by heml0ck

Wasn't it the Magna Carta that laid out the foundation of rights and perogatives for Britain?

by Member 25348569

Though it did precious little for the "common man" at the time and precious little now.

It's really more than one document but we refer to it as one. It was foisted on King John by the barons and he repudiated it immediately he'd got out of their clutches. When John died during the resulting war, it was ratified by the supporters of Henry III (who was nine) with some of the more contentious bits missing and then reratified by an adult Henry with even more cut out. That actually brought it into English Law and Constitution for about five hundred years.

It's been gradually whittled down and then was repealed in its entirety more than a hundred years ago - but there are still some bits in English Law and some (usually weird) customs from about five of the original sixty charters.

About the only "real" thing left is clause 39 which gives a right to due processof law.

If this was the US we'd be revering the document today and still trying to base our society on it but, thankfully, we don't have that sort of constitution.

by deepsand

The US Constitution provides for it's own modification; to date there have been 27 Amendments ratified and 6 that have failed. It is interesting to note that the 27th was proposed in 1789, but took 74003 days to become ratified!

For more info. re. amending the US Constitution, see

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

by heml0ck

are designed to allow everyone to be involved in the decision making process.

In Canada, if say you support the Liberal party as a voter, but don't support the direction the party is going, you can join the party, and through party cenventions, meetings et al, you can influence the direction the party takes.

The downside is that it requires active invlovement in the whole process. If you don't like the leader of the party, you can only effect a change from within.

by dawgit

I've always thought that the 'Libertarian' view was left of center. (if not far left) And that they held the view that the US Constatution was to be interpeted only as written. (as in don't read into it, what had not been included) How does that work in todays Politics? The concept of somehow, going back to some imaginary point in time, when the politics and Law, and Constatution, magically harmonized together, would be 'Reactionary'.

by deepsand

not you. Sorry if you thought it mis-directed.

We long ago established that neither of us feels any common bond with the 2 major parties.

BTW, have you heard about the new Lt. Calleys in Iraq? If true, they've severely dishonored the uniform.

by x-marcap

Someone had a handgun or a rifle and directed it toward someone. It could have easily been lost overboard, and everyone was a fair game tyoe of target. What you would have is a embedded reporter trying to hang men who acted to save their own lives.

Or, for example a broom or pole in the dark pointed at an armed Marine. That is a quick suicide after these troops had lost comrades the day before to a roadside bomb.

Or if the people didn't understand, or just weren't willing to cooperate with orders. That would also again be legitimate grounds for the situation. Anyway, someone did something horribly wrong.

by deepsand

of [b]not[/b] having been owing to an innocent mistake.

On the upside, it may not blow up in our face, given that the Iraqi populace is used to being bombarded with insurgent propaganda alleging a campaign of atrocities on our part, to the extent they many may by now be inured to such. If such is the case, and the men in question have actually commited the acts alleged, an admission of such on our part may in fact prove beneficial.

There will, of course, be those who will maintain that such merely proves [i]all[/i] of their allegations.

In any case, we may be in for a rough ride.

by Member 25348569

Then, if I make a statement that is innaccurate, someone (you?) can come along and put me straight. I'm not going to be graded on my answer and Maxwell is away so I feel free to factopinguess. Anyway, I started this thread with the express intention of getting information and if it comes with a brickbat or two, then so be it.

My last sentence - I guess that's the contentious one - was a bit of a throwaway line but I believe that there's certainly some truth in it.

You have to accept that I am judging from the perspective of someone with a constitution [b]totally[/b] free from entrenchment in that the same Act of Parliament that raises or lowers a speed limit can modify the constitution. This works because we are not a federal but a unitary country.

The US, on the other hand, does have an entrenched constitution. Modifications are so difficult that you have a time limit for them to pass as the acceptance criteria are far more rigourous than passing simple laws.

The British Constitution is uncodified whereas yours is written down, studied and interpreted to the Nth degree.

"If this was the US we'd be revering the document today and still trying to base our society on it".

I withdraw nothing in that statement. The Constitution in the US is indeed revered, quoted and used and misused in US daily life. I would submit that it is the belief of a huge majority of US citizens that the US Constitution is the oldest, the best and the most revered. I would submit that it is none of these and that your country's veneration of your Constitution affects the way in which you judge other systems around the world.

"but, thankfully, we don't have that sort of constitution."

'nuff said.

by deepsand

Sadly, the perception of most here, and perhaps of many worldwide, is that the US Constitution is intended to provide direction as regards what the Federal government must and/or should do; in fact, it was intended to set forth that which the Fed may [b]not[/b] do.

The reality is that our Constitution was designed so as to insure [b]against[/b] a unitary Federal government. Our Founders [/b]deliberately rejected[/b] such form for a number of reasons, not the least of which were their deep distrust of a large and powerful government, and a fear that, absent sufficient checks, tyrannies of the majority of the moment would be all too easily effected.

They also recognized that this nation was then already geographically far flung, and was likely to become even more so, such that it was unreasonable to expect that the peoples of all regions would be both well informed of and duly caring about the needs of those at a great distance from them; thus they provided for local government by vesting the individual States with Sovereign powers.

As for the difficulties regarding amending the Constitution, these too are by deliberate design, for the same reasons that a unitary Federal government was rejected.

While a unitary government may work for a nation the size of your's, for one as geographically large as our's, with an exceedingly diverse population, and various industries both dispersed and concentrated, such would quickly lead to strife and civil unrest.

Yes, our Constitution is revered, as well it should be. Are we the oldest federation extant? That depends on whether or not you mean oldest [i]continuous[/i] one. To the best of my knowledge, we are in fact the oldest continuous federation currently extant. As for being the best Constitution, and bearing in mind that [i]best[/i] as here used is a relative term, given the nature of our nation, I submit that it the best that anyone has to date devised.

by Member 25348569

It makes more sense to me now. Why I started the thread (and why I've been a little provocative occasionally) was to get some insights.

As for the way my country works, I'll get on it. Sometimes I think that I don't have much of an idea myself so it should be a meaningful exercise!

I dealt with Magna Carta a few posts back so we're up to the 14th Century...

by deepsand

When you started this thread, I knew the principles that needed to be addressed; but, owing to the lack of a need to regularly expound on them, I found it necessary that I do a bit of checking to make sure that I got all of the details correct with regards to names and doctrinal terms, so that you could easily find them if you did an online search

by navy moose

I just found out it is fairly easy to get a NH out of state license to carry. Fill out a form and send a copy of my MA license.

Blazing Saddles is a great film, especially with the gallows behind the court house....where they belong :-D

by mjwx

I thought I had cleared up what is a criminal in the one previous.

My original point was "not to allowing criminals (people who had broken the law) to own firearms was common sense (colloquial term for not doing something stupid)".

I don?t know what its like over in the states but someone who commits a robbery or assault is considered to be a dangerous person (at the very least not in control of all their faculties).

by x-marcap

Exotic weapons that may require special credentials.

M-14s, M3s, M60, BAR, gatling guns, or anything that looks like mortar or cannon. Stuff like that.

See you at Knob Creek...

http://www.machinegunshoot.com/

Check out the pictures...

Exercise your 2nd amendment rights! Shoot skeet on the weekends.

Gun control means the Weaver Combat stance.

To quote my 20 year old son. "I love the smell of cordite!"

by deepsand

not [i]all[/i] non-criminals are non-violent.

Therefore, to hold that it is "common sense" to do [i]anything[/i] based solely on whether or not one is a member of the class "criminal," and where the selection criterion is the potential for violent behavior, is a logical fallacy.

Therefore, your statement should properly say that such a position is based on a common "consensus."

by mjwx

however an assault does. Does it make sense in your mind DS, to give a rifle to someone who has [b]already committed a robbery or assault[/b]. As I have stated before crimes that are not serious enough are not counted but more than one count of reckless driving makes you a dangerous person. If one can?t control ones self on the road than why should we trust you with a firearm.

You have defined criminals as "violent" and "non-violent" this is a logical error when it comes to the "common sense" whist it is not when you are still thinking in the terms of "general consensus". Allow me to point out that the "general consensus" is not "common sense". Defining criminals from the point of view of "common sense" is to ask "is this person capable of doing something stupid with a firearm". When one has previously broken the law that answer slides sharply towards [b]yes[/b]. Common sense is more about acting responsible not deciding what is right or wrong. It's asking is this going to hurt someone or otherwise come back to bite me in the ar$e. This is where you are deriving a logical fallacy from, you are still asking the question of right or wrong with regards to common sense. Common sense is a personal question not a social agreement. For example: [i]the law [b]is[/b] "common sense" not the law [b]of[/b] "common sense".[/i]

by deepsand

It is [b]not[/b] "common sense," and makes no pretense at being such.

As for your example re. a driving violation:

1) [b]Some[/b] driving violations [b]do[/b] result in a criminal record; and,
2) [b]Not all[/b] acts of violence [b]do[/b] result in a criminal record.

The bottom line is that one's criminal record is a very poor predictor of future behavior in general, and of one's use of firearms in particular. The [b]only[/b] good correlation is regading those who have [b]used a gun[/b] in the commission of a crime.

No, it's not "common sense" to restrict one's freedoms simply on the basis of one's being a "criminal," particulary when said freedoms are permitted to those without criminal records but might abuse such anyway.

And, no it's not "common sense" to prejudge the convicted as a class; if such were valid, it would then be the logical conclusion that all crimes should be punished by either death or life imprisonment, so as to avoid the expected dangers resulting after their release.

Some creatures are mammals; some are not. Some mammals swim, while others do not. Some creatures that swim are mammals; others are not. All of these sub-sets are [b]different[/b] entities.

There are people with a propensity for violence, and those without. Those 2 sets are [b]not[/b] equivalent to the sets "criminals" and "non-criminals."

by mjwx

and in this country [b]ALL[/b] acts of violence that you are found guilty of are recorded. This has proven to be a very good indication of who is likely to commit another violent crime. In this country actual science is applied to criminology not what they saw on law and order last night.

It seems to me to be [b]very stupid[/b] to leverage someone?s freedom to own a gun against someone?s freedom to live or live free from fear. It is better to restrict 10 idiots if it prevents [b]one[/b] murder. There were 841 Firearm related [b]crimes[/b] in Australia last year only 26 of which were murders and 48 attempted murders. a vast majority of them were armed robbery (758). http://tinyurl.com/ora4l (on Page 16). In the United States in 2004 339,200 Firearm offences 11,300 of which were murders.
http://english.gov.cn/2006-03/09/content_222900.htm

Now lets adjust for population US 250,000,000 Australia 21,000,000 so we have 9% (8.4% but I rounded up) of your population. 11,300*0.09 = 1070 which 26 goes into 39 times. Statistics prove that gun control works (I will allow an adjustment for the cultural differences between our people but not 39 times).

If by now I have not convinced you that allowing criminals to own guns (I have also tried to explain what kind of offences ban one from owning a firearm) is "common sense" (as I have also explained as the opposite of stupid) I probably have no chance of convincing you. Now I will stop, I don?t like preachers so I will no longer try to dissuade you from this view. I have already thrown statistics at you but I will throw one more at you to be fair, South Australia is the murder capital of the world (per capita) but we still manage fewer gun deaths by ensuring that those who own firearms are responsible.

by x-marcap

If the men are cleared it is a coverup. Even if it isn't...

The men who killed these people may have been under great stress. But, I'll tell you this. In darkness, a lighter's flash can resemble a gun flash...

That is too volitile a situation to do it any justice. Let's just say that you can even have a good kill and it may haunt you for many years. Even if it was a hostile situation. I know from personal experience with friends who never got over it.

This discussion is closed to new replies.