carlsonjok
Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006
|
| Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 08 2008,03:55) | | Otherwise legitimate aspects of government like lobbying and fund-raising are, to use a nice phrase from the old Catechism, Occasions of Sin. The potential risk of (and rewards from, bless them!) their abuse increase (disproportionately, it seems to me) as accountability diminishes and power increases. And that is where I see a problem in the US system. |
Well, the problem is that lobbying is one particular means by which groups of citizens influence government policy and practice and, therefore, falls under the title "petitioning the government for the redress of grievances." That there is abuse in the system is not denied, but I think that our system allowing for access to political leaders and policy makers is, overall, one of it's strengths. I always find it curious when people (not necessarily you, as you have yet to made sufficient distinction in your objection to lobbying) decry access to governmental leaders by corporations, but have no problem with labor unions and other advocacy groups have such access. In the end, I suppose, it all depends on who's ox is being gored. | Quote | Your Federal govt has accumulated quite astonishing powers at the expense of states that are allegedly sovereign. I understand and sympathise with many of the historical reasons for that, but it sure ain't what anyone was thinking of in 1789.
What would your constitution look like if those august gentlemen had been asked to draft it on the assumptions that - secession should be impossible
- corporations should have the economic and political power that they currently have
- the Federal military establishment should be funded to the extent it is, (regardless of their distaste for standing armies)
- universal suffrage and corporate-controlled TV should be allowed
|
You list of assumptions betrays a particular point of view and, with the sole exception of universal suffrage, I can make the argument that the assumptions are unwarranted and that, to some extent, the underlying issues were known, in one form or another, to the Founders and were part of their deliberations. Alexander Hamilton, for one, understood the coming industrialization at some level and it influenced his thinking greatly, particularly on the matter of a need for a central bank.
| Quote |
I'd hazard a guess that you would see much more power reserved to the states and more stringent control of Federal offices. |
As answers go, that is non-responsive and, I think, historically inaccurate. There were great powers invested in the states (indeed , all powers not specifically ennumerated to the federal government). Many of the problems in our system are not, IMO, because insufficient powers were given to the states, but rather there was scope creep relative to the powers accumulated by the federal government in the subsequent years. But, in the absence of knowing what specific powers you think should have been given to the states, I can't really respond.
| Quote |
It's just that, as one of your fond relatives abroad, I find it disconcerting that the de facto emperor of the world should be selected by means of a process that looks like the bastard love-child of a beauty pageant and an arm-wrestling tournament. |
Fair enough, but I don't see that as a constitutional flaw so much as the result of an insular public with an unfortunately broad anti-intellectual streak down their backs.
--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)
|
