Fundamental Flaw in US Form of Government


PDA






DunedinDragon
April 9, 2006, 08:29 AM
Having followed the numerous stories regarding abuse of position and authority by LEO's as well as a somewhat callous disregard in the Presidency for protecting the BOR for law-abiding citizen's, I'm beginning to wonder if there is a fundamental flaw in the way our government is set up for enforcement.

As we all learned in 9th grade civics class, the Legislative Branch writes the laws, the Executive Branch enforces the law, and the Judicial Branch validates the law against the constitution. But the problem I see is that the Judicial System is purely a reactive component of government. They don't actively seek out and prosecute to enforce the BOR or constitutionally incorrect behaviors. Instead, they are purely reactive to the Executive Division who supposedly "watchdog's" their own potential abuses.

Case in point, who evaluates police misconduct? The police. At a minimum there's a potential for conflict of interest, at worse total abuse and disregard for applying the same rule of law to enforcers as we do citizens.

Am I looking at this correctly? It seems to me if the judicial were given teeth in the form of active investigation and prosecution authority of abuses there would be a better check and balance situation than what we currently have.

If you enjoyed reading about "Fundamental Flaw in US Form of Government" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kodiaz
April 9, 2006, 09:00 AM
We're the fundamental flaw. We tolerate it. It's easier to do nothing than to take action especially since the only power govt. understands is violence.


When was the last time the feds burned down a house full of kids. They haven't done it since McVeigh blew up the building full of kids. Coincidence I think not.


The founders ambushed a British patrol that was coming to take their guns.

We call it an ambush I'm sure in the British papers of the time it was called murder.


We have grown soft. We tolerate way too much. And when someone does something about it they are called a crazy murderer.

The feds murdered a bunch of kids no one was punished through the legal system. McVeigh goes out blows up a building and it is full of kids.

I hate to say it but it does equal it out.

We are suppoosed to police the police. We are supposed to be the last check. The people are supposed to balance the govt.'s power when we don't we wind up where we are now.

The politicians that we elect don't do what we want they do what the fatcat donors want. Now if politicians were to start showing up with a bullet in the head and a little sign no taxation without representation around their necks you would quickly see the authority of the donors go down.


But when the people don't take measured action then you get a crazy person like McVeigh who goes to far.

If all those guys involved in the Waco disaster were dealt with by the people after they got off scotfree from the legal system. The Murrah building might still be standing.


Ok I just proofread this. And it is really bad but I think it makes sense I'll delete it after I get home from work if a mod sends me a PM. I worked 18 hrs yesterday. I'll have to read this when I get home today.

BigFatKen
April 9, 2006, 09:09 AM
Let's ask Timothy McVeigh if he met with Zacharias Musawi in a hotel. Evidence shows they were in the same hotel at the same time.

Oh, yeah, Timothy was killed at warp speed while Tooky got to breath for ~25 years.

1911 guy
April 9, 2006, 09:43 AM
Our Constitution was written to allow give us the most freedom with the fewest restrictions. Then a group of guys were put in charge to ensure that nobody messed with it or abused it. We are now more than two hundred years removed from that time and place, those men of honest intent are gone and nearly forgotten by many. People we have elected to take their places have pursued their own pocketbook and ego before the duty placed on them. Meanwhile, we sit around and complain that "There's nothing I can do".

Our government, never meant to be perfect, was sufficient for a long time and can be again if leaders will step up to do the job for the sake of the job and Country, and We, The People stop accepting anything less from our elected representatives. Tall order, isn't it?

Steam dragon
April 9, 2006, 09:48 AM
Habeus Corpus?

My tin hat always seems too tight when I think about the "special federal team" that flew in to administere the execution (cough) and transport the carcas.

Just another thing than makes me go "Hmm..."

Molon Labe
April 9, 2006, 10:25 AM
The state of affairs is not so much the result of bad design as it is bad people. No amount of tweaking can fix a government comprised of liars, despots, and power whores.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." - John Adams

RealGun
April 9, 2006, 10:33 AM
If you removed the cost of getting elected and imposed term limits, the government would be quite different, I believe. I think the Senate should go back to being appointed by State legislatures. Those who make a career out of going to Washington are the root of the problem. Incumbency with name recognition is an unfair advantage. The privilege of senior members to sit on powerfully influential committees makes them want to act as a tribunal for the Presidency, actively running the country instead of merely holding the executive branch accountable. They have the power to hold the Judicial accountable but don't use it. The only difference is that there is no partisan politics involved with the federal courts.

Molon Labe
April 9, 2006, 10:38 AM
Our Constitution was written to give us the most freedom with the fewest restrictions. (Emphasis added.)The constitution doesn't "give" us freedom. It promises not to infringe upon our freedoms.

At any rate, we have a bad habit of worshiping our Constitution. I often wonder if the Constitution itself isn't the source of our problems.

Chew on this quote:

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

GoRon
April 9, 2006, 10:43 AM
The state of affairs is not so much the result of bad design as it is bad people. No amount of tweaking can fix a government comprised of liars, despots, and power whores.
How does that quote qo?

America will cease to be great when her people cease to be good.

neoncowboy
April 9, 2006, 10:48 AM
Another *huge* problem with our representative republic is that we allow everyone to vote...even illiterates who don't own anything.

RealGun
April 9, 2006, 11:03 AM
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.

But it was okay to own slaves.:scrutiny: I am tired of hearing how sacred the original Constitution was and should remain. As we see with new democracies, a Constitution will not have enough substance to prevent a majority agreement, so that ratification is possible. Then the real work begins, which should not be left to the Courts to fabricate.

Turkey Creek
April 9, 2006, 11:53 AM
The way I see it is the difference in the populace as a whole now compared to 200 or 100 years ago- Originially I think the populace didn't expect nor want governmental involvement in their lives other than to level the playing field so that everyone had as equal a chance to improve their lives as possible- Now we have a very large segment of the populace who depends on the government to provide for them through the myriad of entitlement programs that have developed over the years- This presents a radically different voting result than in the past- When you are beholding to the government for much of your life you will reward those that give by re electing your benefactors- The only way to reverse the slippery slope we find ourselves on is to have term limits everywhere in government- Unfortunately it's not going to happen, and as more and more of the populace finds themselves feeding at the trough of the government the more secure the government will be in enacting more and more restrictive legislation- Interesting that it's a lot like slavery

Brett Bellmore
April 9, 2006, 11:55 AM
There IS a fundamental flaw, it's the 17th amendment, direct election of Senators.

The way our government was originally set up, it relied on setting interest against interest. Divide the power, and put it in the hands of people who had little reason to cooperate with each other unless on something self-evidently worth doing.

As part of this, the Senate consisted of people appointed by state legislatures, and subject to removal by them. They were there to represent the interests of state governments, and did a pretty good job of making sure that federal power did not grow at the expense of the states. If they didn't, they could be replaced.

The 17th amendment's direct election of Senators changed all that. Now, Senators have just as much interest as the House and President in the unchecked growth of federal power, and the states have no practical way to oppose any usurpation. And the judiciary lets the federal government get away with it, because they're nominated and confirmed by people who WANT those usurpations, and sellect the judges who will pass on them appropriately.

We had a Constitution that worked pretty well. We broke it. And I don't see any way back, short of a constitutional convention, because the federal government won't originate any amendments to fix the problem, and with the help of the courts can "amend" the Constitution at will without the consent of the states. The states no longer have any way short of a Convention to exercise any check on federal power.

And, honestly, if the states did call a Convention, I think it would just precipitate a confrontation where the federal government would refuse to allow it to take place, or would take it over in some way to cut the states out of the loop.

Hawkmoon
April 9, 2006, 12:06 PM
The fundamental flaw is US (as in you and me, not as in the acronym for United States). Our system of government was set up with the expectation that normal citizens would take some time off from conducting their normal lives to go to Washington and run the country. The concept of a year-round legislature filled with a bunch of congress critters who have never known any job other than being a congress critter wasn't even on the radar.

It's our fault for re-electing these professional scam artists. This is why I advocate always voting against the incumbent. Nobody was supposed to spend 50 years or more in Congress. If they won't enact term limits ... we need to limit their terms in the only way available to us, the way that was built into the Constitution: vote 'em out.

mordechaianiliewicz
April 9, 2006, 12:14 PM
Oh, you think that's messed up, what about the fact that the Executive appoints Justices for life. And technically, the Executive could expand the judiciary if desired again.

Also, because the states no longer elect senators, the senators are not beholden to fed gov, therefore making the 10th Amendment a joke.

Molon Labe
April 9, 2006, 12:28 PM
"This Rebulic will last so long as it takes the general populace to find out it can vote itself a living."--paraphrasing of James Monroe or James Madison, I don't remember which one, point being someone saw the structural problem in government early on.We will reach the point where slightly over 50% of the voters do not pay taxes. When this critical point is reached, it will be (by definition) tyranny. This is because the people who do not pay taxes can always be counted on to vote for tax increases.

Molon Labe
April 9, 2006, 12:37 PM
Sorry for the hijack, but this is my 1000th post.

No party for me; I'm a black sheep here. ;) It's frick'n amazing the mods haven't booted me by now.

So what prize do I get? Three days and two nights in Vegas? Heck, I'll even settle for the password to the secret "Over 1000" forum.

Jeff Timm
April 9, 2006, 01:14 PM
Don't get enamoured with the post count. It's wildly inaccurate. As note the two, 1000th number counts.

Geoff
Who doesn't expect perfection in computers. :rolleyes:

Jeff Timm
April 9, 2006, 01:18 PM
As a former resident of Cuyahoga County Ohio, I've suspected for years that we have long passed the time when an honest vote count was possible. In the "democrat strongholds," like Cleveland, Ohio I believe the fraudulent votes keep them in office.

It would not surprise me if I was still voting in Ohio and the straight democrat party ticket.

Geoff
Who is old grey and cynical. :mad: :banghead:

Deavis
April 9, 2006, 05:04 PM
Our system of government was set up with the expectation that normal citizens would take some time off from conducting their normal lives to go to Washington and run the country.

While that sounds good, it simply isn't true. That very point was discussed in the Federalist Papers. As a matter of fact, one of the main reasons they gave for supporting the Constitution was that regular Joe's wouldn't have to be involved in the government, just a rep for them.

however, they also counted on the political process drawing the brightest and best that America had to offer. They thought, I'm paraphrasing the main ideas read 6-12, that the reps would be the creme of the crop. They would be people with morals and patriotism who wished to see this country fulfill its destiny. They reasoned that even if part of them were corrupt or beholden to local interests, that the rest would fight back and not allow them to move the laws of the nation for a faction.

Now the factions, lobbying groups, have the politicians beholden and guess what we get? Out reps are now elected on their ability to not do anything controversial and never to speak out in truthful terms.

The Constitution isn't the problem, it is our lack of regard for its principles that is the problem.

R.H. Lee
April 9, 2006, 05:11 PM
"Police misconduct" is a symptom, not the cause IMO. It's a red herring. The REAL problem is that government at all levels is too big, too powerful, and has too much of our money. We've stood by for the last, what, 40+ years and allowed the power grabs by way of increased taxes, laws, bureaucracies and regulations. Focusing on police misconduct misses the point entirely.

DRZinn
April 9, 2006, 05:35 PM
Don't get enamoured with the post count. It's wildly inaccurate. As note the two, 1000th number counts.That's because it's a running total of all posts from him. Go back to his very first post and it will also read Posts: 1000.

Kodiaz
April 9, 2006, 10:22 PM
I just reread my post and if that didn't get me a mod PM I don't think I'll ever get one. Congrats on hitting 1000

gc70
April 10, 2006, 12:04 AM
One of the flaws in our form of government is that it is predicated on a relatively small population to be effective. Representative democracy still works in small towns and counties where the people and their representatives actually interact.

The nation's population has become too large for people at the national level of government to effectively be connected with the people. The population of the entire country was less than 4 million people in 1790; today, the state I live in has twice that population. To put that in prespective, my voice means half as much to one of my Senators today as it would have to the President in 1790.

Beachmaster
April 10, 2006, 01:53 AM
When I take over as DICTATOR of the USA, I'll set things straight. I'll stay as dictator long enough to put back into place a downsized federal gov that includes term limits for all politicians, a NO LOBYIST rule (Lobyists will be shot on sight within 100 feet of any politician), maditory teaching of the REAL MEANING of the constitution in all schools (especially the part about how the second ammendment is about how the only real check to the govt's power is an armed populace), and I will change all the gun laws into the following:

*All honest persons who have not been convicted of a felony, who do not have a history of drug or Alcohol abuse, and who are of sound mind may own, buy, sell, trade, and otherwise use and enjoy handguns, rifles, shotguns, and all other small arms.

*All states shall turn into SHALL ISSUE states for CCW, and ALL STATES shall allow OPEN CARRY.

*There will be a manditory 5 day waiting period to do a background check before buying any gun, unless the buyer has a current CCW permit, or is a FFL dealer.

*New machine guns can be made and sold to the public, but would require a permit to own, sell or transfer.

* Criminals who use a weapon in the commision of a crime will recieve a MANDITORY 25 years attached to their sentance. If this 25 years puts their sentance over a 75 year total, then they will recieve a manditory death penalty. Plea Bargains and downgrading charges to lesser ofenses will be outlawed.

* Citizens who use a weapon in self defense will get at least 5 minutes of positive air time on local TV and radio news, a $1000 check from "Crimestoppers", and a big button that says "My gun saved the day!" to wave in the face of all the anti gunners.

Prisoners on death row for gun deaths get a maximum of 1 appeal, and then their method of execution will be determined by the victims family. Stoning and Poking with Hot Pokers will be among the methods allowed.

Last I will fix the homeland security problems by:

Rolling all the federal law agencies into the FBI. The DEA, BATFE, etc would all be disbanded, and the FBI will now have jurisdiction over all federal areas.

The National Guard Air Guard and Coast Guard will be rolled into one new agency called the HOMELAND GUARD. It will be resonsible to protect our shores and borders. The National Guard will no longer be sent to fight overseas before the reserves! The Guard will secure our borders from all invaders.

Requiring manditory federal service in the SERVICE CORPS for all people in this country over the age of 18 for 2 years. Service Corp members could vol for the Military, or Guard, work in schools or hospitals, work on engineering projects like building schools or fixing roads, or a variety of other areas.

To VOTE in any election would require a person to serve in the Service Corp!
Current adults between the age of 18-65 would have to serve in an abridged version of the service corp to keep their voting rights. Adults over 65 would be grandfathered into the voting program.

After I set all of this in motion, I will then step down as dictator and retire to
Camp David West (Hawaii) and spend lazy days on the Camp David West 600 yard shooting range!

xd9fan
April 10, 2006, 02:46 AM
This is why I get so pissed at most baby boomers. They are the most socially conformed group since the country was formed. Too many of them simply believe that collectivism works. Look at the illegal immigrant problem, look at the energy problem, look at what that generation has doing to public education!!! They walk around thinking they deserve something. They used to be anti-Govt crowd in the 60's.......now they ARE the Govt and they like it.

The problem is the legal american citizen.
The illegal immigrants know this country is weak....thats why the are enbolded enough to walk in mass to demand that they be reward in their breaking of the law.....and it will work for them too.

We deligate WAY too much responsibilty to the state/Fed Govt.

We have meet the enemy......

Clean97GTI
April 10, 2006, 05:16 AM
Beachmaster, you sound a bit like Heinlein.
Not that I think thats bad, I'd just like to point out that its totally impractical...kinda like you as a dictator promising to be the dictator for a limited period of time...set by you. :neener:

I must also take issue with your mandatory 25 year addition to weapons used in a crime convictions. What if the person thought they were acting in self-defense, but then discovered that this was not true? You could send a man to the gas chambers for a mistake in a law decided by other fallable humans. Mandatory minimums are not good. Give the judge control of the sentencing.

BTW, I think service should be voluntary, but that term would gain the person an absolute right to vote. They would earn it through service to the citizens via the government.

Can you imagine what having a fully trained corps of disaster responders would have done to alleviate problems in New Orleans?

pcf
April 10, 2006, 09:07 AM
There's a fundamental flaw, it's the people. How can we expect a government of the people to function correctly, when the majority of the people do not understand how it functions? The average American can't tell you who represents them, how the government should work or how it does work.

Ask your coworkers:
"What is the first word in the preamble to the Constutition?"
We

"Who signed his name in large letters on the Consitution, so the King could easily read his signature?"
No one

"What rights does the Bill Of Rights grant the people?"
None

"The Bill of Rights comprises how many amendments?"
Ten

"How many people represent you in the House of Representatives?"
One

"How does a bill become a law?"
Legislative process.....

"What State did the Nullification Controversy start in?"
South Carolina

"What was Massachusetts primary motivation for opening public schools in the 1820's?"
Teach the children of immigrants American Values and Culture

I feel lucky if I can find anyone who can answer more than two correctly.

Thin Black Line
April 10, 2006, 10:02 AM
There is absolutely no flaw in our form of goverment as set up on paper
and according to its rules. As pointed out earlier, "we" are the source
of the majority of flaws in that we let things get away from us. It is
during periods of warfare that it seems the flaws are magnified. I
think some of you will find the following quotes of interest in that
regard. However, I've been warned that the content of my posts are
under scrutiny for their "poetic" content. This is especially true when
it can be construed to be anything at all negative against the current
administration.

Therefore, as usual I will rely on the spirit of the Founding Fathers.
If it is seen as something negative against the current administration
by high-lighting one current cause of the "fundamental flaw in
....government", then what can I say? Hopefully, some of you will get a
chance to read this before it disappears like some of my other posts have
recently ;)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/1/202757.shtml:

The Founding Fathers were weary of entanglements in foreign alliances and of inciting hostilities and wars in foreign lands. James Madison, the master builder of the U.S. Constitution, noted in 1795: "Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the dominion of the few. ... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

Likewise, in 1793, Alexander Hamilton, among the Founding Fathers one of the staunchest proponents for the executive branch, explained: "It is the providence and duty of the Executive to preserve to the Nation the blessings of peace. The Legislature alone can interrupt those blessings, by placing the Nation in a state of War."

In an informative essay discussing the morality of war, William Norman Grigg also cites a 1798 letter to Thomas Jefferson in which James Madison pointed out: "The Constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature."

Grigg warns that "allowing the executive to decide unilaterally 'the question of war' will be tantamount to ... potentially setting the stage for 'continued warfare,' a condition in which liberty cannot long survive."

Waitone
April 10, 2006, 11:27 AM
There IS a fundamental flaw, it's the 17th amendment, direct election of Senators.

The way our government was originally set up, it relied on setting interest against interest. Divide the power, and put it in the hands of people who had little reason to cooperate with each other unless on something self-evidently worth doing.

As part of this, the Senate consisted of people appointed by state legislatures, and subject to removal by them. They were there to represent the interests of state governments, and did a pretty good job of making sure that federal power did not grow at the expense of the states. If they didn't, they could be replaced.

The 17th amendment's direct election of Senators changed all that. Dead nuts correct. Right now there is no check and balance in place that stops the flow of power to the federal government. There was at one time when senators were employees of their respective states. Would that be in place today our entire political landscape would be different.

I cite one very recent example. The senate just debate and eventually sunk an immigration reform bill. The entire country and media was focused on the provisions of amnesty based on the number of years illegally in this country. Well ignore the utter asininity of the entire concept and how it has no chance of being enforced. What was missed by everyone was a little-bitty provision buried deep in the bowels of the bill that would have granted to illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates. Here is the fed.gov mandating state tuition practices. I can assure you it would never made it to the bill had the senators been employees of the state and not the federal government.

If you enjoyed reading about "Fundamental Flaw in US Form of Government" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!