21st Century Bill Of Rights

[mwc]

If it were that simple we wouldn't need the original Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, we can't count on there always being appropriate elected officials. That's the purpose of a constitution - it provides the boundaries within which elected officials can make changes. So, when we get a bad batch of elected officials (which history has shown is inevitable), the citizens have the ability via the courts to overturn unconstitutional acts.

If those in charge are so corrupted then I personally wouldn't place much faith in the system as whole at that point. In that vein I don't recall the courts striking down prohibition (an amendment essentially to regulate moral conduct). The original wasn't even included until there was a great big argument and a Bill of Rights got included. If we did adhere to the Constitution we probably wouldn't need it. People have the power by default.

 

Clarifying the constitution where it has been repeatedly been shown to be vague (such as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), by adding more explicit clauses such as "Federal, State and Local governments shall provide no public funds to religious organizations, nor sponsor religious activities, nor include religious or anti-religious speech or symbols on government property or documents." would help curtail the attempts of anti-church/state separationists to turn the US into a theocracy.

"Clarifying" the Constitution is a wonderful thing...when it comes to "clarifying it to your advantage or your way of seeing things. You have already stated that "others" wish to alter things to support their view. So you wish to strike first. Alter them to your view. It's now a race. What is unclear about the portion you've quoted? It is clear. Quite clear. You don't want clarity but additions. Clarity would be "This is what was originally intended but the words, as written, don't convey the meaning properly." Additions are "In addition to Congress not creating a state religion I now what it said that they will not use public funds for the following purposes ..." which is not at all part of the original nor its intent. There is no "clarifying" here. This is modifying. To suit your cause. Plain and simple. And if YOU are allowed to do so then ANYONE should be allowed to do so.

 

I can't believe you think you'd sway me by using an anti-religious argument. This isn't about religion. It's about editing a document for a personal agenda. You just think your cause is more just...as do they. See my original comment.

 

mwc

[mwc]

We're not a republic either. We are corporate run. I don't think the majority agreed to that or that this is what the country was designed to be.

I imagine corporations could wrest control from just about any system if we're going to look at it that way. I try to remind people that we're not a democracy because for some reason "people" really push that idea anymore. They really want us to be a democracy thinking it to be the ideal. It's not. It allows for "mob rule" in many ways. Change this country to a democracy and see more of what happened in CA in relation to Prop 8 because that's all it would take for most anything. A simple majority vote would push everyone around based on the last emotion filled commercial plea they watched. What a living nightmare. No thanks.

 

So run by corporations or not I stand by my statement and I encourage others to correct other people when they say we're a democracy.

 

If the pols don't require their support during election times, perhaps it wouldn't really matter one way or the other.

What good is a House of Representatives, a group designed to represent the "people," if the access by the people is restricted? Are individuals only allowed access? What if several people join together into a committee? Would they have access? That sounds like a lobbying group to me and should be banned. Certainly you see the problem? Where do the lines get drawn and who draws them?

 

Lobbyist access to the Senate should be different. The Senate represents the states. Until not long ago the Senators were to be elected by the state legislators (or equivalent). Now most, if not all, are elected by the people. This, in effect, creates two Houses of Representatives. Going back to the old method would restore the check and balance in Congress where it's the "people" vs. the "state." We've removed that. Lobbyists would be lobbying the "state" rather than the "people" which is a different dynamic. I just haven't thought about this enough to consider what those differences should be though. Seems the state congress would be a better place to lobby and if the state approves they'd hand it to their Senator to get the job done on their behalf in DC (this seems the logical flow). This way if the HoR approves and the Senate does not the lobbyists could be blocked but with the checks and balances gone the lobbyists basically have one stop shopping in DC.

 

mwc

[Vomit Comet]

They have effective laws and policies in Canada and most EU nations that effectively prevent the kind of K Street hijinks we see here in America. Really, it's not like it's unprecedented or anything. The United States is actually the exception and not the rule.