Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

What's the US Conservative equivalent of moving to Canada?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    I find it funny that Starlight and crew are all promoting Canada, Australia and New Zealand as better and freer than the US while they are all commonwealth realms of the UK and are at their core monarchies.
    That’s a pretty ignorant statement...

    Comment


    • #47
      Your total lack of knowledge of the American people and its Political System are truly overwhelming, I could not believe anyone could be so ignorant of a subject with so much confidence.

      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      In the present day, Canada's constitution is the most-copied by other countries looking to adopt a democratic constitution that enshrines rights and freedoms.
      Interesting that this comes from what looks like a Canadian newspaper, (No bias here). Just because their constitution is the most copied means nothing, but the fact that a lot of governments like the power it gives them to control their people. My metric for measuring a constitution is how it protects the rights of the people under its jurisdiction, I can judge this be the number of people that are willing to come to the country with the constitution. And I see that there are a lot of people that want to come to America for its dreams of freedom much more then say, Canada or New Zealand. There is not better proof of this is a legal immigrant speaking the Joy of being under our Constitution and not under their old Government System.

      The US constitution is now widely viewed internationally as one of the most-flawed constitutions in current use for 3 reasons:
      There are several problems with your assumptions (3 reasons). Remember that a constitution covers the country that adopts it does not ably to people outside its country, so the views of other countries have no value in evaluating it.

      1. The Presidential system is viewed as untenable compared to parliamentary systems. Recent US government shutdowns, as well as ongoing partisan gridlock on policy issues, only serve to confirm this in the minds of the international public and political scientists.
      Your ignorance of our political system is off the charts
      We live in a Representative Republic, not a Presidential system as you say here. The governing is divided between the House of Representatives (representing the people), The Senate (representing the States), and the Executive Branch (Headed by the president and runs the Federal Government). All have a say in what laws and policies that effect the citizenry. It looks like you are talking about the Presidential veto in this example. And it can be over ridden by a super majority in the Senate. This system makes sure that every one has a say and if the veto needs to happen it make sure that it is done with all due consideration with overwhelming consensus. May be slow, but it stopes a lot of mistakes and snap decisions. Also, the Government shutdowns that you mention are way over rated. The Government shuts down every weekend and 3 to 4 days for some holidays. Actually, very few people were affected by the shutdowns and the Left always blows it way way out of proportion to scare the public in to compliance.

      2. The specific rights and freedoms it does and doesn't guarantee are viewed very negatively in other nations. (From the link above:) "It fails to protect rights, such as freedom from discrimination based on race or sex, that are considered fundamental in our time; it enshrines rights, such as the right to bear arms, that other nations don't value"
      I will remind you that other nations and cultures and morals are not Americas cultures and morals our rights are based on our Culture and History. Comparing Cultural View is plan lunacy.
      The examples that you gave are bogus We do have a constitutional amendment that insures we don’t discriminate on the basis of race or sex, pretty much the wording in the amendment. Also, of note with Canada if you are a Canadian citizen in Quebec and don’t speech French you are discredited against this happen in a lot of French providences.
      As for the right to bear arms, this is America I really don’t care what other cultures have to say about disarming their citizenry. This has no value in as an example. We fought a war with England for our freedom that would have been impossible if we could not own guns. There are other cultural factors but you can’t expect other cultures to exempt the morals of your culture, so in short, the right to own arms does not make our constitution better or worse than any other constitution.

      3. Increasingly conservative / originalist US SCOTUS rulings about the meaning of the US constitution are viewed as hilarious, silly, and untenable on the international stage. (From the link above:) "[US] courts increasingly interpret the American [constitution] so perversely – by claiming that it must only be applied as the founding fathers originally intended – as to render it useless as a tool for tackling modern problems."
      This is a canard. The Article you cited is miss leading. It is the Activist Judges that pervert the Constitution by reading their own views into what it should say, makes me wonder about the accuracy of the rest of the article.
      Constitutional Originalists don’t interpret by anything other than the intent of the original founders. This is not perverting the constitution this is holding to the original foundation. The foundation of our constitution is timeless, and if needed it provides methods to be amended. These methods are not given to one body of government and takes super majorities and a constitutional convention, so changes are deliberate and have wide spread consensus. The it should be a living document is just the view of small minds, are you really falling for the small mind approach.
      Here is my citation on what Originalist Judges use to judge the intent of the founders The Federalist Papers these 85 essays by the founders go into detail about their intent and why each amendment was for.

      Overall, among developed countries in the present day, the US constitution is generally viewed as the worst constitution, and Canada's is generally viewed as the best. (I am not personally a fan of Canada's constitution, and prefer my own country's lack-of-constitution, but we have a parliamentary system like Canada which is definitely good.)
      This is America we are talking about. Why should we rely on what other governments believe is best? Pure parliamentary systems have their problems to, they have been a vessel for dictators to take over, Presidents and Prime Ministers to make themselves dictators for life, as with Vaisala and China. Constitutions when properly implemented put a governor on Government control over the citizenry, as evidenced by your first question where:

      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      If dictator Biden exiles you and your family failing to support his regime, where would you go to find somewhere that you could feel politically at home? And what political policies and political values would you prioritize when thinking about what country to select for your exile? (Let's imagine you don't have family or friends living internationally and are looking for somewhere that best matches your politics)
      This Question is stupid on it’s face, our constitution stops this from happening and if Biden did this by his substantial overreach it would invalidate his Presidency and make him vulnerable for being physically removed from office.
      Your other false assumption is “Clearly there are plenty of options for US liberals to move to countries that reflect their politics.” How many liberals have actually moved to other countries that match their political views? Where are the liberals you are referring to that say they would move if Trump got into office? They are still living in America, to me this says that there really aren’t any countries that really match their political view, if there where why aren’t they there instead of putting up with us evil Trump supporters in America?

      Last edited by RumTumTugger; 01-26-2021, 09:57 PM. Reason: fixed syntax error per request of poster
      "Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"
      -- Arthur C. Clark

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
        If you think that the US constitution is the best, and is obviously and indisputably the best...

        ...why wouldn't other countries copy it?

        And if they did... then the US would no longer have the best constitution, just equal-best.

        And if many countries copied it, and even one of them improved theirs in some way, via a single amendment that was beneficial... then the US would no longer have the best constitution would it?


        It seems to me that constitution-worshiping US conservatives have a mutually incompatible set of beliefs: You believe that the US and its constitution are #1 and obviously #1, and believe that the rest of the world is totally envious of that greatness, yet, apparently since you believe none of the rest of the world even comes close in greatness, you must believe that none of them have even risen to the level of copying the US's marvellous constitution that you think they think is the greatest and best. After all, if they copied it, they would be equally as good, but you don't believe they are. But if they really are so in awe and so envious, why wouldn't they take the really basic step of adopting a copy of the US constitution? It's not like that would be hard for one of the world's ~196 countries to do so. Maybe, just maybe, nobody's in awe of the US's constitution at all, and the reason they aren't interested in copying it is because they think you've got a terrible constitution?
        Come on Man......
        Starlight - This is not worship. I have talked to a lot of New Legal Immigrants (They applied to get in and went through the proper channels) almost to a person they are Happy about what the US Constitution gives them, the rights they have now.

        That said I am proud of the US Constitution I don't care whether other countries think about it and don't care if they copy it it does not lesson what it does for me. I do agree that It would not work for many nations. It takes a lot work to protect its freedom. A lot of countries or people are not willing to put up with the compromises it takes, It requires unpopular things like allowing speech that you might disagree with or in your eye is hate speech, but if you don't allow speech that you disagree with what is to stop me from stopping your from saying things I disagree with, and who designates what speech is hate speech you, me, terrorists in the mid east, who is qualified? This is just one example.

        The US Constitution was born from revolution, and the cry of freedom not just for some but Freedom for all, it's messy. You starlight can't handle freedom for all, you would rather have an elite group of individuals tell you how much freedom people can have as long as you are in that elite group because you know better then anyone else and you are smarter because you have a PHD. If you are not in that elite group you could not handle it.

        Being born from revolution means it is specific to the US. It is based on your specific history, the experiences we shared. amendments have been added and removed to reflect our unique history. Civil War freed the slaves, Temperance banned alcohol Speech Easies brought it back. Each amendment added to the constitution was a mark in our unique history. So what does it matter to us whether other country copies it and improves it.
        "Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"
        -- Arthur C. Clark

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Our constitution is designed around a country of equal states. No other country in the world is like it. Copying our constitution would not work for them.
          What a wacky claim. There are plenty of countries in the world that have states. Why are American states "equal" but other countries' states not???
          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by The Pendragon View Post
            I could not believe anyone could be so ignorant of a subject with so much confidence.
            Don't you read your own posts? They fit that bill.

            I can judge this be the number of people that are willing to come to the country with the constitution. And I see that there are a lot of people that want to come to America for its dreams of freedom
            A lot of US conservatives seem really really ignorant that all Western nations have huge amounts of immigrants wanting to come to them. Every Western nation has to put limits on immigration and turn away people wanting to come, because plenty of people in poorer countries want to move to more affluent ones.

            much more then say, Canada or New Zealand.
            Depending on what stats you want to look at, that is false.

            Less than 13% of the US population are immigrants. Over 27% of New Zealand's population is. So we have about twice the rate of immigration that you do.

            International polling shows that if there was universal freedom of movement, New Zealand's population would increase 400%, while the US's population would only increase 30%.

            Originally posted by The Pendragon View Post
            The US Constitution was born from revolution, and the cry of freedom not just for some but Freedom for all
            The US had slavery at the time of its founding you moron. Don't pretend the cries were of freedom for all, when many of the founders owned slaves and they only gave voting rights to rich white males.

            You starlight can't handle freedom for all
            New Zealand was the first country by many years to give women the right to vote. Slavery was never legal in New Zealand. And New Zealand gets ranked today by libertarian think tanks as the freest country in the world. Don't try and pretend to tell me I can't handle freedom, I have it vastly more than you do.

            you are smarter because you have a PHD
            Bitter much?

            So what does it matter to us whether other country copies [the constitution] and improves it.
            If they copy it and improve it, you've no longer got the #1 best constitution. So perhaps stop with the willful self-delusion about it being the best constitution?
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by The Pendragon View Post
              I could not believe anyone could be so ignorant of a subject with so much confidence.
              That's Starlight (a.k.a. Dimbulb) in a nutshell. He regularly pontificates on a wide variety of topics about which he clearly knows nothing while laughably claiming superior knowledge and understanding.
              Last edited by Mountain Man; 01-27-2021, 05:57 AM.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Dimbulb View Post
                ...prefer my own country's lack-of-constitution...
                We do not have a grand, overarching constitutional document like the Constitution of the USA. But we do have a constitution - it is just made up of different tools of power.

                As in many countries with a heritage of British-style government, our constitution is spread across a range of formal documents, decisions and conventions.

                https://www.newzealandnow.govt.nz/li...r-constitution

                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  What a wacky claim. There are plenty of countries in the world that have states. Why are American states "equal" but other countries' states not???
                  And the above comes from someone who boasts about how he knows ten times as much about America than Americans do.

                  That you think it is a "wacky claim" reveals to everyone that you have absolutely no clue about the Constitution and how it was established and hence anything you opine on it is not worth a bucket of warm spit.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                    That's Starlight (a.k.a. Dimbulb) in a nutshell. He regularly pontificates on a wide variety of topics about which he clearly knows nothing while laughably claiming superior knowledge and understanding.
                    But you have to admit that he's done his research having watched several The Young Turk videos and dozens of Hollyweird movies so he is a leading authority on the U.S. now. We should sit back in wonder and awe as he deigns to enlighten us with his brilliance.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      And the above comes from someone who boasts about how he knows ten times as much about America than Americans do.

                      That you think it is a "wacky claim" reveals to everyone that you have absolutely no clue about the Constitution and how it was established and hence anything you opine on it is not worth a bucket of warm spit.
                      I think the best way to describe the United States to non-Americans is that it's like the European Union, only without all the things that make the European Union suck.

                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Watermelon View Post

                        That’s a pretty ignorant statement...
                        It's the truth.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by The Pendragon View Post
                          I will remind you that other nations and cultures and morals are not Americas cultures and morals our rights are based on our Culture and History. Comparing Cultural View is plan lunacy.
                          The examples that you gave are bogus We do have a constitutional amendment that insures we don’t discriminate on the basis of race or sex, pretty much the wording in the amendment. Also, of note with Canada if you are a Canadian citizen in Quebec and don’t speech French you are discredited against this happen in a lot of French providences.
                          What Constitutional Amendment says we can't discriminate on the basis of race or sex, "pretty much the wording in the amendment"? The only amendments that say "race" or "sex" are the ones that forbid discrimination in regards to voting based on those characteristics... but they offer no other protections based on race or sex. Rules preventing further discrimination were done via law, not constitutional amendment.

                          This is a canard. The Article you cited is miss leading. It is the Activist Judges that pervert the Constitution by reading their own views into what it should say, makes me wonder about the accuracy of the rest of the article.
                          Constitutional Originalists don’t interpret by anything other than the intent of the original founders. This is not perverting the constitution this is holding to the original foundation. The foundation of our constitution is timeless, and if needed it provides methods to be amended. These methods are not given to one body of government and takes super majorities and a constitutional convention, so changes are deliberate and have wide spread consensus. The it should be a living document is just the view of small minds, are you really falling for the small mind approach.
                          Here is my citation on what Originalist Judges use to judge the intent of the founders The Federalist Papers these 85 essays by the founders go into detail about their intent and why each amendment was for.
                          The Federalist Papers don't say a thing about the amendments because all of the amendments were passed after The Federalist Papers.

                          Now, while I do prefer textualism as the interpretative model--it's certainly superior to the nonsense of living constitutionalism, though I question whether "living constitutionalism" really exists nowadays because it seems to be used as a pejorative--it still has the problem of having to solve problems within the confines set by guys more than 200 years ago who lived in a totally different time, considerably different situations, and even then no one seemed fully happy with the Constitution.

                          Of course, someone can always say "just make an amendment if there's a problem!" Sounds great... except for the fact that the amendment making process is so astoundingly difficult. The counterargument to that is that it's supposed to be hard to make sure amendments have widespread support, but why should that be the case, exactly? Regular laws in the US already have more hoops to jump through than most democratic countries, but are nothing compared to a constitutional amendment. What differentiates the two? Essentially, it's the fact that an amendment requires overriding the ideas of a specific group of people from 200+ years ago. It doesn't make much sense to me that, simply because of that aspect, it's so much more monumentally difficult to effect change.

                          There's another issue with the fact it's so hard to change the Constitution, and that's that it makes the Supreme Court overly powerful. If the Supreme Court says that the Constitution means something, then... well, that's legally what it means. Doesn't matter if their interpretation is utter nonsense like Roe v. Wade (the staunch pro-choicer John Hart Ely, one of the most-cited constitutional scholars in US history, famously declared it was "it is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law, and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be"). What they say becomes the supreme law of the land. And because the Constitution is so insanely hard to amend, that means that you're stuck with it no matter how absurd it is. Sure, you can get decisions overturned, but that's an extremely difficult thing to accomplish also (but still not quite as hard, so trying to get the Supreme Court to make a particular decision is an effective way of getting a new amendment).

                          With a regular law, if a court's interpretation of it is off, you can pass a new law to fix it. It's not necessarily easy given, as noted, the hoops one must jump through to get a law passed in the US, but it's within the realm of possibility. For example, when in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. the Supreme Court ruled that under the law as it was, the 180-day statute of limitations for discriminatory pay begins at the the time of the wage decision, not the most recent time they were paid. So a few years later a law got passed to specify that there was a 180-day statute of limitations for each paycheck. But changing the Constitution in response to a Supreme Court decision is a near-impossibility. You're stuck with whatever 5 of 9 justices say is the law.

                          This is America we are talking about. Why should we rely on what other governments believe is best? Pure parliamentary systems have their problems to, they have been a vessel for dictators to take over, Presidents and Prime Ministers to make themselves dictators for life, as with Vaisala and China.
                          And non-parliamentary systems have been vessels for dictators to take over as well. Is there evidence indicating that one is easier for a dictator to take over than the other?

                          I'm confused by your reference to "Vaisala and China", though. Vaisala is a company, not a country. There are people with the last name of Vaisala but I don't think any are politicians. As for China, when was a parliament ever used as a vessel for a dictator to take over? The Communist Party took control because of a civil war.
                          Last edited by Terraceth; 01-27-2021, 09:13 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            Don't you read your own posts? They fit that bill.
                            Well you only disputed my assertion about how I judge the success of a constitution. So, I guess you don’t know as much as you think. And as for the rest I answer below.


                            A lot of US conservatives seem really really ignorant that all Western nations have huge amounts of immigrants wanting to come to them. Every Western nation has to put limits on immigration and turn away people wanting to come, because plenty of people in poorer countries want to move to more affluent ones.

                            Depending on what stats you want to look at, that is false.

                            Less than 13% of the US population are immigrants. Over 27% of New Zealand's population is. So we have about twice the rate of immigration that you do.

                            International polling shows that if there was universal freedom of movement, New Zealand's population would increase 400%, while the US's population would only increase 30%.



                            I didn’t see you quote the numbers on Canada. Obviously Stardark just wants to tell us how much better New Zealand is then any other Country. Clear case of New Zealand Worshiper

                            The 13% and 27% are misleading numbers. They favor countries with lower population. I’ve seen liberal use this trick before. Here’s how it works if the US’s immigrant population is just a little over twice what the population of New Zealand then we can say that the US has more Immigrants then New Zealand.

                            Here is the accrual math:
                            US Population: 328 Mil
                            New Zealand Population: 5 Mil

                            13% of 328 Mil is 3 Mil US immigrants (Over Half the total population of New Zealand)
                            27% of 5 Mil is 42,000 New Zealand immigrants.
                            What the math says is that more people want to be in the US then in New Zealand, just what I said in my post. And I used your Numbers. So again “The smartest man on this forum?“ did not look at the context of the statement and got it wrong.

                            Here is your the accrual math on on your alternate poll:

                            5 mil x 400% = 15 mil people would move to New Zealand
                            328 mil x 30% = 98 mil people would move to the US
                            What your International polling proves is that 83 mil more people prefer the US over New Zealand. Thank You “Smartest Man? on this forum” for proving my point and destroying your own, way to go Stardark. You really make it too easy.

                            The US had slavery at the time of its founding you moron. Don't pretend the cries were of freedom for all, when many of the founders owned slaves and they only gave voting rights to rich white males.


                            I don’t mind you calling me a moron. It just means that you don’t have an answer to the rest of what I posted. Calling me a moron without addressing my points is just admitting defeat. If you do it again, I will call you out on it and declare victory. Name calling instead of addressing the opposing arguments is the sign of a simple mind. Much like you simplification of slavery in the US at the time of the founding is over simplifying a complex set of circumstances makes your statement meaningless.

                            It’s the old slavery trope. Under your logic(?) all Australians are Criminals because it started as a penal colony, therefore their Governmental system is flawed because it was created by criminals. As with a lot things it is not as simple as you are trying to make it.

                            First off, I said “The US Constitution was born from revolution, and the cry of freedom not just for some but Freedom for all” This is true. Here is my citation Declaration of Independence it is our decoration as to why we fought against England. Let me just lift the sentence that describes why we were fighting (I know it’s hard for starlight read past the first paragraph in a citation).

                            “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”.

                            Now the fact that some liberal States owned slaves (and had black slave owners and breeders) and some (not all) founders owned slaves. Some fought hard against slavery. This is a terrible blot on our history and most (almost all) Americans would agree with that this was wrong. The owning of slave was not as wide spread as the liberal. There where Free black in the north.

                            Short history lesson: One of the most heated battles in the first Continental Congress was over slavery (I am assuming that you know this is where we got the Constitution), the debate was one of the most heated debates, with the slave state threatening to crash the whole government process before it got started, so a compromise was. Jefferson was adamant opponent against slavery and put wording into the Declaration of Independence that allowed Lincoln to free the slaves, I’d give a citation but this something I learn in school before Stardark was born.

                            So, as I said in the beginning, it’s not as simple as Stardark tries to make it.

                            New Zealand was the first country by many years to give women the right to vote. Slavery was never legal in New Zealand. And New Zealand gets ranked today by libertarian think tanks as the freest country in the world. Don't try and pretend to tell me I can't handle freedom, I have it vastly more than you do.


                            I do not know much about New Zealand history, so I looked up some things on Stardark’s favorite Citation site Wikipedia:

                            ‘In 1841, New Zealand became a colony within the British Empire, and in 1907 it became a dominion; it gained full statutory independence in 1947, and the British monarch remained the head of state.”

                            So if I read this right New Zealand was part of the British empire as a colony from 1841 to 1907. Some of that time Brittan for slavery and supported the American slave trade. It can be said that under British rule New Zealand was a slave state. If you discount the years New Zealand was under British Rule, then we come to 1947 a time where the world view was very much against slavery.

                            In my wonderings I also found this article New Zealand and the Pacific slave trade | RNZ. It disputes your claim that New Zealand never had Slavery.

                            So I know next to nothing about New Zealand History I still managed to show that your claim about your own history is lacking.

                            As for libertarian think tanks which ones are you Citing because there is a wide range of dispute as to what Freedom means between libertarian think tanks, I will not waste my time looking for one that disagrees with you but the difference in definition of freedom is large. If you are using the Cato institute cited before it defines respecting personal liberty a negative liberty because all cultures have a different view as what respecting liberty is. That again leans toward a specific bent.
                            Oh yah, I want to be through, at Its conception the Constitution gave the Voting rules over to the States while some only allowed Men with land or money the right to vote, other states gave the vote to women and even black men.
                            And Yes, There where Free blacks in the US from its conception in fact there where black men in the Continental Army. I believe that in the Famous painting of Washington crossing the Delaware there is a black solder in the boat with Washington. There was a black spy working against the British working a servant to a British officer. US history is loaded with free black men forging and building the US.

                            Bitter much?


                            I am not bitter at all that you have a PHD, I admire you for your effort in getting it, but in the end, it is just a piece of paper. I have known and respected many rocket scientists with PHDs, I’m taking real rocket scientist working for NASA. I admire them not because they have PHDs but because they don’t hide behind it or put it up in people face to prove how smart they are. The ones that I admire never have to say that they are the smartest man it in the room and they are always willing to give you your due if you prove your point, none of them say they know it all, they know their weaknesses as well as their strengths and always open to a different or even opposing view point, in fact many of the ones I know enjoy hearing them.
                            On the flip side there is my brother, at a party in Berkley he sat down and talked to a professor that taught advanced Math including Chaos Math used in Chaos Theory (If you don’t know Chaos Theory is a complex concept bordering on the philosophical, it is way above most people paygrade even PHDs). My brother discussed Chaos Theory and Chaos Math with him for a good length of time, In the end the professor asked the host what year he was in in at Berkley University and if he was interested in his class. Here is the kicker the highest schooling my Brother finished was High School, never been to collage let along a major University, He reads constantly, if a subject interests him he literally devours books on that subject and has a near perfect retention level. But this allow did not allow my brother to converse with a Professor on the level of one of his students, My brother has the wisdom to use the knowledge he gain from his reading on a practical level.
                            I am sorry I have yet to see that in you Stardark.

                            If they copy it and improve it, you've no longer got the #1 best constitution. So perhaps stop with the willful self-delusion about it being the best constitution?


                            This just proves my last point, nothing worst then a PHD with a know-it-all attitude, they don’t listen to what the other person is saying.
                            I never said that the US constitution was the best in the world, it is you that keeps trying to prove that New Zealand is the greatest country in the world by using cheap tricks with numbers, how’d that work for you when your numbers actually proved the opposite. But I digress. I said that the US constitution works well for the US but may not work for other countries.
                            Also please quote where I said that it was the best? Please quote where anyone said it?

                            I'll explain the liberal trick that Stardark is pulling in my need post.


                            "Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"
                            -- Arthur C. Clark

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Clarification

                              Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                              What Constitutional Amendment says we can't discriminate on the basis of race or sex, "pretty much the wording in the amendment"? The only amendments that say "race" or "sex" are the ones that forbid discrimination in regards to voting based on those characteristics... but they offer no other protections based on race or sex. Rules preventing further discrimination were done via law, not constitutional amendment.
                              Thank you for your incite and correction. Your input here is greatly appreciated.

                              The Federalist Papers don't say a thing about the amendments because all of the amendments were passed after The Federalist Papers.
                              I was trying to speak to the comment from watermelon that the constitution was written in an old language with made it hard to understand. I was trying to address the constitution as originally written by the first Continental Congress. I guess I was not clear.

                              Now, while I do prefer textualism as the interpretative model--it's certainly superior to the nonsense of living constitutionalism, though I question whether "living constitutionalism" really exists nowadays because it seems to be used as a pejorative--it still has the problem of having to solve problems within the confines set by guys more than 200 years ago who lived in a totally different time, considerably different situations, and even then no one seemed fully happy with the Constitution.

                              Of course, someone can always say "just make an amendment if there's a problem!" Sounds great... except for the fact that the amendment making process is so astoundingly difficult. The counterargument to that is that it's supposed to be hard to make sure amendments have widespread support, but why should that be the case, exactly? Regular laws in the US already have more hoops to jump through than most democratic countries, but are nothing compared to a constitutional amendment. What differentiates the two? Essentially, it's the fact that an amendment requires overriding the ideas of a specific group of people from 200+ years ago. It doesn't make much sense to me that, simply because of that aspect, it's so much more monumentally difficult to effect change.

                              There's another issue with the fact it's so hard to change the Constitution, and that's that it makes the Supreme Court overly powerful. If the Supreme Court says that the Constitution means something, then... well, that's legally what it means. Doesn't matter if their interpretation is utter nonsense like Roe v. Wade (the staunch pro-choicer John Hart Ely, one of the most-cited constitutional scholars in US history, famously declared it was "it is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law, and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be"). What they say becomes the supreme law of the land. And because the Constitution is so insanely hard to amend, that means that you're stuck with it no matter how absurd it is. Sure, you can get decisions overturned, but that's an extremely difficult thing to accomplish also (but still not quite as hard, so trying to get the Supreme Court to make a particular decision is an effective way of getting a new amendment).

                              With a regular law, if a court's interpretation of it is off, you can pass a new law to fix it. It's not necessarily easy given, as noted, the hoops one must jump through to get a law passed in the US, but it's within the realm of possibility. For example, when in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. the Supreme Court ruled that under the law as it was, the 180-day statute of limitations for discriminatory pay begins at the the time of the wage decision, not the most recent time they were paid. So a few years later a law got passed to specify that there was a 180-day statute of limitations for each paycheck. But changing the Constitution in response to a Supreme Court decision is a near-impossibility. You're stuck with whatever 5 of 9 justices say is the law.
                              Your using Textualist is a better description then Origanalist, thank you

                              I think your have a point about on amendments is a interesting one. I believe that the framers of the constitution wanted the amendment process to be hard because of its ability to change the structure of government. Amendments where meant to handle the foundational things the big picture that determine what laws are allowed to be made, establish rights of the citizenry, and the very structure of government. These should never be done too easily.

                              And non-parliamentary systems have been vessels for dictators to take over as well. Is there evidence indicating that one is easier for a dictator to take over than the other?

                              I'm confused by your reference to "Vaisala and China", though. Vaisala is a company, not a country. There are people with the last name of Vaisala but I don't think any are politicians. As for China, when was a parliament ever used as a vessel for a dictator to take over? The Communist Party took control because of a civil war.
                              Meant Venezuela. thank for the catch, I don't always get along with my spellchecker.

                              Last edited by RumTumTugger; 01-27-2021, 11:34 PM. Reason: edited out spell checker auto correct error at request of poster
                              "Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"
                              -- Arthur C. Clark

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                You're misunderstanding both what your link is saying and what I'm saying.

                                Your link distinguishes between a capital-C Constitution (meaning a specific formal document stating how a country is run that exists outside of and above the normal system of government, and is set by referendum, constitutional convention or some similar method and has special methods for amendments) and a small-c constitution (meaning the way something is run).

                                Obviously New Zealand has a variety of practices, traditions and documents that control how it is run, and together those as a constitution in the small-c sense. But there's no formal written Constitution in the large-C sense, no constitutional conventions, no referendums to adopt it, no special methods for amendments etc. The origins of the New Zealand government were not any great Constitutional Convention of the type you would be familiar with, but rather, centuries ago the UK parliament (which itself lacks a formal written Constitution of the type you'd be familiar with) passed a law instituting democracy in New Zealand, which resulted in an elected government who went on to pass many laws including laws about how the government would work. But, precisely because they are laws like any other, they can be changed by the government itself just as the government would change laws. And not even all those laws combined amount the full process of how things actually work, hence the reference to documents, traditions and practices.

                                Think of it as an evolutionary form of government rather than a foundational one - in the US you have your constitution which is foundational and any federal laws etc are built upon that foundation. New Zealand by contrast has been a changing and evolving government and there isn't that foundational layer that everything else builds on, and instead each thing builds on whatever came before it. The current state off affairs is a product of the previous state of affairs, rather than the current state being explainable with reference to a foundational constitution and each layer building upon that. (It's a bit similar legally to the concepts of foundationalism and coherentism in philosophy)
                                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                307 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X