Jim Naseum

The Constitution, as amended, is the law. You are criticizing something which was long ago superseded. Anyway, if you are unable to see the inconsistency in your various positions concerning restrictions on government and conspiracy-theories, then, there is little left to argue. I am not in your shoes, but when I spot myself being inconsistent or confused, I tend to admit it. It keeps me open-minded and capable of learning. Again with the conspiracy theories? Where do you get this stuff? I haven't mentioned any conspiracy here. But I did demonstrate easily that old is not virtuous when it comes to blueprints for a nation. Whenever you are flummoxed you resort to an escape hatch of yelling "conspiracy theory." Find the conspiracy theory in this thread and quote it. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

I think it is far simpler than is being made out. Our Founders ratified a Constitution permitting slavery, and no suffrage for women. That alone, with no more analysis, defines an old set of ideas by men who could think no better. A modern Constitution, from modern thinkers, would have no such hurdles to over come.

Are you confused then between "the government" "the Constitution" and "the oligarchy?"

By comparison, the modern Constitution of S.A> Chapter 2 of the Constitution of South Africa Chapter 2 is a bill of rights which enumerates the civil, political, economic, social and cultural human rights of the people of South Africa. Most of these rights apply to anyone in the country, with the exception of the right to vote, the right to work and the right to enter the country, which apply only to citizens. They also apply to juristic persons to the extent that they are applicable, taking into account the nature of the right. The rights enumerated are: Section 9: everyone is equal before the law and has right to equal protection and the benefit of the law. Prohibited grounds of discrimination include race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status,ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth. Section 10: the right to human dignity. Section 11: the right to life, which has been held to prohibit capital punishment,[8] but does not prohibit abortion.[9] Section 12: the right to freedom and security of the person, including protection against arbitrary detention and detention without trial, the right to be protected against violence, freedom fromtorture, freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment, the right to bodily integrity, and reproductive rights. Section 13: freedom from slavery, servitude or forced labour. Section 14: the right to privacy, including protection against search and seizure, and the privacy of correspondence. Section 15: freedom of thought and freedom of religion. Section 16: freedom of speech and expression, including freedom of the press and academic freedom. Explicitly excluded are propaganda for war, incitement to violence and hate speech. Section 17: freedom of assembly and the right to protest. Section 18: freedom of association. Section 19: the right to vote and universal adult suffrage; the right to stand for public office; the right to free, fair and regular elections; and the right to form, join and campaign for a political party. Section 20: no citizen may be deprived of citizenship. Section 21: freedom of movement, including the right to leave South Africa, the right of citizens to a passport and the right to enter South Africa. Section 22: the right to choose a trade, occupation or profession, although these may be regulated by law. Section 23: labour rights, including the right to unionise and the right to strike. Section 24: the right to a healthy environment and the right to have the environment protected. Section 25: the right to property, limited in that property may only be expropriated under a law of general application (not arbitrarily), for a public purpose and with the payment of compensation. Section 26: the right to housing, including the right to due process with regard to court-ordered eviction and demolition. Section 27: the rights to food, water, health care and social assistance, which the state must progressively realise within the limits of its resources. Section 28: children's rights, including the right to a name and nationality, the right to family or parental care, the right to a basic standard of living, the right to be protected from maltreatment andabuse, the protection from inappropriate child labour, the right not to be detained except as a last resort, the paramountcy of the best interests of the child and the right to an independent lawyer in court cases involving the child, and the prohibition of the military use of children. Section 29: the right to education, including a universal right to basic education. Section 30: the right to use the language of one's choice and to participate in the cultural life of one's choice. Section 31: the right of cultural, religious or linguistic communities to enjoy their culture, practise their religion and use their language. Section 32: the right of access to information, including all information held by the government. Section 33: the right to justice in administrative action by the government. Section 34: the right of access to the courts. Section 35: the rights of arrested, detained and accused people, including the right to silence, protection against self-incrimination, the right to counsel and legal aid, the right to a fair trial, thepresumption of innocence and the prohibition of double jeopardy and ex post facto crimes. Section 36 allows the rights listed to be limited only by laws of general application, and only to the extent that the restriction is reasonable and justifiable in "an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom."[10] Section 37 allows certain rights to be limited during a state of emergency but places strict procedural limits on the declaration of states of emergency and provides for the rights of people detained as a result.

The general welfare clause covers all. By some interpretation maybe, but certainly not expressed directly as is recommended in MODERN political science.

What doesn't connect is your analysis. O'ism embraces the status quo. The Founders were the Oligarchy of the time. For example, look at how poor the representation is? That dreadful representation is a tool of the establishment, the elites who have deplored democracy, deplored factions, deplored special interests (populism) forever.

Baloney! Study the common law of trespass and nuisance. It was known well before the Enlightenment thinkers were even born. It is quite a stretch to claim nobody ever considered what might happen when, "Your chocolate is in my peanut butter!" Ok, so where in our constitution is the right to a clean environment?

I already said I couldn't judge the outcome. I was challenged to find a better blueprint. I found one I like better. And, I said exactly why I like it better.

\ Yes, it is. No problem. I spoke too generally,.

I repeat this, because it is a powerful reminder of what modernist might mean in political sciences: International human rights experts actually speak of three "generations" of rights. First generation rights are political and civil, and are usually negative rights. Second generation rights involve the government's socio-economic obligations, and are frequently positive rights. Finally, third generation rights are exemplified by the right to a clean and healthy environment, and are commonly called "green" rights. Such a view was unknown by Enlightenment thinkers of the 18th century.

Well duh.... It wasn't however, a "duh" for Fuzzydog: "the founders believed that our basic rights are god given,"

Cool Mr Who! Always enjoying your posts!

But the Constitution didn't even hold that "all men are created equal." And for dang sure the Founders (half of them slaveholders) didn't believe that either. So, just at the gitgo, you have a non-starter. I won't even get to the point that they never intended a theocracy.

This idea of "securing a more perfect union" is where blue prints are crucial, and must stand up to the construct that evolves from the plan. If you make a beautiful blue print, but the building collapses in short order, you were NOT a good architect. My argument is simple: Modern buildings are created from modern design principles. We no longer build pyramids, right? We build skyscrapers thousands of feet high, and such a design could not be imagined by the engineers of 1790. Political science, is none the less a science. That's how the SA Constitution of 1996 seems elegantly better than ours. Nope, I have no idea how their society will evolve. But, I can see that ours has evolved as very crippled in many ways. My objective is always to advocate fixing it.

The Declaration of Independence was written in 1776. 13 years later, the Constitution was written and begins with a markedly different premise: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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." We have no Creator in this process. I think the preamble is remarkably clear.

Well, as the most quoted scholar on the Constitution, I accept that he has some background on the subject. You asked for a "better blueprint (please)" and I doubt if you would accept my credentials, would you? But now, you seem to also not accept the top scholar either. So, one can't even imagine who you think is qualified to speak to the issue? Be that as it may, and as unrealistic as it is, I think Sunstein made some very interesting comments as follows:"Cass Sunstein said that the South African Constitution is "the most admirable constitution in the history of the world." Quote South Africa adopted its constitution in 1996. That year, the Constitutional Court issued the Second Certification Judgment, ruling that the Constitution complied with the thirty-four Constitutional Principles agreed upon in political negotiations that took place from 1991 to 1993. The new Constitution embodied the nation's transformation from a racist, brutal, Apartheid-based regime to a democratic, multi-cultural government. Both the Constitution's length and detail distinguish it from the United States Constitution. The South African Constitution establishes a parliamentary structure for the national government and allocates powers to the provincial governments. It also creates a Constitutional Court with eleven Justices who are appointed to serve twelve-year non-renewable terms. The first group of Justices was impressive as it included an international war crimes prosecutor, several former law professors, and the attorney who founded the nation's leading civil rights litigation firm and represented President Nelson Mandela during his imprisonment. The South African Constitution's Bill of Rights seeks to preserve and enhance human dignity, and substantive equality, by encompassing all three generations of rights previously discussed. Whereas the United States Supreme Court implies the existence of certain fundamental personal rights in the liberty provision of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause (a legacy of Lochner v. New York), the South African Bill of Rights specifically enumerates these rights. Section 12 of the Bill of Rights addresses the "freedom and security of the person." This section specifically bans torture, cruel and inhumane treatment, general violence, detention without trial, and deprivation of freedom without just cause. It further provides that everyone has bodily and psychological integrity, including the right to make reproductive decisions. Section 14 encompasses the right to spatial privacy: privacy in one's home, of one's possessions, etc. Section 21 guarantees freedom of movement and residence. There is a lengthy equality provision in Section 9, Section 10 protects human dignity, and Section 11 says that everyone has a right to life. The South African Bill of Rights also employs the flexible proportionality analysis used in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in Germany's Basic Law, rather than the tiers of scrutiny applied in United States constitutional jurisprudence. The first issue addressed in any South African rights case is whether there has been an infringement of one's constitutional rights. Interestingly, state action need not always be present. The next issue addressed is whether the Bill of Rights "Limitations" Clause justifies the infringement. Any limitation must be pursuant to a law of "general application." The Limitations Clause requires the Court to balance several factors, including the nature of the right, the purpose of the limitation, the nature and extent of the limitation, the relation between the limitation and its purpose, and the possibility of employing less restrictive alternatives. The Court's overall responsibility is to determine whether the infringement on the right is proportional to the resulting societal benefit. This method of rights analysis is more common internationally than the American use of different degrees of scrutiny. END The whole piece is located here:http://academic.udayton.edu/Race/06hrights/GeoRegions/Africa/Safrica03.htm When I speak of modernism and of political science moving FORWARD, I mean such ideas as this: Quote One of the most common assumptions about the United States Constitution is that it protects negative rights. Yet the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, as well as many foreign constitutions, require governments to affirmatively provide socio-economic necessities. The theory is that liberty at least presumes subsistence. International human rights experts actually speak of three "generations" of rights. First generation rights are political and civil, and are usually negative rights. Second generation rights involve the government's socio-economic obligations, and are frequently positive rights. Finally, third generation rights are exemplified by the right to a clean and healthy environment, and are commonly called "green" rights. End Quote You can not get to any such philosophy under the idea of "originalism."

That's a great background! I see the handle "DrWho" and I now assume you have a Ph.D. You can solve all the higher math equations then. I stopped at calculus and could not hack the higher level of math for quantum mechanics, as an example (a wuss). So, appreciating that you can operate and solve in that higher math world will make it all the more interesting to see your claims to Hawking's defective math, if that comes up again. I misunderestimated your experience! My apology.

Cass Sunstein, the most quoted constitutional scholar in the US, is in a position to formulate a reasonable critique, and comparison to other constitutions. Would you agree on that?

Of that list, the only one I am unfamiliar with is "Black Industrial." Sounds interesting though. As to the others, I never noticed that tubes did anything that was addictive, or must have compared to SS amps. OTOH, playing a vocal record through a tube set sounded lush in the way that vocals can sound sometimes. But, the allure has many facets, so everyone can find joy.

I kinda sorta maybe understand tube amplifiers in a record playing system, as records were made largely on tube gear and the distortion sigs would be complimentary. But modern digital music? That's where I can't hear the benefits of tubes. JOMO.

He he...imagine installing a vacuum tube computer in the house!

The effect is similar to what the makers of dipole radiators were known for. This effect, and this style of listening, was well known in the 1970s.

Bretton Woods didn't work. QE didn't work. ZIRP didn't work. In fact, nothing can make a debt-based system grow eternally. However, desperation knows no limits, and the central bankers can not be sitting by, or standing down when the economy of the globe implodes. If they extend the life of it by a day, they will try.

Yes, I have. That's the system Madison wanted and got, while giving some impression (a ruse) of "popular government." It was Madison who railed against "factions," which today we call interest groups. his reasoning was simple: factions, whether minority or majority, should never, EVER, be able to trump elite rule. And, that's exactly why we have no Greens in the Congress, to use a common example. While the USA touts democracy for others, it inhibits it for it's own citizens, as per the Madison design of "eyewash" for the public, and power to the elites. For accuracy here, I have never used the phrase "living, breathing Constitution" which is a popular strawman of the originalists. My position might better be called "clean slate." The US Constitution is the second oldest constitution behind only San Marino circa 1600.

Finding good systems bears no particular relationship to "more government." A political system can be small or large.P.S. Why do you suppose you need to insert attempts at personal insults into your posts? Please notice that I don't. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk