The Constituion does give us a voice.

[wjh2657]

I hear much “wailing and gnashing of teeth” as to the sorry state of politics in this country. Both sides claim that a magical scriptural work known as “The Constitution” says that their way is the right way. First: The Constitution of the United States is not “Scripture”. It is a living breathing document that is supposed to be our guide for the conduct of government. To be used it must be read, not revered, and it must be understood. The best way to do this is to read the Constitution and then the works of the men who wrote it and signed it.The Federalist and the Anti-Federalist are a minimum. To get a really good grasp on the principles, you need to read George Washington’s farewell Address and some of John Jay and John Marshalls Supreme Court decisions as well. You can GOOGLE all of the above or just go to www.walthofman.com and read or download them free in .pdf format. Then read the Constitution again with your new insight.

Your first observation will probably be that this Constitution is not the one you have been hearing about from the political parties. In fact, the forefathers dreaded the possible growth of “Super Parties” that would seize control of the government. Political parties, of themselves, are not a bad thing. In fact, they are a healthy outgrowth of the democratic (note: small ”d”) process, allowing blocks of voters to consolidate their power. It was never intended that the political parties would be the government, nor that they would dictate to the people.

The Electoral College, as set forth in the Constitution, can and will still be effective. I am a strong Constitutionalist and I would be against “dumping” the Electoral College, as it is an integral part of the Constitution. The Constitution allows the states to develop their own system of selecting Electors.I for one, favor the proportional approach where the Electors from a state are numbered by the proportion of voters voting for an Individual candidate. (i.e. 16 Electors from a popular vote of 55% Republican and 45% Democrat would mean 9 Republican Electors and 7 Democrat Electors in the National Electoral College vote.) Tennessee currently has an “all or nothing” selection, which I feel negates some of citizens’ votes. But this is a state change to work on and not a problem with the Constitution of the U.S.

Term limits do not need to be in the Constitution. This can be done by intelligent voting at the ballot booth. Just don’t send anybody back for more than two terms in any one office. We would only have to do this once or twice and the parties would get the word. We don’t need “career” politicians, we need representatives.

Party lines have to be scrapped by the average citizen. I am no more a Republican or Democrat than the man on the moon. When the candidates from these parties get elected they never follow up with their party platforms and promises. I am an American citizen and worry about my family, my local community and my country at large. The parties should have to come up with some concrete programs for our good and then follow up on them, or I vote another way next time. The media keeps feeding this malarkey that we are only Patriots if we follow the party. I am a patriot because I fought for my country and I try to select candidates that will do some good for my country and neither party is doing that.

Read the Constitution as it was seen through the eyes of those that made it and then vote for what is good for America and not for what is good for the special interest groups that own and dictate to the political parties. You’ll find in your readings that the Constitution gives you the protection and the mandate to do just that.

Edited October 10, 2011 by wjh2657
Formatting

[Steelharp]

With your permission, I would like to Facebook your link.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I am a Republican by choice, and that may be subject to change, depending

on how the party deals with the candidates during the primary. That doesn't

mean I'm an automaton, like you may have suggested. I can't find a reason to

vote for the candidates in other parties up to this point in my life. Until there

is a shakeup in the political process and a riddance of the socialist/commie

group that has overtaken the Democrat Party, I can almost certainly guarantee

you I will not vote for a Democrat.

As to the Electoral College, the various mentioning of abolishing it we hear would

do more damage than good. I don't see anyone hoping to abolish it, except from

the continual "tight race losers". I wish for it to remain, also. No reason to destroy

it.

I like that website. Everything there in one place. thank you!

The Tea Party movement is showing people that there can be effective change within

a political party, if enough will pay attention and quit giving up and be such cynics.

It is a process that unfortunately takes time and people have to put the time into it.

We need to primary both of our US Senators and several of our House members out.

Active participants needed, please get involved at the local level. If you don't want to

do it inside the Republican Party, do it at the Democratic Party. They also need all the help

they can get.

[Smith]

The Constitution is not a living breathing document. It is a solid statement of principles that do not change with the desires or cultural wishes of a particular generation ..... Thank GOD! There is one principle that we apply to where we are but not the other way around. The "living/breathing" mentality is why parties can claim polar opposites of the document as "right". BIG mistake on the authors part.

Other than that I agree with most of the rest.

[wjh2657]

The Constitution is not a living breathing document. It is a solid statement of principles that do not change with the desires or cultural wishes of a particular generation ..... Thank GOD! There is one principle that we apply to where we are but not the other way around. The "living/breathing" mentality is why parties can claim polar opposites of the document as "right". BIG mistake on the authors part.

Other than that I agree with most of the rest.

By living and breathing I meant it is still modern and in full effect. You don't need a seminary education to understand it nor a theology to interpret it.

[wjh2657]

With your permission, I would like to Facebook your link.

Please do. The site is not and will not become a forum. It is to present the original documents and papers and let the reader make their interpretation.

[Smith]

By living and breathing I meant it is still modern and in full effect. You don't need a seminary education to understand it nor a theology to interpret it.

I understand that, but common usage has those terms meaning the complete opposite of your intentions. The leftist use those terms to mean that it is ever changing and evolving (or growing) as we out smart the generations that came before us. Just saying.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I was going to say what Smith said, but I didn't want to get into an argument. You're

both right, depending on the qualifiers.

[wjh2657]

As soon as I am told to change my wording to counter the Left you show you are part of the Right. Both sides now determine how we are to speak, how we are to vote and ultimately how we are to live. I use plain English, if it isn't politically correct for the Left or Right I don't care. I am an American, not a Right or a Left, and it is time that we worry about the country instead of our favorite bunch of millionaires (in both parties) and vote American to get our country back. Let the parties put out their candidates and make them show what they are really going to do and then make them stand by it. I have no tears lost for the super rich nor for the miniority special interest groups. I do shed a few for the working and middle class and they have no real representation.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I never cared for the "political correct" crowd, either. I think I share your views, wjh2657.

[wjh2657]

One People, One Party, One Leader has come around before , many times. It always leads to disaster. We just need the "Era of the Individual" to get America back.

The site is to let people read and come to their own conclusion of what America should be, not just buy into some powerful special interest groups' definitions. Don't sell your vote so easily, make them work for it.

And with that, I am going to get off the soapbox.

[Oh Shoot]

The Constitution is not a living breathing document. It is a solid statement of principles that do not change with the desires or cultural wishes of a particular generation ..... ...

Umm, right ... the fact that it's been amended 27 times should indicate its solid immutability.

- OS

[Smith]

As soon as I am told to change my wording to counter the Left you show you are part of the Right. Both sides now determine how we are to speak, how we are to vote and ultimately how we are to live. I use plain English, if it isn't politically correct for the Left or Right I don't care. I am an American, not a Right or a Left, and it is time that we worry about the country instead of our favorite bunch of millionaires (in both parties) and vote American to get our country back. Let the parties put out their candidates and make them show what they are really going to do and then make them stand by it. I have no tears lost for the super rich nor for the miniority special interest groups. I do shed a few for the working and middle class and they have no real representation.

I am proudly on the right and the words you choose were wrong even though your intentions were right. It makes a difference. The so called "middle" is a place for people who don't know what they believe or why they believe it. I care as much for the super rich as I do for the lowest as I do for the middle. If you tend towards a specific group you need to re-read your post about the solid principles of the contitution. It affords the same rights for all. Regardless of position, race, belief, or any other subjective stance.

We have as much representation as we have choosen to give up. It wasn't taken from us, we gave it away becasue of complacency.

Umm, right ... the fact that it's been amended 27 times should indicate its solid immutability.

- OS

Ammended means added to - not clarified, not reinterpreted, not a change of original thought. The contitution also allows for ammendments.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Smith

[Oh Shoot]

....Ammended means added to - not clarified, not reinterpreted, not a change of original thought. ..

Is English your second language?

"Amended": "Revised, altered, changed for the better." One "m", too.

Certainly, some amendments reflect "cultural wishes of a certain generation". Prohibition and its repeal are pretty good examples.

Original constitution made "everyone" free. Except Negroes. And women. And 18 year olds. Took amendments to "reinterpret" those "original thoughts".

- OS

[Smith]

Is English your second language?

"Amended": "Revised, altered, changed for the better." One "m", too.

Certainly, some amendments reflect "cultural wishes of a certain generation". Prohibition and its repeal are pretty good examples.

Original constitution made "everyone" free. Except Negroes. And women. And 18 year olds. Took amendments to "reinterpret" those "original thoughts".

- OS

Come on Webster! I wasn't giving the definition but rather the constitutional principle of amendments the constitution lays out. They are a way to make changes but were never intended to change the original principles.

BTW - My spell check at work doen't work as well as at home. Grammar Nazi!

[TMF]

The so called "middle" is a place for people who don't know what they believe or why they believe it.

I disagree. I think the requirement to be polarized one way or the other is what keeps us from moving forward. I usually find myself in the middle of the road because I try to see things from both angles to better understand the situation. I know exactly where I stand on the issues, but I'm always prepared to abandon my beliefs if it becomes self evident that I'm wrong.

[Smith]

I disagree. I think the requirement to be polarized one way or the other is what keeps us from moving forward. I usually find myself in the middle of the road because I try to see things from both angles to better understand the situation. I know exactly where I stand on the issues, but I'm always prepared to abandon my beliefs if it becomes self evident that I'm wrong.

That's a feel good statement and sounds good but I grieve for the person standing in the "middle" waiting to be swayed by a political campaign of any persuasion.

Anyway, to the OP: Sorry for getting off topic. You post is a good one to think about and I agree in principal. Good post.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Smith

[TMF]

That's a feel good statement and sounds good but I grieve for the person standing in the "middle" waiting to be swayed by a political campaign of any persuasion.

Anyway, to the OP: Sorry for getting off topic. You post is a good one to think about and I agree in principal. Good post.

Freedom to be ignorant is still freedom. I wish more people would make an effort to develop their own opinions but the fact is they don't. I'm one of those people who can watch CNN everyday, but still filter out the BS and know when I'm being manipulated. I just don't like feeling as if I have to subscribe to a "left" or a "right" in order to have an opinion. That sets limitations to your own free thinking ability; I mean, let's just say a liberal comes up with a good idea...

[Tedro2022]

<br />

<br /> The so called "middle" is a place for people who don't know what they believe or why they believe it.<br />

<br />

Quite frankly, the middle is a place for those that are open minded enough to be able to see both sides. It is a place for the majority of America, and we're quite sick and tired of the political BS.

You don't have to be a "left" or a "right" because neither one of those parties is going to solve America's problems on it's own.

I lean more towards one than I do the other, but that doesn't make me a slave to that party by any means. I'm smart enough to know that I can read up on how each candidate has voted in the past on topics that will effect me directly and be an informed voter when I make my trip to the ballot box.

For you to spout your mouth in ignorance and say that the middle is a place for those that don't know what to believe or why they believe it, well that's just sad to hear.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[strickj]

The so called "middle" is a place for people who don't know what they believe or why they believe it.

You just insulted a lot of people, Smith. Myself included.

I know exactly what I believe and why I believe it. I do not need to follow everything a party line says to know this.

Your opinion is flat out wrong:rolleyes: [and I would say a lot more about your opinion if I wouldn't get called out for being a mod ]

[DaveTN]

Our founding Fathers were never so arrogant as to think they had all the answers or that the Constitution was written in stone. Of course they expected it to be changed and they expected its meaning to be questioned. Thats why they put in place a system to both change it and interpret it throughout the ages.

[Smith]

You just insulted a lot of people, Smith. Myself included.

I know exactly what I believe and why I believe it. I do not need to follow everything a party line says to know this.

Your opinion is flat out wrong:rolleyes: [and I would say a lot more about your opinion if I wouldn't get called out for being a mod ]

We've had this discussion before and no insult intended. That being said there has been just as much inferrence here as well as every other political thread that if you align with anything (right or left) you are a brainwashed party liner and the only open minded true thinkers are those "enlightened" middle grounders. It just ain't so. Riding the fence just leaves you with busted balls.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I tend to agree with Smith on his account of

the middle. If you took it as an insult, I don't

think it was ever intended that way.

People, nowadays, tend to polarize one way

or another politically, or they don't pay attention

enough to make an informed decision about a

particular candidate. A lot of folks just don't

care to get engaged enough, either. It's a tad

disgusting when people walk away from the

process by saying it doesn't matter, and that their

vote doesn't count. The people in the middle have

been put there by the media and reclassified into

the most important vote portion when most of the

middle probably don't vote, anyway.

If someone wants to take this as an insult,

it isn't intended to be, just my observation.

You can have liberal views and conservative

views on different issues without saying you

are in the middle.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[strickj]

We've had this discussion before and no insult intended. That being said there has been just as much inferrence here as well as every other political thread that if you align with anything (right or left) you are a brainwashed party liner and the only open minded true thinkers are those "enlightened" middle grounders. It just ain't so. Riding the fence just leaves you with busted balls.

See, there you are trying to think again.

I do not fence sit.

I choose to side with the right for the 2nd. I chose not to side with the right for blocking new medical technologies.

Does that make me a misinformed fence sitter?

I choose to side with the left for wanting to abolish religious laws. I choose not to side with the left for coddling the balls of criminals.

Does that make me a misinformed fence sitter?

[Smith]

Don't know why you think there is some personal thing with you. Point is you can't have your cake and eat it too. The way i choose my candidate is no different than yours. The fact I prioritize other things does not negate my approach nor yours. However, the "magical" middle ground that is commonly understood is not a reality. It, like communism, is a fantasy of feel good theory that has never worked. The idea that someone can be a blank slate who objectively listens to politicians debate and then make a choice is fantasy, naiveté, or ignorance. Anyone who in this day and age doesn't know what they are looking for going into an election cycle is the most uniformed fence sitter there is. You are not middle ground. The fact you have made decisions means you have sided if nothing else by definition alone. My point is we are far more alike than we are different. Those who do believe in the "magic" middle ground are the ones I refered to.

Lighten up lucy.