Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There's a saying that I think goes something like this: "Any idea, when applied in a sufficiently thorough manner, will yield inhumane results, because an idea lacks the human element."
If you have a nation of law, any law can be justified, and there's nothing to stop it - I won't mention the obvious example.
If you have a nation of men, you get the Right to Revolution.

That's why I have a soft spot for the German constitution. It basically says that the one law that is untouchable is article one:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Artikel 1
(1) Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar. Sie zu achten und zu schützen ist Verpflichtung aller staatlichen Gewalt.

(2) Das Deutsche Volk bekennt sich darum zu unverletzlichen und unveräußerlichen Menschenrechten als Grundlage jeder menschlichen Gemeinschaft, des Friedens und der Gerechtigkeit in der Welt.

(3) Die nachfolgenden Grundrechte binden Gesetzgebung, vollziehende Gewalt und Rechtsprechung als unmittelbar geltendes Recht.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(1) Human dignity is surpreme. All of the government's power is to be used to protect it.
(2) The German people acknowledge that right as the foundation of all human societies, of peace and of justice in this world.
(3) The following rights (articles 2, 3 etc ) tie down the legislative, the executive and the judicative as immediately effective law.

Funny you would mention the Right to Revolution, considering that Article 20 of the German Constitution basically says "if the Nazis take over the government, it is your civic duty to try to kill them". (I know it doesn't say that, but that's the intention of the article.)

So how long does this go on until the American people are legally allowed to revolt and fire every single one of these assholes who can't do their fucking jobs?

Sadly, one of the big things that US law does not have is a vote of no confidence. Essentially, we can't get rid of them until November 4th, 2014.

[Loud Whispers]

So how long does this go on until the American people are legally allowed to revolt and fire every single one of these assholes who can't do their fucking jobs?

Never.
But then again, the whole point of lawful good is not to be lawful when law is evil.

[lemon10]

Apparently the Corsican Constitution came earlier.

So no, the US didn't have the first constitution nor was it the first republic. Assuming I am reading that article correctly, it wasn't even the first constitutional republic.

[Loud Whispers]

More likely about the types who are gathering guns and MREs for the coming revolution. Radicals and reactionaries who act to put their views into practice are by definition traitors, given that their aim is to depose the current government and hand control of the state's institutions to a different one, modeled either on their delusional perception of a past government or their delusional ideal of a new government.

For the sake of semantics, they wouldn't be committing treason. The American government serves the American people as opposed to other states, where it is the people who serve the state. Therefore they would be rebels, uprising against an established government they do not owe allegiance to.

[wierd]

Similar sentiment was expressed during the creation of the US constitution, and the US court system. All philosophy of legal enforcement and jusdgement derives from the willful consent of the governed to comply with government.

This is why nullification was explicitly added. (Sorry to harp on that. It's just a feature, like any other. Just applicable here.) It was a means for the governed to express the loss of this consent, and to usurp that power back. Its inclusion was a testiment to that philosophy.

The basic scene, was that the US was creating an essentially brand new idea in governence, and wanted to fix all the problems it saw in its predesessor, while keep the benefits of that predecessor. The ability for judges to pronouce judgements, against the wills of the populace, spuriously, and without real regard to previous findings or cases, combined with their ability to punish jurors for refusing to find a specific, predefined verdict before the trial, were all seen ans inconsionable violations of the sacred trust between governed, and government. In retaliation to this, they built their system to incorporate essentially, the power of mob rule, as a sword of damoclese into the mix, to keep government in line.

The idea was that the public benefits by using law, and not mob rule, but by allowing that to be a possible resolution in the courts to clearly officious matters, it kept government clean and honest.

Nobody *really* wants the tyrrany and horror of mob rule. Likewise, bobody really wants the tyrrany of an authoritarian regime.  By forcing the two into the same room, both were somewhat tamed.

Since it had never been tried before, and pretty much all precident for human government were lessons in varying degrees of authoritarianism, it has its warts.

I am not saying it is ideal.

I am saying it is what we have, and it is the law.  Its creators had the foresight to see that their system may not be ideal, and may need updating. That's why we have amendments and legislators as tools to accomplish that.

The issue I have, is that instead of actually addressing the legal issues involved in a proper update of the constitutional legal code, we have instead elected to give a handful of people lifetime appointments to govern without oversight, or respect to the higher law that enables them, the ability to basically say whatever the fuck it is they want.

If there is a need to update the legal code, *THERE IS* a mechanism to do so. USE IT. *DONT* act like you can just flaunt the existing law because "its old". Use the mechanism, update the law, then it won't be old, and decisions made will be consistent with the established body of law.

Per the original philosophy behind the creation of our government, the act of altering the constition is by necessity, difficult.  It is designed this way so that only by the mutual consent of the governed with the government, can any such change be made.

[Flying Dice]

Haha, yes, a lot of people like to pretend that the US was the first republic since the Classical era, though I can't imagine why. Just off the top of my head you've got the Icelandic Commonwealth, which was founded sometime late in the 10th century (hell, the Althing--sort of a combined supreme court and legislative body--survived reunification with Scandinavia and still exists today). Then you've got all those little European merchant republics, which any Europa Universalis player should be familiar with. The idea that the US was the first modern (meaning post-fall of the Roman Republic in this context) republic is a pretty national myth, good for pride but little else.

More likely about the types who are gathering guns and MREs for the coming revolution. Radicals and reactionaries who act to put their views into practice are by definition traitors, given that their aim is to depose the current government and hand control of the state's institutions to a different one, modeled either on their delusional perception of a past government or their delusional ideal of a new government.

For the sake of semantics, they wouldn't be committing treason. The American government serves the American people as opposed to other states, where it is the people who serve the state. Therefore they would be rebels, uprising against an established government they do not owe allegiance to.

That depends on what you consider to be the service of the people. We've already had one tussle about what exactly that means, you might have heard of it. Certainly from their perspective they might be rebels, revolutionaries, freedom fighters, or whatever value-laden term you choose, but from the perspective of the population at large (and thus the government), they are traitors. My belief that the government does not serve the people may morally oblige me to revolt, but that doesn't mean that I am right simply because I believe that I am.

[misko27]

So how long does this go on until the American people are legally allowed to revolt and fire every single one of these assholes who can't do their fucking jobs?

Won't happen. There are people out there preparing to do that right now, and those are not people you want running the government. Most people who want to revolt, moreover the people who are advocating a revolt, and have been doing so for some time, are by and large as bad as the worst politician there, simply because they elected them.

Plus sane people have a disadvantage in a war like that. They're out-gunned.

There's a saying that I think goes something like this: "Any idea, when applied in a sufficiently thorough manner, will yield inhumane results, because an idea lacks the human element."
If you have a nation of law, any law can be justified, and there's nothing to stop it - I won't mention the obvious example.
If you have a nation of men, you get the Right to Revolution.

That's why I have a soft spot for the German constitution. It basically says that the one law that is untouchable is article one:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Artikel 1
(1) Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar. Sie zu achten und zu schützen ist Verpflichtung aller staatlichen Gewalt.

(2) Das Deutsche Volk bekennt sich darum zu unverletzlichen und unveräußerlichen Menschenrechten als Grundlage jeder menschlichen Gemeinschaft, des Friedens und der Gerechtigkeit in der Welt.

(3) Die nachfolgenden Grundrechte binden Gesetzgebung, vollziehende Gewalt und Rechtsprechung als unmittelbar geltendes Recht.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(1) Human dignity is surpreme. All of the government's power is to be used to protect it.
(2) The German people acknowledge that right as the foundation of all human societies, of peace and of justice in this world.
(3) The following rights (articles 2, 3 etc ) tie down the legislative, the executive and the judicative as immediately effective law.

Funny you would mention the Right to Revolution, considering that Article 20 of the German Constitution basically says "if the Nazis take over the government, it is your civic duty to try to kill them". (I know it doesn't say that, but that's the intention of the article.)

So how long does this go on until the American people are legally allowed to revolt and fire every single one of these assholes who can't do their fucking jobs?

Sadly, one of the big things that US law does not have is a vote of no confidence. Essentially, we can't get rid of them until November 4th, 2014.

In general, directives urging people to violence to remove people you disagree with on a fundamental level if they are in a position of power, are not known for their success in fixing the world. The US has had exactly 1 serious rebellion, and that one remains the best reason not to let people kill their elected officials.

So how long does this go on until the American people are legally allowed to revolt and fire every single one of these assholes who can't do their fucking jobs?

Never.
But then again, the whole point of lawful good is not to be lawful when law is evil.

Again, this sentence doesn't take into account the evil is relative and the people whom you would designate as evil also believe Congress is evil and have the same right as the people you don't think are evil to upend congress. Thankfully, that right is non-existent, except for their capacity to vote, which has proved damaging enough.

I feel like a Congressional apologist solely for saying Congress shouldn't be dissolved in a storm of violence.

My belief that the government does not serve the people may morally oblige me to revolt, but that doesn't mean that I am right simply because I believe that I am.

This.

[Loud Whispers]

That depends on what you consider to be the service of the people. We've already had one tussle about what exactly that means, you might have heard of it. Certainly from their perspective they might be rebels, revolutionaries, freedom fighters, or whatever value-laden term you choose, but from the perspective of the population at large (and thus the government), they are traitors. My belief that the government does not serve the people may morally oblige me to revolt, but that doesn't mean that I am right simply because I believe that I am.

Ok, but without any connotations of freedom or just cause, they are by definition rebels [though I haven't seen anyone actually initiate a conflict yet, so they're not even rebels]. From the population at large Snowden is a traitor for example - despite no such thing being the case, literally.

So how long does this go on until the American people are legally allowed to revolt and fire every single one of these assholes who can't do their fucking jobs?

Never.
But then again, the whole point of lawful good is not to be lawful when law is evil.

Again, this sentence doesn't take into account the evil is relative and the people whom you would designate as evil also believe Congress is evil and have the same right as the people you don't think are evil to upend congress. Thankfully, that right is non-existent, except for their capacity to vote, which has proved damaging enough.

You're reading too deep, I'm just saying it will never be possible to legally revolt. In addition, protesting in America is also about as useful as OWS was.

And watching a comedian ask Americans if they supported Obamacare or the affordable care act was tragic.

[Greiger]

They are not doing their jobs.  If I did not do my job I would be (and have been) fired from it.  I'm not saying it should be with violence, but from what I know of the system and that we have no legal way to get rid of these people it's looking like there would be no alternative to violence.

I'm hoping this whole business gets handled quickly.  But as a second should the first become impossible I'm hoping that violence becomes imminent enough for the government to get scared enough for their own lives to implement a system for removal.  Because we all know they sure as hell won't pass something like that if their lives DID NOT depend on it.

[Mephansteras]

I wish we could just literally lock them in and keep them there until they pass a budget. Send them cheap food and allow occasional bathroom breaks but otherwise they're not allowed to leave session until this nonsense is finished. They can pull partisan political games all they want, but they're not getting a proper night's sleep, a shower, or anything else like that until they do their damn jobs.

Also, they should face some steep salary cuts for catastrophic failures like this.

[Loud Whispers]

They are not doing their jobs.  If I did not do my job I would be (and have been) fired from it.

"Hey guys, I've got this neat idea: Politicians for profit, it'll be a hit I promise..."

[wierd]

Personally, I hunger for "no confidence" public recall elections. Allow each state to recall its representatives whenever and however many times its residents believe necessary.

We have the technology today to canvas entire states quickly. There is no reason to deny something like this as being unfeasable.


LW: Politicians for profit? Surely you know that is ALREADY the status quo, right? Or did the rhetoric of one former senator Dodd not ring any bells? if not, you can always look into campaign donations, election finance reports, super PACs and pals.

Essentially, Been there, doing that right now. Is the reason we need no confidence.

[Loud Whispers]

LW: Politicians for profit? Surely you know that is ALREADY the status quo, right?

That be the point, yep

[wierd]

LW: Politicians for profit? Surely you know that is ALREADY the status quo, right?

That be the point, yep

Ahh. Good. Just ensuring it wasn't poe's law gone horribly wrong. (though such a sentiment would be wildly out of character for you.)

[SalmonGod]

Perhaps incentives for legislatures would be a good place to start implementing some of the direct democracy we're now absolutely capable of.  Make congressional salaries tied to approval ratings.  Open up some sort of vote during crisis like these for the population to have a direct say.