On America

The place for general political discussion.

Re: On America

Postby John Galt » Tue Sep 19, 2017 3:52 pm

it's not a bad design, but instead we had the problem of first adopters. not just early adopters -- innovators. in a world of monarchs and more monarchs, america was unprecedented in almost all ways.

over the years in order to deal with changing times we've relied on the courts instead of the amendment process (aside from a few small things when the court was horribly wrong, eg, dred scott) but i think we've reached crisis stage where we need to really have a good think about what we want out of it

in terms of federalism, i guess the main points that ought be raised is what level of independence do we want states to have in a world where services by the state are thought of as obligations by the state in most parts of the western world. are the states laboratories, or are they unruly children who need to be put in their place? america is so unique and diverse i think devolution of power from the central government makes a lot of sense and adds to america's dynamism. canada has a population less than one US state, and as big as the country is, everyone basically lives next to america. and even still it has problems with separatists because of the french influence. america has a massively diverse population with lots of unique strengths and problems to solve. i think states are better equipped for this

that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a rethink on the consitiution. i believe we should. but we need to examine the positives and negatives to centralized authority
Americans learn only from catastrophe and not from experience. -- Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
John Galt
Technical Admin
 
Posts: 12333
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:22 pm
Location: Bowling Green Massacre Survivor
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 577 times
Been thanked: 1283 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: On America

Postby exploited » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:05 pm

John Galt wrote:it's not a bad design, but instead we had the problem of first adopters. not just early adopters -- innovators. in a world of monarchs and more monarchs, america was unprecedented in almost all ways.

over the years in order to deal with changing times we've relied on the courts instead of the amendment process (aside from a few small things when the court was horribly wrong, eg, dred scott) but i think we've reached crisis stage where we need to really have a good think about what we want out of it

in terms of federalism, i guess the main points that ought be raised is what level of independence do we want states to have in a world where services by the state are thought of as obligations by the state in most parts of the western world. are the states laboratories, or are they unruly children who need to be put in their place? america is so unique and diverse i think devolution of power from the central government makes a lot of sense and adds to america's dynamism. canada has a population less than one US state, and as big as the country is, everyone basically lives next to america. and even still it has problems with separatists because of the french influence. america has a massively diverse population with lots of unique strengths and problems to solve. i think states are better equipped for this

that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a rethink on the consitiution. i believe we should. but we need to examine the positives and negatives to centralized authority


Of course leniency should be given for being the first. But I'm failing to really understand how anybody could not understand the need for, say, federal control over elections, or being able to regulate all aspects of commerce. These two things are absolutely fundamental to the success of any nation state, and I'm not buying the idea that they are just minor oversights. Both represented significant hurdles for the US, and in the case of elections, those hurdles continue to this day. To argue that the founders weren't mistaken in this is, I believe, nothing more than typical patriotic blather.

I think federalism makes sense for you guys, but honestly, the way the powers were distributed is the real problem. So much that should be delegated to the federal government is instead delegated to the States, and vice-versa. I mean, look at the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments - this is just basic shit man. Not sure how anybody tasked with writing a Constitutional document could somehow forget about this kind of thing.

Moving forward, I think the biggest thing you need to do is move elections into the national realm. That would solve alot of problems. The criminal code should also be moved exclusively to federal purview.
Last edited by exploited on Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20958
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2197 times
Been thanked: 1702 times

Re: On America

Postby John Galt » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:08 pm

i don't think criminal code at federal level makes sense. the fbi and similar organizations should focus on big picture national issues, not local issues, outside of monitoring corruption at a local level
Americans learn only from catastrophe and not from experience. -- Theodore Roosevelt

These users thanked the author John Galt for the post:
Saz
User avatar
John Galt
Technical Admin
 
Posts: 12333
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:22 pm
Location: Bowling Green Massacre Survivor
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 577 times
Been thanked: 1283 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: On America

Postby exploited » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:13 pm

John Galt wrote:i don't think criminal code at federal level makes sense. the fbi and similar organizations should focus on big picture national issues, not local issues, outside of monitoring corruption at a local level


Policing is typically delegated to the state-level. This is a good separation of powers - the law is determined on a national level, but enforcement is local. In Canada, the federal enforcement agencies, such as the RCMP, are focused almost exclusively on big picture stuff. They do provide basic policing in some areas, but most of the population lives under a provincial policing agency, and some under even more local ones. In my town, enforcement is provided by town police. In the town over, the OPP has contracted to handle policing. This is fine and allows for a great deal of flexibility. I literally never see RCMP in my area - the only time was when Prime Minister Harper came to town, and that wasn't regular RCMP, that was whatever militarized branch handles principal security.

The benefits of uniformity are quite large. The downside is that stuff like pot legalization is a bit harder, because it is a national discussion, not a state issue. But the nice thing is that you completely avoid this DEA-local police conflict we've seen in those states that have legalized pot.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20958
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2197 times
Been thanked: 1702 times

Re: On America

Postby Saz » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:50 pm

exploited wrote:I have a pretty good understanding of federalism, actually, considering that the Canadian system is the most effective and well-designed federalist government on the planet. In every aspect this government is superior, Constitutionally, to that of the United States. This has been the case since 1867 - thanks in large part to Sir John A. McDonalds' recognition of all that went wrong in your own constitutional processes.

So 50 years later and no evidence it's superior.

As for it being effective, again, I have pointed to numerous examples showing it to be not effective.

You also admitted, verbatim, that it is effective.

All of the examples I've provided rotate around the idea of sovereign states, the choice of what powers are enumerated for the federal government and what powers are not, etc.
You haven't provided any examples, and all of the ones you have, we came to the right conclusion. It's really you shouting "YEA YOU GOT IT RIGHT, BUT MY WAY IS BETTER!" Which is rich coming from someone who followed in our footsteps, innovated nothing, and sacrificed sovereignty for half a century.

The point of saying that it could have gone another way is to show the fundamental weakness of the design.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. You live in a fantasy land because reality never seems to line up with your ideas. You obviously never consider you are wrong, so you operate in hypotheticals and situations that never happened, but you wish they did, so your point wouldn't be completely stupid.

When it is entirely conceivable that the federal government would be restricted from regulating mining, manufacturing or services (as it was for over a century), that suggests a serious error or omission.
Conceivable, but it simply hasn't happens. Our constitution has evolved with the times. For the 100 years you are talking about, the federal government had little ability to regulate over the states because we are a continental country and it took MONTHS just to get from some states to others. The idea of centralised power in that time is absurd, that's why we have federalism. Now, the idea of centralised power is no longer absurd, and low and behold, it has become more centralised. Almost like the founders had the foresight to draft a document that can withstand the test of time, instead of one that is suited for a moment in time.

There is no way to really avoid that conclusion, other than to start in on your usual "MURICA" stuff, which in this case took less than three paragraphs.

No, I just understand the long arc of history. What works today would not have worked yesterday, and probably won't work tomorrow. There is no best policy, other than one that is flexible and able to change with the times. Our constitution has proven it can do that, your ideas have not.

As for being "upset," I don't know what you mean. I am discussing history because it is fun. If you don't want to discuss this, don't. This doesn't upset me. Further, my suggestion isn't that you "go out on a limb," my suggestion is that the authors of your Constitution made a mistake by not giving the federal government unlimited powers over commerce, from the start, as every other successful liberal democracy in the world has done. It really is that simple. In response you've said "But it all worked out in the end." Which isn't really a response, it is you just getting butthurt because I am correct, yet again.
That is not politically viable. We would have no united states if the founders were dogmatic retards like you inviting on a centralise government with broad powers. The states would have never ceeded the federal government that power in the first place and we would be like the stupid europeans, with countries the size of Kentucky constantly fighting each other. Just look at Europe now...it's not anywhere close to the single market, with the ability to set policy, or regulate, or so much of anything in the way the american government can. Why? because an agreement was never reached to federalise it. That is the cost of ignoring basic history and the political realities of the time. The framers crossed that divide by granting broad powers to the states so that they could form an ever more perfect union, and low and behold, we f**k did. That is why we are the lone superpower, that is why we are the richest nation on earth, and that is why those who did not adopt our method are 1/10th our size and no more relevant than Georgia or Colorado. We run the f**k world because our system of government, in its infancy, was liberal enough to allow us to put aside our difference and come together to form a superstate. If the europeans were as clever as us, maybe they would share that wealth and power. If Canada had the balls to break free of britain, maybe your continental nation would be as populous or as rich as ours, or as strong as our or as cultural dominate as ours. But you didn't so you aren't and that if the greatest testament to why you are wrong. In REALITY, we won, and we are still winning, and so to listen to someone from an inferior nation lecture without any of the historical background or understanding of federalism necessary to make a proper critique, is a bit laughable.

This is really part of the problem with Americans. You have been utterly brainwashed into believing that your form of government is remarkable, brilliant, etc., when in fact it isn't.
On just about every metric, we are the most remarkable nation on the planet. First to federalism, first to liberty (even beat the french by a few years but TBF even I mark us down for the whole slavery thing), the richest developed nation, the largest developed nation, the most culturally relevant developed nation, the most innovative, the strongest militarily...the list goes on and on and on. Honestly, you are like most europeans, you think us dumb hicks and yet we outclass you in every way and you simply can't figure out why or come to terms with it. Maybe we are f**k idiots and god just loves us. Who knows, who cares. All that matters is the result.

It is probably one of the single worst designs the world has ever seen.

You haven't even left Canada or finished college. Your capacity for understanding different nations and forms of government is limited at best, so any comparison or critique is usually off the mark, as it is here.

As far as I can tell, the people who wrote your Constitution were completely unable to engage in any sort of forward thinking about what might happen in the future.

Dumbest statement in this thread. Congrats.

If anything, you have succeeded as a country in spite of your government, most certainly not because of it.

Which is why half the countries around the world have modelled their state or constitution on ours, in some way. You are frankly lost. The truth is there is a strong critique to be made of the framers, and of the constitution itself. But you aren't nearly equipped enough to make any of those arguments so this has all become a bit of a bore.
Pun intended for the plebes on here who don't get a joke
User avatar
Saz
Governor
 
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:37 am
Location: Airstrip One
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1068 times
Been thanked: 899 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: On America

Postby exploited » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:54 pm

Oh god. Can you please stop?

You aren't contributing anything to this discussion. Any legitimate input you had was already covered by other posters, acknowledged, and the discussion has moved on. All you seem to want to do is get into arguments for me while presenting literally nothing of value.

That is not politically viable. We would have no united states if the founders were dogmatic retards like you inviting on a centralise government with broad powers. The states would have never ceeded the federal government that power in the first place and we would be like the stupid europeans, with countries the size of Kentucky constantly fighting each other. Just look at Europe now...it's not anywhere close to the single market, with the ability to set policy, or regulate, or so much of anything in the way the american government can. Why? because an agreement was never reached to federalise it. That is the cost of ignoring basic history and the political realities of the time. The framers crossed that divide by granting broad powers to the states so that they could form an ever more perfect union, and low and behold, we f**k did. That is why we are the lone superpower, that is why we are the richest nation on earth, and that is why those who did not adopt our method are 1/10th our size and no more relevant than Georgia or Colorado. We run the f**k world because our system of government, in its infancy, was liberal enough to allow us to put aside our difference and come together to form a superstate. If the europeans were as clever as us, maybe they would share that wealth and power. If Canada had the balls to break free of britain, maybe your continental nation would be as populous or as rich as ours, or as strong as our or as cultural dominate as ours. But you didn't so you aren't and that if the greatest testament to why you are wrong. In REALITY, we won, and we are still winning, and so to listen to someone from an inferior nation lecture without any of the historical background or understanding of federalism necessary to make a proper critique, is a bit laughable.


Like, what the f**k is wrong with you? :))

You didn't run the world until after all of the changes we have discussed, you f**k tard.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20958
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2197 times
Been thanked: 1702 times

Re: On America

Postby Saz » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:02 pm

John Galt wrote:i don't think criminal code at federal level makes sense. the fbi and similar organizations should focus on big picture national issues, not local issues, outside of monitoring corruption at a local level


Well its a bit odd because we do have a criminal code at a federal level, but only for the most egregious crimes (like terrorism or treason). This is as it should be, because it ensures strong federal oversight of the most heinous acts (murder is murder even if Mississippi tries to decriminalise it), but allows states to effectively "innovate" with criminal policy, allowing others to follow the lead of the best. Marijuana is a great example, Colorado and Washington lead the way, and low and behold, other states follow when its clear what the best policy is.

Even outside of this, we have the supremacy clause and the preemption doctrine, so state laws, even criminal laws, are limited and restricted by federal laws and the constitution itself (which really is a federal document but i can get into long arguments about that). Now to be clear I don't think any of this should be rolled back, but I agree the idea of a single uniform criminal code is absurd and goes against every common sense notion of federalism, the framers intention, and the constitution itself. It also wouldn't be very effective and in the long run would undermine the law when large swaths of the country would be compelled to enforce (or not enforce) parts of the law they don't agree with. This is already an issue with weed, the federal government overstepped its authority quite frankly which puts it in conflict with the states.
Pun intended for the plebes on here who don't get a joke
User avatar
Saz
Governor
 
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:37 am
Location: Airstrip One
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1068 times
Been thanked: 899 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: On America

Postby exploited » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:06 pm

Saz wrote:
John Galt wrote:i don't think criminal code at federal level makes sense. the fbi and similar organizations should focus on big picture national issues, not local issues, outside of monitoring corruption at a local level


Well its a bit odd because we do have a criminal code at a federal level, but only for the most egregious crimes (like terrorism or treason). This is as it should be, because it ensures strong federal oversight of the most heinous acts (murder is murder even if Mississippi tries to decriminalise it), but allows states to effectively "innovate" with criminal policy, allowing others to follow the lead of the best. Marijuana is a great example, Colorado and Washington lead the way, and low and behold, other states follow when its clear what the best policy is.

Even outside of this, we have the supremacy clause and the preemption doctrine, so state laws, even criminal laws, are limited and restricted by federal laws and the constitution itself (which really is a federal document but i can get into long arguments about that). Now to be clear I don't think any of this should be rolled back, but I agree the idea of a single uniform criminal code is absurd and goes against every common sense notion of federalism, the framers intention, and the constitution itself. It also wouldn't be very effective and in the long run would undermine the law when large swaths of the country would be compelled to enforce (or not enforce) parts of the law they don't agree with. This is already an issue with weed, the federal government overstepped its authority quite frankly which puts it in conflict with the states.


Why is the federal government able to intervene in regards to marijuana laws, anyways?
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20958
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2197 times
Been thanked: 1702 times

Re: On America

Postby Saz » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:12 pm

exploited wrote:
Saz wrote:
John Galt wrote:i don't think criminal code at federal level makes sense. the fbi and similar organizations should focus on big picture national issues, not local issues, outside of monitoring corruption at a local level


Well its a bit odd because we do have a criminal code at a federal level, but only for the most egregious crimes (like terrorism or treason). This is as it should be, because it ensures strong federal oversight of the most heinous acts (murder is murder even if Mississippi tries to decriminalise it), but allows states to effectively "innovate" with criminal policy, allowing others to follow the lead of the best. Marijuana is a great example, Colorado and Washington lead the way, and low and behold, other states follow when its clear what the best policy is.

Even outside of this, we have the supremacy clause and the preemption doctrine, so state laws, even criminal laws, are limited and restricted by federal laws and the constitution itself (which really is a federal document but i can get into long arguments about that). Now to be clear I don't think any of this should be rolled back, but I agree the idea of a single uniform criminal code is absurd and goes against every common sense notion of federalism, the framers intention, and the constitution itself. It also wouldn't be very effective and in the long run would undermine the law when large swaths of the country would be compelled to enforce (or not enforce) parts of the law they don't agree with. This is already an issue with weed, the federal government overstepped its authority quite frankly which puts it in conflict with the states.


Why is the federal government able to intervene in regards to marijuana laws, anyways?


ICC obviously, although signifiant dissent within the court on the issue
Pun intended for the plebes on here who don't get a joke
User avatar
Saz
Governor
 
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:37 am
Location: Airstrip One
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1068 times
Been thanked: 899 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: On America

Postby exploited » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:34 pm

Saz wrote:
John Galt wrote:i don't think criminal code at federal level makes sense. the fbi and similar organizations should focus on big picture national issues, not local issues, outside of monitoring corruption at a local level


Well its a bit odd because we do have a criminal code at a federal level, but only for the most egregious crimes (like terrorism or treason). This is as it should be, because it ensures strong federal oversight of the most heinous acts (murder is murder even if Mississippi tries to decriminalise it), but allows states to effectively "innovate" with criminal policy, allowing others to follow the lead of the best. Marijuana is a great example, Colorado and Washington lead the way, and low and behold, other states follow when its clear what the best policy is.

Even outside of this, we have the supremacy clause and the preemption doctrine, so state laws, even criminal laws, are limited and restricted by federal laws and the constitution itself (which really is a federal document but i can get into long arguments about that). Now to be clear I don't think any of this should be rolled back, but I agree the idea of a single uniform criminal code is absurd and goes against every common sense notion of federalism, the framers intention, and the constitution itself. It also wouldn't be very effective and in the long run would undermine the law when large swaths of the country would be compelled to enforce (or not enforce) parts of the law they don't agree with. This is already an issue with weed, the federal government overstepped its authority quite frankly which puts it in conflict with the states.


It is objectively more effective. Having 50 different criminal codes creates massive inefficiencies and confusion. Consider gun laws. There is no reason to believe it can't work just as well with criminal code as it has with commercial code.

As for where it fits into federalism, federalism is merely the act of delegating explicit powers between provinces/states and the federal government. It doesn't "go against" federalism to have a uniform criminal code.

It may go against the framers intentions, but that doesn't really matter. What doesn't these days?

As for the Constitution, it would require a constitutional amendment, or widespread adoption of a criminal code developed by the NCCUSL. Either would be a better system. But then again, America is renowned for it's criminal justice system, so maybe you should just leave it.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20958
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2197 times
Been thanked: 1702 times

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest