Constitution hanging by a thread.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Mel Gibson had a good line in The Patriot: "Why should I agree to trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?"

Right now, government is SOOO involved in our lives that we're merely voting on who our tyrants. We've moved way beyond the model of limited government, self-rule and individualism envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Even the Big Government guys of the day like Hamilton would probably be shocked at the power and influence government at all levels has over us.

Yes, the Constitution is hanging by a thread. I don't know who's gonna save it, and frankly I don't know if it will be saved. I'm not pinning my hopes on Orrin or Mitt, and especially not Harry.

I think this is more rhetoric than reality. Sure, the government is large. But most of it is fairly invisible in your day to day life, unless you are talking about taxes (and Hamilton wouldn't be at all shocked to see the government taxing us today, even at current levels).

I don't see the government being "SOOO involved in our lives that we're merely voting on our tyrants." Sure, the bureaucracy is large, but it keeps our freeways running, keeps our airwaves from being interfered with, keeps air traffic safe, conducts waste disposal, etc. If anything, the size of the American government today as opposed to during the founding has more to do with increases in technology (requiring regulation of that technology). We are a high-tech society now, not an agricultural community. The Constitution may be "hanging by a thread," but I don't see your point as providing evidence of that.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by All-American

If anybody really thinks that the way to save the constitution is to vote for a certain party, irrespective of what party it be, the constitution is as good as gone.

We need to be aware of the principles upon which the constitution was founded and do what we can to perpetuate them. The constitution, as well as the country, must be held in higher esteem than a political party.

Unless there is a change in direction in politics at the top, I suspect that in the years to come, perhaps within the next 20 to 50 years, a president will be removed from office by impeachment and conviction. It will not be because he committed treason or a high crime, the conditions dictated by the constitution, but because he will be unpopular. It was the reason Clinton was impeached, it is the reason people talk about Bush being impeached. The structure provided by the constitution continually gives way to the popular will of the people. From there, all you need is a Hitler, an Amalickiah, or any other smooth-talking people's man to bring about Tyranny. Otherwise, we slip into Anarchy.

If the constitution dies, it will die from stupidity of they who run the government-- and I'm not talking about elected officials.

I disagree with you here. While I am annoyed with people who only vote straight party tickets no matter who is running (and don't bother to find out what any of the people they are voting for support), one amazing feature of American parties is that they tend to vacillate from extreme positions back to moderate positions. The average American may not be able to tell you the intricacies of any given issue, but they have a pretty good sense for when their leaders are going astray from bedrock American constitutional principles. When that happens, they switch parties (or their party evolves to match public sentiment). Either way, we typically find our way back to the middle ground. I doubt impeachment will ever become a tool like you describe for political gains only. Using it in that fashion would foster tremendous contempt for those responsible (which is why Pelosi isn't going down that path now with Bush).

The single greatest threat to our democracy, as I see it, is a weakening of public interest/confidence in the system. Republicans have made it fashionable to call the judiciary an "activist branch." You almost can't have a ruling that isn't decried as "activist" by someone or other today. In reality, most cases are well-reasoned and most judges do a good job. If we continue to harp on the "activist" language to the point where people believe the judiciary is reckless, we have weakened one of the three branches responsible for checking the other two, inviting an abuse of power by one of the other two branches.

The same thing could happen with the legislature or executive as well. Public opinion of Congress, for example, is almost universally poor right now. If there are more corruption scandals, the public could begin to lose confidence in the legislative branch (leading to more voter apathy, i.e., "I have to vote for the lesser of two evils").

Our entire system is based on public confidence. If that is removed, the entire system collapses. Both parties would be well-served to remember that before they go off on tirades against the judiciary.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I doubt impeachment will ever become a tool like you describe for political gains only. Using it in that fashion would foster tremendous contempt for those responsible (which is why Pelosi isn't going down that path now with Bush).

Tell that to Clinton. Or Johnson, for that matter.

That little prediction is just my little parcel of crap thrown against the wall. If it holds true 50 years from now, I'll go sit in Nostradamus's chair. Otherwise, we'll have all forgotten about it.

As far as the rest of your points, I think we basically agree with each other-- see my second post in this thread.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by All-American

Tell that to Clinton. Or Johnson, for that matter.

That little prediction is just my little parcel of crap thrown against the wall. If it holds true 50 years from now, I'll go sit in Nostradamus's chair. Otherwise, we'll have all forgotten about it.

As far as the rest of your points, I think we basically agree with each other-- see my second post in this thread.

I think they are both examples of exactly what I am saying. Neither was convicted (and with Clinton, public sentiment was strongly against a conviction). With Johnson, it wasn't used again for over 100 years (and politics were pretty dirty during that entire period). Republicans dusted the impeachment off, and I think they would refrain from doing it again, if they could go back in time.

As to your second post, I definitely agree with the part about Bears. Sure, Winnie the Pooh looks cute and cuddly, but lurking behind that honey saturated smile are razor sharp teeth craving the touch of blood... Watch your back Christopher Robin, watch your back.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I think they are both examples of exactly what I am saying. Neither was convicted (and with Clinton, public sentiment was strongly against a conviction). With Johnson, it wasn't used again for over 100 years (and politics were pretty dirty during that entire period). Republicans dusted the impeachment off, and I think they would refrain from doing it again, if they could go back in time.

They would likewise refrain from helping out Terri Schaivo, if they could go back in time.

My fear is that the heat of the moment will make elected leaders forget about history, conventional wisdom, or even the constitution. You seem confident that leaders will learn from history. Goodness knows George W. didn't.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by All-American

They would likewise refrain from helping out Terri Schaivo, if they could go back in time.

My fear is that the heat of the moment will make elected leaders forget about history, conventional wisdom, or even the constitution. You seem confident that leaders will learn from history. Goodness knows George W. didn't.

Lol! Well, you have a point there.

However, if Nancy Pelosi can see the light, who out there can't?

Impeachment is not easy to do, and a conviction is even harder. I just don't see it happening with any regularity.

I would say, though, that the presidential succession statute needs to be rewritten. It makes zero sense to have the Speaker of the House as the third in line for the presidency (in part because the Speaker can instigate impeachment proceedings). The succession should go through the president's cabinet. That way, you get someone that the elected president would have approved of. The public voted for the president; the president chose the VP, so the VP makes good sense as being 2nd in line (it made less sense under the original constitutional system). The Pres also chooses his/her cabinet, so it makes sense to go there next in succession.