• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are we failing the Founders? [W:64,W:111]

tjelen

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
87
Reaction score
18
Location
Nevada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
After reading the Federalist Papers in school and many of them recently, I have realized that the government the Founders set out to create has been a failure compared to how governments in Europe function. The Founders wanted a country that had many political groups that had a say in the political system rather than the two we have. The two are basically five parties pretending to be two, but are really just the same parties with slight differences. All European governments have at least three political parties that have to build coalitions to run the legislative branch of government. It also surprised me that the politician say we are the best government in the world, even though the most copied governmental structure since 1989 is the French Fifth Republic.

My idea is to replicate to some extent the modern French government. We should also have the states create multi-member districts or use proportional representation on a party list vote to elect our House members. Both of these proposed changes will make us have to expand the size of the House because multi-member districts need to have three representatives. The French government has separation of powers like ours does, but some powers are divided differently. In France, the lower house of the legislative branch runs the daily functions of the government and is led by a Prime Minister. The President appoints the Prime Minister out of the majority of the lower house or the predominate ideology. The President then can't fire the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister must come from the predominant ideology because the lower house doesn't have to accept the Prime Minister if the appointee can't gain a majority. The President and Prime Minister then work together to build the rest of the cabinet. I know this sound very foreign, but any change in elector procedures, whether it be proportional representation, multi-member districts or both, we would need to have the House of Representative run the day to day functions to give them incentive to work with each other and the President to keep the government functioning. This prevents the current intransigence of the House because the government on the whole wouldn't work without some cooperation with the President.

In this system, the President will still have veto power, but can't dissolve the cabinet and House on his own. The House could dissolve itself if the leadership lost the confidence of the majority of the House as a whole. The President would also have the ability to propose legislation directly. The Senate would also lose the ability to stop cabinet appointments because this would become the House's problem. It should also be ingrained in the Constitution that the Senate only pass bills on a simple majority and also make a majority in the House 55% as a compromise. Also the election date would need to be allowed to float for the House because the majority could collapse before the next election. In this system, the House term would have to be extended to a maximum of four years. I propose that we move the elections to Saturday.The term of the President would remain fixed and the election date would remain the same, other than moving the election date to a Saturday in November instead of Tuesday. Also in these proposed changes, only Article 1 and 2 need to be changed, the rest of the Constitution will remain untouched.

I know that most conservative won't like any changes to the Constitution, but the Founders envisioned a county and our current state isn't what was envisioned. We should change the Constitution to reflect what they Founders wanted, even if we have to model our government after a republic in Europe. We may have done many innovative things in the 1790's, be we need to look at what the rest of the world has done to innovate and make a more representative government. Just because we were the first true republic since Rome founded by some of the best political minds of the time, doesn't mean that we shouldn't change to become more democratic and stable like the governments in France and Poland.
 
Don't romaticize the founders. They were bigoted, plutocratic slaveholding criminals. As a society we have far exceeded them. We should look back on them with contempt for the horrors they perpetrated.
 
Don't romaticize the founders. They were bigoted, plutocratic slaveholding criminals. As a society we have far exceeded them. We should look back on them with contempt for the horrors they perpetrated.

Yes this forum reminds me every day that Freedom of Speech is overrated.
 
After reading the Federalist Papers in school and many of them recently, I have realized that the government the Founders set out to create has been a failure compared to how governments in Europe function. The Founders wanted a country that had many political groups that had a say in the political system rather than the two we have. ...We should change the Constitution to reflect what they Founders wanted, even if we have to model our government after a republic in Europe. We may have done many innovative things in the 1790's, be we need to look at what the rest of the world has done to innovate and make a more representative government. Just because we were the first true republic since Rome founded by some of the best political minds of the time, doesn't mean that we shouldn't change to become more democratic and stable like the governments in France and Poland.

What "Founders" are you talking about? If you base your thesis on the Federalist Papers you are only talking about John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison.

If you think to include men like Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Samual Adams, George Washington, Patrick Henry, and a whole host of others who worked to create an independent nation...you need to expand your reading quite a bit. Try the Anti-Federalist papers, as well as letters and other published works by those men and then combine them all so you can see the REAL ideologies of these "Founders."

Then we can talk about "changing the Constitution." :)
 
In some ways, yeah, we are failing the ideals this country is supposed to represent, in the name of comfort and profit. In others, I would say we have exceeded their wildest dreams.
 
Yes our society has come a long way since 1789 and our Constitution should change to become more democratic then it was. Also as far as the Anti Federalists are concerned, they lost for the most part. They did manage to get the Bill of Rights passed in the first Congress, but the Constitution was a compromise and one that needs to be revisited. I only advocating structural change, not how the states and people relate to the government. The Anti Federalists didn't want the Constitution to pass, so how would we change the government to reflect an issue that no one cares about any more. It is also arguable that if anyone from the 1790's was brought to our time, they wouldn't want the Constitution because they would see the dysfunction it breeds. As for the character of the people at the first Constitutional Convention, it was a different time with different moral standards in a nation that was more divided than now. There were going to be bad things written into the Constitution like slavery.

Yes we have advanced a lot socially. Racial issues are less tense, slavery is gone and women have equality of choice in life. Technology has also advanced since 1789. These would have happened even if we had stayed a part of England and became one country with Canada. Technology and Science advance no matter what, so we can't say that the government did that. So this means I disagree with Pres. Obama's "You didn't build that" statement. Our political structure hasn't changed at all since the early 1800's though. We have had two parties throughout our history. The parties have changed twice, but the faces stayed the same. Our government needs to change to become more democratic. It is undemocratic that the Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists and conservative Democrats can get seats because anything less than a majority doesn't yield any representation. Eight percent of the vote shouldn't yield no power, 8% should yield 8% of the power like it does in most other developed democratic countries.
 
Last edited:
After reading the Federalist Papers in school and many of them recently, I have realized that the government the Founders set out to create has been a failure compared to how governments in Europe function. The Founders wanted a country that had many political groups that had a say in the political system rather than the two we have. The two are basically five parties pretending to be two, but are really just the same parties with slight differences. All European governments have at least three political parties that have to build coalitions to run the legislative branch of government. It also surprised me that the politician say we are the best government in the world, even though the most copied governmental structure since 1989 is the French Fifth Republic.

My idea is to replicate to some extent the modern French government. We should also have the states create multi-member districts or use proportional representation on a party list vote to elect our House members. Both of these proposed changes will make us have to expand the size of the House because multi-member districts need to have three representatives. The French government has separation of powers like ours does, but some powers are divided differently. In France, the lower house of the legislative branch runs the daily functions of the government and is led by a Prime Minister. The President appoints the Prime Minister out of the majority of the lower house or the predominate ideology. The President then can't fire the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister must come from the predominant ideology because the lower house doesn't have to accept the Prime Minister if the appointee can't gain a majority. The President and Prime Minister then work together to build the rest of the cabinet. I know this sound very foreign, but any change in elector procedures, whether it be proportional representation, multi-member districts or both, we would need to have the House of Representative run the day to day functions to give them incentive to work with each other and the President to keep the government functioning. This prevents the current intransigence of the House because the government on the whole wouldn't work without some cooperation with the President.

In this system, the President will still have veto power, but can't dissolve the cabinet and House on his own. The House could dissolve itself if the leadership lost the confidence of the majority of the House as a whole. The President would also have the ability to propose legislation directly. The Senate would also lose the ability to stop cabinet appointments because this would become the House's problem. It should also be ingrained in the Constitution that the Senate only pass bills on a simple majority and also make a majority in the House 55% as a compromise. Also the election date would need to be allowed to float for the House because the majority could collapse before the next election. In this system, the House term would have to be extended to a maximum of four years. I propose that we move the elections to Saturday.The term of the President would remain fixed and the election date would remain the same, other than moving the election date to a Saturday in November instead of Tuesday. Also in these proposed changes, only Article 1 and 2 need to be changed, the rest of the Constitution will remain untouched.

I know that most conservative won't like any changes to the Constitution, but the Founders envisioned a county and our current state isn't what was envisioned. We should change the Constitution to reflect what they Founders wanted, even if we have to model our government after a republic in Europe. We may have done many innovative things in the 1790's, be we need to look at what the rest of the world has done to innovate and make a more representative government. Just because we were the first true republic since Rome founded by some of the best political minds of the time, doesn't mean that we shouldn't change to become more democratic and stable like the governments in France and Poland.

In some ways we have drifted from the constitution, and in some ways we have succeeded in following the constitution. I guess it really depends on what issues you are talking about.

Socially we have gone very far. We still have the issues of race baiting, and the gay marriage movement to win...but we have come very far from where we were in the time of the founders.

However, when you look at some of our other issues(i.e welfare, the economy, gun control, ect.) we have drifted away from the constitution. Taxes are practically double, maybe even triple what they were during the Boston Tea Party. The government is looking to confiscate guns...forcefully I might add(see NDAA 2014).

To answer your statements about political parties, we do have many parties. However, they are not recognized...and that is the fault of the people not the fault of the government(for once). People have this idea that voting third party means throwing away a vote, which has created what people today know as "the two party system". There are other parties, but they have no footing in any election above the state level. No piece of legislation will fix this, it is up to the people to get out of the two party mindset. The best we can do is maybe make it easier for third parties to get on the ballot.
 
Come on isn't obummer a con law scholar? We're in great hands with one who truly understands the constitution like ofailure!
 
Voting third party is a waste of a vote. It is also a waste of a vote to not vote for the dominant party in your region. The state legislatures draw districts that benefit them. We at least need to go to multi member districts or better yet proportional representation. I do agree about taxes to some extent. We should go over to a flat tax like what was proposed by Rick Perry, the only problem is that the IRS would lose power because fraud would be harder which makes the IRS less important. There would also be a mass lay off of accountants because the tax system would be easier to deal with. I agree with having background checks for non family transfers and mandatory gun safety courses for every one. I think those would be good because people are irresponsible.

As far as social issues go, other than character education, the government can't do much about social issues. Politicians can talk about family values then get caught in a sex scandal, but family and community are the best way to fix social issues. This doesn't work if you grew up with the KKK, but the government can't do much to fix that.
 
The founders would be more upset that we have millions of people unable to support themselves living off the government than anything else me thinks.
 
The founders would be more upset that we have millions of people unable to support themselves living off the government than anything else me thinks.

No, the founders would be upset that people unable to support themselve have the right to vote (not to mention women and minorities).
 
No, the founders would be upset that people unable to support themselve have the right to vote (not to mention women and minorities).

Well Charles Beard would have agreed with you, but his dualistic interpretations of the economic history of the early US have largely been rejected by scholars. Liberals such as yourself dredge those simplistic things up when they need to play class warfare in election season, but otherwise, it has been a discredited theory.
 
As far as I can tell, the Founders did a terrific job. Whether by genius or by sheer luck, they crafted a setup that has endured through radical societal change. Even they made changes as things progressed. And this is before the industrial age.

There are 310 million of us. We've never had a coup, we've never (successfully) impeached a President. Our very poorest citizen has more food on their table than a family in Bangladesh could afford in a week. Most places are safe to go to. Our currency is revered despite our own fiscal irresponsibility. There are 90 million cats and an unknown number of aliens among us, from nearby and from the stars. We are the largest cultural influence in every country in the world - even our enemies.

I know, I know. We all hate Obamacare, Social Security, Food Stamps, Drones, Waste, Fraud, Incompetence. So what? You think we have it bad here? We live like Princes.

We can safely assume the founders foresaw change in the future. Nobody expected everybody to like every change. Here we are, not perfect but not all dead either.

Good job Founders.
 
After reading the Federalist Papers in school and many of them recently, I have realized that the government the Founders set out to create has been a failure compared to how governments in Europe function. The Founders wanted a country that had many political groups that had a say in the political system rather than the two we have. The two are basically five parties pretending to be two, but are really just the same parties with slight differences. All European governments have at least three political parties that have to build coalitions to run the legislative branch of government. It also surprised me that the politician say we are the best government in the world, even though the most copied governmental structure since 1989 is the French Fifth Republic.

My idea is to replicate to some extent the modern French government. We should also have the states create multi-member districts or use proportional representation on a party list vote to elect our House members. Both of these proposed changes will make us have to expand the size of the House because multi-member districts need to have three representatives. The French government has separation of powers like ours does, but some powers are divided differently. In France, the lower house of the legislative branch runs the daily functions of the government and is led by a Prime Minister. The President appoints the Prime Minister out of the majority of the lower house or the predominate ideology. The President then can't fire the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister must come from the predominant ideology because the lower house doesn't have to accept the Prime Minister if the appointee can't gain a majority. The President and Prime Minister then work together to build the rest of the cabinet. I know this sound very foreign, but any change in elector procedures, whether it be proportional representation, multi-member districts or both, we would need to have the House of Representative run the day to day functions to give them incentive to work with each other and the President to keep the government functioning. This prevents the current intransigence of the House because the government on the whole wouldn't work without some cooperation with the President.

In this system, the President will still have veto power, but can't dissolve the cabinet and House on his own. The House could dissolve itself if the leadership lost the confidence of the majority of the House as a whole. The President would also have the ability to propose legislation directly. The Senate would also lose the ability to stop cabinet appointments because this would become the House's problem. It should also be ingrained in the Constitution that the Senate only pass bills on a simple majority and also make a majority in the House 55% as a compromise. Also the election date would need to be allowed to float for the House because the majority could collapse before the next election. In this system, the House term would have to be extended to a maximum of four years. I propose that we move the elections to Saturday.The term of the President would remain fixed and the election date would remain the same, other than moving the election date to a Saturday in November instead of Tuesday. Also in these proposed changes, only Article 1 and 2 need to be changed, the rest of the Constitution will remain untouched.

I know that most conservative won't like any changes to the Constitution, but the Founders envisioned a county and our current state isn't what was envisioned. We should change the Constitution to reflect what they Founders wanted, even if we have to model our government after a republic in Europe. We may have done many innovative things in the 1790's, be we need to look at what the rest of the world has done to innovate and make a more representative government. Just because we were the first true republic since Rome founded by some of the best political minds of the time, doesn't mean that we shouldn't change to become more democratic and stable like the governments in France and Poland.


i dont know what papers you were reading but it was not the "federalist"

the founders did not want political groups, read federalist 10 again.

madison states very clearly, that democratic government is very factious, and to limit factions, we are to have republican government...not democratic government.

it is democracy which america has moved towards which is destroying america, as the founders stated it would do, ....which is why the founders hated democracy.

democracy is the most vile form of government--james madison
 
No, the founders would be upset that people unable to support themselve have the right to vote (not to mention women and minorities).

correct, the founders wanted people voting who had a stake in america, those who own land and pay taxes.

because people do not work, but collect from government , their votes are legally bought with promises from people who are running for office.
 
Wasn't it Ben Franklin who was asked, "What kind of government are you giving us?" To which he replied, "a republic if you can keep it." We can't.
 
Wasn't it Ben Franklin who was asked, "What kind of government are you giving us?" To which he replied, "a republic if you can keep it." We can't.

in the early 20th century, people were sold a bill of goods, by telling them america was a democracy, of coarse this was done by the progressives, who came into being around 1890.

democracy is a democratic form of government, the founders chose republican government, but with the 17th amendment , and the ability of the federal government to operate outside its delegated powers, this has allow faction/special interest of democracy to spread across america and destroy the union, little by little.
 
in the early 20th century, people were sold a bill of goods, by telling them america was a democracy, of coarse this was done by the progressives, who came into being around 1890.

democracy is a democratic form of government, the founders chose republican government, but with the 17th amendment , and the ability of the federal government to operate outside its delegated powers, this has allow faction/special interest of democracy to spread across america and destroy the union, little by little.

Actually, the transition of American society from a civic-minded, aristocratic republic to an individualistic democracy began around the time of Andrew Jackson.
 
Actually, the transition of American society from a civic-minded, aristocratic republic to an individualistic democracy began around the time of Andrew Jackson.

but it is the structure of government, which has allowed democracy to grow, by having a direct election of the senator, and removing state power in the senate.

democracy, built on faction is always there, you cannot get rid of it, but you can limit its power, which the founders sought to do with republican government....stated in federalist 10
 
I salute your honesty.
i have looked at some early american court cases, around 1808 where people have sued because they were no longer allowed to vote.

the court stated to them in their decision" you sold your land, and no longer paying taxes, therefore you have no vote"
 
i have looked at some early american court cases, around 1808 where people have sued because they were no longer allowed to vote.

the court stated to them in their decision" you sold your land, and no longer paying taxes, therefore you have no vote"

A lot of people try to sweep that sort of thing under the rug when they talk about the founders.
 
correct, the founders wanted people voting who had a stake in america, those who own land and pay taxes.

because people do not work, but collect from government , their votes are legally bought with promises from people who are running for office.

i have looked at some early american court cases, around 1808 where people have sued because they were no longer allowed to vote.

the court stated to them in their decision" you sold your land, and no longer paying taxes, therefore you have no vote"

At the time of the original founding, only a lazy man had no land and paid no taxes. I imagine that land was probably free, all you had to do was utilize it.

307 million people later, that would be a rather implausible method of determining the merit to vote. Theoretically, I could live in a $20,000 a month penthouse in New York City, use tax credits from a previous year to pay nothing this year and lose my right to vote. So, that system is gone.

As far as "paying taxes", what taxes did they have in 1776? That's a real question - the income tax is only 100 years old but of course everyone pays taxes now, one way or another. But back then - how did that work?

Unfortunately, we have overshot the new reality and we don't even require you to own a single piece of ID to vote, let alone land and taxes. I suppose eventually the pendulum will stop somewhere at the center.
 
Back
Top Bottom