Our US Constitution Doesn't Handle Inflexible Ideologies

[cabse5]

Our Constitution has an inherent weakness. It can’t handle ideologies that are inflexible.
The one inflexible ideology that it can readily handle is: ‘whatever is in the best interests of the US government’ - and that’s open to interpretation. IMO, The Constitution assumed every American cared for this ideology more than any other ideology. That seems odd when one considers the inflexibility of the ideology that created the American Revolution (on both the American and English sides).

One example of how ‘futile’ The Constitution has been in handling inflexible ideology is the reason(s) motivating my writing this blurb: the last 10 years, or so, of American politics. Everyone seems to be an inflexible ideologue, now.
These days, if you aren't an inflexible political ideologue, you're a political pariah in American politics or at least in the minority of American politics. Even though most are inflexible, they demand their elected representatives to act flexible (pass legislation that may need compromise) in the best interests of the US government. Yet they don't ask for compromise, they ask for a majority of either house of congress - to ram their inflexible ideology home.

 

[CalGun]

A good number of legal scholars believe the constitution was written to limit / restrict governmenet not people. It was created out of compromise and it takes compromise to modify it and work within its realm. Sadly I think we have a man who would prefer to be a dictator in charge right now who doesn't think its rules apply to him. We have a congress that is unwilling to compromise and find middle ground. Many blame the Republicans in the House but equal blame should go to the Democrats in the Senate. They've offered the president plenty of cover from not having to veto house bills that have been passed and the senate won't even take up.

Our Constitution has an inherent weakness. It can’t handle ideologies that are inflexible.
The one inflexible ideology that it can readily handle is: ‘what’s in the best interests of the US government’. And that’s open to interpretation. IMO, The Constitution assumed every American cared for this ideology more than any other ideology. That seems odd when one considers the inflexibility of the ideology that created the American Revolution (on both the American and English sides).

One example of how ‘futile’ The Constitution has been in handling inflexible ideology is the reason(s) motivating my writing this blurb: the last 10 years, or so, of American politics. Everyone seems to be an inflexible ideologue.

 

[joG]

.... ‘whatever is in the best interests of the US government’ ....

I stopped reading here.

 

[cabse5]

But even so, you had to post... good for you.

 

[sangha]

Our Constitution has an inherent weakness. It can’t handle ideologies that are inflexible.
The one inflexible ideology that it can readily handle is: ‘whatever is in the best interests of the US government’ - and that’s open to interpretation. IMO, The Constitution assumed every American cared for this ideology more than any other ideology. That seems odd when one considers the inflexibility of the ideology that created the American Revolution (on both the American and English sides).

One example of how ‘futile’ The Constitution has been in handling inflexible ideology is the reason(s) motivating my writing this blurb: the last 10 years, or so, of American politics. Everyone seems to be an inflexible ideologue, now.
These days, if you aren't an inflexible political ideologue, you're a political pariah in American politics or at least in the minority of American politics. Even though most are inflexible, they demand their elected representatives to act flexible (pass legislation that may need compromise) in the best interests of the US government. Yet they don't ask for compromise, they ask for a majority of either house of congress - to ram their inflexible ideology home.

I disagree with your premise. The Framers were well aware of the dangers of self-interested people and factions. They designed a system that would minimize those interests by requiring that a political consensus (ie democracy) justify govt action. The idea that any document could eliminate self-interested parties, or that ideological inflexibility is at historic record levels, is just not true.

 

[cabse5]

Why not pass numerous pages and acts of legislation to prevent some fallout from inflexibility? It has already been attempted. Amendments to The Constitution can also be proposed.

 

[cabse5]

I disagree with your premise. The Framers were well aware of the dangers of self-interested people and factions. They designed a system that would minimize those interests by requiring that a political consensus (ie democracy) justify govt action. The idea that any document could eliminate self-interested parties, or that ideological inflexibility is at historic record levels, is just not true.

My premise is not to eliminate self-absorbing groups, just neutralize them. My premise is The Constitution doesn't function effectively when self-absorbing groups aren't somewhat neutralized.

 

[shrubnose]

Why not pass numerous pages and acts of legislation to prevent some fallout from inflexibility? It has already been attempted.

Amendments to The Constitution can also be proposed.

And some have been passed but it's not likely that many more will be passed anytime soon.

No matter how much a few people would like to see that happen.

 

[sangha]

My premise is not to eliminate self-absorbing groups, just neutralize them. My premise is The Constitution doesn't function effectively when self-absorbing groups aren't somewhat neutralized.

The constitution does reduce the effects of faction. It just doesn't eliminate all the risk, nor can it without taking actions which would infringe upon our rights.

But I'm willing to consider any suggestions you may have

 

[Reformedfindlay]

I disagree with your premise. The Framers were well aware of the dangers of self-interested people and factions. They designed a system that would minimize those interests by requiring that a political consensus (ie democracy) justify govt action. The idea that any document could eliminate self-interested parties, or that ideological inflexibility is at historic record levels, is just not true.

The founders had amazing vision that still exceeds even this day, the constitution is certainly an incredible piece, perfect? Prorbably not, I don't really know. Damn good? I think so.

 

[Master PO]

I disagree with your premise. The Framers were well aware of the dangers of self-interested people and factions. They designed a system that would minimize those interests by requiring that a political consensus (ie democracy) justify govt action. The idea that any document could eliminate self-interested parties, or that ideological inflexibility is at historic record levels, is just not true.

most of this is true, however, what is not true is this part..... [democracy]

the u.s. was not created as a democracy, a democratic form of government is very factitious.

the founders, created a republican form of government which is less factitious....


democratic forms, are vile and evil, and are not liberty.


federalist 10-The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

 

[Master PO]

My premise is not to eliminate self-absorbing groups, just neutralize them. My premise is The Constitution doesn't function effectively when self-absorbing groups aren't somewhat neutralized.

repeal the 17th amendment then.

 

[Master PO]

The constitution does reduce the effects of faction. It just doesn't eliminate all the risk, nor can it without taking actions which would infringe upon our rights.

But I'm willing to consider any suggestions you may have

republics are less factitious...then democracies.

Democracy is the most vile form of government---James Madison

 

[Master PO]

The founders had amazing vision that still exceeds even this day, the constitution is certainly an incredible piece, perfect? Prorbably not, I don't really know. Damn good? I think so.

its not perfect, but the problems we are having today is because judges and politicians a have changed its meaning and purpose.

 

[hado117]

Our Constitution has an inherent weakness. It can’t handle ideologies that are inflexible.
The one inflexible ideology that it can readily handle is: ‘whatever is in the best interests of the US government’ - and that’s open to interpretation. IMO, The Constitution assumed every American cared for this ideology more than any other ideology. That seems odd when one considers the inflexibility of the ideology that created the American Revolution (on both the American and English sides).

One example of how ‘futile’ The Constitution has been in handling inflexible ideology is the reason(s) motivating my writing this blurb: the last 10 years, or so, of American politics. Everyone seems to be an inflexible ideologue, now.
These days, if you aren't an inflexible political ideologue, you're a political pariah in American politics or at least in the minority of American politics. Even though most are inflexible, they demand their elected representatives to act flexible (pass legislation that may need compromise) in the best interests of the US government. Yet they don't ask for compromise, they ask for a majority of either house of congress - to ram their inflexible ideology home.

the constitutions greatest inherent weakness is that it is useless piece of garbage. an antiquated artifact of a lost cause. the constitution was written that the people would control the government, not the government control the people. per patrick henry. before the civil war to commit treason in america a person was an enemy of the people, after the c war treason is anyone who rebels against the federal gov. anyone today that says they are a defender of the const. is either a fool or a liar.

 

[Master PO]

the constitutions greatest inherent weakness is that it is useless piece of garbage. an antiquated artifact of a lost cause. the constitution was written that the people would control the government, not the government control the people. per patrick henry. before the civil war to commit treason in america a person was an enemy of the people, after the c war treason is anyone who rebels against the federal gov. anyone today that says they are a defender of the const. is either a fool or a liar.

the Constitution.... setups the structure of the federal government.

if creates federalism, a separation of powers between the states and the federal government, and it places restrictions on the federal government via the bill of rights.

if does not grant any rights or powers to the people.

the Constitution is a good document, it has been changed by politicians and judges, from it original meaning.....

 

[Reformedfindlay]

the Constitution.... setups the structure of the federal government.

if creates federalism, a separation of powers between the states and the federal government, and it places restrictions on the federal government via the bill of rights.

if does not grant any rights or powers to the people.

the Constitution is a good document, it has been changed by politicians and judges, from it original meaning.....

It has to change. That's why it allows amendments in the first place. The issue is what changes should we be making to it.

 

[Master PO]

It has to change. That's why it allows amendments in the first place. The issue is what changes should we be making to it.

change?.... the Constitution has changed only in a few ways, per the amendment process.

most of the changes to the federal government have taken place by unconstitutional means.

 

[cabse5]

repeal the 17th amendment then.

I'd start with legislation that provides more checks and balances unless the 'moment' required a more urgent response. Meaning that waiting one moment longer would make a difference between success and failure. IMO, there are very few responses that fit into this category.

Specifically, deciding there's been too much inaction on an issue and unilaterally ruling on said issue is not one of those urgent response moments. Even less urgent when houses of congress (and The Executive) refuse to encourage an atmosphere of negotiation. All those scoundrels should be voted out.

 

[Master PO]

I'd start with legislation that provides more checks and balances unless the 'moment' required a more urgent response. Meaning that waiting a moment longer would make a difference between success and failure. IMO, there are very few responses that fit into this category.

the 17th amendment wiped out a MAJOR CHECK And BALANCE of the constitution.

 

[cabse5]

the 17th amendment wiped out a MAJOR CHECK And BALANCE of the constitution.

I see the 17th as providing a whole host of additional checks and balances (popular election) rather than state legislatures deciding. Sometimes the people get it wrong, though. Are we less informed? Do we have too few choices?

 

[Master PO]

I see the 17th as providing a whole host of additional checks and balances (popular election) rather than state legislatures deciding. Sometimes the people get it wrong, though. Are we less informed? Do we have too few choices?

the founders wanted the senate to be the guardian of the constitution, and the first bulwark against unconstitutional laws, and the USSC being the second.

the 17th, moved america closer to a democracy, something the founders did not want, they wanted a republic based on the roman republic of "mixed government" so that power would never be only in 1 entity to become tyrannical.

divided powers of a republic cannot be tyrannical.

 

[TurtleDude]

My premise is not to eliminate self-absorbing groups, just neutralize them. My premise is The Constitution doesn't function effectively when self-absorbing groups aren't somewhat neutralized.

that sounds like an advertisement for TUMS rather than an assessment of the political environment

 

[haymarket]

Our Constitution has an inherent weakness. It can’t handle ideologies that are inflexible.

The problem is NOT with our Constitution.The problem is with the inflexible ideologies and the people who hold them ignoring pragmatics and the real world as it is in favor of their own self imposed belief system. Right now in our history, those individuals seem to be making more noise because of the internet and control of some media sites but in reality are still a small and tiny minority. However, they are but the sore on the ass of the body politic and over time will be dismissed as the marginalized whacko's they really are.

 

[cabse5]

The problem is NOT with our Constitution.The problem is with the inflexible ideologies and the people who hold them ignoring pragmatics and the real world as it is in favor of their own self imposed belief system. Right now in our history, those individuals seem to be making more noise because of the internet and control of some media sites but in reality are still a small and tiny minority. However, they are but the sore on the ass of the body politic and over time will be dismissed as the marginalized whacko's they really are.

Which do you consider a small minority? Fiscal conservatives? Environmentalists? SSM advocates (and the state judges that vote for this precedent)? Advocates of open borders? Prosecutors of anti-American terrorism? Lovers of anti-American terrorism? Lovers of capitalism? Haters of capitalism? Haters of compromise amongst elected officials?...... (there is no viable polar opposite).

We have entered a 'dark ages-like' time in America. Very little open mindedness. An abundance of ideology. I think our society, right now, is highly polarized. I think that in previous times of high polarization amongst Americans, since The Constitution can't handle this 'strife', bad things happen in America like wide spread economic unrest and lawlessness, etc.