I think that captures the gist of it. Well said.
In other words, this is the best democracy can offer and create where we all need to be subservient to the status quo on our knees the best we can muster because that’s all we can hope to ever achieve or do.
That’s all I need to know about this thread.
Carry on sir.
I’m not sure where the “needing to be subservient and on our knees” comes from, but yes, the potential of democracy (or republicanism) falls short of allowing the millions of individuals under it to live their lives completely free of mutually imposed restraints. I don’t think there’s ever been, nor can there be in principle, a society or system of government that allows people to do whatever the hell they want all the time. So yes, the most freedom such a system can ever provide will always be limited.
I will point out a couple of things, however:
-
As disappointed as you might be in this outcome, there is still a right and wrong answer: as bleak as the world is, and may always be, some systems are still less bleak than others, and it remains rational to strive for the less bleak systems over the more bleak.
-
The conclusion that we’ve drawn in this thread is that, given the original structure of the American Constitution (plus a few of the Amendments), the American system of government used to be better than it is today, which implies that as bleak as things may be today, the American system is not necessarily the best the world has to offer. There is the potential for improvement, of returning to a simpler, better time–at least in principle.
In other words, our beloved corrupt bureaucratic oligarchic democracy which in reality is a full fledged dictatorship is the best possible government outcome humanity can muster.
How nice, quaint, and fitting…
At least you’re honest about that.
Assassinations diverted the US Constitutional government into today’s Oligarchy/Socialist Globulism.
Assassination, corporate funding, and ect.
The US Constitution was just a little shy of being able to properly defend against the magic of obfuscation and extortion. They could have documented things just a little differently and the “old good” would have become the “new even better”. But the question is what to do now that Humpty has been scrambled.
Yes.
Well, at least you don’t try to water things down.
Says quite a bit of humanity as a species, doesn’t it?
It says that power is a corrupting influence.
I never did think democracy/republicanism made people into saints–as I recall describing democracy, in this very thread, as two people pointing guns at each other’s heads–but I did think it was possible to poise these two people into an equal and balanced standoff whereby no one got shot in virtue of the stalemate–and I still think it’s possible, in principle, to achieve that state at least for a short while as the American system seemed to be that way at least in the beginning.
The difference between you and I, Joker, is not so much in our opinions (although there are obvious differences there) but in what we aspire to philosophically. Your motive in this thread, at least when you pay us the occasional visit, seems to be to shit on all government systems and humanity in general–which is fine–I’m not one to shit on another’s parade–but for me, that is neither here nor there. In other words, if things turn out to be as bleak as you surmise, I can come to terms with that, but I will continue to scrutinize it in a philosophical and scientific vein such that I can learn as much as I can about how the system works. My motive, in other words, is to study it, because with knowledge comes power. That’s why I’m obsessed way more by this pet project of mine–studying the American Constitution–than I am whining and complaining about the dismal state of affairs that America, and the world by proxy, seems to have gotten herself into.
Anyway, I was about to post my next round of thoughts on the Amendments to the American Constitution:
The next category of Amendments is the Safeguards of Civil Rights. This category contains Amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24, and 26. I personally am going to split these into the first three, which were a direct result of the Emancipation Declaration, and which I think I will call the “Reconstruction Amendments” 
, and the last four, though following in the same vein, are more indirect as results of the Emancipation Declaration, all of which deal with granting voting rights to certain groups (with the exception of Amendment #24 which deals with polling taxes in federal elections). I split them this way because 7 Amendments is too much for one post, so they will be split in to 3 and 4, the latter being explored in a subsequent post.
Amendment #13 (1864):
I don’t think there’s much to be said of this one. It’s pretty clear and straight forward, and we all know the history behind it. I mean, the topic of slavery can be fodder for huge discussions, of course, but not without derailing this thread, or at least its current focus on the Amendments. I’d like to keep this focus, and as far as interpreting this Amendment goes, it is, like a said, clear and straight forward.
The wiki article, however, does say this:
“This amendment rendered inoperative or moot several of the original parts of the constitution.”
What parts?
Amendment #14 (1868):
Wow! Though I completely sympathize with Section 1, Sections 3, 4, and 5 seem like the winners sticking it to the losers. I supposed it seemed like a necessary measure at the time, but I can imagine how this must have planted some deep seeded resentment on the part of the Confederates that probably linger to this day. Section 2 just seems like a necessary evil, just making it clear how representatives are to be apportioned now that slaves are to have full representation in the House.
Overall, I think this Amendment requires some further reading in order to arrive at a good interpretation, so I may come back with further thoughts some other time.
Amendment #15 (1870):
Again, clear and straight forward. Not much else to say.
- This is either the “United States” or the “Constitution of the United States”.
Amendment #19 (1920):
Like the emancipation of the slaves, we all know the history and outcome of this Amendment. So I won’t dwell over it too much (but feel free).
Instead, I’m going to ask a question that this Amendment raises in my mind–why did the United States feel the need to qualify such an Amendment with an “account” at all–i.e. “on account of sex”? Why not: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State… period?
Well, I can imagine one might protest: we have to qualify it by some limitation–should we let foreigners vote? What about animals? What about children?
If these objections hold water at all, it means that American culture, at the time, really must have thought of women as a class of American citizens unfit to vote, that if they were permitted to vote, America would have gone to hell in a hand bag.
In any case, it is, once again, one of the few (or many?) Amendments dictating to the States how to conduct their electoral process–not a bad dictate, mind you, at least not in my personal opinion, for like that safeguarding the right of former slaves to vote, I fully endorse this one and think it right, but let’s keep in mind it is a step in the direction of the feds imposing power over the States. But then again, I guess this depends–the Amendment does not specify which elections in which the right of citizens to vote is not to be denied or abridged–State or Federal elections. I guess since it puts it in terms of “the right to vote” in general, it applies to voting where ever it may occur, at whatever level of government. If it were just at the federal level, we may not be forced to recognize it as a federal limitation being imposed on State governments.
Amendment #23 (1961):
^^ Are they going to add this clause to every Amendment? I mean, it should go without saying.
Amendment #24 (1962):
^^ For fuck sakes, the Constitution needs an Amendment that says: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, all articles henceforth amended into the Constitution of the United States… and be done with.
Just to add to this, the wiki article on the American Constitution says:
“Along with literacy tests and durational residency requirements, poll taxes were used to keep low-income (primarily African American) citizens from participating in elections.”
After all the discussions in this thread about conservatives and liberals, I begin to wonder whether statements like this ^ are grounded in anything solid. Yes, obviously history will show that the government put a poll tax on voting, but is there any evidence that it was really “to keep low-income (primarily African American) citizens from participating in elections”? Mind you, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was.
Amendment #26 (1971):
^^ Good thing you put that in there, guys. 
Overall, out of these Amendments, I’m sure you’ll notice the latter 3 were all ratified relatively close together in time–an obvious outcome of the cultural revolution of the sixties (I find it uncanny how many parallels one can find between this time and that a century earlier–both “turbulent sixties” so to speak–both leaving in their wake 3 new Amendments by which to move America forward after the changes of revolution).
Vote for me as supreme ruler of your autocracy.
with love,
Trixie
Yeah, we need another Pol Pot.
I am no Pole dancer, nor am I a Pot head.
Simple minded and myopic viewpoint.
Does a dumb baby boomer simply become wise when he hits the ripe old age of 60? Is an eighteen year old any more of a blathering idiot when he is eighteen, or thirty? Does a community of specimens, gorillas, become sharper, the older they get?
with Love,
Trixie
I take it that you’re not familiar with the dictator Pol Pot then.
Too bad. If you were, you’d make a better lead than the clowns in power right now.
Vote for hooters?
After Donald Trump, that will be the next standard.