CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

Derek wrote:Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

The constitution provides us an avenue to change it - not abolish it. I don't think it needs abolished, it justs needs the people to pay attention. I think for the most part the states need to take back power from the federal government.

Spence wrote:

Derek wrote:Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

The constitution provides us an avenue to change it - not abolish it. I don't think it needs abolished, it justs needs the people to pay attention. I think for the most part the states need to take back power from the federal government.

I quoted the Declaration of Independence, those are not my words.

I'm gonna have to say that altering this government is not possible in it's current form.

I know, I was pointing out that I don't think we need to abolish the government, just several of the people who make up the government.

Derek wrote:I quoted the Declaration of Independence, those are not my words.

.

I am pretty sure, as eloquent and erudite as you are, we knew that. The easiest way to change our situation is to vote the bums out. The stumbling block to that is the majority want who is in. There are statistics to back that up. The most valid was the survey done last year in November.

I am very eloquent.

But I disagree, I think if the election were held now, he would be out. He has gone WAY down in any number of polls by almost every polling organization. But IMO that will not "fix" any problems. The country is heading down the wrong road, and there is no leader out there, that has the guts to fix it. GW tried to fix Social Security and keep it at least solvent for a little longer, but it was stopped...and the group that stopped it stood and applauded during a certain state of the Union. ANY leader that stands up and attempts to turn us back to the Constitution WILL be promptly destroyed by a relentless assault on his character or a focusing on an event in his past, even 30 years ago, by a biased/sold out/corrupt press corp.

But I still stand behind my belief that the founders were correct in not allowing the public to elect the President, nor did they have him on the ballot back then. The public is just not smart enough, as a whole, to make a decision like this.

I disagree with that. I think the public is plenty smart enough to elect good people. I believe the problem is all the people who don't pay attention or believe that the federal government is such an abstract institution that they do not matter. I believe the public, given all the information, will alway make the right decisions. The problem is politicians get people to turn on each other. The rich guy gets lots of free stuff. The poor guy gets everything for free. YOU have to pay for it all. Everyone is "you".

The problem isn't IQ it is focus. The government does effect our lives, it is in our power to make the government fiscally responsible.

I think if we the people would band together to limit the federal government and strenthen the state and local governments, we would be taking the most important step to that end. The question is, do we have the will to refuse the federal government's money? Can we take it upon ourselves, as individuals, to help our neighbor who hits hard times? - Even if it is of his own doing. Can we, as individuals, help those in our communities with mental and physical disabilities? If we insist the government have limited impact on our lives, we must be prepared to become real communities again. We can be one nation, but we also need to be a nation of thousands of communities that take interest in each other.

Spence wrote:The problem isn't IQ it is focus.

Therein lies the cruxt of the problem. For better or worse, many Americans are lazy when it comes to involvement in politics. They are more than happy to be spoon fed their politics through ads than do any real research on what is true or not true. If the ad in question fits thier current political paradigm then all the better, regardless of whether or not it is baseless propoganda.

In every election that I have participated in since the advent of the internet (thank you Al Gore ) I have done tremendous amounts of research on all the issues that I will be voting on, regardless of whether they will directly effect me, or perhaps my limited interest in the topic. Unfortunately, you will not find that type of commitment by most Americans.

As for Presidents affecting much change, or state govenors for that matter...just doesn't happen much anymore. The real power lies with the legislatures. Replacing the President or Govenor might make you feel good at the time, but then the disillusion sets in, as one realizes how little power for change they actually wield. The state of California stands crippled due to our legilature, not Arnold, and it will make no difference who we put in office, republican or democrat (well, the dems will just get to spend more money we don't have, so I guess it makes some difference), if we do not replace the folks who are really impeding positive change...the legislatures. I could go on and on...just my two cents.

Legislatures make law, so they will always yield lots of power. Presidents and governors have the bully pulpit, though, they have the power to set the agenda and they have veto power. The legislature can over ride a veto but by the time the debate starts to over ride, the public is usually informed enough to become involved.

Spence wrote:I disagree with that. I think the public is plenty smart enough to elect good people. I believe the problem is all the people who don't pay attention or believe that the federal government is such an abstract institution that they do not matter. I believe the public, given all the information, will alway make the right decisions. The problem is politicians get people to turn on each other. The rich guy gets lots of free stuff. The poor guy gets everything for free. YOU have to pay for it all. Everyone is "you".

The problem isn't IQ it is focus. The government does effect our lives, it is in our power to make the government fiscally responsible.

I think if we the people would band together to limit the federal government and strenthen the state and local governments, we would be taking the most important step to that end. The question is, do we have the will to refuse the federal government's money? Can we take it upon ourselves, as individuals, to help our neighbor who hits hard times? - Even if it is of his own doing. Can we, as individuals, help those in our communities with mental and physical disabilities? If we insist the government have limited impact on our lives, we must be prepared to become real communities again. We can be one nation, but we also need to be a nation of thousands of communities that take interest in each other.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I think they were right by not providing for the election of the President or that 2 senators from each state. The issues that they face, much like the Supreme Court, were not meant to be influenced by the court of public opinion. People were to worry about their own states, national politics was meant to be of no concern to them.

I also acknowledge that we are not a Republic anymore...too many people believe that we are a "democracy" and "majority Wins" when that is not the case in certain elections.

I don't think we should abolish the electorial college, it should remain the way we elect a president - But I also believe we should elect delegates. I think the I think we should remain a democratic republic, when you start closing the group of people who decide who is going to be elected it becomes more like an Aristocracy making a king. I don't want to be ruled, I would rather have a seat at the table who decides who will lead and how they will lead. We don't disagree as much as you may think.

Nobody on this site disagrees much, which is a good thing...so we make up reasons to disagree...which is a good thing. Where is Billybud...he is disagreeable. I wonder if I can get a stand up comedian job?

The reasons for the electorial college are as valid today as they were when it was established. There are of course arguments on both sides, but in essence it does give smaller states a reason to belong to the Union.

As does the two senators per state rule. We would really be in a sad state of the senate ran like the house.

I still believe in a representitive republic. I just think the problems lie with the representitive and not the democracy.