How Can Americans take back their democracy?

I know what anachronistic means, and I already said that this document is a guild line for every point in time. It can and will be used in the present and future. It is the guiding principal from what this country is founded on.

 

Are you trolling here?

 

Funny that you mention one of the reasons that the document is "perfect" (although I wouldn't call it that).

It can be amended and has survived long enough to be amended 27 times. Keep in mind, however, that the first ten are our inherent rights as people created by the same people that wrote the document in an effort to ensure that our government can not become too powerful.

The later amendments (with the exception of the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th; they were all essential to defining the liberty of individuals) were all designed as a refinement of earlier articles and to clarify points to keep the government in its place.

In fact the only amendments that have really expanded government power were the 16th and 18th amendments. The 18th is irrelevant since it was abolished by the 21st and the 16th is still BS.

A document that can not change and has not changed for over 200 years is one that is really a problem.

I'm not arguing for the documents perfection; however, your snide comment is clearly a jab at the US constitution. Do you even know anything about it? Do you understand the scope of the thing that you are playing with? I don't know how your constitution or government articles work (and quite frankly I don't have time for that, right now), but I wouldn't dare talk about your defining government documents unless I knew and understood them.

The amendment process was built into the constitution. It was not something that someone came along and said, "(*)(*)(*)(*)! this document sucks! let's change it!" It doesn't work that way.

 

Ok, I'll take your word that you know what anachronistic means.

Do you know what naive means?

 

No, are you?

 

Sturmgeist, well said thank you!

 

The changes needs to be relevant, and up to date.

Sadly, the changes to the US Constitution are neither.

Maybe, one day, you'll get it right. However, judging by history I seriously doubt that.

 

I believe it's synonymous with antipodean.

 

“Maybe, one day, you'll get it right. However, judging by history I seriously doubt that.”

This quote implies your country has done better. How so? Explain how your country has done better.

 

We don't need a "2nd Amendment".

 

That's an inherent right. It implies the right of the citizens to combat tyranny. The fact that you don't have such a thing shows that your government doesn't work for you. They are afraid of you and will constantly keep power in their favor to eliminate a threat from the people. So, on the contrary, you do need a right to bear arms.

 

Incorrect. Wanna try again?

It means we have the intelligence to elect legitimate governments that work for us.

We don't cower in fear like the Americans.

Maybe you should go over to the Miley Cyrus Forum ... you'll probably feel more at home there. You're just looking a little silly here. Seeya sport

 

Wow that was trolling. So what two goverments are we comparing here? The US and who? Just to be clear.

 

Not trolling: facts.

Australia.

 

This old chestnut.

When did you last combat tyranny? You are mired in the tyranny of Big Money and I haven't heard you fire a shot.

 

It appears that the millions of guns Americans own are firing blanks.

 

I am afraid I have had to take the unusual step of reporting you for stalking and overall pointlessness.

Bon appetit.

 

That would be rather like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

Granny says...

... by runnin' all dem Muslamic terrorists an' Hispexican drug dealers outta the country...

... shoulda never let `em in to begin with.

 

Granny is not Irish by any chance?

 

It will be interesting to see not which corporate-owned party wins this or that House but whether Americans can make a small step in the direction of democracy by winning the Florida proposition for fair drawing of electoral boundaries.

In the US these boundaries are drawn by politicians with a vested interest in how they are drawn. In NZ, they are drawn by an independent commission.

Which means, of course, that in the US, you get totally absurd results that ensure the disenfranchisement of swathes of the voting population. Usually based on ethnicity.

The Fair Districts campaign is, to New Zealanders, a strangely 19th century exercise in freedom-taking.

 

Here we have it. Netanyahu wants the US to let him bomb Iran...or preferably do it themselves.

I am sure Boehner would oblige if he could.

 

The United States is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. We vote for representatives who run the government. We do NOT vote on everything the government does, nor should an elected official take a poll to determine what to do in congress. We elect a person, the one we think will do the best job, and it is their job to do their best.
A politician will do what his constituents want, a statesman will do what he feels is best for the nation.

 

Sigh. Every democracy does that these days.

Athens was a while back.

 

Take away voting rights from welfare pigs and Fox news Palinista tea party type zombies. which i do not see happening in the near future, so my guess is this country is going to go down deep.