← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Exelsis_Deo
Thread ID: 5795 | Posts: 8 | Started: 2003-03-25
2003-03-25 02:29 | User Profile
America is not only percieved world-wide as all that is posted here, the problems run even deeper, on a ideological basis. Our own failure to make reality the prescription set forth by our Founding Fathers raises doubt in the world as to whether or not such a country can exist in the world today and tomorrow. We've done a lot to prove that it cannot. That those days are indeed over. Also, there is distrust and cynicism when dealing seriously with American presidents, because 4 years isn't really that long a time. Other nations will wait a couple years and look forward to dealing with the new president. It's perceived as too transient, not stable enough to make deals with. Our presidents frequently undermine and work in opposite directions of previous administrations, as those administrations are appointed by the president. I believe that we should eliminate the Presidency. It has become too powerful. Only if we do this will Congress become a power of its own, which can more accurately represent the American people. The only other thing we could do is make the term longer, and that option is surely madness. It would invite tyranny. Eliminating the office of the Presidency would make our country less efficient militarily, but should we be concerned about that ? We could have commitees as we already do in the Senate to perform these roles. Since the Great Depression, the United States of America and its Constitution has become, in large, a victim of modernity. Presidential races are like boxing matches, or horse races, when the victor gets the spoils for at least 4 years but no-one around the world takes them seriously except on the threat or corruption level. Perhaps it is time to seriously discuss the elimination of the office and talk about the future of not only personal liberty, but the future of the American Superpower and what it's role should be.
2003-03-25 03:33 | User Profile
We are past the point where fiddling with procedure will make much difference.
The US president is a pre-Cromwellian monarch who is permitted some lattitude by the powers who own him, but mark well if there were no president (or if there were two!) the same policies we are following would be followed nonetheless.
There is no substitute for change at a much more fundamental level. The system is reaching a point where full devolution will be much more likely than stopgap reform. Hold out for the prize that eluded Lee and Jeff Davis.
August 1914: Began the collapse of old order Europe.
March 2003: Began the collapse of old order America.
2003-03-26 17:19 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ragnar@Mar 24 2003, 21:33 ** We are past the point where fiddling with procedure will make much difference.
the same policies we are following would be followed nonetheless.
March 2003: Began the collapse of old order America. **
[QUOTE] The large majority of Congress and the populace was only in favor of this war on Sadaam's Iraq if it was mandated by the UN. Not by 1441, but by the ongoing discussions and the purported resolution which the US never got. So, in my opinion, if the Presidency did not exist, Congress and its voted on commitees would not have initiated military action without a UN mandate, which Bush and Blair went on with on their own, once again proving the crass power of this office.
The more complete revolution or secession you speak of sounds like a pipe dream to me. I hate to say that, but its true.
Imagine if we had a Presidential candidate, who also ran for Congress, or was a congressman already, and ran on the proposal that the Executive branch as it is be eliminated and replace its duties. The 20th century is chock full of Presidential blunders and down-right anti-Constitutional agendas and actions. The 21st is starting off no different, as a matter of fact, Bush is merely compounding upon the past.
2003-03-28 18:43 | User Profile
It would be well for the country to have a constitutional convention and have the branches of government brought back to their original purposes. All of them have gotten out of control, like a mestatisized growth. Moreover the fiscal irresponsibility of centralized government threatens the commonweal in an acute way. The chief cause of this peril is in the direct taxation imposed by the 16th amendment. Prior to its passage, many looney schemes were thought up by politictians but there was not enough money to carry them out. Now such escapades are the rule.
2003-03-28 20:53 | User Profile
The 16th Amendment was a turning point, and the metastasization worked by unconstitutional spending cannot be gainsaid. The first truly unconstitutional president was FDR, a chief architect of the latter. But these are all paper problems, to my mind, to be worked through by principled men, provided the right circumstances. The three biggest chunks of federal spending are on the military, farmers and old people (Social Security). In and of themselves, none of these expenditures bother me terribly.
Whether America has one president or three (an early suggestion) or a dominant Congress or a dominant Executive are all interesting, and I would say important, questions. That is, they've got consequences. I would muster myself to review the Federalist Papers for inspiration on tackling these issues, but I can't right now and here's why: America's problem right now isn't institutional, it's racial. America at the dawn of the new century is an increasingly multiracial glob largely controlled by Jews.
This is where it all starts. You simply cannot have a clusterfuck of racial groups and a democracy at the same time. Hell, you can't have that with a dictatorship. The unevenly borne social and economic costs, the fighting, the tension, the multiple loyalties, the intelligence, temperament and language differences and resulting degredation of values make for a toxic brew that's about to pop the lid off the pot. Until that issue is addressed, everything else is so much Homeland Security Duct Tape slapped on the Hoover Dam.
Nothing goes right until we go White.
2003-03-29 00:57 | User Profile
And just HOW do you propose to " go white " ?? This thread is about a possible reality, in this nation now. There is not going to be a race war in the US. It just ain't gonna happen. And it shouldn't. The racist whites have secession as their only alternative. Secession or assumption of another region in the world. That hasn't happenned either. I understand and symapthise with the movement. I really do. But I look at reality. And I also consider the just elements of non-White peoples.. they aren't going away. You MUST accept this. You did not create yourself. This thread is supposed to be about whether or not to eliminate the office of the Presidency and replace it with a more just alternative.
2003-03-31 19:21 | User Profile
We can't do away with the executive without a constitutional amendment, and that is unrealistic. The best that can be done is to is to enforce the constitution as it was originally intended, and indeed that is unlikely. An informed electorate might be able to bring about a curtailment of the current behemoth state, once they realize that it works against the commonweal. A constitutional convention is the only way to bring change about.
2003-03-31 21:52 | User Profile
Originally posted by Exelsis_Deo@Mar 28 2003, 18:57 ** And just HOW do you propose to " go white " ?? **
Start by raising the racial consciousness of a critical mass of American Whites. That need not involve a "race war." Speaking as a "racist white," I don't see secession as the only alternative, but something worth thinking about.
I think the topic you raise is an interesting one, but if anyone's taking bets on whether a change in the office of the Presidency as fundamental as the one you suggest will happen before an emergence of White racial consciousness, I know where I'd put my money.