What do you think can be done to change our current problems within our democracy? Do we choose monarchy? Democracy?

Some say that the US has been ungovernable since 1776 .
What do you define as our "problems" ?
When a women asked Ben Franklin what they had given the nation after the Constitutional Convention ;Franklin replied " a Republic if you can keep it.

Might I suggest that the founders had no intention of creating a "democracy" as it is classically defined. I would also suggest that the further we drift from the founders vision the more "problems " we find.

Tom I think the US was designed to be ungovernable. Those who wrote the constitution wanted the soveriegnity to be in the states not with an appointed king. They constructed a system where without consensus it is impossible to get anything done and someone called this democracy. Classical democracy operated so that everyone could be heard, the US is too big for that so you have a system where some can be heard, but if you want to have your government truly work I would make some simple suggestions
Do away with mid term elections and have all representatives and senators elected at the same time
All appropriations to be made in the budget, no extra pork anywhere, no stapling bills
Remove the filibuster and set time limits to speeches
Set times limits of the length of time a person can hold a seat, after all you have limited the reign of the president, why not limit the others

Here is a brief tutorial of the congress in action ,according to Jean Arthur and Jimmy Stewart from the classic movie 'Mr.Smith goes to Washington'.

YouTube - How to Propose a Bill according to Jean Arthur (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZFRP67sX8o&feature=player_embedded)

The trouble is with the question in a way, the US was to be a Republic, not a democracy to start with,

We changed the election of Senators instead of appointed by State Government, and in stead of government doing what is best for the country, they started doing what was best to get popular vote.

So it all started going wrong when people started thinking we were a democracy

Fr. I agree that it seems that Senators were better statesmen before the changes the 17th amendment brought. But that may also be a romantic interpretation not founded in fact .

Examining the history shows why the changes were made. The selection process was often hampered by local politics and too often a state would lose representation because the state legislatures became deadlocked on their selection .Some states went without representation for years as a result.
Ironically a similar argument as you make was another reason why the change was made. The charge was made that Senators were beholden to special interests because of the selection system.

Finally ;many states had passed laws requiring legislatures to select the choice of a popular vote ,and making it the national method was the next logical progression.

The truth is that the Constitution was not meant to be amended frivilously and it really became such an issue that the rigid requirements needed to change the constitution were met in this instance.

A bigger problem however was adopted the same year... the 16th amendment... the income tax. The unfettered growth of the national government can be traced to that moment.

Yes, since that issue of the civil war that was the defining point of states rights, in basic states learned that the federal government could and would use military might to enforce its control over the states. And of course the issues of taxes that was such a big part of the trouble.

Since that point, states have had less and less rights and federal government grown to the monster it is today.

States learned that the federal government could and would use military might to enforce its control over the states.

You don't have to go to the Civil War to learn that lesson. President Washington led troops to put down the Whiskey Rebellion at the outset.
And of course secession and nullification were considered before the Civil War.I would say that the issue of secession as a state's right was always a debatable proposition.

On the one hand Jefferson would've strongly argued that since secession is not covered specifically then it was indeed a state's right . However Article 6 provides that the Constitution is "the supreme law of the land" and that anything a State does to contradict the Constitution is invalid.

It is my view that the Civil war was rebellion that did not even meet Jefferson's own criteria, set forth in the Declaration of Independence for a justifiable revolt.(a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security).
Just my opinion, the situation in 1860 did not reach that level . The South still had the means to effect the politics of the nation peacefully.

I will however grant that the SCOTUS Dred Scott ruling did tremendous damage to the various political compromises that had kept the nation intact.

Here is a brief tutorial of the congress in action ,according to Jean Arthur and Jimmy Stewart from the classic movie 'Mr.Smith goes to Washington'.

YouTube - How to Propose a Bill according to Jean Arthur (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZFRP67sX8o&feature=player_embedded)

Tom surely you have progess since then after all you have four more senators to do the work, bigger government and therefore quicker legislation and of course you have oracle Obama so the lowly senators don't have to think up the good ideas

Tom surely you have progess since then after all you have four more senators to do the work, bigger government and therefore quicker legislation

If there was a remake Jean Arthur would also mention the sit dowwn sessions with K Street lobbiest and having to incoporate their ideas into the bill.

and of course you have oracle Obama so the lowly senators don't have to think up the good ideas
You missed the meeting the
President had with his majoirty this week. They bellyached that the President is not giving them sufficient "clarity or direction" . Here is Al Franken lacing into the President's Chief of Staff David Axelrod.
Al Franken lays into David Axelrod over health care bill - Manu Raju and Andy Barr - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32561.html)
The President is too much about himself to lead his party.

What do you think can be done to change our current problems within our democracy? Do we choose monarchy? Democracy?


The main problem with your question is that the US is not a democracy. it's a Federated republic.

I don't think we'll be able to keep democracy for too much longer, based on the fact that all the others failed at one point. We may end up with monarcy in th future (idk how far into he future... )

I don't think we;ll be able to keep democracy for to much longer, based on the fact that all the others failed at one point. We may end up with monarcy in th future (idk how far into he future...)

What do you mean all the others failed at some point, for all intents and purposes you have a monarcy now, since monarcy can co-exist with democracy and does quite successfully

A monarchy is a form of government in which supreme power is absolutely or nominally lodged with an individual, who is the head of state, Usually the difference lies in whether the individual holds the position for life and is elected

2 things that could make a world of difference would be term limits of and between offices and eliminate expense accounts for congressmen and senators. Pay them 25% more and if they want more services then other officials let them pay from their own pockets like a business would. That way anything apporpriated would have to be in the public eye.

Jay Cost at Real Clear politics says that indeed America is governable but the president is not up to the job.



Let's acknowledge that governing the United States of America is an extremely difficult task. Intentionally so. When designing our system, the Founders were faced with a dilemma. How to empower a vigorous government without endangering liberty or true republicanism? On the one hand, George III's government was effective at satisfying the will of the sovereign, but that will had become tyrannical. On the other hand, the Articles of Confederation acknowledged the rights of the states, but so much so that the federal government was incapable of solving basic problems.
The solution the country ultimately settled on had five important features: checks and balances so that the branches would police one another; a large republic so that majority sentiment was fleeting and not intensely felt; a Senate where the states would be equal; enumerated congressional powers to limit the scope of governmental authority; and the Bill of Rights to offer extra protection against the government.
The result was a government that is powerful, but not infinitely so. Additionally, it is schizophrenic. It can do great things when it is of a single mind - but quite often it is not of one mind. So, to govern, our leaders need to build a broad consensus. When there is no such consensus, the most likely outcome is that the government will do nothing.
The President's two major initiatives - cap-and-trade and health care - have failed because there was not a broad consensus to enact them. Our system is heavily biased against such proposals. That's a good thing.
RealClearPolitics - HorseRaceBlog - America is Not Ungovernable (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2010/02/america_is_not_ungovernable.html)

You see ;to govern he needs to build a broad consensus. But the problem is Obama and the lefties want that monarchy that Clete says we have.
When the Dems call for the President to grow a spine they really mean they want the President to smack down the Republicans .They don't want to reach across the aisle . They want to exercise the absolute authority they think their majority entitles them to.

.They don't want to reach across the aisle . They want to exercise the absolute authority they think their majority entitles them to.

I see you fellows have difficulty defining what we call a mandate. When a government is elected even with a slim majority, and what government is elected on a slim majority, they have a mandate to implement their policies, or so the story goes, it doesn't matter that the other 49% of something disagree. This we are told is democracy, the tyranny of the majority. So face it, you don't live in a democracy, you live in a tyranny. And made the more so because it is a republican tyranny from which there is no escape by popular rebellion. The last fellows who tried it got wypped after years of fighting against the very same tyranny of centralist government and republican excesses. It matters not what name you hang on the tyrant be it democrat or republican, liberal or red neck, all those who exercise absolute power are tyrants

Never fear, Captain America is here to save us from the rebellion...

Marvel Comics: Captain America Says Tea Parties Are Dangerous and Racist (http://www.publiusforum.com/2010/02/08/marvel-comics-captain-america-says-tea-parties-are-dangerous-and-racist/)

That's retarded!

I see you fellows have difficulty defining what we call a mandate. When a government is elected even with a slim majority, and what government is elected on a slim majority, they have a mandate to implement their policies, or so the story goes, it doesn't matter that the other 49% of something disagree. This we are told is democracy, the tyranny of the majority. So face it, you don't live in a democracy, you live in a tyranny. And made the more so because it is a republican tyranny from which there is no escape by popular rebellion. The last fellows who tried it got wypped after years of fighting against the very same tyranny of centralist government and republican excesses. It matters not what name you hang on the tyrant be it democrat or republican, liberal or red neck, all those who exercise absolute power are tyrants

Trying really hard here to play the foil, aren't you? A quick critique: you're losing your impact with the hard to follow logic twists. Tyranny of the majority indeed.

No, we don't live in a democracy. I wouldn't want to. I have no clue how to handle, for example, timber husbandry. I vote for the people that convince me they have the most clues. That is representative republicanism. I complain when they turn out to have less of a clue than I thought. The tyrants in any modern system, be it American republicanism, Chinese Communism, British Monarchy, or Cuban Socialism, are the bureaucrats that you have to fight to do anything.

That's retarded!

I agree, but is there an echo in here?

NK loses the impact because he doesn't add the vulgar adjective . I think it would have a much stronger impact if he would use the full Rhambo quote.

Clete ,Cats is quite right ;it's the permanent government that is the tyranny.
The founders understood this and wrote the Constitution to guard against this .
James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 51: "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

He also wrote “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny”.

This is why checks and balances were written into the Constitution . This is why the founders wrote into the Constitution the powers of the national government FEW and DEFINED .Anytime they excede these mandates they violate the Constitution. This is why a separate bill of rights for individuals was written as the 1st 10 amendments. Tyranny happens when checks and balances are eroded (do you hear me SCOTUS!! ) .

Clete ,Cats is quite right ;it's the permanent government that is the tyranny.
The founders understood this and wrote the Constitution to guard against this .
James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 51: "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

He also wrote “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny”.

This is why checks and balances were written into the Constitution . This is why the founders wrote into the Constitution the powers of the national government FEW and DEFINED .Anytime they excede these mandates they violate the Constitution. This is why a separate bill of rights for individuals was written as the 1st 10 amendments. Tyranny happens when checks and balances are eroded (do you hear me SCOTUS !!!) .

Tom I would love to give you an answer but frequently on this site my answers are erased before they are submitted so this thread is another that we won't continue the conversation on as I have better things to do

To the monitors up your nose with a rubber hose

some say that the US has been ungovernable since 1776 .
What do you define as our "problems" ?
When a women asked Ben Franklin what they had given the nation after the Constitutional Convention ;Franklin replied " a Republic if you can keep it.

Might I suggest that the founders had no intention of creating a "democracy" as it is classically defined. I would also suggest that the further we drift from the founders vision the more "problems " we find.

Where did you read this from?

some say that the US has been ungovernable since 1776 .
What do you define as our "problems" ?
When a women asked Ben Franklin what they had given the nation after the Constitutional Convention ;Franklin replied " a Republic if you can keep it.

Might I suggest that the founders had no intention of creating a "democracy" as it is classically defined. I would also suggest that the further we drift from the founders vision the more "problems " we find.

That is a very provocative statement and one that I would agree with in many ways. The problem is, what is a "republic"?

Where did you read this from

About Franklin ?
This is a well know ancedote .There are many references to this but it was 1st found in in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland's delegates to the Convention.
Quote by Dr. James McHenry: "A lady asked Dr. (Benjamin) Franklin, ?Well Doct..." (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/121001)

Representative Ron Paul uses the quote and it is a good source because he also goes further and explains what the founders meant by a republic



The term republic had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights. And getting rid of the English monarchy was what the Revolution was all about, so a monarchy was out of the question.
The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights.
Federalism, the binding together loosely of the several states, would serve to prevent the concentration of power in a central government and was a crucial element in the new Republic. The authors of the Constitution wrote strict limits on the national government and strove to protect the rights and powers of the states and the people.
Dividing and keeping separate the legislative, executive, and the judiciary branches, provided the checks and balances thought needed to preserve the Republic the Constitution created and the best way to preserve individual liberty.

A Republic, If You Can Keep It (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm)