The following quote is from "Tools To Understand Despotism from Encyclopedia Britannica":
"When decision making is left in a few hands (or compiled into a huge bill so that there is at least one issue you feel so strongly for that you have to vote for it even if other aspects of the bill is bad for the community/country - then you have limited choice {and have been tricked!}) THEN the community is moving towards despotism.
Today, a community can move towards despotism by allowing power to become concentrated in the hands of a few.
The test of despotic power is that it can disregard the Will of The People."
The above video involves people fighting to update regulations to keep thier water clean. The Koch Brothers are involved, about whom alot of controversy already exists.
Notice that Shep points out that if the unions go then the democratic party has no funding enabling the conservative economists to push through thier ideological agenda. {Learn more: Ideological Agenda Proof 1 and Ideological Agenda Proof 2 and Ideological Agenda Proof 3 }
[Note: Economic war on the people of a community counts as treason because it limits freedom and choice as it reduces access to resources to fellow citizens.]
The last point of the 'arguments made about past american presidents', I first mentioned here. (Note how sensible Glenn Beck's argument seems at a first glance - Click Here). My perspective is that there were only 13 colonies at the time, in a wilderness (especially when compared to European cities), they didn't have an economy period (much less a modern economy in a modern world) and they were making amendments to the articles that meant the most to them keeping a continuity with history and the ideals of republicanism and then Democratic. [The Democratic effort is still in the works.] - [Also note that Andrew Jackson also expanded Democratic freedoms in the political arena.]
From Zakaria's site:
In 1787, delegates from twelve of the thirteen states under the Articles of Confederation met to revise a document that was out of sync with the needs of the nation. But instead of revising the Articles, they started anew, drafting the U.S. Constitution.
After a period of debate, revision and ratification, the Articles officially ended and the Constitution came into effect in 1789. The first Congress met. George Washington became president. And 222 years ago, the Constitution became the supreme law of the land.
Has the time come to revisit the document?
America today is quite different from the America of yore. Meanwhile, other nations have updated their constitutions successfully, bringing them more in line with modern democratic representation, for example.
On the other hand, the Constitution enshrined timeless principles of liberty and justice. The document's longevity is itself testament to its lasting value. Would it be a mistake to tinker with such a success script?
What do you think? Should the U.S. Constitution be updated and if so, how? What amendments would you recommend?
Further Research Links:
Water Wars. (College lecture series)
Water Wars.
Water wars in the Middle East.
No comments:
Post a Comment