Guard Dog

Very busy with work. Plus I had a wild idea yesterday of running for a political office. Then I laughed and decided I really did not want to go through that hell again.

To Rostere & Calax, I haven't forgotten about you, Gents. Just been too busy to write a reply. I'll get to it.

Wouldn't the counter argument be that you're increasing the power of rural voters compared to city dwellers? In theory, under the popular vote system wouldn't everyone's vote count the same and failure to secure the popular vote be representative of a failure to have the backing of the majority of the people? It's of small consolation to the sheep that the election was fair when the wolves vote to have lamb-chops for lunch. The founders were acutely aware of the importance of avoiding the "tyranny of the majority".

That is the exact same argument against abandoning the electoral college. And it is a good one. Without that the only states that will ever see a candidate or matter to a candidate will be New York, California, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida and Illinois. The rest will be ignored. And in those states only the urban areas would matter. Good deal for the Democrats. That's why they are the ones who want it gone. The only thing that holds a country together is the desire to stay together. How long would that last if 44 states are essentially left out of the voting process?

What a pounding. Well, look at it this way: All it means is the Padres won't go 162-0

I don't know if it was the best championship final ever, but it was certainly the best I'd ever seen. I started watching about 2 minutes into the second half. After the Panthers/Maple Leafs game ended.

As Amentep pointed out it was adopted, like most amendments are, to solve a problem. Corruption, selling Senate seats, the very thing Illinois governor Rob Blagovich was recently impeached and shown the door for, was commonplace. Of course back then it was easy to get away with. The only media was the newspaper and they could be bought off or intimidated. Now days... not so much. Like I said, the problems that have arisen because of it were unintentional and perhaps unforeseeable. But with the free access to information and scrutiny of elected officials we have today this one can and should get fixed.

If he never does another thing on the court what a shot to be remembered for! And he made it look easy. The big mo was going all the Tarheels way. Had it gone to OT North Carolina was going to win.

The 17th Amendment for those you don’t know and don’t want to look it up, allows for the US Senators to be directly elected by the voters of each state by popular election. Prior to its ratification is in 1917(ish I don’t remember exactly) the US Senators were elected by the representatives of the State House of each state government. My problem with it is that there a few issues, mainly unintentional, that has arisen because of it. First off the founders did not trust the voters with the task of electing Senators. The Representatives were already directly elected and they wanted the Senate to be the representative of the State governments and to be buffered from what Hamilton described at the “passions” and “general rowdiness” of the public. Personally I think that is a steaming pile of bull crap. The voters are educated and informed enough to make intelligent choices on who will serve in the Senate. My problems with it, and the reason I think it needs to be repealed are these: • Since Senators are elected by a statewide popular vote we have stepped away from a representative democracy and stepped towards a real democracy. This is problematic because entire regions of a state end up playing no role in the election of a Senator and provide the senator with no incentive to address their concerns. For example California is about 165,000 square miles (425k km2 for those of you who use the smart system) and is home to 40M people give or take. The Bay area and the LA/SD metro area alone can elect the senators from that state. In a state of 58 counties just 7 can elect a Senator all by themselves. That gives the folks north of the bay and east of the Sierra Madres, San Bernardino and Diablos ranges no voice in the Senate. Ben Franklin said it best “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch”. When the Senators were elected by state reps, who were themselves elected by the voters of their districts, there was a proper representation of all voters. • The supremacy clause of the Constitution allows the Federal government tremendous power over the state governments. Prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment the State government had a reciprocal power over the Federal government and there was a balance. Afterwards the State governments were cut out of the legislative process of the Congress altogether. Don’t forget the Senate has the responsibility of confirming judges who will have authority over the State Supreme Courts that are appointed and seated the State Governments. The result of this has been profound. Power reserved to the States by the Constitution has been regularly usurped by DC and mismanaged. The 10th Amendment has all but fallen by the wayside and the Commerce Clause has been twisted into something unrecognizable in the power it is used to grant a Federal Government that no longer has to answer to the States it damages. The states on the other hand have become almost subservient to the Federal government, practically begging for funding from monies the states themselves collect in taxes. This is all out of balance now. • Returning responsibility of electing Senators to the State government empowers the State and will hopefully re-engage the voter in State level elections. We are a Union of 50 sovereign states. The needs of Tennessee are best determined by the voters of Tennessee in the people they elect to the government of Tennessee. The government of Tennessee is far more responsive to the voters of Tennessee that a Congressman ever could be. If a US Senator owes his job to representing the best interests of his whole state not a single population center, fighting for the interest of the government of his home state the Senate will go back to being the body it was intended to be. For those who want to stop partisan bickering in the Senate, this would be an excellent first step.

OK, lets try this then. For the sake of discussion lets say you and I represent different groups of delegates. Using the current Constitution with all 27 amendments as a model (as in editing not re-writing lock stock and barrel) lets see if you and I can come to any agreement on a new "revised" Constitution. I'll go first: Omit clause one of the 2nd Amendment. The new amendment reads "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Repeal the 17th Amendment Add the following line to the end of the 5th Amendment: "Private Property shall never be appropriated for private use or other purposes except the general use and benefit of the public" Edit section 8 clause 18 of Article I to read: "The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Said powers are limited only to those specifically assigned in article I.

Unbelievable!

I love sports on the radio. I catch games on my XM radio all the time.

Yes. It was left in because the delegates from the southern states made it clear they would not sign without it. To tell the truth I doubt the majority of delegates there those days saw it as any kind of moral wrong because it was so prevalent in the world at that time. And Meshugger is correct, it did not stop after the civil war. Or before even when it was illegal to buy slaves not born in the Americas. But as for the slaves in the US at the time I figure that is a fraction of the number that became free men in 1865. And many of those in 1787 were born elsewhere and might have returned if given the opportunity to do so. I used to have a much more romantic view of the CSA and often argued that slavery was not the root cause of the secession and the war. Perhaps I did not want to admit my ancestors would be willing to go to war solely to keep their fellow humans in chains. That they had loftier and more noble ends like States Rights in mind. But as I read and learned more I realize this is not so and the truth is just as ugly underneath as it looks on the surface. I was guilty of the very thing I ridicule in others, and in books and movies: revising history to suit modern mores.

I don't think there was a ever a single point in time where the african slave trade could have been stopped. But there was a single turning point in US history where it could have been stopped in the US. But to answer my own question no, i would not change it for the reason I already mentioned. I think 100 years down the road more good will come from it than the harm that was caused by it. Perhaps we are already at that point. However, if I happened to run into a black slave in the pre-war south while time travelling around I'd expect they would take issue with my reasoning on that.

Not debating that the Constitution is a major step, but lets not forget that it did recognize slavery. As a whole, we are all much better off than we were 200+ years ago. It would have been better if it had been fixed in 1783 when it was written but it has been fixed and more than 700k Americans gave their lives to fix it. Personally I wish I could go back in time and address the Convention in Philadelphia and explain what the next 200 years would bring from the civil war to Civil Rights. Maybe even the Southern Delegates would be convinced. But on the other side of the coin, had slavery been stopped in the beginning almost all of the African Americans living in the country today would have never been born. The world would have missed out on some really excellent people. So there is something good to be found in every tragedy. Now here is an interesting question. If I gave you a time machine and you had the opportunity to end slavery at the beginning even knowing that, would you?

Here is an interesting question, do you not think a document like the US Constitution that is over 200 years old needs to be updated to reflect the reality of the social and political challengers of the 21st century? How can everything in the US Constitution really be relevant to modern society and yes I understand Constitutional lawyers debate and interpret this type of thing in courts nowadays but I wonder if it would make more sense to create an " update " of the US Constitution And of course I'm not suggesting the core values of the US in the Constitution get removed or surreptitiously changed....I am suggesting they get modernized And the only reason I mention this is because I'm sure if you could somehow ask most people who you may think have tried to "undermine " the Constitution they wouldn't see it like this. They will probably say something like " undermine? No not at all...I have only tried to make the Constitution more reflective of a modern society " So in summary my question is basically " is it a reasonable suggestion in the year 2016 to make some changes to the US Constitution " ? Bruce, I have to figure you would not have spent a lot of time studying the US Constitution. Including all 27 Amendments it's just a little over 7000 words. About the length of a National Geographic article. It defines the branches of the government, assigns the individual responsibilities of each, and how long the members of each can serve and how they are elected. It also lays the foundations for how the states interact with the Federal Government and the role the Federal Government plays in how they interact with each other. It established that Federal law supersedes state law. And it establishes a good deal of the rights enjoyed by every American by limiting the governments ability to intrude upon them (meaning the rights do not come from Government but that they are natural and everyone is entitled to them). It's beauty is it's simplicity. What of all that would you change? We do have a process to change the Constitution. It is defined in Article V, the Amendment Process. And we have used it 17 times since it was ratified by all 13 States in 1787. I think it works fine. Barack Obama lamented that it is a document of "negative rights" in that it limits what the government can do "to" you and does not define what he thinks the government should do "for" you. That comment is the old Marxist he keeps buried inside himself rearing it's ugly head. But a government which assets a citizen has a right to have something now has an obligation to provide that thing. That will mean taking that thing (whatever it is) away from someone who has it to give it to someone who doesn't. This is incompatible with a society where rights are protected. The truth is the United States would not survive a Constitutional Convention today. As divided as the country is right now with thousands of competing interests that will want their "thing" codified in a new constitution, much of which will be mutually exclusive to what other groups want. That will only end in crisis.

All three games were great yesterday. Archer had a bad day and still struck out 11. The Royals/Mets game was as good as any in the WS,

The next few days are going to be interesting.

It's an amazing thing. The Constitution of the US and the government it created was one of mankind's greatest steps considering what the governments of the world were like in 1787. That same government has spent the next 219 years looking for ways to undermine it. There is a twisted need, a sickness even, in the human soul that drives it to seek power over the lives and property of other people. It's why we can't have nice things.

People believe in freedom so long as they like what you are doing with it and you don't have something they think you shouldn't.

I'll finally get to see it then. I was hoping for a directors cut but it looks like that isn't happening.

I'll say one thing for Obama, he has been partially responsible for more gun sales than any other man on earth.

First I'm not talking about adult mods necessarily as not everything sexualized is considered adult content. And second you're wrong, true adult mods are very easy to find. They are all over Nexus which is where all of the normal mods are. Unless Bethesda is creating those mods, your point still makes little sense. Pressuring a community of fans and hobbyists is a waste of time. To say nothing of the fact you'd be laughed off the Nexus boards if you tried.

You know is it a tired and often fatal error to assume political opponents are stupid. It is generally something you hear out of the left born of the arrogant notion that anyone whose opinions are contrary to theirs must be stupid. You hard that about Reagan, George W Bush and just about every other Republican who has ever run for President or other high office. It's seldom been true and it's not true of Trump either. He is an educated man who has been largely successful in almost every endeavor he has attempted. That is not something a stupid person can be expected to accomplish. It doesn't mean he knows everything and it certainly does not inoculate him from saying something dumb. But it's just false to assume he is an intellectual lightweight or that his Presidency should he win would be a disaster. As I've pointed out earlier the record of Presidents who were "hands off" executive leaders that delegated most of their work is generally better than the "hands on" leaders who had a reputation of being a micromanager. Jimmy Carter was one of the biggest micromanagers to ever occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and HE was a disaster.