Jim

Profile

Username:
hayduke
Name:
Jim
Location:
Coventry, CT
Birthday:
04/04
Status:
Married

Stats

Post Reads:
94,309
Posts:
402
Last Online:
> 30 days ago
View All »

My Friends

18 hours ago
9 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago

Subscribe

Cranky Swamp Yankee

Politics & Legal > Our Compromised Constitution
 

Our Compromised Constitution


I will be the first to admit that I am
not a Constitutional scholar. Most of what I know about the
Constitution I learned in grade school, high school, the PBS
mini-series about John Adams, National Public Radio, reading the
Constitution itself, and what I can glean off of the internet.

Do you know what bothers me the most
about United States politics today? (Well, besides the fact that 99
percent of politicians are more concerned about being re-elected than
anything else in the universe?)

It is not that our politicians are
corrupt. They are, and they always
have been. That's pisses me off, but not as much as other things.

What bothers me the most about modern
day U.S. Politics is that the politicians are so absolutely positive
that their stance on all topics is the only correct one, they
flat-out refuse to even listen with an open mind to the other side.

They are prejudiced
beyond belief, and that, in this man's humble, prejudiced opinion, is
what is hurting the citizens of The United States and doing almost
irreparable damage to the country.

If you listened to
the politicians, you'd swear that compromising and being open-minded
were two traits that were decidedly unAmerican. I've even seen Tea
Party signs that emphatically proclaim, NO COMPROMISES!!!

Rather
than listen to opposing arguments, (I said
listen not
just
hear. BIG difference!),
our representatives simply pay attention to
who is putting forth the argument, not the argument itself. If it coming
from the other side of the aisle, then it is immediately wrong.

They have reduced themselves to assigning labels to people and
pigeon-holing them either as allies or idiots. There is no middle of
the road.

People are either Democrats or Republicans, liberals or
conservatives,

A person's words and ideas are unimportant. It's the label that's
been assigned to him or her that makes their opinions credible or
ludacris.

Now, I don't know what's it like where you live, but where I live,
there are very few things that are black or white. Most things in my
world are gray. And the older I get, the more I realize that I don't
know everything. What I have learned is that everything is subject to
change, including my opinions on things.

Absolutely nothing is etched in stone.

That is why I try to listen to all sides of discussion before I form
an opinion. I may have a knee-jerk response to an issue or a
statement that riles me, but, after Mary Ellen calms me down, I try
to think things through rationally before I make a decision. I
usually try to listen closely to what the opposing side is saying
while coming to that decision. And, to be honest with you, I
sometimes change my opinion after hearing all of the arguments on
issues that I once thought were cut-and-dried.

Even after I've formed an opinion, it can be subject to change if new
evidence or new argument comes along.

Is that being wishy-washy? I don't think so. I like to think that
it's being realistic and open-minded.

That's why I am usually leery of somebody who thinks he or she has
all the answers, and will not even entertain the notion that the
other side might have something valuable to say.

As my wonderful wife often says, “I'm never positive of anything.
Only fools are positive.”

I blame a lot of this black-and-white thinking on the media.
Particularly, Rush Limbaugh and his impersonators. (Yes. Even though
he would fiercely deny it, El Rushbo is definitely a part of the
“Mainstream Media”!) Whenever I get wind of something going on in
Washington, I know immediately what the right-wing talk show hosts
will think of the item. It's pretty simple – if the idea comes from
a “liberal”, it's stupid. If it comes from a “conservative”,
it's sheer genius. (It would be interesting to see how many times, on
average, during his three-hour broadcast, Mr. Limbaugh uses the
word, “liberal”.)

I have problems with people who formulate their opinions by first
labeling the person they are talking about. (Of course, in Limbaugh's
case, we really don't know what he truly thinks on anything. He tells
the world that he is “merely an entertainer.” Thus, he only says
what he knows his audience wants to hear in order to sell commercials
And the best way to build up an audience is to create an enemy that
they can all rally against.)

Which brings me to the current situation in Washington D.C.

In my opinion, no one party or movement has a monopoly on stupidity
and ignorance. Those two commodities are spread out equally across
the political spectrum.

We have the Democrats who believe that the Republicans are a bunch of
millionaires whose only motivation is too hang onto the money that
they've got and make more of it.

We have the Republicans who believe that the Democrat are a pack of
socialists who simply want to take money away from the millionaires
and spend it all on social welfare programs.

You have the new Occupy Wall Streeters who have not yet hit
Washington, but are vocal about being upset, even though they haven't
really focused yet on why they are upset.

And you have The Tea Partiers who believe that everything in
Washington must be cleansed, and they don't want to spend a cent to
do it.

I have a bone to pick with The Tea Partiers primarily because they
just flat-out refuse to negotiate with anybody who even slightly
disagrees with them. I have heard the slogan, “No Compromising”
out of so many of their mouths!

They stand up and wave The Constitution, claiming that this document
is written in stone and no compromising can be made on the premises
that it puts forth.

Perhaps they don't understand that The Constitution itself is a
result of numerous hard compromises that had to be hammered out
before all of the states/colonies would ratify it. It was forged by compromises, and never would have become OUR Constitution
without compromises!

People back then were just as opinionated and bull-headed as people
are today. The difference between them and us is that THEY knew that
they needed each other in order to survive as a nation, and thus they
worked hard to make as many people happy as possible.



Five of the biggest Constitutional compromises were the following:

First and foremost, there is The Great Compromise.

Back in the day, there were two schools of thought on how We, The
People should be represented in Congress.

Prior to the Constitutional Convention, which took place in 1787, The
Articles of Confederation, which were in use from 1781-1787, called
for each state to be represented by one member of Congress.

At the Constitutional Convention, one reform that was presented,
called The Virginia Plan, wanted the representation to be based on
each state's population. So, the bigger the population in a state,
the more representatives they would have in Congress.

The other plan, called The New Jersey Plan, called for one
representative per state.

The Great Compromise, also called The Connecticut Compromise, melded
these two ideas into the current system that we have today, where the
Senate has two representatives from each state and the House of
Representatives has state representatives based on size of populaton
of each state.



Once it was determined that a state's representation in The House
would be determined by population, the states started wrangling about
just who would counted as part of their populations. The southern
states, which had a much higher number of slaves in the workforce,
wanted each slave to count as a one person. The northern states,
which had much fewer slaves, didn't want the slaves counted at all.
The compromise that was finally hammered out in what was called The
Three-Fifths Compromise
,
because it was decided that every five slaves would be counted as
three people.



Another heated at debate at the convention had to do with the
government imposing tarriffs on foreign goods in order to protect
domestic manufacturers.

The southern states had three points of concern:



  1. Theywanted the states to regulate all trade.



  2. They were afraid of a federal ban on slavery.



  3. They also feared a federal duty on agricultural exports, since they
    were a more agricultural society than the North.


    The Northern states wanted federal control of all trade, and they
    wanted federal power to collect duties and impose tariffs.



The Trade Compromise provided for federal regulation of trade between the states and the
international trade.

No export duties would be imposed for twenty years.

Also there would be no ban of the slave trade for twenty years.



Another battle revolved around the Office of The Presidency.

Some folks wanted state legislatures to elect the president. Others
wanted the population to vote for the president.

Some people, worried that The Presidency would evolve into a
monarchy, wanted the president to serve for only one one-year term.

Others argued for a strong president who, after being elected, would
serve for life.

The two opposing factions finally
agreed upon
The Presidency Compromise. This compromise established the Electoral College, which elected the
president by indirect voting of the American People. (That is why our
form of government is not a true democracy, because the people do not
directly elect the president. It is a democratic republic.)

This compromise also stated that
the president would serve four-year terms. However, there were no
term limits. (That, of course, was changed by the 22nd Amendment to
the Constitution after FDR's four terms.)



Finally, the delegates were divided into Federalists and
Anti-Federalists.

The Federalists were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. The
Anti-Federalists were against ratification.

The Federalists wanted a strong federal government, while the
Anti-Federalists preferred more power being held by the states.

The Federalists claimed that a Bill of Rights was not needed. The
Anti-Federalists stated that a Bill of Rights was necessary to
protect the rights of the people.

The debates between these two factions ended with The
Anti-Federalists promising to ratify the Constitution while the
Federalists promised to add a Bill of Rights to the document. (James
Madison then wrote the ten amendments to the Constitution that became
The Bill of Rights.)



And that, for the most part, is how The Constitution of The United
States came into being.



To say or to infer that compromise is unAmerican, to my way of
thinking, is pure ignorance, arrogance and 100% counter-productive.

Kindergarteners cry, pout and stamp their feet when they don't get
their own way on everything. Teenagers think that they know
everything when, in fact, their brains aren't even fully developed
yet.

But adult men and women are supposed to be reasonable. And they
should know that, in order to get anything accomplished with a
diverse group of people, compromise and frank discussions are
essential.

Our country was built on compromises because of what we are – The
Great Melting Pot.

We must learn to listen to others' ideas without name-calling or
persecution.

That is the only way that our country will move forward.

Or we call all fold our arms across our chests, close our eyes, stick
out our lower lips and refuse to budge.

Then,we all will have the satisfaction of knowing that we were
“right” as our country continues to spiral right down the toilet.



But that's just my opinion.


I could be wrong.

posted on Oct 27, 2011 5:15 AM ()

Comments:

I agree with your assessment. I have one thing to add: some of the vocal antagonism toward anything that comes from the left or liberal or center from the Republicans has nothing to do with what they think, because they advocated on behalf of some of these ideas themselves at one time. They are committed to destroying the Obama presidency and they are going at it tooth and nail. Nothing is more important. That is where their "no compromise" comes from. They'd have you believe it is principle that drives them. The demonstrations are not unfocused, they are unorganized. I do think there is a difference. And they appear to be making a difference.
comment by tealstar on Nov 6, 2011 10:25 AM ()
As they say in French, "Que 'scais je?" (What do I know?)
comment by solitaire on Oct 28, 2011 6:17 AM ()
Nope, you're not wrong, Jim. You are spot on. I have thought about this a lot also. Can you imagine getting Social Security or Medicare passed today? Or the Civil Rights Bill? It just never would have happened. This is the reason I believe so strongly that we must get rid of the Tea Party candidates now in our Senate. They absolutely will NOT compromise; and a government cannot function when people refuse to compromise.
comment by redimpala on Oct 27, 2011 12:51 PM ()
comment by kristilyn3 on Oct 27, 2011 6:54 AM ()

Comment on this article   


402 articles found   [ Previous Article ]  [ Next Article ]  [ First ]  [ Last ]