Friday, September 4, 2015

Political Outsiders

The rise of the political outsiders

It is generally assumed and speculated that politicians say one thing and often do another. This contradictory pattern has become synonymous with politicians, particularly when running for office. Usually, they make promises they do not keep and for the most part, voters have come to expect that. It's reminiscent of the phrase: "That's just what politicians do; they'll say anything to get elected."

The descriptions provided above are only representative of an approach in which these outsiders move from the periphery to the center of the dominant political structure. It is only one approach in which these outside candidates are appealing to the raw emotions and dissatisfaction voters have with typical politicians. They are triggering an emotional response from voters, in part, by speaking to social problems and issues that have mostly been ignored by an elite political class.
These nontraditional candidates represent the real friction between the American people and the political class. The division between the traditional structures of the political establishment versus the nontraditional structure of these assumed outsider candidates has taken the political class by surprise.
Part of electoral politics is about appealing to tradition and establishment. However, both party establishments seem to ignore the current reality, that voters are both tired of broken promises and displeased with their respective parties.
For liberals who support or consider Sanders, they are tired of being told they will get a minimum wage increase and it never ever happening. For conservatives who support or consider Trump or Carson, they are tired of being told they will get a tougher stance on immigration and the repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) for something better and it not ever happening.
The populism that we see today is a result of both parties ignoring their traditional constituents. Whether important matters such as trade, tax policy, minimum wage, corporate regulation, abortion, school prayer or super-Pacs, the voter loses nearly every time.
Voters are frankly exhausted of losing to those with more influence and clout. And the rise of the outsiders is a result of that frustration. Ultimately, both parties may very well transition to the presumptive Democratic and Republican candidates for president. The rise of the outsiders should serve as a lesson to both parties of what can happen when they ignore their voters.
But if voters are tired, then we should see a change in whom each party ultimately nominates to be their candidate. It leads to the question: How much more will people continue to endure or have we grown to accept it? Will establishmentism or populism win? We may very well be saluting President Trump or Sanders.

But as the nation focuses on the 2016 election cycle, the political and economic establishments' choice of two dynamistic candidates, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, continue not to sway a public that is not a part of its political coffers. The presumptiveness of their campaigns has led to declining numbers.Clinton is the wife of one of the canniest politicians of our time. And Jeb is the political capricious son and brother of two former presidents. Both are establishment choices. Despite those facts, neither candidate is performing as well as many originally thought.
Democrats are becoming frustrated with Clinton's email scandal and Republicans are plotting to take down Donald Trump.
Both party establishments appear oblivious to the populism born out of frustration. Populism, as defined by Peter Wiles, is "based on the premise that virtue resides in the simple people, who are the overwhelming majority." Neither Bush nor Clinton seem to understand these complex structures, whereas Trump, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ben Carson have tapped into this.
This latter group has used discursive and non-discursive messages, combining the typical distinctions made between elements such as ideas, beliefs and attitudes. Clinton and Bush appear to have failed to comply with the will of their voting population.
For example, Sanders and Trump both appear to speak to the values and beliefs of liberal and conservative voters. They both speak to issues involving income and wealth inequality, with Sanders arguing to increase the minimum wage and Trump arguing for a tougher stance on immigration.


  1. Here is a good article on the true impact of the Trump candidacy.

    1. "Even after Donald Trump called Mexicans 'rapists' and 'murderers,' vowed to deport 11 million hardworking immigrants in the U.S. and ran a campaign of intolerance and hate, George Pataki said he would support Trump if Trump became the Republican nominee. Pataki even put it in writing."

      See, the thing is anyone who isn’t a propagandist knows exactly what trump meant. He was clear enough... excluded some and even qualified his comment as things he had heard from border patrol. The salient point in the comment above is 1) Trump didn’t broad paint the entire Mexican population and 2) not all 11 million people are hard working. Mexican Americans know this. Mexican Americans, particularly those who have lived in the southwest all their lives feel the impact of this lawless border... This kind of rhetoric only makes Trump stronger because people know what he means... even if his opponents both left and right try to rewrite the story. I see our friend Ramos is catching flack for and activist-journalist... or is that a journalist-activist... I guess I shouldn’t put those two words together so much... in this progressive world it would be taken to be an actual career path...

  2. A data point. At our Tea Party meeting last night not one person supported Bush. Not one solitary person. All of the other candidates received varied support. Trump and Carson received the most.

    I mostly agree with Shermichael. What kind of a name is Shermichael anyhow?

    1. See if you can figure it out and Shermichael is a republican.

  3. Even Kanye West thinks he sees the opportunity as an outsider in announcing his candicacy at the MTV awards..

    In the article about West was this:

    “Not since 1992 has anti-establishment sentiment been this strong,” political scientist Kedron Bardwell of Simpson College"

    I think that this has been building in waves since Goldwater... Libertarianism is the only sensible solution to an ever global environment... first in a nationalist sense and then propagated throughout the world in place of this journey toward pure democracy that will end badly for individuals and society everywhere.

  4. The campaign for the Presidency of the United States, the most powerful position in the most powerful county in the world, has become an entertainment event, like the MTV awards or the Academy Awards. The libertarian ideal is anarchy, Greek for lack of rule. Pure democracy would be a disaster , as the founding fathers knew, that's why they included a Supreme Court in the checks and balances, to save us from the 'tyranny of democracy". We actually have the best model of governance in the world. We just have to return to the basics. Those who advocate doing away with the Supreme Court are courting disaster, whether you agree with all their decisions or not. That's my opinion.

    1. The problem with the Supreme Court is a lack of diversity. Nine Ivy League trained lawyers do not represent diversity.

      Narrow, stale, predictable, paid for,,,,dare I say it?,,,inbread.

    2. Mick
      In the most general sense, libertarianism (including classical liberalism) is a political philosophy that affirms the rights of individuals to liberty, to acquire, keep, and exchange their holdings, and considers the protection of individual rights the primary role for the state.
      Libertarianism requires that states and their agents respect the moral rights of individuals, including their rights over their persons and their legitimate possessions. All modern states, including the welfare state, fail to meet this standard. Thus, many of the powers of the modern state are deemed morally illegitimate.

      A more radical objection SOME libertarians raise against the modern state is that it uses force, or the threat of, to restrict people's freedom to use force to protect and enforce their own rights. Although most states recognize a right to use force in self-defense, few states recognize a legal right to forcibly extract compensation from, or punish, a person who has violated one's rights. The vast majority of libertarians accept this constraint in a civil society. What creates this more radical view is the arbitrary enforcement and protection that government provides. This objection is easily overcome... “Serve and Protect” as written on the side of the car and ENFORCE THE DAMN LAW EQUALLY!

      The basics that you talk about is what would be considered 'Classic Liberalism'... and that looks a lot like Libertarianism...

  5. The problem with Supreme courts, in your country and mine, is that they are by their very nature; political appointments. That the tenure is for an extensive period ensures that by the normal shifts in public opinion the political balance remains fairly neutral. All well in theory and there have been some excellent justices appointed. What would you have us do William, revert to the star chamber, McCarthyism or the Law which existed in the deep south for almost two centuries?. Your Constitution gave you the Supreme, it also gave you the right to bitch and insult the august body. You have what you are constantly venerating, you cannot have it both ways.

    1. King,
      The appointment of a fire chief can be a political one (I give the job to a like minded friend who is an expert at firefighting). It isn’t until the fire chief starts selectively putting out fires based on that political bias that he becomes and abomination to the job. The purpose of a judge is to evaluate a situation against the law. In our case the law is the constitution.

      You asked me to agree with you once that the US Constitution was mere ‘guidance’; sorry but ours states that it is in fact the supreme law of that land and the law from which all others ‘Shall’ conform. (‘Shall’ as I am sure you are aware does not convey a request) The constitution gave us a supreme court whose sole purpose is to subject all disputes against the constitution... not create precedents that do not concur with the constitution as occurred in ‘separate but equal’, that, as I have said in the past, gave government endorsement to discrimination that promoted racial divisiveness for over 100 years after reconstruction.

      The Star Chamber itself became corrupted by the monarchy and used as a political weapon. While nothing is perfect... the black letter rule of law keeps us from deviating from an agreed path. When representatives pass populous law in contradiction to the constitution and the Supreme Court does not defend the constitution as is their mandate, then we have no law... at least no law that could be considered enduring anyway or impervious to arbitrary reversal. Oaths to protect and defend should mean something. Venerating the constitution or the Supreme Court it created is not the same as bitching and insulting the justices appointed to that court for their rather arbitrary and many times harmful rulings... rulings that ignore fires the constitution was designed to prevent.

    2. You're not seing the point king. The point is Trump, and Carson,and Fiorina,,,builder, doctor, tech executive,,,represent the backlash against our attorney driven adjenda.

      Roe v Wade,, made of whole cloth,,,40+ years later 74% of black babies living in fatherless hoiseholds. Over 40% of all babies are bastards.

      Gay Marriage,,cut out with pinking shears,,religious consiensious objection?,, elected county clerks sitting in jail cells,,and this trajedy is just in the first act.

      Ah, brave new world, law promulgated from the court above, not of. Minds aligned by Pavlov ian schooling. Of those who survive the butchers knife boys will be girls, girls will now be boys. So says the gently guiding hand of socialist higher learning (from both major parties).

    3. Elected county officials take an oath of office and need to do their fucking jobs. If you can't for whatever the reason, RESIGN.

    4. I agree with you Rick. She did indeed take a public job and in that context should obey the laws that direct their employment. I think that she took this to the next level by not resigning thus requiring a court judgement as she was elected to the position.

      Of course I pretty much think that all employers should get to set the rules of their business... Some folks disagree.

    5. I surmise then ric that you do not hold dearly a consiensious objector. Our Constitution is based on natural law. Based on rights given by God, not man. God is the higher power not some two bit judge, or panel of three bit trained seals. Get some other county clerk to hand the faggots their marriage licences. Redefine the sacred bond meant to be between a man and a woman all you want.

      I suppose that you want every mayor of every sanctuary city to also rot behind bars for nullifying federal law. Line 'em up on Monday mornimg, the mayors of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, LA. Line 'em up.and place them in shackles for negating federal law.

      Bunch of fucking hypocrites.

    6. TS, she did not take a public job, she was elected to represent her constituency as their county clerk. This should be a county issue and never taken up on the federal level.

      Of course big brother has to get their fucking finger in every local issue. Kentucky voters are against gay marriage. States are soverign, or they fucking used to be. The constitution says nothing about same sex anything. Butt out feds. Butt the fuck out.

    7. William I beg to differ. Firstly in every state the city and county responsibilities are defined in the state constitution so it isn’t merely a county issue. ( - Page 53 - County Clerk Section.) This comes from the amendments made to the state constitution with respect to all of the various county positions. She was elected to the position of clerk which has >>defined responsibilities<< , none of which are judicial in nature. As such the clerk has no judicial responsibilities and is just a clerk. She was elected >> ‘as being the most capable to do the job’ << a job defined by the state constitution, which in this case is to take and file a record... period.

      Before this case even went to district court she met with the governor himself who told her that she should either do the job she was elected to do or resign.

      She even stated to the judge... her moral conviction (Which I fully respect) conflicts with the duties of the job she was elected to do.
      "God's moral law conflicts with my job duties," Davis told the judge before she was taken away by a U.S. marshal. "You can't be separated from something that's in your heart and in your soul."

      She's sworn to uphold the laws of the United States, Kentucky and her county. If she can't carry out her job, then she should resign.

      Her defense is simple but in my eyes wrong. She swore to uphold the law both state and federal... ‘so help her God’. She insists that because she swore this to God, she need not violate Gods laws but she did not affirm or deny any laws with that declaration, only her guarantee before god that she would carry them out ‘with all of Gods strength and help’.... no different than ‘cross my heart and hope to die’ or ‘swear on my mother’s life’.

      With respect to gay ... the constitution makes no reference to that which would be considered traditional marriage either... but it does defend, from government intrusion and interference, the natural rights of ‘life, liberty and pursuit of happiness’.. and whether you like it or not, the 14th amendment extends those protections to state constitutions as well. Do you feel that an individual state should have the right to deny the writ of habeas corpus in its constitution?... or deny the right to due process?

      Just as I believe that a proprietor hiring an individual should be an individual choice, I also believe that the hired individual is party to the agreement... while private business seems to have its hands tied, employees or those who offer themselves up for election should be most happy to comply with the provisions of the job or not accept the position.

    8. I would like to hear your opinion concerning those elected officials that have also taken an oath and yet oversee sanctuary cities. Should they also resign? Should they also be put behind bars until they are sweated out?

      And what of Lois Learner who clearly broke the law yet sits at home collecting her salary? Where is our fucking justice department on that issue? Where are our fucking two bit federal judges? Why isn't she rotting in jail next to our little clerk from Kentucky until she upholds her oath?

      And what is your take on our President who clearly has directed our justice department to ignore the Defense of Marriage Act? Should Obama resign? Should Obama be impeached? Should Obama be placed in Gitmo?

      This is the same old story as our little rancher being harassed by the federal calvary. Crush the ant while big shot politicians do whatever they fucking want while those in Congress do absolutely fucking nothing except extend their own feather beaded terms.

      So many lies have been piled on top of one another that their putrid convoluted systems are irretrievably broken.

      And the fucking George Will insider types wonder as to why a Donald Trump type candidate can move so rapidly to the top 9f the polls. Fucking insider idiots.

    9. You and I both know that it is always the little guy that takes the brunt of law enforcement. The connected and well healed get away far more than they should and that is the problem. Similarly it is the poor kids who fight the wars while the children of those who sent them stay safe at home.

      Firstly we have a president who has shredded the ‘Take Care’ clause of Article II Section III. This is most graphically seen with federal drug laws. While I welcome the end to this senseless prohibition, it is presently against the law and should be enforced. Enforced perhaps with a bit of magnanimity but enforced until changed none the less.

      Second and more important than a president who seems to have little regard for the welfare of the country or the stature of the constitution is a worthless bunch of crony representatives who not only allow this conduct, they enable it... they are paid handsomely for their services.
      We have been sold the idea that government is the solution... we have been sold the idea that the world and our society is just too complex to leave in the hands of a self-governing populous. We have been sold the idea that our security involves manipulating the governments and societies of peoples on the other side of the planet. Getting to the root source of where these ideas come from and exposing that graphically to the voting public will not be easy... dependency is a powerful thing, ask an addict.

      As far as Trump goes, my verdict is still out. Yes he is playing the media like a fiddle... he knows the business. What he says to excite the masses is potentially a very far cry from what he might do in office. The only thing I have actually heard him say with respect to the constitution is that he intends to violate one of its provisions. Whether I agree with all of its provisions, the 14th is part and parcel of the constitution.... seek to change it perhaps, violate it and you become no better than Obama. Yes, Americans are frustrated with Washington and perhaps Trump is a mouthpiece we need in the bully pulpit... time will tell but more than Trump we need people to start talking about the local officials that declare their cities as sanctuary’s against all other laws... We need to elect officials that actually believe in the constitution they are sworn to uphold. That needs to be the first set of questions in every debate... just like justices; we need to know which side of the law they are on. A tough nut to crack but we are making progress.

    10. The clerks under her have said they will issue the licenses. She now states that she cannot allow that as her name would still have to appear on the license as the issuing authority. She needs to resign.

  6. TS
    Although I often disagree with your sentiments, I always read your contributions with relish and find them thought provoking.

    I often think of the view expressed in your post above concerning the purpose of your Constitution. As you clearly state, I asked you to agree that the purpose of the document was for guidance of the people going forward. You restate your opinion again by declaring the document to be “The supreme law of the land”. From this quote, I can gratuitously add as amended.

    My friend, I ask you to consider; were those founders the supreme beings, the holders of all wisdom and the legislators superior to all who have followed them. Is the constitution so perfect that only a handful of amendments have achieved ratification in over 200 years. If we omit the first 12 of Madisons proposal,(two were not ratified);we have but 17 duly ratified amendments. The Bill of Rights of course, as any schoolboy knows, was necessary to obtain ratification of the main document.

    I off the friendly opinion that too much emphasis is placed on what was and not enough on what is. The narrow nature of the definitions as arrived at by the Supreme Court has meant that little in the way of progress is possible. William quoted Roe V Wade as a disaster sheeted home to the Court. William appears to consider that the constitution has power to override the rights of the mother. The court found otherwise and sanity prevailed.

    I seem to remember an old bearded gent went up to the mountain top to collect some tablets of stone. even these tablets have been and are being constantly revised to suit the requirements of modern times. Do you want to be a leader or a follower TS,be careful that the populace do not take your precious document and render it of lesser value. No one reveres the founders more than I but they were just that, the founders, charged with giving your nation a head start. When an engine runs out of gas, it can no longer function as a driving force.

    Cheers from Aussie

    1. My friend thinks that a 74% rate of black bastard children is the definition of sanity.

      I question his sanity.

    2. William.
      Can you please cite your authority which substantiates the 74% rate of illegitimate black children. More important, can you please explain how the Rowe V Wade decision is responsible for the claimed number?. It is the Rowe V Wade decision I feel I may not have properly understood.

      Cheers from Aussie

    3. King
      Thank You for your reply and comments. I too find our common ground to be sparse but the discussion is ... enlightening... That is afterall what everyone is looking for today... enlightenment.

      Of course I don’t think they were infallible nor did they consider themselves or for that matter the constitution as such. The text of the Northwest Ordinance, considered to be one of the 4 founding documents is, in some respects acknowledgement of that fact. While it reiterated precepts in the constitution it singled out slavery as forbidden in any new states formed of this territory. In doing so it acknowledged slavery as a compromise in the constitution but again I repeat, Article V gave the country the ability to change it. The subject of slavery, it politics and the civil war is a different and vast subject.

      The point is, and always has been, they created a starting position on which all the parties agreed. That position became THE LAW. By the way, I don’t declare it the supreme law of the land, Article 6 does by saying : “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, >>> shall be the supreme law of the land<<< Everything begins and ends with the precepts laid out in the constitution and the constitution was designed to safe guard the principles in the declaration of independence.

      What you and others attempt to do is to take those founding documents and teleport them our >>modern society<< as if this new society suddenly occurred yesterday... or 5 years ago... or 50 ... or 100. The fact is US political history began in 1776 and is a continuum from that date. The constitution – “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...” was a rewrite to the imperfections of the Articles of Confederation, itself a less than perfect document. The fact is the constitution was neither rigidly static nor easily malleable. Again, Article V provides the agreed upon roadmap with which to change the premise on which all other laws are to be created.

      You make reference to the dismal lack of amendments. Is that because 1)the people of the US are generally satisfied with the boundaries as written or 2)because those boundaries are too difficult to change or 3)because activists, both judicial and legislative, have worked to circumvent the requirements to change the constitution and thus negate the need for amendment? We know that there was enough populous support to add the 17th amendment changing the way Senators are elected... so why not the many other provisions ‘some’ seem to be unhappy with? Why has history shown no serious support to change Article V?

      The fact that I and so many others complain about is that when you disregard the law rather than properly modify it... the acceptance of ‘precedence’ notwithstanding, you actually have no basis on which to argue a case. Also I have a hard time getting my head around the idea that 50% plus one vote can change the fundamental rights of particular segments of a population so I am happy with the rather high bar set by Article V... what I am not happy about is elected officials ignoring the law to garner popular vote even if the numbers garnered are clearly insufficient to change the law in the first place.

      “I seem to remember an old bearded gent went up to the mountain top to collect some tablets of stone. even these tablets have been and are being constantly revised to suit the requirements of modern times.”

      My friend, the words on those tablets never changed... not one word. Organized religion; that is those organizations that for their specific purposes pass a collection plate, find the need to expand ‘their’ tent and ‘their’ message to continue receiving tithes. It has nothing to do with the word of God but a message saleable to modern society by people who are less dedicated to the word than they are to themselves.

    4. "A number of factors have led the the rising numbers of illegitimacy — which most researchers agree increases a child’s risk of emotional problems and falling into poverty — including, as The Times noted, economic factors that have thinned the number of available, marriageable men; a larger social safety net; and a more promiscuous society.

      Outside of the educational differences, there are distinct differences in the marriage rates between different races: 29 percent of white children are born to unmarried women, 53 percent of Latinos and 73 percent of black children."

      Read more:

    5. TS and William.
      My thanks for the responses. TS raises Article V and I have not yet had time to consider the full ramifications of both the article and its effects or otherwise on his response to my argument.

      William, my understanding of Rowe VS Wade was ok and I have received confirmation from a friend here of the fact, I also received reference which provides useful information..
      William to assist my understanding, can you now please explain how Rowe Vs Wade is responsible for the 78 percent of black illegitimate births in the US. The debate concerning the rights and wrongs of RVSW is a matter of personal belief and I respect your position even though I may not agree.
      Cheers from Aussie

    6. William

      One might ask, why are children born out of wedlock?
      One argument that appeals to conservatives is that of Charles Murray, who attributes the increase to overly generous federal welfare benefits. But as David Ellwood and Lawrence Summers have shown, welfare benefits could not have played a major role in the rise of out-of-wedlock births because benefits rose sharply in the 1960s and then fell in the 1970s and 1980s, when out-of-wedlock births rose most. A study by Robert Moffitt in 1992 also found that welfare benefits can account for only a small fraction of the rise in the out-of-wedlock birth ratio.

      Liberals have tended to favor the explanation offered by William Julius Wilson. In a 1987 study, Wilson attributed the increase in out-of-wedlock births to a decline in the marriageability of black men due to a shortage of jobs for less educated men. But Robert D. Mare and Christopher Winship have estimated that at most 20 percent of the decline in marriage rates of blacks between 1960 and 1980 can be explained by decreasing employment. And Robert G. Wood has estimated that only 3-4 percent of the decline in black marriage rates can be explained by the shrinking of the pool of eligible black men
      Yet another popular explanation is that single parenthood has increased since the late 1960s because of the change in attitudes toward sexual behavior. But so far social scientists have been unable to provide a convincing explanation of exactly how that change came about or to estimate in any convincing way its quantitative impact. In recent work we have been able to provide both.

    7. Until the early 1970s, shotgun marriage was the norm in premarital sexual relations. The custom was succinctly stated by one San Francisco resident in the late 1960s: "If a girl gets pregnant you married her. There wasn't no choice. So I married her."

      Since 1969, however, shotgun marriage has gradually disappeared (see table 1). For whites, in particular, the shotgun marriage rate began its decline at almost the same time as the reproductive technology shock. And the disappearance of shotgun marriages has contributed heavily to the rise in the out-of-wedlock birth rate for both white and black women. In fact, about 75 percent of the increase in the white out-of-wedlock first-birth rate, and about 60 percent of the black increase, between 1965 and 1990 is directly attributable to the decline in shotgun marriages. If the shotgun marriage rate had remained steady from 1965 to 1990, white out-of-wedlock births would have risen only 25 percent as much as they have. Black out-of-wedlock births would have increased only 40 percent as much.

      What links liberalized contraception and abortion with the declining shotgun marriage rate? Before 1970, the stigma of unwed motherhood was so great that few women were willing to bear children outside of marriage. The only circumstance that would cause women to engage in sexual activity was a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy. Men were willing to make (and keep) that promise for they knew that in leaving one woman they would be unlikely to find another who would not make the same demand. Even women who would be willing to bear children out-of-wedlock could demand a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy.

      The increased availability of contraception and abortion made shotgun weddings a thing of the past. Women who were willing to get an abortion or who reliably used contraception no longer found it necessary to condition sexual relations on a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy. But women who wanted children, who did not want an abortion for moral or religious reasons, or who were unreliable in their use of contraception found themselves pressured to participate in premarital sexual relations without being able to exact a promise of marriage in case of pregnancy. These women feared, correctly, that if they refused sexual relations, they would risk losing their partners. Sexual activity without commitment was increasingly expected in premarital relationships.

    8. "The increased availability of contraception and abortion made shotgun weddings a thing of the past. Women who were willing to get an abortion or who reliably used contraception no longer found it necessary to condition sexual relations on a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy."

      I would say that this explanation pretty much says it all. Life has become increasingly cheapened, a man's view of himself in a relationship lessened due to the availability of a women's perogative to wipe away his genetic print. The pill has encouraged feminine experimentation and court imprimatur of abortion has certified this life choice.

      I don't know where this leads. I do know that the average age of marriage for both male and female has increased by about eight years since RvW. Later family formation leads to later first child occurance, later additional child occurance, and all the problems associated with aging DNA both from the male and female.

      So we encounter multiple quandries. How do we keep males down on the farm, how do we prevent increases in situations like autism, how do we think about leagions of bastards.

      Or do we even want to?

  7. King,

    I am a little bit taken back by your response. I will give you the fact that the US Constitution is not your document of governance and you could be excused for not knowing its provisions or perhaps my rather drawn out way of making a point has obscured the fact that it but Article V has ALWAYS been my argument to the kinds of judicial deference that allows congress to pass laws which clearly rub against both the intent and the written word of the document to which all laws should adhere. Such as ever encroaching laws which interfere with the rights and responsibilities of the states and individuals not enumerated as powers of the federal government. Article V has always been my argument with respect to the kind of judicial activism that allows such a liberal reading of the constitution that ‘Separate but Equal’ could be remotely seen within its words or for that matter how we can go from state mandated segregation to state mandated integration and still see the words ‘liberty’ and ‘pursuit of happiness’ protected as the constitution is suppose to do without changing one word of ‘the supreme law of the land’.

    US Constitution Article Five
    “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

    While the procedure is different this is the same is your Chapter VIII Alteration Of The Constitution.
    So I ask you... do you believe that the legislature or the supreme court of your country has the right or the authority to create laws that are in contradiction to your established constitution or is it just an object of ‘guidance’. If it is only a method of guidance then I must ask, why is there even a need for Chapter VIII in the first place?

  8. TS. my thanks for the response but pray, what are you on about?. I made no comment other than to say I needed time to consider how article V affected my argument. Hopefully it is not unreasonable to ask you to consider that I do have other claims on my time. Tasks, onerous as they may be, have to be completed within the limited time my brain functions on a daily basis.

    So to your veneration of article V,and yes of course I was aware not only of its existence but of its very constrictive effect upon the making of changes to the constitution. You have also compared the process of article V with the method of amending the constitution in my country.

    Quote While the procedure is different this is the same is your Chapter VIII Alteration Of The Constitution. Unquote ( NB that is Section 128 by the way). Here we get to the nub of the discussion and my hesitation in responding to your post. You see TS, purely by accident you have illustrated the main plank of my argument, I assume all Americans read and understand the constitution, it is constantly referred to in the various legislatures, courts and publications for the masses. I would have thought that Art V would also be known to the masses and I am unsure whether to be glad or sorry that there has not been a further revolution over its contents.

    Look to the provisions of Article V. This ensured from the very beginning of Government in post revolutionary America, the GOVERNMENT HAD THE FIRST AND FINAL SAY IN THE BRICKS WHICH WERE TO STAND AS A MONUMENT TO THE FOUNDERS FOR EVERMORE. There are two ways to amend the constitution and so far only one has been used. Reliance on the GOVERNMENT of the Nation and the various states is the only yardstick and the people are left by the wayside with opinions but no say in any proposed amendments.

    Now, consider if you will, a binding referendum on the electors of America on proposed changes to gun laws, the second amendment. I make no prediction as to the results ( it would depend on the breadth of the question) but I am sure the NRA would mobilize every ratbag on the lunatic fringe to ensure the maximum degree of trouble.

    Now to the Australian constitution ( and it too has as many flaws as does yours). Changes to our constitution can only occur when the question is put TO THE PEOPLE in the form of a referendum. All the stump standing and tub thumping in the world stands for naught unless a majority of voters in a majority of states support the proposal. By the way, most referenda are lost but at least they are lost by the choice of the people.
    Sorry, there is more I would like to say but it will soon be dark and I have to tend to the horse and lock up.I would answer you last question by submitting that Article V needs to be brought out of the dark and into the daylight. Referendum anyone!!

    1. King
      My humblest of apologies. I had taken your response to mean that ‘in light of this new information’ ... as if I had never spoken about Article V in the past.

      Your response is thought provoking. It is possible that you have put forward these points before but in a way that my sometimes childlike mind missed. While I had read the provisions for your amendment process, I had ill considered the importance that referendum played in the process. I get so caught up in the idea of an honorable representative government that I don’t stop, though I certainly should, to consider that government isn’t necessarily responsive to the electorate which it supposedly represents nor is it always honorable. While I still consider 50% plus one vote giving far too much deference to the simple majority for such changes to foundational law, your points are well taken.

      As one of the ratbags of the lunatic fringe, I must digest this information particularly in light of the danger it could pose to my beloved 2nd amendment particularly when weighed against the power of only one extra vote. This is, in my opinion, one of those situations where it is easier to dismantle a freedom than it is to identify and deal with the actual social problems that create the violence in the first place and in the process endangers a function for which I hold the second amendment to be relevant yesterday, today and tomorrow. The veil of civility on most all fronts is rather thin.

      Might I ask - What the frequency of occurrence is where your supreme court injects itself into the legislative process by pronouncing a law passed by your legislator as unconstitutional? Has their been a situation where a law either through judicial deference or judicial activism created precedent which, at least in some people’s eyes, flies in the face of your constitution?

  9. TS.As usual my thanks for the response. I shall get to your question first and then add a few comments as seems appropriate.

    The Australian Hight Court, our version of the Supreme Court in US, is of course the highest court in the land and is the ultimate authority on the Australian constitution. The court becomes involved on comparatively rare occasions and then, quite often, on matters of resolving enacted state legislation where it can be argued the legislation in question can be seen as conflicting with Commonwealth or Constitutional law.

    The most notorious case in recent times has been the decision in March 1951 to invalidate a Commonwealth Law which had been passed to ban the Communist Party of Australia. I am no expert on the Australian Constitution, in fact I know far more about the US version. Australians are not much interested in constitutional matters, few have read the document and even fewer have more than a vague understanding of what the document means or the purpose for which it was drafted.

    There is usually a constitutional question on the back of the stove, simmering away until some new impetus arrives to bring it temporarily to the boil. There are two such topics at present. Most importantly, a proposed referendum to amend the constitution to recognise the Aboriginal race. Currently they are not specifically recognised despite becoming fully enfranchised following a successful referendum in 1967.This is a major subject for debate here as is the complete subject of aboriginality. I hold strong views and it is a constant disappointment that I have been unable to personally correspond with Americans of colour who were involved in the Freedom bus rides, the Rosa Parks saga and the politics of the deep South in times past.

    We also have a simmering movement to change to a Republic. This is a purely symbolic thing as we are in every respect a sovereign nation presently. A referendum on this was lost some years ago and another will no doubt be held sometime in the future, My own view is that we should be a Republic but there are many far more important questions to be resolved before we need to solve a problem which does not exist.

    Now TS,to your points which leave you lamenting the majority of one vote to resolve a question given there is an equal division for and against.

    Look to the highest court in your land. The supreme has Nine embers including the Chief Justice, as I understand the position, all nine members have one vote apiece and a five four majority is sufficient to pass. TS to be consistent, surely you must oppose the judgement of the Supreme if you are unhappy with the 50 percent plus one vote elsewhere.

    We too have an uneven number on the High Court (7) and the decisions are made as is the US Supreme.

    I can understand your almost religious genuflecting to the second. I suggest that it is a throwback to the events of 1777 when the people of the colonies were totally pissed off with the Brits.In my view they were totally justified in the actions taken and I for one have defended the revolution to my British relatives since first looking at the question in British school textbooks as a small child in Sussex and Hampshire seventy years ago.

    America has grown from a child of the revolution to a parent of independents citizens, a grandparent of industrial and sociological development and now the leader in so many fields. America has never been able to throw away the teething rattle which is the handle of a .44 magnum or a long rifle held in such a childish fashion by a minor film actor as a publicity stunt for the NRA. ( I seem to remember the blokes name was Heston or something similar.

    Cheers now from Aussie.

    1. King,
      With respect to the courts majority vote... Barring the extremism displayed in the use of either deference or activism, the court cannot fundamentally change or strike a provision of your constitution. While the recognition of Aboriginals in 1967 passed by referendum the court cannot remove that recognition but for a clear breach of your constitution but a populous shift of a mere majority can. While electing a divisive leader (Think Trump) by a mere majority is a worrying... inconvenience, by terms of the election it is but temporary however changing the basis by which all future laws are created by the same populous movement that elected him is potentially more destabilizing to the entire nation and its legal system. Disenfranchisement, though not likely, is always a possibility as your communist party referendum can attest and if that is the case I would opt for something somewhat more representative of the larger population than just a mere majority when 49.9% of the population can be put at risk of a bad amendment.

      This subject brings together one you mentioned, the additional amendment to recognize the Aboriginal race and the ongoing desire by women in the US to have enacted the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) recognizing women ‘more fully’ as equals in American Society. The other subject is the state of civil society... at least in America... as it continues its search for the more perfect union. America is deeply divided along strong ideological lines and its future is less than certain.

      I don’t know how much you still read given fatigue that you must experience but I strongly recommend a book to you written by Charles E Cobb Jr. an early black freedom rider from the north, a historian and writer. The book is ‘This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns made the Civil Rights Movement Possible’. Now you can look solely at the progressive messages that he imparts as he is clearly a progressive but it will miss the very relevant points he discovered for himself. He treats the subject matter and what he experienced of the civil rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s honestly. While his antidotes are sometimes similar and repetitive here are some of the salient points:

      • Were it not for the second amendment and the ability for blacks to obtain weapons in the deep south, the civil rights movement would likely have ended in failure and the 1964 civil rights act never written. Lynchings, beatings and firebombings never required white mobs to be armed but being armed gave blacks the ability to defend themselves... and they did.

      • Most workers of the non violent movement in the south were protected by armed and generally older southern blacks. Little of this has ever been reported about the 1950’s and 60’s events. It is always reported in the reflection of the non violent movement of Dr. King.

      • Southern blacks stated continually that all they wanted was equal protection under the laws of the US Constitution. They wanted laws to be enforced equally and they wanted the same police protections that whites received.

      Local government often times was part and parcel of the white supremacist apparatus. State law enforcement turned its head to local issues but when it was forced to get involved it generally came down on the side of local police... federal law enforcement just turned their backs completely. John Kennedy and his attorney general brother could find no provisions in the constitution which would allow them to get involved... as if the 14th amendment (however controversial its creation) never existed.

      • They wanted to control their own neighborhood schools. Blacks had long had colleges that were turning out highly educated young people. These colleges were financed some by public money but mostly by wealthy white benefactors. If blacks would have been able to control their own primary

      Continued >>>>>

    2. • and secondary schools, then money given directly to their school boards would have improved black schools directly... as it was, all school funds passed through the white school boards who provided less than equitable distribution.

      • They wanted to police their own neighbourhoods. They didn’t want white police coming into their neighbourhoods and arresting their people for crimes that always went unpunished in the white community. Arguably had this been allowed, the Ferguson's of this country would never have happened and if it did, it wouldn’t have the racial implications that it does now.

      • Black businesses were harmed by the 1964 Civil Rights Act because many of their patrons wanted to challenge white business for ‘a seat at the counter’ rather than using their own neighborhood business and those businesses that had always catered to blacks. The flip side of course what the animosity of business owners being told who they had to cater to, an animosity that only festered.

      One aspect of separate but equal laws that is little realized is that every photo people see where a business has a ‘Black only’ entrance and a ‘White Only’ entrance was a business that had to comply with STATE LAW... a business that catered to both races footed the bill to provide two facilities for one business. All of those businesses could have just as easily had only one door marked ‘White Only’.

      • Blacks stated that the single most helpful piece of legislation after Brown was the 1957 civil rights act passed over the objections of democrats lead by LBJ himself.

      LBJ and democrats in general get far to much credit for 'solving' the racial problems we have. The point is, regardless of the intention, much of what has happened over the last 60 years is just another method of preserving the attitudes of the previous 80, all because of, in my humble opinion, bad laws(regardless of intent) and hideous supreme court rulings.... Modern America has yet to figure out who or what it is... With a country divided socially, economically, racially and politically... I don’t know of many people who would get rid of the second amendment if you gave them a referendum. You have to wonder. During Obama's time in office, there have been four times as many guns purchased as babies born. Given the diminishing numbers of republicans and generally anyone right of center in their death throws, one has to believe that there are more than a few Bolsheviks buying a lot of hardware... We have grown from that revolutionary beginning for sure but I am not at all convinced that an independent citizenry is in our future.... nor am I convinced that present day government is at all connected with its people. Sorry if that sounds cynical but as a patriotic GI brat come soldier of 10 years, son and grandson of career military, I am becoming more disillusioned with my country the older that I get.