If I were running for POTUS...

[kerry Farmer]

Originally Posted by Mel Bishop

You think what happens here in the colonies doesn't effect other countries to one extent or another?

I think you are right Mel in this thought. [Laughed out loud at you calling yourself a colony! Did you want to apply for membership back to the Empire? Maybe we would not want you!!!!]

To a degree, lots of us take our lead from the laws of the US. We always evaluate your significant changes - some we reject and some we use but hopefully we put our own slant on it.

The question that I have as an outsider is 'would the US constitution be a model for world government?'

Ie all countries or districts would be 'states' with a single central government.

It would be quite nice if we could say that it could. And it is probably true that the US constitutional framework is a 'start' in this direction.

I could see NZ or Australia becoming states in the long term future. We are wary of constitutions as we do not think they are flexible enough - but we could get over that. NZ would probably not join the Union until you guys sorted out your health issues which we find barbaric (sorry but we do).

We would either have to abandon the royalty (which is more than possible in the next decade or two) or we would have to make some provision for royalty to remain as figureheads in some way or other.

The question becomes more interesting for countries which do not speak English. And I guess it would stretch things to include countries which do not have a Judeo -Christian tradition - not so much because of religion, but more to do with people's traditional attitudes to life and liberty.

But if world government is possible, then having semi independent local government (ie the equivalent of US states), a constitution and an overall government (ie equivalent to the federal govt) is a good model.

They say the biggest effect on the way that countries will set themselves up will be how the internet changes things. And certainly Face Book has changed the world forever.

So you guys - get your act together - and we will all come along with you and have world peace and prosperity for ever.

[Kurt Kuzba]

Originally Posted by kerry Farmer

The question that I have as an outsider is 'would the US constitution be a model for world government?'

Eventually, it must, based only upon its assertion that the rights of the people are not granted
by government, but are theirs by nature of the fact that they are sentient beings.
Some day, I hope to see the US Constitution as a model for US government!

Initially, any world government will be conceived in order to consolidate power and control wealth.
In its first few iterations, it will presume all power and rights to itself and grant only those it
finds useful to the world citizens, probably conferring rights as privileges to the favored classes.

You will be allowed to own property, reproduce, hold wealth, travel freely or raise your voice in public,
only as it benefits the existing power structure, regardless of the ruling class, party or committee extant.
This will require mass complacency or brutal repression to maintain, and will thus ultimately fail.

Eventually, a system whereby people have intrinsic rights will be estblished, where the government
has the right to rule by taxation and prohibition only as allowed by the population thus regulated.

The rights of sentient beings must be inviolable, and the rights of rule established by compliance
regarding their natural rights, rather than the right to rule being inviolable and the rights of sentient beings
established by compliance with the absolute power of whatever ruling structure is in place.

A world government is inevitable where there is world commerce and communication.
As it forms a single structure, it will evolve a regulatory body to manage that structure.
The more its power is limited by the rights of those it will regulate, the less turbulence it will encounter.
Please fasten your seat lapbelts and extinguish all smoking materials.
In case of depressurization, a link to the One True Spirit will drop from the overhead compartment.

[Dave Stanton]

Kurt,
For the first time, I think I understand your comments.
Surprisingly, most of them make sense to me.
Congratulations.

[Jim Robinson]

OK, I think I disagree with this one.

1. Campaign that the word "God" is a three-letter word.

It would seem to conflict with the 1st amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(Emphasis added.)

Am I interpreting your comment correctly? Or did you have something else in mind?

[Mel Bishop]

Originally Posted by Jim Robinson

It would seem to conflict with the 1st amendment:

Not really. Remember, Christian kids in school can't pray, bring their bibles to class or have school sponsored religious meetings.

On the other hand, kids of the muslim faith are free to do all of the above.

It's the extreme left (anti-God) actively campaigning to get Judaio-Christian God out of our culture, thinking it's a 4-letter (profain) word, when, in fact, it's a 3-letter word.

In fact, it's none of congresses' business, one way or the other, how people worship short of extreme radical extremists.

[John Petty]

Originally Posted by Mel Bishop

Not really. Remember, Christian kids in school can't pray, bring their bibles to class or have school sponsored religious meetings.

I assume you mean state owned schools, not private church owned.

In fact, it's none of congresses' business, one way or the other, how people worship short of extreme radical extremists.

but then who defines what is "extreme radical" ?

[Mel Bishop]

Originally Posted by John Petty

but then who defines what is "extreme radical"?

People who blows other people with a bomb strapped to their chest or somebody opening up on an Army base yelling allah akbar??

[John Petty]

Originally Posted by kerry Farmer

It would be quite nice if we could say that it could. And it is probably true that the US constitutional framework is a 'start' in this direction.
.....
But if world government is possible, then having semi independent local government (ie the equivalent of US states), a constitution and an overall government (ie equivalent to the federal govt) is a good model.
.....
So you guys - get your act together - and we will all come along with you and have world peace and prosperity for ever.

A far too simplistic suggestion as it depends on many factors particularly the educational growth of a country. Singapore and China are perfect examples.
As for the US getting its "act together" it has for many years meddled too much in other countries politics.
It denigrates and actively works against corruption in many countries yet at home simply legalised a billion $ corruption industry based on an iterpretation of a clause of the constitution.

[Curt Renz]

US presidents don't make laws. Congress does that. The president manages the bureaucracy created by Congress to carry out those laws. The point is that if principally concerned about issues, be most concerned about congressional elections. If looking for a good manager of a large bureaucracy, who might also serve as a good mediator between partisan congressmen, then determine which presidential candidate best meets those criteria.

[John Petty]

Originally Posted by Mel Bishop

People who blows other people with a bomb strapped to their chest or somebody opening up on an Army base yelling allah akbar??

A matter of interpretation as those US bases are usually in other countries where large sections of the population disagree with their presence.
What would you expect the response to be if another country forcibly set up a base in the USA. How would you describe any overt action taken by a US citizen against such a base? Fanatical?
Lets not forget the number of civilians killed by the US far more high tech and devestating bombing.
I don't support the actions you mention but your position is more than a little biased and one sided.
You actually avoided the question which was who decides.

[Jim Robinson]

So, if you are arguing that:

• Government cannot have anything to do with prayer in schools. The government cannot tell students when to pray, what to pray, or that they should or should not pray.
• Students can pray quietly or silently any time. If they want to pray out loud alone or in a group, then they cannot do it in a way which disrupts other students or classes. For example, students of any faith cannot jump up in the middle of class and start praying out loud, or insert prayers into some other activity like giving a speech.

Then I would agree with you.

And I agree that any religious activities that cause injuries to others should not be tolerated.

[Brad D Byrne]

If I were running for POTUS... I would make PowerBASIC the official language of the country ....

[Jim Robinson]

5. Scrap all gun control laws.

Here's the 2nd amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I added the emphasis. Why? Because this little phrase is at the heart of the argument, I would argue. I mean, what the heck does it mean? That we have a right to bear arms as long as we are in a well regulated Militia?

What is a "Militia"?

"A well regulated Militia" sounds like the military to me. Is that what the founding fathers meant here? If not, what did they mean?

Meanwhile, I am probably a little to the right of center on this topic. I do not believe we should scrap ALL gun control laws. But, we should look at the laws we have and make the some adjustments.

[Jim Robinson]

I would make PowerBASIC the official language of the country

Finally, something that most of us will agree upon!

[Stuart McLachlan]

Articles of Confederation: Article 6 provides that no state may maintain a peace-time standing army or navy, unless infested by pirates, but every State is required to keep ready, a well-regulated, trained, disciplined, and equipped militia, with sufficient public stores of a due number of field pieces, tents, a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

There's that "well-regulated" again.