TED Conversations

Barry Palmer

TEDCRED 100+

This conversation is closed.

Use the scientific method to improve democracy.

When the USA was invented, it was a great experiment in democracy. Democracy is considered the best form of government.on Earth. I think we can do better, much better. The wisest aspect of the USA Constitution is the ability to amend it. Let us amend it to continue the experiment.

I would like some suggestions for a method, a process, for improving democracy. I am not so much interested in discussing specific improvements, but a PROCESS whereby improvements could be proposed, tried and evaluated. This process might take years or centuries.

I think one simple method would be a constitutional amendment that would allow localities to try different forms of government. Then people could choose by moving to the jurisdiction of their choice, or moving away. This might cause serious problems, with the the rich moving together and other areas left with no tax base. To some extent, this is already happening anyway.

What are your ideas?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 26 2012: The problems have have evolved in the USA (and around the world) were given birth on March 7, 1819. That's the date that the Supreme Court, in a bloodless coup d'etat, threw out the constitution as the law of the land and replaced it with British Common Law. It decreed that the Constitution was a "guideline" that congress could violate whenever it deemed it necessary, whether or not it was truly necessary. It also authorized the implementation of "implied powers" that are clearly unconstitutional. It said that the people should not be included in silly decisions like the one before it.

    To see how useless a constitutional amendment would be B 4 fixing the core problem, look at our most recent (27th) amendment. Passed in 1992, it says that congress cannot give itself a raise unless an election shall have intervened. It took Congress 3 weeks to figure out a way around it. It declare that if it didn't give itself a cost of living adjustment, that they would be in violation of the amendment because they were intentionally using inflation to devalue the national debt. It took 3 months for the 9th District Court to declare that cost of living adjustments are not pay raises. Judge Sporkin said that those who brought suit were miscreants.

    Congress was furious when the Archivist recorded it without congressional approval. They intended to reject the amendment, but there was so much public hoopla about it, they were stopped in their tracks. Thus they were forced to find a way around it.

    The only way to reclaim OUR government is to re-ratify the 10th amendment, changing it to read "The powers not specifically delegated to the United States by the Constitution according to the intents of the ratifiers, nor prohibited by it to the States in accordance with the ratifiers intents, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    U aren't aware that until this decision, SOTUS did not have the right to do what it does today. It GAVE ITSELF the power.
    • thumb
      Nov 26 2012: I don't disagree.

      But I don't see how just changing the 10th amendment will change much as the core of the problem is financial.

      You contradict yourself by stating how useless amendments can be but then reason that by changing the 10th amendment that this will somehow change?

      As indicated with the 27th amendment, we have to put a boot on the throat of the spending.
      • thumb
        Nov 27 2012: By re-ratifying the 10th, Congress will no longer have the ability to deny our amendments. It may not designate a legal entity as a human. It may not spend on anything not authorized by the Constitution - and those things are few indeed. We cannot get involved in wars (including military actions) without a congressional "declaration of war" - unless treaties are used to circumvent the process - which happens too often.. But when we reclaim our power, we can change that. SOTUS can't make law because ALL legislative power belongs to Congress. The Fed. Reserve is gone. So much has happened, but Americans are functionally uneducated

        It will work if enough people understand the history of and content of our Constitution as well as American history. The key is mentioning that any interpretation is to be in accordance with the intents of the ratifiers. As we were taught provable lies in our compulsory educations, this may be a tough sell. (I wold also consider attempts and acts that undermine the Constitution as it was intended to be understood should be considered an act of treason)

        It will not work today because too many Americans are so functionally uneducated that they do not understand how government was supposed to work - according to the intents of our founding fathers - who were not the Federalists, but were the anti-federalists, who risked life and limb fighting for freedom (as opposed to hiding behind the safety that their wealth afforded them).
        • thumb
          Nov 27 2012: I agree 110% about education.

          But what you say regarding the finance would not be resolved. Just look at the signing agreements and the agencies created by the POTUS.

          It seems odd to me that federalism is defined by what anti federalists espouse? that seems ironic.
      • thumb
        Nov 27 2012: But Pat, can you find a single place in the constitution that authorizes the president to implement executive orders? Furthermore, agencies are created by congress, not POTUS. Congress also funds them. If congress doesn't like an agency, it can defund. That is its role.
        • thumb
          Nov 27 2012: That is my point it is not in the constitution. I may be wrong on this but I thought the POTUS creates agencies as well, unconstitutional of course. After what I have seen with Obamacare and Frank-Dodd and how incestuous Congress and the POTUS are maybe it just appears that way?

          In any case I agree the cure for the malignancy is chemotherapy which is the financing of, in which case all of the ideologies come to a grinding halt.

          Again it is about education starting with we do not work for them they work for us. We need to be better bosses and make them do their work and hang the ones who cheat in other words a slap on the wrist would be jail time. After all this treason.
      • thumb
        Nov 27 2012: It is rather ironic that Republicans stand for Federalism that stands for an all-powerful central government while claiming to want state's rights. You mis-state when you say that federalism is defined by what anti-federalists espouse. The two could not be further apart.
        • thumb
          Nov 27 2012: In case you think I'm a Republican, I'm a Libertarian and have been registered so for about 35 years.

          My take on conservatives is that they are about freedom and not centralized government AT ALL. Your take on this could not be more wrong. If anything the Democrats are about centralized government or as my lovely sister in law says "you can't convince me that more government isn't good"



          a. A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units.

          from here:

          http://www.thefreedictionary.com/federalism
      • thumb

        Gail . 50+

        • +1
        Nov 27 2012: You may be a registered Libertarian, but your views are anything but Libertairan.
        1. Libertarians were soundly against Mitt Romney. You were very much pro & a strong advocate of Paul Ryan, whom Libertarians were also against.
        2. Libertarians stand for individual rights and the right to own one's body. You are anti-abortion
        3. Libertarians stand for equal rights for GLBTs. I have not seen your position on the matter, but knowing that you are a fundamentalist christian, I could make a guess that you disagree. Furthermore, Libertarians are for equality and you have called equality "crap:
        4. Libertarians stand for legalizing drugs & let U make ur own choices. You're against.
        5. Libertarians don't want to be policemen of the world. Your freeting about Benhazi says you disagree. You have also called for less military at the same time you called for more military spending.
        6. Libertarians want a free-market economy. You want subsidies for the wealthiest (individuals and corporations) because you errantly believe that they are job creators.
        7. Libertarians are pro-environment. You are not.

        The list is longer, but you were devastated at Romney's loss and furious that people voted for him based on "social issues" rather than fiscal ones. The Libertarians prime directive is to protect individual rights. That's a social issue. That's why I have voted Libertarian in every election since 1980 except this one, where I wanted my voice for the right to own my own body to be heard loud and clear, and not hidden in any 1% statistics of those on the fringes.

        You are not a conservative. You are a fiscal conservative. Very big difference. Lots of democrats are fiscal conservatives and social liberals. They're called "Blue Dog Democrats". Another group who are fiscal conservatives and social liberals (keep your god out of government) are Libertarians.
        • thumb
          Nov 27 2012: Damn now I have change most of my values...

          1 I would have been in 7th heaven if Ron Paul would have won, I went with Romney (not even on my short list) because he was the lesser of 2 evils.

          2 Libertarians view abortion from both points of view. I choose right to life.

          3 I could not care less. I'm not a christian. I'm against equality (economic equality) at the expense of freedom and economic mobility

          4 I could not care less, if were up to me I would legalize mota, it is less harmful than alcohol.

          5 The U.S. does have to defend itself, I would like to see less military spending. Benghazi does not pass the smell test, my BS detector is sounding.

          6 I talk about the free market in most of my posts, if my short list is 1 item it is the free market. Again you ignorance of economics shows up.

          7. I'm for what ever raises the standard of living of life. The environmentalist stuff has swung way too far.

          Economic issues raise individual's standard of living, rights, and life more than any other aspect of the world, otherwise we would be communicating by smoke signals.

          I am a Libertarian and a Conservative, after 35 years there is an outside chance that I know as much about it as you?
      • thumb

        Gail . 50+

        • +1
        Nov 29 2012: Libertarians do not take a stand on abortion. It gives you the right to be anti-abortion, but it denies government on any level to interfere in any way. Why? Because it defends individual liberties for everyone - not just men. If a woman wants to enslave herself to some undifferentiated cells or a fetus that cannot live independently from her, then that's her choice. But if a woman prefers freedom to slavery, Libertarians defend individual freedoms.

        You recently discovered the truth about the Fed Reserve, and have only begun to learn about it and money, but I, who have spent years studying various economic/fiscal models and their relationship to the social order, am ignorant because I know more than you? Really?

        You do talk about free markets, but you also talk about tax incentives for the few that you (falsely) consider the job creators. That's not a free market by any definition. The Libertarian Platform is against your view.

        The Libertarian party stands for caring for the environment.

        You appear not to have even read the Libertarian Party platform. You may think that you are a Libertarian, and may even be sending them money, but if you don't know what a Libertarian is, how can you be so sure that you are one? (Rhetorical question - no answer necessary because your post has already given me the answer.)
        • thumb
          Nov 29 2012: Where do I talk about tax incentives? Everything I have said on TED is available to you.

          I have stated that lower taxes are a liberty that are antithetical to Socialism.

          Are you in favor of third trimester abortions? I don't think that human life begins at the stem cell stage on the other hand 3rd trimester abortions are murder.

          Libertarian are against government interference in the environment.

          I have known about the intricacies of the Fed for decades.

          Party affiliation should give you a clue about my awareness of economics.

          What I am saying is that you are ignorant about economics.

          You did learn me some stuff about the anti-federalists and I thank you for that.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.