Spar wrote:BN747 wrote:Here are the steps regarding the path leading to the Rights of man - established by man.
The Magna Carta - addressing the universal liberty (freedoms) of rights of man, that his right to be is recognized in everyday affairs and political input.
The US Constitution/Bill of Rights - a further recognition establishing governance guidelines providing a stable platform in which to improve upon with each successive generation.
Why do you skip the French Revolution which was taking place as the provisions of the US Constitution were being decided on? The French Revolution had a huge impact on the US Constitution. Had the writing of the US Constitution taken place 10 years earlier we would have had a much different document.
That is true and I did not intend to diminish the contributions of lessons of the French Revolution, just like the Magna Carta, the foreign events of the French Revolution were indeed instrument in advancing thought - in preparation of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights was abit of an after thought. But just as amendments serve to address corrective measures it is an added function opened to a changing society. Our laws aren't meant to last permanently...like the 2nd Amendment, it needs to be adjusted for the current age.
Spar wrote:BTW, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't consider the Bill of rights to be part of the constitution, it was an add on that came after the fact. The US bill of rights could be added to any type of government being created, even a monarchy (and would usually be included in the primary text instead of as an add-on). My focus is on how power is apportioned as the result of the vote.BN747 wrote:A system that declares the person who lost the vote count the winner because some people's votes count more than other people's votes is convoluted IMO.The system is convoluted to anyone ignorant of it.
Then there is the fact that in the US constitutional system, there can be no third parties. Any third party will only subtract votes from the major party that is closest to it's doctrine and thus guarantees a win for the party that usually has the least support among the people.
That is unacceptable IMO.
The way the current Electoral College design does need to be disposed of or replaced with a fairer mechanism because clearly...it allows the loser (just as we are seeing now) to win the election.