Is the United States Broken?

There have been 26 people who responded to the initial post in this series entitled, "Not Goint to Take It Anymore". I have tried to infer their thinking regarding the underlying premise of the series: the United States as defined under our Constitution has ceased to exist. There are at least two separate population groups living within the geographical confines of the United States. The two groups have diametrically opposing views of government. There is some over-lapping of the geographic areas occupied by the two groups, but surprisingly the over-lap is less than most imagine. This makes a geo-political division between the groups feasible and perhaps desireable.

Of the 26 replies, there was only one who felt that the idea that the United States is broken was treachery or treasonous. There were four who plan to monitor these threads and who seemed undecided. Most respondents agree that the United States is in fact broken.

I am posting the first question now as its own thread to provide additional opportunities to recruit additional Freepers to participate in the discussion and for each participant to have a venue to clearly state their own opinions.

With all respect, I think there's a flaw in your premise. There are not two groups in the U.S. There are multiple factions, although, yes, I do think the U.S. is broken.

On Free Republic, several factions exist, and represent larger bodies. Conservative really doesn't mean anything anymore, so I'll break it down a little further. There are social conservatives, who believe the government should enforce certain moral codes, or at least allow cities and states to do so. There are fiscal conservatives, who don't believe the government should "legislate morality", but don't want vast expenditures of money. There are several flavors of Libertarian, but most believe the government should, for the most part, not exist, except to provide for military protection and to provide some critical infrastructure, such as roads, etc. Then, there are country club Republicans, who have no problem with high taxes, so long as most government expenditures are in the form of subsidies to their particular industry.

Many of these groups overlap with groups from the DU, GreenPeace, NAMBLA, etc, who don't usually post on Free Republic. These groups each have their own flavor from total socialism in one area to total anarchy in others.

For the most part, though, the country is broken because the government does not exist as it was designed. Congress has become Santa Claus, engaging in a bidding war for the votes of their various constituants. They no longer even consider whether something is Constitutional or not, since they are too busy fighting over whether the peanut farmers in Georgia or the chicpea growers in Louisiana will get the biggest subsidy from the current farm bill, since each of the sitting senators is vulnerable, and must buy votes for the next election.

Into this void of leadership steps the Supreme Court, which has assumed most of the legislative duties in the country by declaring that whatever pops into their heads when the lithium wears off is what the Constitution means. The role of the White House varies, depending upon the occupant, but for the most part, the President serves as a face for the government, and may veer the country slightly in one direction or another. Meanwhile, countless Federal bureaucracies create regulations which carry the weight of law, but are not subject to voter approval. These, along with strings tied to Federal funds, and activism in the court system, have removed the last of the states rights. The Internal Revenue Service claims the right to see every one of our banking records, rendering the right to be secure in our persons and properties totally meaningless.

Of course, most people don't really care, because they're too busy trying to get their piece of the public pie, or are involved in rampant hedonism. When was the last time there was a national college or pro sports championship that didn't cause a riot in the home city of the winner? I still remember a young lady calling into a talk show, livid because Al Gore lost, and all George Bush wanted to do was to take away her abortion, her vibrator, and her right to an orgasm, and she thought she was making a serious point.

The US government is broken, but we have the government we deserve, as do most people.

You can avoid redistributionist policies if you restrict the suffrage and keep the mass of society poor, though such a policy would court revolution. Certainly the world is full of countries where such programs don't exist, because there are no elections, or only a restricted suffrage, and because it's clear that there isn't enough to go around. Once you create enough of a surplus, and the means of extracting it, there will be people who will try to take it. We can restrict or limit or redirect that redistributionist impulse, but it's folly to expect that there won't be some people who think that way and want to do something about it or that they won't get their way sometimes.

The more I learn, the more I disagree with Joe Sobran.

First, for assuming that state sovereignty would necessarily mean greater individual freedom than federal supremacy. The unlimited sovereignty of the state in Europe did not make individuals freer or the EU make them less freer. One can argue which way is better, but clearly one can't assume that more extended federal governments are always a greater threat than smaller or local ones. State governments have shown themselves to be fully as oppressive as the federal government.

Second, for asserting that the Founders wanted to restrict the powers of the federal government as drastically as he claims. They'd just lived through the days of the Articles of Confederation and the Federalists, as opposed to the Anti-Federalists opposed the weakness of the Federal government under the Articles. Many of the things the federal government does now are unwise and some may be unconstitutional, but an act of the federal government is not unconstitutional simply because it isn't explicitly provided for in the Constition. They could have written a Constitution that much more decisively restricted the powers of the federal government by using the word "expressly", but they chose not to do so.

That's not to say that federal power is better than state power or that everything the federal government does is right, wise or constitutional, but Joe is peddling stuff that's been called into question virtually since the beginning of the Republic and calling it gospel. It's worth reflecting that the Supreme Court was still overturning federal legislation that interfered in the internal commerce of a state as recently as the 1930s, so there is something to build on if one wants to argue some federal agencies unconstitutional, but the arguments Joe makes have been dead-letters since Jefferson exercised implied powers to buy Louisiana and Hamilton and later Madison used them to charter national banks.

One thing to consider is that our problems may not involve usurpations and tyrannies, but trying to act wisely and responsibly. The answer may not be secession or litigation but persuasion.

Is the United States broken?

If we believe it is, it's we who've been broken. Our country is holding out against a world socialist insurgence that spends every waking moment demonizing capitalism, the rule of law and our republic. With so much energy being exhorted against us, we can not stand unless we trust in our hearts, that what we've built on the foundation laid down by our forefathers, is something good and worth fighting for. Just because the socialists have their foot in our door doesn't mean it is coming off the hinges. It is our job, our generation's turn, to do the necessary maintenence, to pitch in to fix the leaks, replace some siding, pull some weeds and fertilize the new plants in our garden. We've just had our wake-up call and if that siren warning of our neglect is not heeded, we will have failed at our turn at the helm and we will have denined our childrn the honor and privledge of taking their turn at the wheel.

The United States of America in either the singular or collective sense of the noun is/are broken. The social contract is rent on many many lines. The Bill of Rights has becoming effectively meaningless. The First Amendment is subject to restrictions regarding Freedom of political speech. Freedom of the free exercise of religion, and the right to peaceably assemble. The Second Amendment to the Constitution is ignored. The Fourth Amendment is pretty much valueless now and the Fifth Amendment is certainly gone given the civil forfeiture laws, the IRS reporting requirements. The sixth is ignored when it comes to prosections being done in the state and district where the "crime" was committed and the right to trial by jury is there so that juries may not enforce an unjust law so it is now gone. The seventh is considered null and void. Try demanding a jury trial in a matter of say fifty dollars in a Federal court. As to the right of a jury to determine facts that has long since been pretty much put aside. Tyhe eight amendment is no longer operative if one is a definite target of the government. I could cite examples but when it comes to these guarantees they only apply to protected classes not to ordinary citizens.

The ninth Ammendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the Penumbra of a right to abortion. Yet can any other right enforced by the courts be found under this Amendment?

The Tenth Amendment is null and void according to Robert Bork. The states have no Rights anymore. The years of the 55 mph speed limit are testimony to that. The Brady Law is testement to that. Nor are the people who are citizens of the USA guaranteed any rights under this Amendment.

I note the presence of this Amendment as a limit to Federal power. Those who say that the Federal Government can govern areas other than those deleagted powers specifically and expressly granted to the Federal Government should read this amendment and reread it.

Yes, our system as defined is broken and we as a nation will pay a terible price for ignoring our most fundamental law. The constitution in Germany in the `1930's and 1940's contained many guarantees of liberty but it was ignored. Likewise the Soviet Constitution contained numerous guartees of individual liberty that were never enforced. When the Constitution means whatever whover holds the power says it means then the only law is superior force. The end result of such a situation is almost always carnage on a massive scale.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

You can avoid redistributionist policies if you restrict the suffrage and keep the mass of society poor, though such a policy would court revolution.
This statement shows a complete lack of faith in capitalism and people. In your heart, you are a socialist and liberal. What keeps people poor, is governments that get in the way of people earning a living and politicians who derive their power from passing out benefits to their voting base.

...surplus, there will be people who will try to take it
In a country where everyone is armed, the unproductive don't usually try to take it, at least not directly. Normally, they employ politicians to do it for them.

First, for assuming that state sovereignty would necessarily mean greater individual freedom than federal supremacy.
Europe is not analogous to the United States in almost any respect. If your believe otherwise, your arguments are going to be misleading because your thinking is very superficial. Again you show your socialists tendencies in failing to recognize that governments compete with each other just as do corporations and other businesses. Check the tax incentives offered to relocating businesses if you think otherwise. Because of the dominance achieved by the federal government, much of the competition between states has been eliminated because the Democrats in power in the federal government decreed and provided carrots and sticks to the states to adopt model codes and regualtions. Without this top down forced uniformity, regional nation/states would be looking at a highly mobile population using the internet to screen for the things that appeal to them. Those looking for welfare might choose NY or Kalifornia. Those with wealth and high income would look for tax friendly states. Those seeking freedom would look for states with no restrictions or regualtions on property and property rights. They would also look for a judicial system that believes in enforcing contracts and existing law rather than legislating and serving as an empathetic support system.

The answer may not be secession or litigation but persuasion.
I have debated with liberals and Democrats for most of the forty years of my adult life. I am unaware of a single instance in which I ever changed their minds about anything. Rush is right! Liberals are incapable of intellectual thought and rational decision making. Liberals feel and rely on their emotions as a substitute for thought. Socialists are insane. For them, rational thought is impossible. One half of our current population fits into these categories. It would take at least two or three generations to bring about effective changes beginning with the education of the children of the existing generation of Americans. If you have been paying attention, Democrats have no intention of actually allowing education to occur in the United States. It would bring their reign of power to an end. And look where the greatest concentration of liberals and socialists live.

I will have more to say about what courses of actions might be taken on future threads after hearing the thoughts of other contributors.

We elect folks who pass laws that are never enforced, witness the 1996 Welfare and Farm Reform bills. That is not a republic that is a superficial republic. Words have meaning, A = A.

That's an operational problem, not a design problem. I can design a perfectly functional car, with a whole set of capabilities. But that doesn't prevent someone from getting behind the wheel, starting her up, and mowing down a sidewalk full of people. Is the car broken? No. The accident was a result of driver error.

So it is with the USA. The system is fine. All the parts still work. The people running the system, and that means all of us, have less than a perfect record. I don't think anyone expected perfection. How bad is our performance? It's not an easy thing to quantify. The best thing you can say, and it's no small thing, is that we have preserved our system so well that we still retain the power to govern ourselves. In fact, we have done a lot better than a lot of folks at the time thought we would.

Words have meaning, A=A, you say. You must not know any lawyers. Words have meanings. Just look at the 1st Congress. You had the key framers hotly debating the most fundamental phrases in the Constitution. Madison fought Hamilton over the National Bank, only to authorize one himself later on when he was President. You had Adams, a profound patriot and republican, signing the Sedition Acts. Clearly, if Washington, Madison, and Hamilton could not agree on the meaning of the words, then saying A=A doesn't say very much that is useful.

We can't expect words on their own to save the day. What's amazing is how well and how much of the words have held up, while the rest of the world has gone through tumultuous upheavals--fascism, communism, socialism, etc. As I say, the system, that is, the fundamental laws which describe our system, are in good working order. The people can always do a better job of running it.

Thank you both for joining our discussion.

In addressing the question of do we have a systemic problem or a people problem, I want you to consider some history and what I believe are a few relevant facts. History says there are number of major changes that occurred in our laws, our courts, and maybe in our people beginning with Wilson's election and more particularly with Roosevelt's. Building on the New Deal, LBJ took things to a whole new level. You will note these are all Democratic Presidents and Democratic programs. I am suggesting to you that the Democratic Party was completely corrupted under FDR. Now the Democratic Party has as it core belief a socialist principle and the leaders of the party rely completely on this corruption to remain in power. What is this corruption? No man has the right to take the property of another man without his consent. No man has the right to take the property of another man and give it to yet another man. Government cannot be empowered to do for one man what he cannot do for himself.

I submit that the Democratic Party is completely corrupt. Through its strangle hold on political power from 1933 until 1980, the Democratic Party has corrupted governments at all levels and corrupted the people themselves. My questions are focused on trying to determine how damaged our way of life, our government, and our people actually are. And more importantly, if we can determine the damage, can we also arrive at some meaningful conclusions of how, when, whether and how best to correct the problems. I look forward to these discussions and hope you will invite your fellow friends and Freepers to participate. I don't believe in democracies, but I do believe in republics. And it just could be that FreeRepublic is the last best hope for the United States and in turn the last best hope for freedom in the world. If we are to believe that only one third of the colonists supported the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War, then polling data suggests that there are still enough Americans who care and that if we can motivate them in the right direction, maybe others will follow.

If you believe in such a phrase: exploitation of the workers by the capitalists (I consider it an illogical phrase in a free society), then you subscribe to what would generally be called a Marxist theory.

Since the forefathers were wrong and the court could not keep the exectuive branch in check during both the Civil War and more so during FDR's term, I would say that the system failed. But you actually argue that because the Consitution was not taken out of the National Archive and burned, that we still have a perfectly functioning system of government.

As an aside, do you consider yourself a neo-Conservative? Who are your top 3 political thinkers?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.