@JoeBiden you aspire to replace @realDonaldTrump who is a known compulsive liar. Yet you yourself lied in the debate last night, saying “I did not oppose busing.” THAT. IS. A. LIE. That’s because you said *this* in an interview in 1975: “I oppose busing in America.” #dropoutjoe
@WilliamHogeland Thanks. That event, by majority-rule voting of 724 out of 1086, abolished the 1st Constitution while establishing the 2nd. It invokes the issue of sovereignty. Under the 1st Constitution, each of the 13 states was "sovereign" — possessing the "supreme authority of nation." 1/
@WilliamHogeland 2/ Thus the first "constitution of the Federal Government" was "federal" as Congress then stated, and now, according to the current definition. "Sovereignty" being a type of authority assigned to nations only, is supreme, presupposing "final" and "indivisible." So sovereignty...
@WilliamHogeland 3/ ...grew in scope to include the nation as a whole, as established by the 1787 national "Constitution of the United States of America." Who or what was then "The Sovereign"? James Wilson who authored the "We the People ... ordain and establish..." part of the Preamble said...
@RichardAlbert Thanks Richard. There are some key features that could be examined: de facto two-party v. multiparty; bicameral v. unicameral; presidential v. parliamentary; direct democracy versus no direct democracy (with many variations); much private & corporate money v. little or none... 1/
@RichardAlbert 2/ ...in elections; etc. The above-mentioned features are summarized, in each case, by the contrast between New Zealand's constitutional design and America's constitutional design. If there are studies that correlate such features with the extent to which the popular will...
@RichardAlbert 3/ ...is implemented or blocked, I'd like to know. In the American case, the primary author of the American design structure in Articles 1-4 — Madison — was very clear in his own Notes and those of Robert Yates on 06-26-1787. He said the purpose of the structure was:
@BretWeinstein Yes. Leadership in a constitutional crisis, and resulting incoherence, must come from people whose thinking is not locked in mental cages installed by centuries of propaganda. They have discovered the causes of the crisis, thus its solutions. My favorite candidates are these: 1/
@BretWeinstein 2/ First, in a constitutional crisis, the causes must be analyzed outside of the restrictive Overton Window that has obscured them —mostly deliberately — of, by & for the ruling oligarchy. In the case of the 1787 American Constitution, the causes are revealed by these scholars.
@BretWeinstein 3/ I start with the historian Michael Klarman in his revealing account of the underlying oligarchic intent and founding deceptions by the oligarchs among the authors: “The Framers' Coup: The Making of the United States Constitution” amazon.com/dp/0190865962/
@MonicaHesse Saw this: washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/styl… It appears to be true that about one out of a hundred men are psychopaths, but only one out of 1500 women. Most geniuses appear to be men. That’s two extremes, perhaps it’s based on genetics. If so... 1/
2/ ...then what can be done to protect society from the many men and the fewer women who are psychopaths? Options: 1. Universal mental health insurance? 2. Screening for special treatment? 3.) Banning the assault and torture of children in schools (called “corporal punishment”)?
3/ 4. Banning assault and torture of children in homes? 5. Prohibiting the ownership of semiautomatic rifles like New Zealand did? 6. Making training, recurrent training and home safety inspections for any gun owner? 7. Strengthening backgroundchecks for all gun sales?
@WilliamHogeland@dhlazare Persuading the public to exercise the collective right to be the Sovereign, and to do as Jefferson described in his Declaration draft to “alter” or “abolish” our government and to “institute new government” when that government fails, requires a look at the past. 1/
@WilliamHogeland@dhlazare 2/ That’s because what is legal is based on the past via the stare decisis — precedent. AND Americans are a largely indoctrinated people who look to an imagined past for guidance. The actual past then is relevant for what to do in the present to democratize the nation.
@WilliamHogeland@dhlazare 3/ Normally, in *modern* democratic nations, changing the constitutional design falls to political parties. Under a constitutional design, such as ours, that effectively deprived us of party choice, that is not a practical option. So it’s missing is creating the organizational...