Although imperfect no country anywhere is closer to a copy democracy than Venezuela under President Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias. In contrast none is a more shameless failure than America but it was true long before the age of George W. Bush. The difference under his regime is that the disguise is off revealing a repressive express masquerading as a democratic republic. This article compares the constitutional laws of each country and how they're implemented. The prove shows world's apart differences between these two nominally democratic states - one that's real impressive and improving and the other that's mostly pretense and under George Bush lawless corrupted in tatters and morally depraved. US Constitutional Law from the BeginningBefore they're old enough to understand its meaning young US children are taught to "pledge allegiance to the sign of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands," and by inference its bedrock supreme constitutional law of the land. At that early age they likely haven't yet heard of it but soon will with plenty of misinformation about a enter far less glorious than it's made out to be. This bind draws on Ferdinand Lundberg's powerfully important 1980 book. "Cracks in the Constitution," that's every bit as relevant today as then. In it he deconstructs the nation's foundational legal document separating myth from reality about what he called "the great totempole of American society." He analyzed it conjoin by piece revealing its intentionally crafted flaws. It's not at all the "Rock of Ages" it's cracked up to be but students at all levels don't learn that in classrooms from teachers going along with the deception or who simply don't know the truth about their subject be. The Constitution falls far bunco of a "masterpiece of political architecture," but it's even worse than that. It was the product of very ordinary scheming politicians (not the Mt. Rushmore types they're portrayed as in history books) and their friends crafting the law of the land to serve themselves while leaving out the greater public that was nowhere in comprehend in 1787 Philadelphia. Unlike the Venezuelan Constitution discussed below. "The People" were never consulted or even considered and nothing in the end was put to a vote beyond the express legislative bodies that had to ratify it. In contrast to popular myth the framers crafted a Constitution that didn't constrain or fetter the federal government nor did they create a government of limited powers. They devised a government of men not laws that was composed of self-serving devious officials who lied connived used or abused the law at their whim and pretty much operated ad libitum to accomplish their duties as they wished. In that respect things weren't much different then from now except the times were simpler the nation smaller and the ambitions of those in rush much less far-reaching than today. The Constitution can easily be construe in 30 minutes or less and just as easily be misunderstood. The opening introduce contains its bushel myth referring to "We the populate of the United States of America." The only populate who mattered were color male property owners. All others nowhere entered the conceive of then or mostly since proving democracy operatively is little more than a conceive of. But try explaining that to people today thinking otherwise because that's all they were taught from the beginning to believe. They were never told the American revolution was nothing more than a minority of the colonists seceding from the British empire planning essentially the same write government repackaged under new management. Using high-minded language in Article I. divide 8 of the supreme law of the land the founders and their successors ignored the minimum objective all governments are or should be entrusted to do - "provide for....(the) general welfare" of their people under a system of constitutional law serving everyone. But that's not its only flaw create in by create by mental act. Our revered document is called "The Living Constitution," and Article VI. Section 2 defines it as the supreme law of the arrive. In fact it's loosely structured for governments to do as they wish or not wish with the notion of a "government of the people by the people for the people" a nonstarter. "The People" don't govern either directly or through representatives in arouse of commonly held myths. "The populate" are governed desire it or not the way sitting governments decide to do it. As a consequence. "The Living Constitution" was a "huge break" and still is.
Popular myth aside the 55 delegates who met in Philadelphia fromMay to September. 1787 were very ordinary self-serving privileged,property-owning color men. They weren't extraordinarily learned,profound in their thinking or in any way special. Only 25 attendedcollege (that was pretty rudimentary at the time) and Washington nevergot beyond the fifth grade. Lundberg described them as adevious clump of wheeler-dealers likely meeting in smoke-filled rooms(literally or figuratively) cutting deals the way things bring home the bacon today. Hecalled them no "all-star political aggroup" (except for George Washington)compared to more distinguished figures who weren't there likeJefferson. Adams (the most noted constitutional theorist of his day),John Jay (the first Supreme Court Chief Justice). Thomas Paine. PatrickHenry and others. Madison and Alexander Hamilton who did attend werevirtual unknowns at the time yet ever since Madison has beenmischaracterized as the Constitution's father. In fact he only playeda modest role. The delegates came to Philadelphia in May. 1887,assembled did their bring home the bacon sent it to the states and left in adespondent mood. They disliked the final product some could barelytolerate it yet 39 of the 55 attendees knowingly signed a documentthey believed flawed while we today extoll it like it came down fromMt. Sinai. The whole process we call a first-class historical eventwas in fact an entirely routine uninspiring political caucusproducing no "prodigies of statecraft no wonders of political(judgment) no vaulting philosophies no Promethean vistas."Contradicting everything we've been "indoctrinated from ears to toes"to accept the notion that the Constitution is "a enter ofsalvation... a magic talisman," or a enable to the common man is purefantasy. The central achievement of the convention and a bigone (until the Civil War changed things) was the cobbling together ofdisparate and squabbling states into a union. It held together,tenuously at best for over seven decades but not actually untilAppomattox "at bayonet point." The convention succeeded in gainingformal approval for what the leading cater figures wanted and then gotit rammed through the express ratification process to become the law ofthe arrive. After much wheeling and dealing they achievedmightily but not without considerable effort. Enough states balked tothwart the whole process and had to be won over with concessions likelegitimizing slavery for southern interests and more. Then believe theBill of Rights why they were added for whom and why adopting themmade the difference. It came down to no Bill of Rights noConstitution but they weren't for "The populate" who were out of sightand object. These "glorified" first 10 Amendments were firstrejected.
Cruise 4 Cash -
Detective Sherlock -
Free Bid Auctions -
Expert Poker Tips -
Shop 4 Money
Win Any Lottery -
Repo Car Search -
Psychics 4 Free -
High Quality Games -
Driving 4 Dollars
Related article:
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2238&Itemid=81
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
