Why do American Atheists Believe in the Constitution?

[The Grand Nudger]

 They are theologians, numerologists, psychics, sophists, plagiarists, liars, and fear-mongers. They are the underwater basket weavers that our high school science teachers warned us about. 

That's good, lol, I'm stealing it.  I agree with you, btw, that they're engaged in a low level hybrid conflict with each other, trying to keep it from spilling out into the streets before they can consolidate their fiefdoms.  A strong central government might be able to stop that, were it so inclined - and chopping it into even smaller warring parts would be an impediment in that hypothetical.

[Secular Heckler]

Do you think bad actors couldn't or wouldn't run the same play with six partitions that they have with three?  I mean, we're ultimately talking about making government even more burdensome and unwieldy on the hopes that it will be too much of a pain in the ass for anyone to capture the whole thing, right?  I think you might be underestimating the will of our owners.

The bad actors will not be able to run the same play, and a modern, sophisticated series of constitutional conventions will prevent any other possible general partisan corruption because of the unique formulations of four legislative assemblies will break the general parties into at least four factions that can be better critiqued. Plus the modern system of security will prevent what we have from the slow erosion of "honest politics" that we have from the evolution of the existing system. Except for the Demarcation of Law theory, the system we have now has basically revealed the pieces of the self-governing puzzle that the founders did not have. They started off with building only three security departments and the judiciary. 

Deployment of the Demarcation of Law Theory is not as difficult to deliberate now as it would have been in the past. The Founders were hurried with not much more than the new and untested Three-part Separation Theory. They had limited professional manpower and medieval publishing technology. Today, not only do we have a more sophisticated separation theory to deliberate, but we also have a list of security departments that are accurately commissioned by sections of the law that would have been very helpful to the Founders. We have access to a robust community of scholars and practical experts with chalk boards, computers, smart phones, easy-to-use printers, and reams of paper. We are unhurried and can take the time to imagine, calculate, compose, deliberate, litigate, rewrite, and publish, hyperlinked hierarchy listings of directive systems for ordering all of the possible options for organizing the judiciary, legislative assemblies, executive administration offices, security departments, and promulgated laws, into an aligned system that will have qualities consistent with scientific reliability and engineered calibration.

The 3-part system is legit. Perhaps even....a bit too legit.

If American society were just and tranquil, as the Preamble commissions the American Experiment, then we would be correct to credit the organization of the government for delivering. But because the government seems to be too big to fail, and a more reliable government separation model has not yet been revealed, it is easier to blame the politicians who are tasked with working in the erroneous system, than trying to design and deliberate a more practical system. Contemporary Americans are naïve witnesses and unwitting victims to the adverse aspects of the inadequacies of the experimental three-branch government.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why not? Why couldn't our owners buy six partitions and four parties the same way they've bought three and two?

[Secular Heckler]

Why not?  Why couldn't our owners buy six partitions and four parties the same way they've bought three and two?

I cannot predict beyond the outlook of a more complex fractioning of a graduated four-assembly legislature, any more than I can assume that you are correct in your description of "our owners buying" the subsisting party system. That is, if you are correctly diagnosing the problem, then why don't you devise the correct adjustment that most people will agree is the best? Quit jerking off.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Why not?  Why couldn't our owners buy six partitions and four parties the same way they've bought three and two?

I cannot predict beyond the outlook of a more complex fractioning of a graduated four-assembly legislature, any more than I can assume that you are correct in your description of "our owners buying" the subsisting party system. That is, if you are correctly diagnosing the problem, then why don't you devise the correct adjustment that most people will agree is the best? Quit jerking off.

The correct adjustment has already been devised: direct democracy with universal suffrage. 

Boru

[Alan V]

That is a delusion derived from the favorable aspects of representative governing theory but nullified by the unidentified inadequacies of the three-branch government.

I guess that ends our discussion, then. Your commitment to rudeness makes it clear that this won't be a productive interchange.

*plonk*

If he really wanted intelligent conversation, he wouldn't be trolling.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah, I see, we've got one of those jackasses who hasn't thought their pet idea through and can't answer the most basic questions about it.  As though the cracking and packing of power centers hasn't been tried six ways to sunday, most notably in context by the very ruling classes we're supposed to be outmaneuvering through the harebrained complication of bureaucracy.  

[Belacqua]

The inconvenient truth is that neither the separation nor the formulation of checks on power prevents corruption or controls the quality of the inevitable oligarchy formed by the principal officials in the government.                 

OK, it's been years since I studied this stuff, so go easy on me please.

If I'm understanding your argument, it's that the three-branch system of government which the Founding Fathers gave us has failed to prevent corruption. It has allowed an oligarchy to take over, displacing the intended democracy.

As I recall, the Founding Fathers were concerned about these very points. They would probably not be surprised to see how far things have fallen in our own time. They knew the dangers of political parties that work for the perpetuation of party power, and of corporations, who benefit from oligarchy (or Inverted Totalitarianism, as Sheldon Wolin called it).

So I think if Thomas Jefferson heard that it had all fallen apart by 2025, he's say something like, "It lasted that long? Really?"

So far I am less clear on the restructuring you're proposing to alleviate the problems. Here's what seems like one proposal:

The undetected problem is that the bicameral legislative assemblies are not commissioned exclusive jurisdictions of law to guard (principles of action), and that miscalculation surrendered the entire system to flawed partisanship.

So if I'm reading you right, you think it would be better to divvy up jurisdictions with specified fields of law that they are tasked with protecting. I'm not sure how that would work (if your link were allowed the article you pointed us to would probably explain it in more detail.) But I certainly agree that partisanship is not working to give us what works best for the people -- it gives us what works best for whoever it is that a particular party works for -- which is not you and me. 

As I say, I am far from expert in all of this. If you are so inclined, I'd be interested to read in more detail how these government reforms could work. In particular, how they can avoid the kind of partisanship or oligarchic-takeover which has infested our current system.

You're not allowed to post links yet, but if you tell me the name of the journal and the title of the article (without a link) I can probably Google it. 

For the record, you are correct that the word "believe" can be a synonym for "support”. The word basically has two meanings: to assent to the truth of a proposition, e.g. "I believe there is life on Mars." or: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something, e.g. "I believe in equal rights for women." We currently don't have equal rights for women in a lot of places, but I hold that we really should. Therefore I believe in them. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believe

[Ravenshire]

I guess that ends our discussion, then. Your commitment to rudeness makes it clear that this won't be a productive interchange.

*plonk*

If he really wanted intelligent conversation, he wouldn't be trolling.

You have to possess some modicum of intelligence in order to truly desire intelligent discourse. I see no signs from this loon.

[Fireball]

https://imgur.com/JgFaNTX
Anyone for an over/under date?