Forum Post: ratification of world constitution
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 27, 2011, 12:57 p.m. EST by jkintree
(84)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
When the United States Constitution was ratified, out of the original 13 states, a total of 1,648 votes (1,071 Yes to 577 No) were cast from a total US population of about 3,845,000 people.
(http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/overview.html)
That was far less than 1% of the population. Voting was limited to white, male adults, and in most states there was also a requirement to be a property owner. Aside from those legal restrictions, it was quite a burden to travel and stay at the locations of the various state ratification assemblies in order to participate.
Sometime during 2012, it is possible that the number of people with Internet access will reach half of the global human population. One would think that this would be a reasonable quorum in order to consider and ratify a world constitution.
We know that many Americans are opposed to an effective world government. With less than 5% of the world population, yet consuming a much larger % of the planet's resources, this is not surprising.
Well, there was a lot of opposition to ratification of the Unites States Constitution, yet it was ratified. One main point of opposition was the lack of a Bill of Rights. This was corrected with the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution. Perhaps we could learn from this lesson, and present only the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the core document for a world constitution. All else would follow ratification of that document as the Supreme Law for the planet.
This is one step towards evolution. :)
Very, very good idea, sir. Don't let anyone tarnish it or put it down. Keep it close to your heart and keep it up.
One government. One ruling class. What could go wrong?
I just blew my drink through my nose...LOL..!!!!!!!!!!!!!...all over the keyboard and monitor..........LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good question. The ruling class in the United States is the 1% of the population that owns and controls such a disproportionate amount of the wealth. That pattern of inequality and maldistribution of power is replicated throughout the world.
What's going wrong for that ruling class is that the occupy movement is global and growing.
it will happen. it is a natural function of planetary population that human society will reorganize itself when population density demands it to do so.(think copper age to iron age, or more recent: industrial age to information age.) Barring some natural catstrophe, the world government age will happen, but that's a long time away. it's good to plant the seed, but we need to work on not slipping into complete feudalism right now. i'm tired of being a serf
You know, I'm down with OWS to get the big money out of US politics, that is all. Trying to take over the world with a "universal" bill of rights is total bullshit. I'm sure the poor farmer in Africa, Asia, or South America will be delighted to hear that some rich people in the first world have decided for him what his best interests are. And while we're at it, lets take his grain to feed our soldiers, his children for our slavery and his land for the new white overseer who will plant mutated soybeans where he once grew yams. I guess colonization wasn't such a bad idea after all...
Bleh........ bleh bleh bleh......
Thank you for bringing the perspective of the frogs and the sheep to this discussion. It's interesting that most of the people who have commented on this topic so far are opposed to world government.
Fortunately, it's not the comments that are made in this discussion that will determine whether a world constitution is ratified or not. By the end of 2012, there might be more than half of humanity that has access to the Internet. Following the curve another year, by the end of 2013, probably far more than half of humanity will have access. By the end of 2014, virtually all of humanity might have access to the Internet.
If and when we vote to ratify the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we might choose not to do so with electronic voting. We might choose to use paper ballots. The critical role the Internet could play in this is distributing the information about the issues that we, the citizens of planet Earth, would feel strongly enough about to take to a vote of the whole.
Sir, at this moment, I am only concerned with MY United States Of America, once the USA has been fixed, which will require drawing in and severing a few ties to isolate all problems.
Then build from there. It is insanity to think that piling huge piles of more of the same matter on top of our current mess, in the name of world unification, will make fixing our United States any easier.
One thing at a time and I'm certainly not interested in having a one world government and know without a doubt that it will never happen.
When I go to occupywallst.org, what I see on the right side of my screen is, "the only solution is World Revolution."
It is funny the number of things people once thought would never happen that have happened.
One of my favorite scenes from the movie "Gandhi" is when a top-ranking British officer asks, "What? Do you think we are just going to march out of India?"
Gandhi said something to the effect, "Yes. When you realize that you can't govern a country of hundreds of millions of people without their obedience, you will march out of India." With the example from Gandhi, let us continue.
I certainly agree with you in that mind bending drugs should not be illegal and you should be allowed to cop any buzz that makes you happy. Carry on, Sir.
That was not a point that I made, FrogWithWings. Since you made it, I will affirm it. More specifically, it is my inalienable right to grow a marijuana plant in my backyard for personal use, and for sharing with friends. The fact that I could be arrested and imprisoned for exercising such a basic human right illustrates how corrupt and illegitimate the current system is.
Excellent, we do have common ground in that the people seem content with having a falied, incompetent and corrupt government over-seeing almost every aspect of what should be their personal and private lives.
When the USA government cannot even balance it's budget and have means to be run, without "selling debt" then "borrowing MORE money" just to keep going.......
why should anyone want them involved in more complex moral issues which reasonable people are quite able to regulate themselves....
marriage, child raising, abortion, religion, drugs, alcohol.... etc etc etc.
Now, I'm not saying this world wide constitution is without merit, I've not read it. However, the task of fixing things here in this one nation of empowered people, will be daunting enough without further complicating such repairs by involving even more diverse cultures of which do not even speak the same languages.... and all of which have their own ideas about how government should, or should not, be.
Have a great weekend.
Oh here we go - the elite's dream post - openly calling for a World Constitution that we can impose on everyone. Supreme Law for the planet - now that sounds like a great idea.
Heaven on Earth: Switzerland runs the DOD The Netherlands runs the ATF Costa Rica runs the EPA South Korea is charge of education
Hell on Earth The U.S. censors the Internet China runs the EPA Congo heads up Amnesty International Japan runs nuclear power
I'm sure there are many more we could add to these lists....
Your post is known as a strawman argument. You create a distortion of the proposal because it is easier to tear the distortion apart than to deal with what was proposed.
With what part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights do you disagree?
You just committed what you accused mgiddin1 of doing. You distorted the proposal. mgiddin1 responded to your post regarding a world constitution. Your challenge to him to not distort involved your reference to a universal declaration of human rights. Those are two vastly different things.
You're right, thank you. And yes, I was being a bit sarcastic with my response.
I don't necessarily object to a universal declaration of human rights - except that it's a pipe dream, and we don't even follow the Geneva Convention, but that aside...
My problem was with applying any U.S. declaration of human rights to the world generally, and your concept of "Supreme Law", which was a term you gave.
I consider nations and their respective people and cultures to be sovereign (as well as individuals, of course)
I think that should also be a universal right. What we have now is bigger countries such as the U.S. bullying other countries, using military force, and bribing and controlling their leaders in order to take advantage of their natural resources and strategic advantage. We are a bloated, aggressive, decaying empire, in my opinion.
Ironically, I think your proposal is at once both idealistic and also a recipe for tyranny, if that's possible.
RE: concept of Supreme Law
From Article VI of the United States Constitution, "...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The Constitution of the United States set the precedent to be the supreme law in this country, so a world constitution would be the supreme law for the planet. The idea of a United States of America seemed like a pipe dream at one time. Good thing that people like George Washington, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were willing to act on their dreams.
Why the reference to the Geneva Conventions? If you are insinuating that the US violated the conventions in Guantanamo, then you are wrong. The Geneva Conventions do not apply, and therefore do not protect, those terrorists.
Interesting blog on Pro versus Con for whether the Geneva Convention applies to Gitmo prisoners:
http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=935
Not everyone agrees with your conclusion. But I note Donald Rumsfeld does. However Colin Powell does not, he thinks it is bad policy. Fascinating website.
It appears this issue is not settled, even by heads of state and experts.
Do you agree with torture?
Quote from my original proposal, "Perhaps we could learn from this lesson, and present only the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the core document for a world constitution."
I stand corrected on that point and I apologize. However, I still maintain that a world constitution is ridiculous.
I do not believe we as an individual country should impose ourselves in any way on other sovereign nations. Although as our declaration says, we believe that all of our rights are natural rights, given by the creator( whatever entity that might be), and cannot be denied. This statement does not deny anyone anywhere these rights. These rights are not exclusive to America and I believe that all people of the world would agree on this. Therefore there is no need to create a world constitution, with the exception of the inclusion of this belief in all nations constitutions. Along with the natural and recognized right of all citizens to abolish and or change their governing structures as to protect these natural rights. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness as seen fit by each individual. I believe that the concise meaning of all of the worlds historical belief systems and governing structures that protect these rights, can be broken down to a simple statement. No person shall take any action which would affect any other persons or their property negatively. Any action of this kind is considered wrong and actionable.
Since you are opposed to one country imposing itself on other sovereign nations, you must have been opposed to the United States' invasion of Iraq in 2003. Is it possible at all that with an effective world government, there might be less of one nation imposing itself on other nations?
Although an end to war is a goal of world government, I know that this would not necessarily be the result. The bloodiest war ever fought by the United States was the Civil War. This was when one region imposed its will on another region, partly over the practice of residents of the South imposing their will over other people to extent of considering them property instead of human beings. This practice was accepted in the Constitution of the United States.
Have you ever read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Never going to happen, thank god. This one world crap only serves to bring those developed nations down to the third world as we would be expected to give everything to the dirt eating war states. Besides, do you really think that China, the Muslim or African nations would buy into the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"?
In time there will be a global unity,. all people will come together. The truth is more powerful than the lies. Justice is preferable to Corruption. The old ways are dead,. and most people are just waking up to this fact.
One World, One People, One.
It will happen eventually, I do not doubt that, but it is a long way down the road. Maybe in another hundred to two hundred years when English becomes the world language (it is already the primary language of the internet and of business and many developed nations require it to be taught through primary school) and the world is on a more level economic field and the dirt poor developing nations have become developed. Until that time, no nation is going to willingly give up its sovereignty because some small, small group of individuals think that that would somehow make the world better.
Why should we need for English to become the world language? With Google translate and similar applications, we can communicate better from one culture to another than ever before. And, in every language and country, 1 + 1 = 2 is understood the same. Math is a universal language.
You are correct that no nation would give up its sovereignty because of some small group of individuals. How could we put this to a global vote to actually see if it is a large or a small number of individuals?
Communication in all forms is vital to relations and growth. English is becoming the world language on its own thanks to the internet and business. Travel to other developed nations and you will see nearly every sign written in the native language and English. It is the most widely spoken language in the world today and continues to grow. In fact, the US seems to be the only country dumb enough to be moving away from it in parts of the nation. Google translate is worthless when trying to have an actual conversation with someone and if we were to have a one world government, then I can travel freely to anywhere I want to, so communication will be key to my success in my travels. It is not realistic to expect people to learn several different languages, so making English the common language (which it is becoming on its own) only makes sense to more easily facilitate a more open planet. Again though, we are probably over a hundred years away from this and those who keep fighting expansion of the English language here in the US are actually slowing down the process when for many of them, that is their goal.
Just a week or two ago, I came to web page that was in written in French. There was a prompt at the top of the browser, Chromium, asking if I wanted it translated into English. My French is not very good, so I clicked Yes. A second later, the page redrew with the text translated into English. Successive pages at that site, which were also in French, were automatically translated into English for me without prompts. The translations might not have been as good as a human might have done, but they did the job, and it was freaking amazing.
We are all citizens of planet Earth. Perhaps with an effective world government, the quality of our lives would actually improve. The question is still, how could we present this for a vote?
This has a touchy-feelie ring to it. Actually it has the ring of Shiara Law since Islam's goal is a one world religion. So tell me - who feels your head with such non-sense? Did you pay for this knowledge at a public university?
I am not familiar with Shiara Law. You might like to know that a group of Islamic scholars wrote a Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.alhewar.com/ISLAMDECL.html).
It is very similar to the Declaration approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948. However, the Islamic Declaration is a bit stronger on economic rights than the UN approved Declaration.
A world constitution? That means a world government. You have to be freaking crazy. That is the ultimate in loss of freedom.
Crazy? You could be right. The question is, how could we present this for a vote?
Why vote on something that is crazy. What you propose gets to the heart of what is wrong with a democracy. Our founding fathers were very specific to avoid the US being a democracy. There are democratic functions within our government, but we are NOT a democracy for good reason. In a true democracy, which your worldwide voter would epitomize, there is absolutely no protection for the minority. The definition of democracy is that the majority rules. You get your vote and it's hellllloooooo United World of China.
So, why waste time figuring out how to vote for something that won't and shouldn't be voted upon?
It's true that in Federalist Paper #10, James Madison argued against the US being a democracy. He also had the amazing insight that, contrary to the opinion of many people that a republic as large as the United States could not work, a republic as large as the United States would work better because of the diversity of the inhabitants of the various regions, and this diversity would counterbalance a tendency for any single region or group to dominate the others.
You need to move beyond the Federalist papers to an in depth study of the founders (both capitalized and non-capitalized, i.e. all "founders") and the hearts and minds of early American culture.
That is precisely where our Supreme Courts have failed us - they too often rely on the Federalist papers rather then seek out precise definition.
I'm not in favor of a universal humanity - only the success of America.
The Supreme Court of the United States failed us when corporations were granted rights as persons, and more recently when limits to corporate donations to political campaigns were eliminated. The founders of this country would be outraged.
How can you not be in favor of universal humanity? Look at the people who have contributed to the success of America. We come from every inhabited continent.
If a strong national constitution has promoted the success of America, likewise a strong world constitution would promote the success of all humanity. The top 1% might like to think they are separate somehow from the rest of us, but that is a lie.
~down twinkle fingers~ ~down twinkle fingers~ ~down twinkle fingers~ ~down twinkle fingers~ ~down twinkle fingers~ ~down twinkle fingers~
~down twinkle fingers~ ~down twinkle fingers~ ~down twinkle fingers~ ~down twinkle fingers~ ~down twinkle fingers~ ~down twinkle fingers~