Older members die, but the group as a whole preserves an institutional memory, and has the capability to make and stick to long-range plans.It has the ability to keep promises and commitments, to shield friends, to punish enemies.
This essay is an original work by Thomas Wright Sulcer.
It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in Rational Wiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas.
Foreign policy was important, but not that important; the arrangement meant that foreign policy could be one of many tasks of the competing branches.
Unified intelligent long-range foreign policy was not needed then.
Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of Rational Wiki editors' thoughts.
Comment: my original intention was to make this a community essay, with contributors making any changes they thought necessary, but a hatnote was added, above, identifying me, Thomas Wright Sulcer, as its sole writer, meaning that if any of the substantive points are changed, it will appear (incorrectly) as if I made them.The Roman Republic rarely fought two wars at once, enabling them to plan intelligently how to play adversaries against each other.In contrast, look at the United States on the eve of World War II -- having to fight not one enemy (Germany) but a second one (Japan).A system of checks and balances among different branches of government is retained.State governments will have greater authority in a restored federal arrangement.--Thomas Wright Sulcer (talk) , 22 November 2011 (UTC)Comment (continued:) I have substantial respect for the original constitution with its brilliant design of checks and balances, devised by James Madison and encouraged by prominent Framers such as John Adams.The original three-part structure: legislature, executive, judiciary -- with each branch operating in a different sphere of influence but able to check the power over the others -- was a brilliant way to prevent a possible future tyrant or dangerous faction from dominating politics.It worked marvelously over two hundred years, and it was particularly well suited for when the United States was a young nation, geographically isolated essentially from acquisitive rival powers by large oceans which took months to cross.checks and balances, divided government) but with substantial improvements (e.g.foreign policy architecture, citizenship, rotation of offices.) The purpose in proposing an alternative is (1) to demonstrate that an improved Constitution is possible and (2) encourage the many sharp people here at Rational Wiki to collaborate to draft an even better version by debating various points and suggesting other structures and wordings and (3) to have the best version ratified by the American people. I have tried to keep the constitution nonpartisan and I urge others to try to do likewise.But foreign policy experts have long noted abnormalities with the process itself: Congress was supposed to have the power of declaring war, but then why had the nation become involved in numerous undeclared wars such as Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, etc?I argue that in the nuclear age, with pressing problems, that foreign policy can no longer have an average success rate, or be hit-or-miss, or depend on whether the public is sharp enough to select a president skilled in world affairs; rather, the structure of government, based on the constitution itself, is the problem, and needs fixing.--Thomas Wright Sulcer (talk) , 22 November 2011 (UTC)Comment (continued:) If one examines history, one will see that there have been few states which have consistently been adept at foreign policy.