View Full Version : What would you change?
Sharpienads
07-26-2011, 16:09
If you could amend the US Constitution, what would you change?
If it's too hard to only pick one, give me your top three.
Here's mine:
1) Term limits for congress. 2 terms for senators, 6 for representatives
2) Flat or Fair Tax (EVERYBODY pays the same percentage) w/ repeal of the 16th amendment
3) Repeal of the 17th Amendment
Jumpstart
07-26-2011, 16:16
The 14th, which has been bastardized to allow illegal aliens to drop anchor babies in the USA.
jplove71
07-26-2011, 16:23
The 14th, which has been bastardized to allow illegal aliens to drop anchor babies in the USA.
+1
The 14th, which has been bastardized to allow illegal aliens to drop anchor babies in the USA.
Agreed on that one, and an amendment that would eliminate congressional powers to set their salary. Also, eliminating the current voting system and abolishing the electoral college- basically to win an election you have to have all the states tally up the votes and whoever got the most won.
eliminating the current voting system and abolishing the electoral college- basically to win an election you have to have all the states tally up the votes and whoever got the most won.
So, yer sayin' low population states might as well not show up to vote then...
Mmmmmmmmkay...
I am gonna have to go with term limits for all public servants including Judges. Serving for life on the bench is just ridiculous. Especially when they are appointed.
I am gonna have to go with term limits for all public servants including Judges. Serving for life on the bench is just ridiculous. Especially when they are appointed.
I could agree with this. As long as you add, dead people in Chicago can't vote more than once during an election cycle.
[Tooth]
Zundfolge
07-26-2011, 16:58
It doesn't matter what you change ... progressives would still have twisted the language in the last century and we'd be in the same boat we're in today.
So, yer sayin' low population states might as well not show up to vote then...
Mmmmmmmmkay...
I'm with you Marlin, the electoral college allows each state to have a voice in the Presidential election. Without the electoral college the president would be elected by CA, NY, IL, and a couple of other highly populated states. CO, WY, NM, NV, MO, SD, ND, MN, ID and a few others might as well stay home.
I say no to term limits, the people must be allowed to vote for who they want. I know that this allows dirtbags to be in office for decades but the people make that decision and we can't deny the people their choice.
I would abolish the IRS (16th). I would institute a flat tax on everyone who makes $10K or more, this would give a huge incentive for people to educate themselves and earn more money. This would also make almost all income earners pay for the government services they receive instead of the system now where roughly 50% pay for government services and the other 50% skate.
I would modify the wording in the 14th to disallow the illegals that the 14th has been twisted into helping.
Byte Stryke
07-26-2011, 17:15
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States to at least one Lawful Citizen of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Jumpstart
07-26-2011, 17:20
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States to at least one Lawful Citizen of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This was intended for slaves in the 19th century, not illegal aliens in the 21st century. Hence the bastardization.
Byte Stryke
07-26-2011, 17:23
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States to at least one Lawful Citizen of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any CITIZEN or LEGAL RESIDENT within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
sorry, forgot one.
josh7328
07-26-2011, 17:24
Strengthen the second ammendment, set term limits on all offices, taxes would be an equal percentage of income for all citizens. Also agree with previous statements on immigrant baby citizenship.
I'm with you Marlin, the electoral college allows each state to have a voice in the Presidential election. Without the electoral college the president would be elected by CA, NY, IL, and a couple of other highly populated states. CO, WY, NM, NV, MO, SD, ND, MN, ID and a few others might as well stay home.
I say no to term limits, the people must be allowed to vote for who they want. I know that this allows dirtbags to be in office for decades but the people make that decision and we can't deny the people their choice
.
I tend to agree with this. But, think how much nicer the world would have been if Robert Byrd would have had to disappear to the backwoods of W.V. 60 years sooner.
I would abolish the IRS (16th). I would institute a flat tax on everyone who makes $10K or more, this would give a huge incentive for people to educate themselves and earn more money. This would also make almost all income earners pay for the government services they receive instead of the system now where roughly 50% pay for government services and the other 50% skate.
Instead of the flat tax, National Sales Tax. That way Nobody escapes it. Oh, and throw in the provision that it can't be raised unless 2/3 of the states agree.
I would modify the wording in the 14th to disallow the illegals that the 14th has been twisted into helping.
This one could go away completely. The people it was intended for, are long since dead.
Scanker19
07-26-2011, 17:31
I'm with you Marlin, the electoral college allows each state to have a voice in the Presidential election. Without the electoral college the president would be elected by CA, NY, IL, and a couple of other highly populated states. CO, WY, NM, NV, MO, SD, ND, MN, ID and a few others might as well stay home.
I say no to term limits, the people must be allowed to vote for who they want. I know that this allows dirtbags to be in office for decades but the people make that decision and we can't deny the people their choice.
I would abolish the IRS (16th). I would institute a flat tax on everyone who makes $10K or more, this would give a huge incentive for people to educate themselves and earn more money. This would also make almost all income earners pay for the government services they receive instead of the system now where roughly 50% pay for government services and the other 50% skate.
I would modify the wording in the 14th to disallow the illegals that the 14th has been twisted into helping.
But the number of Electoral votes are still based on how many Senators (2) and how many congressmen they have. So CA who has 55 still has more "say" than NM who has 5. Now I'm not sure who has it, but some states have a loyalty clause or whatever you call it, where the electoral vote has to match the popular vote.
1) "A well armed populace is necessary for the liberty and security of a free people. The right of our citizens to keep and bear arms and munitions can not be limited or infringed."
2) corruption and/or violation of civil rights is a positive defense to the charge of murder of politicians, judges, and police.
3) Citizenship lasts only between voting cycles. No vote this time = no rights until you vote.
4) Congressmen would not be allowed to vote on any bill which benefits their populace directly. No more pork.
5) We would take a census more often, and base electoral college counts from the most recent data.
6) One isn't a citizen until they complete High School or an equivalent, and you get a vote per degree. A PhD (or O rank) gets 3, Masters (or E rank, or discharge) get 2, BS and below gets 1. Only regionally accredited schools count, and only from US based institutions (no University of Bejing).
7) Balanced Budget amendment.
8) All laws must be re-affirmed every 25 years. (What my parents thought was a good and just law might be total bullshit today)
9) Limit spending on government programs to 50% gross revenue, and abolish unfunded mandates.
eliminating the current voting system and abolishing the electoral college- basically to win an election you have to have all the states tally up the votes and whoever got the most won.
We aren't a democracy - and I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a country where 3 of my 5 neighbors could decide to take my land & kill my children and it would be law. I would hope no one on here really wants mob rule. If so, understand that the majority of the people in the US are Liberal - you wouldn't get the country you think you would. Al Gore would have been president in 2001, and we would have lost our firearms after Reagan was shot.
Oh - one law:
1) 10000% manufacturer tax on Ammonium Nitrate phased in over 20 years. I'm sick of having corn in every damn thing in the world. [LOL]
----
So, to summarize my changes I guess one could say that being born in the USA should not grant the proverbial silver spoon. If you want the rights of a citizenship in the USA then there is a minimum duty to perform. Educate yourself, vote, and be involved.
mcantar18c
07-26-2011, 17:47
What would I change?
I would change the phrase "shall not be infringed" to "shall not be infringed upon by anybody, to include the highest office of government," write it in bold and all caps, and add it to the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and especially the 9th and 10th. The amendments themselves are fine as they are (there are some I wouldn't mind doing away with, but I see no real need to), all that's needed is a reinforcement of "shall not be infringed." The only thing that should really be altered is change the 27th to requiring instead of preventing.
That should do it.
Oh, and repeal the 19th [Coffee]
Brownie points if you can understand this without looking up the amendments.
But the number of Electoral votes are still based on how many Senators (2) and how many congressmen they have. So CA who has 55 still has more "say" than NM who has 5. Now I'm not sure who has it, but some states have a loyalty clause or whatever you call it, where the electoral vote has to match the popular vote.
True, but if more of the "smaller" states are voting for candidate "A" Who is a little more "qualified" than "B" Then "A" still has a shot over the more popular one that is completely pandering to the high population states.
Scanker19
07-26-2011, 17:51
What would I change?
I would change the phrase "shall not be infringed" to "shall not be infringed upon by anybody, to include the highest office of government," write it in bold and all caps, and add it to the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and especially the 9th and 10th. The amendments themselves are fine as they are (there are some I wouldn't mind doing away with, but I see no real need to), all that's needed is a reinforcement of "shall not be infringed." The only thing that should really be altered is change the 27th to requiring instead of preventing.
That should do it.
Oh, and repeal the 19th [Coffee]
Brownie points if you can understand this without looking up the amendments.
Someone likes Quartering Troops. [Flower]
Byte Stryke
07-26-2011, 17:53
6) One isn't a citizen until they complete High School or an equivalent, and you get a vote per degree. A PhD (or O rank) gets 3, Masters (or E rank, or discharge) get 2, BS and below gets 1. Only regionally accredited schools count, and only from US based institutions (no University of Bejing).
disagree with this one...
one man, one vote.
HOWEVER: I do believe that citizenship should be earned
Military or Civil (With Medical Disqualifier for Military) service required for citizenship.
Only citizens may own land, Businesses, Firearms, or Vote.
Think Heinlein.
Just saying, too many liberals running around with 800K in student loans and no sense of national obligation.
Oh, and repeal the 19th [Coffee]
Brownie points if you can understand this without looking up the amendments.
Half the country would your head on a pike as they burned their bras again.
[Tooth]
Byte Stryke
07-26-2011, 17:56
What would I change?
I would change the phrase "shall not be infringed" to "shall not be infringed upon by anybody, to include the highest office of government," write it in bold and all caps, and add it to the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and especially the 9th and 10th. The amendments themselves are fine as they are (there are some I wouldn't mind doing away with, but I see no real need to), all that's needed is a reinforcement of "shall not be infringed." The only thing that should really be altered is change the 27th to requiring instead of preventing.
That should do it.
Oh, and repeal the 19th [Coffee]
Brownie points if you can understand this without looking up the amendments.
Someone likes Quartering Troops. [Flower]
what?
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Scanker19
07-26-2011, 17:58
what?
In his list the left out the 3rd. It was a poor attempt at humor.
Byte Stryke
07-26-2011, 18:00
In his list the left out the 3rd. It was a poor attempt at humor.
ahh, I thought you were referring to his comment on the 19th and I got confused for a minute.
I'm with you Marlin, the electoral college allows each state to have a voice in the Presidential election. Without the electoral college the president would be elected by CA, NY, IL, and a couple of other highly populated states. CO, WY, NM, NV, MO, SD, ND, MN, ID and a few others might as well stay home.
I say no to term limits, the people must be allowed to vote for who they want. I know that this allows dirtbags to be in office for decades but the people make that decision and we can't deny the people their choice.
I would abolish the IRS (16th). I would institute a flat tax on everyone who makes $10K or more, this would give a huge incentive for people to educate themselves and earn more money. This would also make almost all income earners pay for the government services they receive instead of the system now where roughly 50% pay for government services and the other 50% skate.
I would modify the wording in the 14th to disallow the illegals that the 14th has been twisted into helping.
The president has term limits, should we abolish that?
We can still vote for who we want. We still have a choice, it is just a different choice. Our founders never intended for full time or career politicians. Supreme Court Judges are appointed by the president when a judge decides to retire. A president could stack the court with Judges he agrees with, and interprets the law as they see fit. They should be elected like all public servants. Key word: SERVANTS. For the people, by the people.
I do agree with the flat tax. And abolishing the IRS.
I would also get rid of the Federal Reserve. It is unconstitutional.
The president has term limits, should we abolish that?
Yes, the people should have their head.
We can still vote for who we want. We still have a choice, it is just a different choice. Our founders never intended for full time or career politicians. Supreme Court Judges are appointed by the president when a judge decides to retire. A president could stack the court with Judges he agrees with, and interprets the law as they see fit. They should be elected like all public servants. Key word: SERVANTS. For the people, by the people.
I do agree with the flat tax. And abolishing the IRS.
I would also get rid of the Federal Reserve. It is unconstitutional.
The Federal Reserve needs to go.
Marlin - what percentage for the national sales tax?
I am really having a hard time understanding your thought process Roberth. Not trying to start a little argument here. Just trying to understand why term limits are a bad idea. What do you mean by: the people should have their head.
I know I sure as hell would not want Obummer for who knows how many terms. Or the last three presidents for that matter.
I am really having a hard time understanding your thought process Roberth. Not trying to start a little argument here. Just trying to understand why term limits are a bad idea. What do you mean by: the people should have their head.
I know I sure as hell would not want Obummer for who knows how many terms. Or the last three presidents for that matter.
I mean the people should get who they want, no matter how many times they voted the guy in office before.
A term limit is an artificial control.
Marlin - what percentage for the national sales tax?
I'd say between 12-15% for Fed,state,city combined.
Sharpienads
07-26-2011, 18:41
Marlin - what percentage for the national sales tax?
10%. If it's good enough for God, it's good enough for the government.
Byte Stryke
07-26-2011, 18:50
10%. If it's good enough for God, it's good enough for the government.
that reason alone makes it unconstitutional
I mean the people should get who they want, no matter how many times they voted the guy in office before.
A term limit is an artificial control.
And if the people want term limits, it is their control.
I believe that not having term limits leads to a dictatorship.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And if the people want term limits, it is their control.
I believe that not having term limits leads to a dictatorship.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Both have good and bad points, I always point to CD 1, Denver, The Schroeder/Degette stranglehold on that one. Neither one of them have enough brains to blow their nose. Yet, they keep getting elected.
flan7211
07-26-2011, 19:09
I believe the fair tax people say the entire nation could be funded on a 19% sales tax. That includes state,local, and feds. They didn't take into account if we slapped a low or matching tax on foreign goods. I believe at that point we could lower our sales tax percentage significantly.
This was intended for slaves in the 19th century, not illegal aliens in the 21st century. Hence the bastardization.
Just like the 1st Amendment was only intended for words written on paper?
Jumpstart
07-26-2011, 20:45
Just like the 1st Amendment was only intended for words written on paper?
Yeah, just like it. And the 2nd Amendment for only flintlocks.
If you could amend the US Constitution, what would you change?
If it's too hard to only pick one, give me your top three.
Heres mine....
Abolish the electoral college
Only living citizens (not corporations) are entitled to constitutional protections. A corporation does not have the right to plead the 5th.
Make all elections instant run off voting (please look up the term you might like it too. It would break the 2 party dictatorship and get libertarians, greens, constitutional party and many others a chance.)
If I can add a few others.... abolish the Senate. They are worthless and the House can do anything they can do. The Senate is the ball and chain on this nation.
Make all Supreme Court appointments only for 10 years. Have the time when they are changed staggered. As it stands now the supreme court has become the most powerful branch in the gov and there is no check and balance on their abuses on our constitution.
Oh last but not least......... abolish all black box voting machines. No ballot should ever be cast on a machine that is hooked to the net and has no paper trail to confirm. Ballots should be cast on paper and counted in the open for any citizen that wants to watch the process to make sure. Ballots should be stored for 10 years to be able confirm there was no foul play.
Right, same point I was making. EDIT: To Jumpstart.
Jumpstart
07-26-2011, 21:42
Right, same point I was making. EDIT: To Jumpstart.
Except the points are a approximately a century apart.
I was just trying to point out that you can't say that the Constitution shouldn't apply to something that didn't exist before. If some part of the Constitution is wrong and shouldn't exist, take it out. Just like Prohibition. I just think it's dangerous to start "interpreting."
So, yer sayin' low population states might as well not show up to vote then...
Mmmmmmmmkay...
Actually no that would do nothing to change the power of a low population state. Abolishing the electoral college would punish states where voters don't vote.
To explain....
State 1 has 100,000 people living in it. They receive 3 electoral college votes.
State 2 has 100,000 people living in it too. They receive 3 electoral college votes too.
Election day comes.... state one is full of worthless turds who don't pay attention or show up. They are too busy working to care. Because in our messed up system election days are not a holiday and we have all other sorts of holidays but not one on the most important day in the nation...... But 1 guy shows up. Because he does not have a job. He's on welfare. He votes for the bastard "COMMUNIST" oh my[Twist] State 1 one welfare voter sends 3 electoral votes for the commie.
State 2 has everyone show up....... all the citizens get it and they vote against the commie. So 100,000 people vote for the other guy. Those 100,000 people send 3 electoral votes too.
Now tell me........... why the fuck does one welfare idiot who has no job deserve to have more voting power than 100,000 people who decided to take time off work and do the right thing?
The electoral college is a BAD idea in this day and age........... 1 man 1 vote.
It doesn't matter what you change ... progressives would still have twisted the language in the last century and we'd be in the same boat we're in today.
Sorry but it was the conservatives on the supreme court that fucked this nation good. It was them who said that corporations have the same rights as living citizens. So best look again. Both sides have done our nation great harm.
Section 1. All Living HUMAN persons born or naturalized in the United States to at least one Lawful Citizen of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I agree with that byte strike. But I would add that part to it. As it stands now the corrupt supreme court uses the ambivalence of it to rule that corporations are persons too.
mcantar18c
07-26-2011, 22:23
Someone likes Quartering Troops. [Flower]
I didn't say get rid of the 3rd. I just figure it doesn't need the reinforcement the others do... the amendment is already there so its already unconstitutional for them to do so, and there would be such retaliation from the general public in response if they did that I just don't see it as something to worry about.
disagree with this one...
one man, one vote.
HOWEVER: I do believe that citizenship should be earned
Military or Civil (With Medical Disqualifier for Military) service required for citizenship.
Only citizens may own land, Businesses, Firearms, or Vote.
Think Heinlein.
Just saying, too many liberals running around with 800K in student loans and no sense of national obligation.
+1 on this.
Half the country would your head on a pike as they burned their bras again.
[Tooth]
Nuh-uh... without the 19th they would be able to do jack about it [Tooth]
10%. If it's good enough for God, it's good enough for the government.
that reason alone makes it unconstitutional
How so? Its not actually incorporating religion into gov't.
I believe the fair tax people say the entire nation could be funded on a 19% sales tax. That includes state,local, and feds. They didn't take into account if we slapped a low or matching tax on foreign goods. I believe at that point we could lower our sales tax percentage significantly.
I've always thought putting a massive tariff on imported goods would do us well. It would push people towards buying American, which would boost the economy and likely lower the prices of US-made goods because of the increased competition within the US. There's nothing we get overseas that we actually need (don't even try to bring up oil, we have plenty of our own we just refuse to get it), and for the people that REALLY want foreign crap, well they can go for it and the high tariffs they pay for doing so go into our economy as well.
2nd Amendment...wording.
Make it simpler.
How about all the wording on all Amendments to the Constitution? And one thing no one has touched on and I think this is kinda important:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
So tell me, how is a $100,000 fine imposed against someone who makes less than $40k/yr not excessive? I have a friend, remember innocent until PROVEN guilty, who was held on $750,000 bail (that's $75,000 bond) for suspected Grand Theft Auto, reckless driving, reckless endangerment, and attempted vehicular manslaughter. He was since found not guilty and acquitted (mistaken identity), but coming up with $75,000 nearly forced his family into bankruptcy. The 8th needs to have actual limits, such as with bail only a certain percent of their income, and fines should also be limited by the person's income.
How about all the wording on all Amendments to the Constitution? And one thing no one has touched on and I think this is kinda important:
So tell me, how is a $100,000 fine imposed against someone who makes less than $40k/yr not excessive? I have a friend, remember innocent until PROVEN guilty, who was held on $750,000 bail (that's $75,000 bond) for suspected Grand Theft Auto, reckless driving, reckless endangerment, and attempted vehicular manslaughter. He was since found not guilty and acquitted (mistaken identity), but coming up with $75,000 nearly forced his family into bankruptcy. The 8th needs to have actual limits, such as with bail only a certain percent of their income, and fines should also be limited by the person's income.
What are you soft on crime? What are you a pussy libtard[ROFL2][Beer] I agree with you. But the hows of fixing that will be hard.
What are you soft on crime? What are you a pussy libtard[ROFL2][Beer] I agree with you. But the hows of fixing that will be hard.
I'm sure you'll educate all of us low brow mouth breathers how it's done. [ROFL1]
I'm sure you'll educate all of us low brow mouth breathers how it's done. [ROFL1]
Honestly I don't know. I think the answer is to have a check and balance on judges. Thats how the system is supposed to work. But our elected officials never do anything to them. So they run roughshod over our rights.
Byte Stryke
07-27-2011, 10:41
repeal NAFTA
WTF is fair about making something one one side of an imaginary line for 50-80% less in labor and production costs and not charging a tariff to protect local production, business and labor??
repeal NAFTA
WTF is fair about making something one one side of an imaginary line for 50-80% less in labor and production costs and not charging a tariff to protect local production, business and labor??
NAFTA is unconstitutional in my opinion. See Article 1 section 8. Its congresses duty and job to regulate tariffs. They are abdicating their duty.
The 14th, which has been bastardized to allow illegal aliens to drop anchor babies in the USA.
The 14th amendment needs to be amended where the birth requires one of the two parents to be a US Citizen. No entitlement spending on children born of illegal aliens...this costs the states a fortune.
Commerce Clause: The court made the right decision the first time when it struck down the National Recovery Act. After FDR stacked the court with several appointments, the commerce clause magically covered any program the Federal Government wants. The limits of the federal government were destroyed by a political decision. This must be corrected, but it will never happen...too many people don't want to hear "NO" from the Federal Government when it comes to their pet projects and entitlements.
The biggest atrocity in US History: Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937[Rant1][Mad][Rant1][Mad][Rant1][Bang][Bang][Bang][M2]Either vote with use or we will make you irrelevant; FDR was the biggest bastard in US History!
Balanced Budget: The Federal Government should not borrow money except for times of war and major disasters.
FDR created the modern middle class and set the stage for America to become the strongest nation in the world. Reagan started the trend downhill.
Fact FDRs changes created modern America
Fact since Reagan the middle class has been steadily eroding.
But don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.
FDR created the modern middle class and set the stage for America to become the strongest nation in the world. Reagan started the trend downhill.
Fact FDRs changes created modern America
Fact since Reagan the middle class has been steadily eroding.
But don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.
Fact...no, that is your opinion and one where many historians would disagree. You are entitled to your opinion, but it is your opinion, (there are those who agree with you). However, WWII and the greatest generation who knew the meaning of sacrifice set the stage for this country not the raw deal, and we now face a federal government with no limits because those limits were destroyed in the 1930s...that is fact...look up the court decisions and Justice Roberts who "saved" the court but destroyed the nation.
Incidentally, the country was failing in the 70s (I lived it), followed by two successful decades.
Fact...no, that is your opinion and one where many historians would disagree. You are entitled to your opinion, but it is your opinion, (there are those who agree with you). However, WWII and the greatest generation who knew the meaning of sacrifice set the stage for this country not the raw deal, and we now face a federal government with no limits because those limits were destroyed in the 1930s...that is fact...look up the court decisions and Justice Roberts who "saved" the court but destroyed the nation.
Incidentally, the country was failing in the 70s (I lived it), followed by two successful decades.
The country was "Failing" in the 70s because we were paying our Vietnam war debt....... just wait till the Iraq debt we decided to charge to the future comes.
Also it was FDRs banking reforms that set the stage. Reagan and every douche president since him weakened those....... and look at today. Repeat depression time.
Fact FDRs changes created modern America
If you are referring to the creation of the Nanny State, then you are correct!
Fact...no, that is your opinion and one where many historians would disagree. You are entitled to your opinion, but it is your opinion, (there are those who agree with you). However, WWII and the greatest generation who knew the meaning of sacrifice set the stage for this country not the raw deal, and we now face a federal government with no limits because those limits were destroyed in the 1930s...that is fact...look up the court decisions and Justice Roberts who "saved" the court but destroyed the nation.
Incidentally, the country was failing in the 70s (I lived it), followed by two successful decades.
Exactly! It takes a while for the system to spiral downhill, in our case it took almost 40 years (From FDR's policies in the late 1930's to the beginning of major economic woes in the 1970's). Reagan tried to fix an already failing system, Clinton further screwed it all up. Now enter Barry O and things really are looking grim. I wouldn't put all the blame on the CiC either, since banks were doing their stupid games and didn't help us when the epic fail came in '08. I didn't live through any of the issues from the 1930s-70's but as a student of history I can call a spade a spade and to claim that FDR did more good than harm is a cry that sounds like "I'm sorry, I lost my idiot sign." FDR put a hole in the dam, I'm surprised it took so long to turn into a full on failure.
Sorry Ronin......... but the nation got better from the 1940s till the early 80s. Lord knows we can't give credit to Hoover for the improvement. After the 80s Reagan had changed everything. That is when the middle class started to shrink all the way to the point of economic collapse for the whole nation. Up is not down.
The country was "Failing" in the 70s because we were paying our Vietnam war debt....... just wait till the Iraq debt we decided to charge to the future comes.
Also it was FDRs banking reforms that set the stage. Reagan and every douche president since him weakened those....... and look at today. Repeat depression time.
1970s Issues:
Yes, Vietnam played a part but not a large part by the late 70s.
Factors:
Stagflation: high interest rates coupled with high inflation in a time of low growth.
OPEC: gas lines, supply issues, terrorism; need I saw more?
Great Society Legislation: More government obligations.
Suffocating tax rates that were reduced in the 80s.
Suffocating regulation that was also reduced in the 80s
Clean Air Act: Although some of it was needed, it had a disastrous affect on industry.
Counter Culture: If the 40s and 50s were about hard work and sacrifice to make a better tomorrow; their kids rebelled and made life about rebellion, doing drugs, and forgoing work. The production of the 20 somethings and 30 somethings was severely diminished in the 70s. Innovation was at an all time low during this period.
Your bank issues: I really disagree with lending to individuals who don't qualify for loans. However, it is the political correct thing right? The nation played pretty fast and loose with lending in the 90s. The Community Reinvestment Act was one of the the more idiotic things done. I don't disagree that banking needs some work. There needs to be a balance between promoting investment and managing risk. Over regulation is not the answer but neither is no regulation.
bobbyfairbanks
07-27-2011, 12:02
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Should of been and was originally
Life, Liberty and Property.
It was changed due to slavery was at the that time still legal and slaves where property. It would have made it harder for the country to get rid of slaves so it was changed to pursuit of happiness. If it had stayed property, this country would be in a totally different place. I feel this is one of the most important things that need to be changed. If I one something, Should I really have to pay tax on it every year? IE Property tax, auto registration! It really boils my blood to pay that shit.
The next one would be removing interstate commerce.
Removing income tax would be next. A fair tax on all goods purchased would be the next move. If you think about how much more revenue it would generate IE illegals that never pay taxes is one example and I am sure you could keep on going on.
there is a entire slew of things that need to and have to change but we are keeping it to three and I will have to stop. Maybe one day some of them will change.
The last thing that I would have to say is the Draft is a really big one for me. It goes against the entire Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How can a government order people to fight. It is totally unjust and need s to go. I am just not sure it would hit my top three but it is dam close.
Sorry Ronin......... but the nation got better from the 1940s till the early 80s. Lord knows we can't give credit to Hoover for the improvement. After the 80s Reagan had changed everything. That is when the middle class started to shrink all the way to the point of economic collapse for the whole nation. Up is not down.
you completely miss that this nation was collapsing in the 1970s and losing the Cold War. The Soviets were planning a full collapse of the United States within 10 years. The nation did a 180 in the 80s resulting in two extremely successful decades and the collapse of the Soviet Union including the fall of the Berlin Wall. If you do not take these factors into consideration, you have your head in the sand.
I find it ironic that the United States is now on the tail end of the space race and must charter flights to space with Russia...pretty pathetic! If you knew anything of the 60s and 70s, you would understand how disturbing this is. JFK would be ashamed!
Sorry Ronin......... but the nation got better from the 1940s till the early 80s. Lord knows we can't give credit to Hoover for the improvement. After the 80s Reagan had changed everything. That is when the middle class started to shrink all the way to the point of economic collapse for the whole nation. Up is not down.
So the 1970's never happened? We sure didn't have an oil crisis that caused lines at the pump. [roll1]
We had economic surpluses in the 1990's thanks to Reagan, and being in the middle class now it's been something that's been eaten away at since Clinton, not primarily Reagan. Obama now is just trying to sink this ship and that's why we're where we are now.
So the 1970's never happened? We sure didn't have an oil crisis that caused lines at the pump. [roll1]
We had economic surpluses in the 1990's thanks to Reagan, and being in the middle class now it's been something that's been eaten away at since Clinton, not primarily Reagan. Obama now is just trying to sink this ship and that's why we're where we are now.
The first two years of the Clinton administration were a disaster, but he was put in check by congress the remaining six years resulting in a pretty moderate six years. I absolutely hated Janet Reno and was disturbed by Jocelyn Elders. His Supreme Court pics were horrible. His gun legislation was REALLY horrible. The successes and mistakes of 1994 to 2000 were shared. After he left office, we have been marred by 9/11 consequences. After some good and bad, we are stuck with the absolute worst person imaginable in the White House. As awful as it sounds, I really really wish that Hillary won the DNC nomination; the country would be far better right now. The first two years of Obama, Pelosi, and Reed were a disgrace.
The first two years of the Clinton administration were a disaster, but he was put in check by congress the remaining six years resulting in a pretty moderate six years. I absolutely hated Janet Reno and was disturbed by Jocelyn Elders. His Supreme Court pics were horrible. His gun legislation was REALLY horrible. The successes and mistakes of 1994 to 2000 were shared. After he left office, we have been marred by 9/11 consequences. After some good and bad, we are stuck with the absolute worst person imaginable in the White House. As awful as it sounds, I really really wish that Hillary won the DNC nomination; the country would be far better right now. The first two years of Obama, Pelosi, and Reed were a disgrace.
Indeed! The current economic situation is not being made any better by Obama's plans, and he seems like a rather stubborn little prick with all these negotiations. He just doesn't like to listen to reason- throwing gov't money at the issue will not bring us out of debt!
What the leftists don't want you to hear is that [King] Obama is blaming Bush for everything - ahhh, but don't forget that democrats had the majority in congress for a large part of Bush's terms and if you look at the recession we can put a lot of it (not all) on those majorities. Not to say republicans didn't spend like the country was their little piggy bank but they paid for that mistake by getting replaced by dems who spent even more!
What the leftists don't want you to hear is that [King] Obama is blaming Bush for everything - ahhh, but don't forget that democrats had the majority in congress for a large part of Bush's terms and if you look at the recession we can put a lot of it (not all) on those majorities. Not to say republicans didn't spend like the country was their little piggy bank but they paid for that mistake by getting replaced by dems who spent even more!
I started another thread to answer please see that. I blame Obama for being Bushes 3rd term. So yes Bush is at fault. But so is Obama for doing the same crap as Bush.
I started another thread to answer please see that. I blame Obama for being Bushes 3rd term. So yes Bush is at fault. But so is Obama for doing the same crap as Bush.
I TOTALLY appreciate that but one thread battle with you is enough for me today. Besides, I would hate to debunk EVERYTHING you believe in, it wouldn't be very Christian of me. [LOL] On a side note, though, my post count is increasing and I'll be a Grand Master Know It All like Byte in another week at this rate!
I didn't mean for this thread to get hijacked into a political war.
To summarize. The constitution needs to be amended/clarified to eliminate the court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause. In doing so, programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Universal Health Care, etc. etc. would be required to go through the amendment process establishing consensus rather then establishing entitlements through political will. The Federal Government must have limits. Unfortunately, those limits no longer exist, which opens the door to eventual dictatorship and collapse. Remember, those who formed our government were interested in protecting the minority not imposing the will of the majority.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. Abraham Lincoln
Doesn't Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Universal Health Care, protect the minority in this nation too?
Doesn't Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Universal Health Care, protect the minority in this nation too?
This is a value statement, which may or may not be shared.
I won't talk about the merit of any program, but I will talk about my original post. It is wrong to create an entitlement program through political will. An amendment process was placed in the constitution for a reason, and it is difficult to build consensus. If something is so important, then it should follow that process. Creating a program through a bully pulpit through political will is WRONG! If you believe in limitless government, then you are OK with trading your freedoms based on what others deem necessary. I believe in the original intent of the constitution where there were limits and boundaries.
...remember, 'for the greater good' is relative depending on those who enforce it.
This is a value statement, which may or may not be shared.
I won't talk about the merit of any program, but I will talk about my original post. It is wrong to create an entitlement program through political will. An amendment process was placed in the constitution for a reason, and it is difficult to build consensus. If something is so important, then it should follow that process. Creating a program through a bully pulpit through political will is WRONG! If you believe in limitless government, then you are OK with trading your freedoms based on what others deem necessary. I believe in the original intent of the constitution where there were limits and boundaries.
...remember, 'for the greater good' is relative depending on those who enforce it.
Furthermore, if FDR established the new Deal programs by following the amending process rather than being a dictator; I would not have a problem with it. The integrity of the constitution would have remained intact.
Furthermore, if FDR established the new Deal programs by following the amending process rather than being a dictator; I would not have a problem with it. The integrity of the constitution would have remained intact.
Well encase you missed it FDR got those past with the help of congress. Not really a dictator huh. Now if he did it through presidential signing statements like Bush did with many of his abuses I would agree with you about being a dictator.
Well encase you missed it FDR got those past with the help of congress. Not really a dictator huh. Now if he did it through presidential signing statements like Bush did with many of his abuses I would agree with you about being a dictator.
Congress was in his pocket during those years. The check and balance was the Supreme Court. When the court ruled the programs unconstitutional, he had the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 introduced in Congress. This legislation forced the court to rule in his favor. Roberts changed his vote on New Deal legislation to protect the court. ...sounds like a dictator to me.
The constitution protected the country from what FDR was doing, and he destroyed those protections. If he followed the process, his programs would have become proposed amendments for ratification. FDR did not follow processes or rules. What he said was law. ...sounds like a dictator to me.
I do not have any faith in the Congress or the White House to protect my freedoms. Only through limits and boundaries, will my freedoms be protected.
Sounds like a check and balance by two branches of gov against the abuses of one.
You do know that the Constitution never stipulated how many people were to be on the supreme court? You do also know that the amount of people on the Supreme Court has changed many times in history right? The other branches of gov are charge with policing each other by the US Constitution. Further the US Supreme Court since Marbury Vs Madison could be rightfull argued is in breach of its Constitutional mandate. No where in the US Constitution does it state that the court has the power to strike down US law passed by the congress and the president? The court took it upon itself to do that. Which is a violation off their constitutionally limited powers too. Please read the powers of the Supreme Court Article 3 US Constitution.
BAM[Beer]
You do know that the Constitution never stipulated how many people were to be on the supreme court? You do also know that the amount of people on the Supreme Court has changed many times in history right? The other branches of gov are charge with policing each other by the US Constitution. Further the US Supreme Court since Marbury Vs Madison could be rightfull argued is in breach of its Constitutional mandate. No where in the US Constitution does it state that the court has the power to strike down US law passed by the congress and the president? The court took it upon itself to do that. Which is a violation off their constitutionally limited powers too. Please read the powers of the Supreme Court Article 3 US Constitution.
BAM[Beer]
So you believe that Marbury Vs Madison, Judicial Review, is in violation of the powers of the Appellate and Supreme Court? There is no doubt their role was unclear to say the least. The court struggled with their charge for several decades after the Constitution was ratified. This would make for an interesting rabbit hole. As much as I dislike many of the decisions, the result of your belief would be chaos. The United States would be hammered by fluctuations in political mood magnifying the us vs. you problem that is plaguing the country today. Based on the history of the country, Congress and the White House cannot be trusted to follow the constitution. Yes, Congress may change the seat count of the court and yes, power plays happened before FDR (does that make it right?). So, do you believe it is OK to change the rules to force your agenda? FDR's power play resulted in a pretty profound impact on this country. If you believe that is OK, then your judgment is being clouded based on your approval of the outcome...so the ends justify the means, right? ...do you not believe in boundaries?
Since you don't believe in judicial review, what is your alternative?
You better think of this: Without judicial review, there would be nothing to prevent Congress and the White House from enacting any law they deem necessary. So, perhaps these elected officials thought Jim Crow Laws were a good thing. Since you are on a firearms forum, I assume you like firearms and you are not a Troll. Perhaps Congress and the White House decided that the 2nd amendment was just about militias and banned firearms unless participating in official state militia functions. I guess this is OK because you know Congress and the White House can do no wrong, right?
Again, what is your alternative? Perhaps you can write down this alternative as one of your proposed changes to the constitution.
Half the country would your head on a pike as they burned their bras again.
[Tooth]
You have a problem with braless young women? [ROFL1]
First I have no problem with bra-less women. Let me be clear......... boobs are great [Beer]
Second.... I think the Constitution needs to be amended to clarify the roll of the court. Without that clarity, the court has taken too much power unto themselves. Do I think judicial review is bad. No... but I think that they have abused that far too much lately. I think what the founders intended was for the court to make rulings that were not binding. Meaning they ruled and said it was wrong. The people then need to fix the laws by electing people who would follow the constitution and change those laws that are in violation.
Now do I think this is the best idea? I really don't know. There are risks and I am afraid of those too. But I think the court is currently writing law. The biggest threat to our nation today is the corrupt ruling of Citizens United. No where anywhere in the constitution does it give constitutional rights to artificial entities (corporations and such) Not to mention Thomas taking bribes from people he was ruling on.
You have a problem with braless young women? [ROFL1]
I do... when they hang down to the waistline! [Coffee]
...
I think what the founders intended was for the court to make rulings that were not binding. Meaning they ruled and said it was wrong. The people then need to fix the laws by electing people who would follow the constitution and change those laws that are in violation.
Good Luck! There hasn't been such individuals since the days of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
[/B]
Good Luck! There hasn't been such individuals since the days of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
So when things become more important, people pay attention.... chicken egg problem
So when things become more important, people pay attention.... chicken egg problem
What you are proposing can be solved with the amendment process to the constitution. Yes, it is very difficult. However, fundamental shifts should require consensus among most of the states not a simple majority diluted through elected officials based on what BS they said to get in office.
Term limits: a TOTAL of 12 years in elected office, for example 2 terms in the house, followed by 2 terms as President/VP, or 2 terms as a Senator, followed by private life (get a real job, you wanker!). Members of the House get paid $42,500 a year, same for Senators. No congressional pensions, and serving as an elected official bars you FOREVER from lobbying.
Balanced Budget Amendment: At no time shall the budget exceed 75% of the minimum expected revenues for any fiscal year.
Congress shall make no law. The sentence could end right there.
Balanced Budget Amendment: At no time shall the budget exceed 75% of the minimum expected revenues for any fiscal year.
Jesus, I hope not! Even at 11-12% of GDP we are on the verge of bankruptcy, if it were 75% we are far worse than even the worst economies on the planet. We are currently facing a record breaking 19% which is unheard of and will put us in line to be Greece in a few years.
Jesus, I hope not! Even at 11-12% of GDP we are on the verge of bankruptcy, if it were 75% we are far worse than even the worst economies on the planet. We are currently facing a record breaking 19% which is unheard of and will put us in line to be Greece in a few years.
I should have been clearer: 75% of projected GOVERNMENT revenues, which should be ~5% of GDP
Jumpstart
07-27-2011, 16:11
I was just trying to point out that you can't say that the Constitution shouldn't apply to something that didn't exist before. If some part of the Constitution is wrong and shouldn't exist, take it out. Just like Prohibition. I just think it's dangerous to start "interpreting."
I agree. But the 14th Amendment has been interpreted, actually misinterpeted, from it's purpose. It's wasn't meant for illegal aliens as a means of instant citizenship. It was meant for slaves who didn't have citizenship. So you are right, and we are in agreement. It is dangerous to start "interpeting". Hence all my previous posts on the 14th amendment and it's "bastardization".
What you are proposing can be solved with the amendment process to the constitution. Yes, it is very difficult. However, fundamental shifts should require consensus among most of the states not a simple majority diluted through elected officials based on what BS they said to get in office.
Actually what I am proposing is not to amend the constitution. But to only give the judiciary the power they were initially given... which is not much. Congress and the President would have to rewrite laws to fix what the judiciary said was wrong. They just could not strike them down.
I know its uncharted territory. But one I am curious about.
Term limits: a TOTAL of 12 years in elected office, for example 2 terms in the house, followed by 2 terms as President/VP, or 2 terms as a Senator, followed by private life (get a real job, you wanker!). Members of the House get paid $42,500 a year, same for Senators. No congressional pensions, and serving as an elected official bars you FOREVER from lobbying.
Balanced Budget Amendment: At no time shall the budget exceed 75% of the minimum expected revenues for any fiscal year.
Congress shall make no law. The sentence could end right there.
Ok here is why I think Term Limits are bad. Because when the lawmakers first get there, they are clueless. But lobbyists always stay. So this would only increase the lobbyists power. Sometimes its good to have people who have been there and know the ins and outs of why something is a bad idea. Rather than the lobbyist who has a monied interest in shaping law to benefit their special interest.
And a balanced budget amendment in a time of war is a national death sentence.
Sharpienads
07-28-2011, 05:34
Ok here is why I think Term Limits are bad. Because when the lawmakers first get there, they are clueless. But lobbyists always stay. So this would only increase the lobbyists power. Sometimes its good to have people who have been there and know the ins and outs of why something is a bad idea. Rather than the lobbyist who has a monied interest in shaping law to benefit their special interest.
And a balanced budget amendment in a time of war is a national death sentence.
I would disagree with your argument here on term limits because it takes the responsibility away from the individual lawmaker. Lobbyist don't have any power that those in congress don't give them. What I mean by this is ultimately the decision whether or not to do something rests solely with the lawmaker. The problem isn't the lobbyist, it's the lawmaker that listens to them. It isn't hard to read the constitution and know what you can or can't / should or shouldn't do as a member of congress.
Also, a balanced budget is not a death sentence, whether at war or not. If our federal government spent within their constitutional limits, we would have a huge budget surplus, whether at war or not. The problem is the out of control spending on unconstitutional things. War is one of the few constitutional things we are spending money on these days.
That being said, I must admit that I do *gulp* agree with you, Nynco, on the supreme court. They do not have the power of judicial review or constitutional interpretation and have been out of control for a long time. A good read on this is Men In Black by Mark Levin. He talks about some interesting SCOTUS characters throughout the US's history.
[Beer]
josh7328
07-28-2011, 08:37
I believe that a balanced budget ammendment that has been proposed, includes exceptions for national security situations.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.