Printable View
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."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byte Stryke
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordanls19
+1 on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byte Stryke
Nuh-uh... without the 19th they would be able to do jack about it [Tooth]Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
How so? Its not actually incorporating religion into gov't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byte Stryke
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by flan7211
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tor Larson
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 8th Amendment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
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]Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byte Stryke
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumpstart
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MED
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.
If you are referring to the creation of the Nanny State, then you are correct!Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MED
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.
1970s Issues:Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
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!
So the 1970's never happened? We sure didn't have an oil crisis that caused lines at the pump. [roll1]Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by MED
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
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?
This is a value statement, which may or may not be shared.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MED
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MED
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
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]
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
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.
You have a problem with braless young women? [ROFL1]Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin
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.
I do... when they hang down to the waistline! [Coffee]Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
Good Luck! There hasn't been such individuals since the days of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.