HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So how would you amend th...

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 07:56 PM

So how would you amend the constitution?

According to this Mother Jones article, the Governor of Texas wants to add nine amendments to the constitution, including (but not limited to):

IV. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.

V. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

VI. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.


So, DU, I'm curious to know how you'd amend the constitution? I'm going out on a limb and thinking that you'd take a different approach than Greg Abbott.

181 replies, 8868 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 181 replies Author Time Post
Reply So how would you amend the constitution? (Original post)
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 OP
jberryhill Jan 2016 #1
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #31
Deny and Shred Jan 2016 #104
dlwickham Jan 2016 #103
DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2016 #156
FLPanhandle Jan 2016 #2
TeddyR Jan 2016 #10
lindysalsagal Jan 2016 #63
mountain grammy Jan 2016 #112
RKP5637 Jan 2016 #138
SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2016 #142
frizzled Jan 2016 #133
RKP5637 Jan 2016 #136
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2016 #3
-none Jan 2016 #58
spanone Jan 2016 #4
hifiguy Jan 2016 #5
Nye Bevan Jan 2016 #25
jberryhill Jan 2016 #36
jwirr Jan 2016 #39
randys1 Jan 2016 #6
Yupster Jan 2016 #7
SpookyDem Jan 2016 #27
BlueJazz Jan 2016 #54
TeddyR Jan 2016 #76
ShrimpPoboy Jan 2016 #82
petronius Jan 2016 #85
TeddyR Jan 2016 #90
petronius Jan 2016 #92
Yupster Jan 2016 #8
hifiguy Jan 2016 #11
Snobblevitch Jan 2016 #18
-none Jan 2016 #60
Snobblevitch Jan 2016 #61
-none Jan 2016 #74
Snobblevitch Jan 2016 #77
-none Jan 2016 #81
Yupster Jan 2016 #102
Snobblevitch Jan 2016 #105
dmr Jan 2016 #167
loyalsister Jan 2016 #169
SpookyDem Jan 2016 #28
LastLiberal in PalmSprings Jan 2016 #57
cherokeeprogressive Jan 2016 #119
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #132
1939 Jan 2016 #164
loyalsister Jan 2016 #175
MohRokTah Jan 2016 #9
TeddyR Jan 2016 #12
truebluegreen Jan 2016 #96
KansDem Jan 2016 #153
SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2016 #14
Angel Martin Jan 2016 #52
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #158
librechik Jan 2016 #13
TeddyR Jan 2016 #16
Snobblevitch Jan 2016 #20
H2O Man Jan 2016 #15
KamaAina Jan 2016 #17
LastLiberal in PalmSprings Jan 2016 #56
TeddyR Jan 2016 #83
msongs Jan 2016 #19
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #21
hifiguy Jan 2016 #23
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #24
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #32
jeff47 Jan 2016 #157
Massacure Jan 2016 #173
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #176
madinmaryland Jan 2016 #22
Nye Bevan Jan 2016 #26
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #33
jwirr Jan 2016 #40
bigwillq Jan 2016 #29
47of74 Jan 2016 #30
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #34
47of74 Jan 2016 #35
jwirr Jan 2016 #41
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #66
jwirr Jan 2016 #68
SwankyXomb Jan 2016 #107
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #108
dairydog91 Jan 2016 #43
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #69
47of74 Jan 2016 #147
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #152
Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #37
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #118
1939 Jan 2016 #38
jwirr Jan 2016 #42
1939 Jan 2016 #47
jwirr Jan 2016 #55
jeff47 Jan 2016 #159
KittyWampus Jan 2016 #44
SDJay Jan 2016 #45
Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2016 #46
TeddyR Jan 2016 #80
truebluegreen Jan 2016 #99
1939 Jan 2016 #165
truebluegreen Jan 2016 #177
1939 Jan 2016 #180
truebluegreen Jan 2016 #181
Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2016 #110
PowerToThePeople Jan 2016 #48
TeddyR Jan 2016 #86
NobodyHere Jan 2016 #49
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #71
truebluegreen Jan 2016 #100
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #117
truebluegreen Jan 2016 #141
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #144
jeff47 Jan 2016 #160
hollowdweller Jan 2016 #50
Retrograde Jan 2016 #51
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #73
47of74 Jan 2016 #149
underpants Jan 2016 #53
firebrand80 Jan 2016 #59
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #72
TeddyR Jan 2016 #84
underpants Jan 2016 #93
petronius Jan 2016 #95
matt819 Jan 2016 #62
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #70
hobbit709 Jan 2016 #64
JudyM Jan 2016 #75
JudyM Jan 2016 #88
annabanana Jan 2016 #125
lindysalsagal Jan 2016 #65
NobodyHere Jan 2016 #109
randome Jan 2016 #116
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #130
lindysalsagal Jan 2016 #67
mwrguy Jan 2016 #78
TeddyR Jan 2016 #87
petronius Jan 2016 #91
TeddyR Jan 2016 #94
Proserpina Jan 2016 #79
cheapdate Jan 2016 #89
krispos42 Jan 2016 #97
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #128
truebluegreen Jan 2016 #98
randome Jan 2016 #115
truebluegreen Jan 2016 #140
JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #101
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #127
Sunlei Jan 2016 #106
47of74 Jan 2016 #148
Sunlei Jan 2016 #150
PersonNumber503602 Jan 2016 #111
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #113
randome Jan 2016 #114
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #131
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #120
taterguy Jan 2016 #121
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #123
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #122
JanMichael Jan 2016 #124
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #126
frizzled Jan 2016 #129
TeddyR Jan 2016 #134
randome Jan 2016 #135
TeddyR Jan 2016 #143
doc03 Jan 2016 #137
OnionPatch Jan 2016 #139
HereSince1628 Jan 2016 #145
OnionPatch Jan 2016 #146
HereSince1628 Jan 2016 #161
WDIM Jan 2016 #151
Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2016 #155
senz Jan 2016 #154
jeepers Jan 2016 #162
Vinca Jan 2016 #163
ileus Jan 2016 #166
Skittles Jan 2016 #168
SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2016 #170
BainsBane Jan 2016 #171
loyalsister Jan 2016 #172
clarice Jan 2016 #174
saltpoint Jan 2016 #178
backscatter712 Jan 2016 #179

Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 08:02 PM

1. I would add an amendment making "Walk This Way" the national anthem

 


Because that makes as much sense as anything in the list above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 01:43 AM

31. "Born In The USA"

Many Americans have no idea what the song is really about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #31)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:59 PM

104. We Will Rock You

They could at least ammend Article One Section Eight to make a standing army of more than two years legal.

TEXANS (as opposed to Texans) believe the Constitution and Bible say whatever they want it to say. Actual words are meaningless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:48 PM

103. no just no

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:35 PM

156. You take that cap off and stand up with hand-on-heart when you hear Steven Tyler sing.

 

And no, it doesn't matter if it's Janie's Got a Gun, or our new national anthem Walk This Way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 08:04 PM

2. Ban on all religions

Religious freedom would become freedom from stupid beliefs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FLPanhandle (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 08:25 PM

10. Yeah

 

No, thanks though. I'm not even religious and find this idea offensive

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FLPanhandle (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 06:52 PM

63. At least dissolve the tax-free status and education vouchers from tax dollars

And get the damn polygamists out of their secret compounds and the children to public schools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #63)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 10:51 AM

112. Bingo. Got my vote on that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #63)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:51 AM

138. K&R!!! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #63)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 12:54 PM

142. I would be against forcing anyone

to send their children to public school. Don't do it on the public dime for sure, but anyone that wants to send their kids to private school on their own dime or with scholarship help, or that want to homeschool, I have no issue with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FLPanhandle (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:37 AM

133. Only if we can count capitalism as a religion.

 

Try swapping "the market" with "God" sometime when you hear an economist speak...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frizzled (Reply #133)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:50 AM

136. Good point! Capitalism, the way it's practiced, is damn evil too! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 08:05 PM

3. Snicker

 

VI. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.

Did he read the MEXICAN constitution? While the idea is not that crazy, it has really produced a few dopzies down there, especially when it comes to abortion. Yeah, yeah, some of the crap I get to read.

I got one.

See that second amendment, get rid of the Heller decision, clarify it , and make sure you do need to report to drill if you want to own a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 02:54 PM

58. That drill is one weekend a month and a week, once a year.

Miss too many drills and forfeit your guns. You start all over from scratch with paper work to get them back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 08:05 PM

4. mr abbott is deranged

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 08:07 PM

5. A simple clarification

 

"The rights set forth in the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the decisions of the Supreme Court interpreting these clauses, shall inure only to natural persons, not to creations of law or legal fictions such as corporations or other entities created under state or federal law."

Boom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:23 AM

25. So a Republican Congress could prohibit publishers from publishing certain books?

And ban Planned Parenthood from advertising?

And temporarily shut down sites such as DU when deemed necessary in the interests of national security?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 03:06 AM

36. Yes

 

And state police could search the offices of Greenpeace, newspapers and publishers anytime they wanted to, without a warrant.

The 14th amendment binds the states to the Bill of Rights, incidentally.

So if you exclude the 14th, then the other due process provisions don't apply to the state governments.

Also, any property belonging to a newspaper, environmental group, like the Nature Conservancy, can be taken by the government without due process or even compensation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:14 PM

39. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 08:15 PM

6. Remove Texas as a state if that shithead doesnt step down

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 08:19 PM

7. They left once already and

they got forced back in by force.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:38 AM

27. Texas is probably 7-10% on the national economy good choice. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpookyDem (Reply #27)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 02:38 PM

54. True but our national IQ would jump around 12 points and people wouldn't...

 

....have to hear about that ridiculous "America's Team" bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueJazz (Reply #54)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:37 PM

76. I'd remove New York

 

Pretty awful state. New Jersey too. Have you see the MTV show about New Jersey folks, or been to NY?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Reply #76)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:41 PM

82. Don't forget North and South Dakota

Nothing but dust and credit card companies.

And all of the south, because they're different and have bad statistics too.

This is fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Reply #76)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:45 PM

85. It's a start, but how about we remove any state which ever hosted a "Real Housewives of..." variant,

a Kardashian-related show, or any of the last 20 seasons of Real World? (Except California gets a pass of course, people expect that sort of stuff from us...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #85)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:55 PM

90. So

 

Real Housewives. California, Georgia, New Jersey, New York. All must go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Reply #90)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:57 PM

92. No no: as I said, California gets a pass. There may be additional unspecified

exceptions--in both directions--when I get around to googling...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 08:21 PM

8. Term limits for all federal offices

Get rid of the electoral college.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 08:26 PM

11. Good catch on the electoral college.

 

It's long overdue to disappear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 09:00 PM

18. If there are term limits for office holders,

then there would need to be term limits on staffers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snobblevitch (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 03:02 PM

60. Term limits are built into the system.

Just don't vote for them.
As for the staffers, they are employees, the same as anyone flipping burgers or digging ditches. Would you term limit them?
Employees are the one with the knowledge to get the job done. The unemployment rate is high enough already withouy term limits on employees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -none (Reply #60)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 03:19 PM

61. Term limits are built into what system?

If the elected officials have term limits, say three terms for house members, then the power would be with the staff and not the person elected by their constituents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snobblevitch (Reply #61)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:32 PM

74. Each congress critter hires their own staff.

The staff has to know how thing work, or they are useless for the congress critter.
Would you hire a bunch of ditch diggers or rough carpenters, to wire your computer farm? That is basically what you are proposing here. Changing out competent staff for a bunch of green people that have to learn from the beginning is not the way to get things done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -none (Reply #74)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:37 PM

77. Of course you are right,

however I think the length of service should be decided at the polls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snobblevitch (Reply #77)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:40 PM

81. I agree with that.

That is the built in system term limits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snobblevitch (Reply #77)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:43 PM

102. I disagree

I'll use Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd, two of the most odious creatures in American political history as my examples.

Each of them served well into their 90's, well beyond whatever reasonable age a person could consider a decent retirement age. They also had very disgusting pasts.

So how did they keep getting elected?

West Virginia was a totally Democratic state. South Carolina was a completely Republican state. So the only way they could be beaten was in the primary. Since they had been around so long, no member of their own party would primary them or beat them if they did. The name ID alone made sure of that.

So we get these two living fossils in office until they finally die at age 100 and 93.

Thurmond lived the last few years in a hospital and was wheeled out for important votes. Democrats had to make excuses for why a former Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan was representing them in the senate.

I'm for term limits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #102)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 12:32 AM

105. The only reason I am not in favor of term limits,

as I attempted to explain, is that the unelected staffers will get too much power. I don't believe the elected officials should all have unexperienced staff, but I believe they get entrenched as well.

I would prefer if we had citizen legislators rather than professional legislators. The senority system will never allow that to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snobblevitch (Reply #105)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 08:18 PM

167. And, if it's not staffers it's ALEC & lobbyists

and the very wealthy.

I don't know what the answers are here, but I'd like to see some changes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snobblevitch (Reply #61)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 08:50 PM

169. Staff AND lobbyists

Term limits are a tea party member's dream. I know this because it was radical republicans who proposed it, gathered signatures, and got the amendment to the MO constitution passed.
I saw this in action and the inexperienced new legislators who come in every year rely more on lobbyists and staffers because they have no clue what they are doing.

It has been a nightmare and it is virtually impossible to undo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:40 AM

28. all for electoral college removal otherwise its good as is. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 02:52 PM

57. Also, mandatory retirement age for Federal judges and justices

For example, South Carolina has a retirement age of 70, even if you're on the state supreme court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:13 AM

119. Term limits, and one electoral vote per state plus one for DC. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #119)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:31 AM

132. DC Statehood

-- or allow the citizens of DC to vote in Maryland's House and Senate elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 07:50 PM

164. Funny thing about the Electoral College

Many of the writers of the Constitution thought that the College would just be a nominating process with each state selecting a "native son" and that the House of Representatives would elect the president from the candidates selected by of the College. They didn't foresee the rise of the two party system and the decisiveness of the College.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 09:04 PM

175. Incumbancy is the only real advantage Dems have

Democrats are better at governing and republicans are better at running for office because they almost always have more money. New republican candidates have an advantage and that is how tea party members got elected.
We have term limits they are called elections. We have the option to recruit candidates or run for office ourselves if we don't like our elected officials.
Doing away with institutional memory and experience is one of the dumber things I have seen us do in MO. It would be a bigger nightmare nationally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 08:25 PM

9. I'm fine with it just the way it is.

 

No amendments at all at this time.

I would fight a constitutional convention with my dying breath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 08:27 PM

12. Agreed!

 

A convention would simply be an opportunity for extremists from either wing to push their agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 09:54 PM

96. For the zillionth time (granted, not to you):

 

enough with the both-siderism. Both sides are not equal: only one is batshit crazy and it isn't the Democrats. Much of the party leadership is so "moderate" it is center-right, and there aren't any ACTUAL socialists or commies in the party. OTOH, there are PLENTY of actual fascists (and white supremacists) in the opposition party. And yes, before you jump at the chance, one would have to be a member of one party or the other to get the votes to enact your agenda.

"Both sides" DON'T do it.


"Extremists from either wing" meh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #96)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:28 PM

153. K&R this post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 08:31 PM

14. Same here n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 02:34 PM

52. Leave as is n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:37 PM

158. I doubt a CC would accomplish much in the current climate.

It's hard to get 2/3 of states on board with anything, much less 3/4.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 08:29 PM

13. ERA and

remove second amdt as "archaic"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 08:36 PM

16. Maybe

 

Free speech is archaic too? What about he 4th or 7th Amendments?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 09:04 PM

20. You do realize that if the 2nd was repealed

it would be up to the various states to regulate guns and nothing much would likely change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 08:34 PM

15. "You say you'll

change the constitution,
well, you know,
we all want to change your head."
-- John Lennon; Revolution

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 08:37 PM

17. Revise, not repeal, the Second.

 

To place more emphasis on the long-forgotten "well-regulated militia" piece.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #17)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 02:50 PM

56. Also get rid of "Congress shall make no law..."

The whole Second Amendment is an abomination. We don't have to "take their guns," just regulate their use through common sense legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #17)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:41 PM

83. It isn't

 

Long forgotten. You just misread it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 09:01 PM

19. add something about the right to vote shall not be impinged nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 09:06 PM

21. give us a parliamentary system instead of the incoherent mess we currently have.

 

note that virtually no one else on the planet has copied our model, because it's a virtually unworkable mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #21)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 09:49 PM

23. You have a very good point,

 

though money has made the process far more unworkable and corrupt than it need be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:10 AM

24. Our system encourages corruption

 

so it's a vicious cycle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #21)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 01:48 AM

32. Especially since impeachment is increasingly confused with a no confidence vote

That said, I like some aspects of the current setup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #21)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:36 PM

157. +everything. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #21)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 08:58 PM

173. Your comment about no one else on the planet is not really true

While most countries in Europe use a parliamentary system (with a single legislative/executive branch), most countries in the Americas use a presidential system (where the legislature and executive are separate).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Massacure (Reply #173)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 09:18 PM

176. ah, that's a good point. Though I would point out that outside Latin America

 

the presidential system is pretty rare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 09:34 PM

22. What a MAROON!!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:31 AM

26. Eliminate the Second Amendment.

Add a provision that allows the federal government to impose uniform gun control laws across all of the states (states would be free to institute their own tougher, but not weaker, gun control laws).

And I might win the Powerball jackpot tomorrow....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 01:52 AM

33. At a minimum, I'd amend it to further define "regulated"

...and make the definition of militia consistent with the Dick Act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:17 PM

40. Nah, I am going to. Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:44 AM

29. I would not amend any of it (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 01:20 AM

30. Replace the 2nd and 13th Amendment with this

Since I know there's no chance in hell of our government adopting this I'm going full in;

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Violation of this section shall be punishable by life imprisonment or death as a judge may decree. If the United States in the future abolishes the death penalty then violation of this section shall be punishable by life imprisonment.

Section 2. Private ownership of correctional institutions shall not exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Such privately owned institutions must transfer control to the proper governmental body within one month of the ratification of this amendment.

Section 3. Any official charged with enforcing the laws shall face a penalty enhancement of at least 25% of a prison sentence and or fines. Any official charged with enforcing the laws who becomes aware of a fellow official who has committed a crime who does not make every effort to expose the crimes shall be charged with the same crime or crimes the fellow official has committed, and in the event of conviction shall be considered just as guilty as the original official.

Section 4. While Congress of the Several States has no desire to interfere with law abiding citizens possessing modest firearms for defense, hunting, and for sport the United States has the authority and the obligation to regulate firearms in order to ensure that the greater rights of people to be safe and secure in their homes and in public are not infringed. This includes restrictions on the type and number of firearms a citizen may posses, along with the places where such weapons may be carried. Law enforcement and military officials may exercise discretion when issuing concealed weapons permits.

Section 5. Interference with lawful peace negotiations conducted by the President of the United States shall be punishable by life imprisonment or death as a judge may decree. If the United States in the future abolishes the death penalty then violation of this section shall be punishable by life imprisonment.

Section 6. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State for any reason whatsoever, including mental disability or criminal convictions.

Section 7. The Supreme Court of the United States shall be required to subscribe to the same code of ethics as all other jurists within the United States or places subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 8. In the event the Federal government is shut down, the salary of all members of Congress shall be reduced to One (1) Dollar per day. In addition if there are two (2) or more shutdowns all members of Congress serving at that time become ineligible to run for reelection and will automatically forfeit any benefits due after they leave Congress.

Section 9. All rights enumerated in the United States Constitution apply to living beings only. They shall not apply to artificial legal constructs, such as corporations. Such legal constructs only have rights that the people may deign to provide them. Congress shall have the authority and the obligation to regulate contributions to campaigns of those seeking elective office. Under no circumstances shall any contributions be made by individuals who are not citizens of the United States or by organizations that are not headquartered within the United States.

Section 10. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 11. There shall be no time limit on ratification of this amendment by the states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 47of74 (Reply #30)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 02:09 AM

34. I'll summarize my 9.

1) The ERA
2) Term limits: 9 terms in the House; 3 terms in the Senate; 20 years on the SCOTUS.
3) One-subject law requirement (to eliminate earmarks and sneaky amendments).
4) Direct election of the POTUS
5) 2nd amendment modification - better define militia and well regulated.
6) Access to healthcare is a right.
7) Give the President a line item veto
8) Public funding of elections for federal offices
9) I like the idea of making Representatives ineligible for reelection if the government shuts down or they fail to pass a budget timely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #34)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 02:10 AM

35. Thank you

At least you didn't reject them out of hand or call me an idiot - which has happened in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #34)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:23 PM

41. I like most of this but I do not want term limits because some

of our best congress people have been pushed out of office by the likes of trump and cruz. If a congress person is good they need to stay in. The Rs limited presidential terms because FDR was able to accomplish so much in his terms.

And I do not like line item vetoes because just imagine that in the hands of any of the R candidates today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #41)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 06:57 PM

66. I respect that

I realize that these are often thought of as conservative positions.

As to term limits: my basic problem is that reps and senators of both parties tend to become increasingly beholden to special interests the longer they stay in office. Also, I think term limits would force both parties to let in more fresh thinkers. I don't think 18 year limits in congress is an odious limit.

My reasoning for the SCOTUS is a little different. Right now, both parties game the system by finding the youngest jurist they can credibly put on the court to maximize the impact of the pick. Older, more experienced jurists (either serving judges or those in academia) are often overlooked.

I realize the downside if a line item veto in the wrong hands. However, in he current political climate, it's the only realistic way I can see to get boondoggles like the F35 off the books.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #66)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:00 PM

68. That makes sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #66)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 12:54 AM

107. 18 years is a good time for SC Justices too

It allows each new Congress to confirm one judge, and 18 years is more than long enough to make your mark on the Court, or in the case of Clarence Thomas catch up on your beauty sleep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SwankyXomb (Reply #107)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 01:31 AM

108. Very well taken point.

It also would tend to let both parties continue to be represented, and (as I said unthread) allow for older, more seasoned justices to be appointed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 47of74 (Reply #30)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:29 PM

43. This largely guts free speech protection for journalism and media organizations.

Most of those organizations are legal entities. At some level, they HAVE to be. Even a small organization like MotherJones or Alternet gets impractical to run as a sole proprietorship. Under this proposal they lose all of their free speech protections.

I do think that campaign donations should not be protected as free speech though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dairydog91 (Reply #43)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:01 PM

69. I think efforts to eliminate corporate personhood fail for this reason

..and while corporate liability limits protect economic rascals, they also protect non-profits and small businesses.

Better to mandate public financing of federal campaigns. Place sane legal restrictions on how PACs can collect and disperse money, and make them more transparent. This should be able o be done through ordinary legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #69)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:01 PM

147. As long as you have the kind of SCOTUS we have now we need an amendment...

...otherwise conservative jurists can short circuit any legislation around campaign finance reform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 47of74 (Reply #147)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:26 PM

152. The issue could be addressed directly without taking speech rights away

For example, we could amend to say that all federal elections will be publicly financed; spell out qualifications; and specify that print and electronic media have to grant equal time to opposing viewpoints in the event that non-candidate actors purchase political advertising.

I don't want a well intentioned effort to smack down billionaire super-pacs to have the unintended consequence of not allowing a union to organize, or to not allow the Sierra Club to write op-ed pieces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 06:33 AM

37. An Amendment Enshrining, among other things, the right to privacy penumbra from Griswold

and extending to state, once and for all, that free citizens' bodies are their own property, that the fundamental right of consenting adults to make their own decisions about their own bodies is the cornerstone of liberty, and shall not be abridged.

This has implications for everything from reproductive and sexual freedom to media censorship to the right of terminally ill persons to choose a pain-free exit on their own terms, to the drug war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #37)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:09 AM

118. I agree with a RTP amendment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:59 AM

38. The Confederate States Constitution had an interesting wrinkle

To avoid legislative log rolling and pork barrel spending, their constitution provided that the president had to propose spending items and the congress and senate could either approve or disapprove them. The congress and senate could not propose new spending.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1939 (Reply #38)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:24 PM

42. That would take a lot of wind out of the sails of the House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #42)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 02:21 PM

47. Based on

While the divide over slavery WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE WAR (knee jerks needn't reply), the north and the south were also divided over government investments in infrastructure. The south felt that the federal tariffs they paid on imported goods were being spent on federal infrastructure projects (highways, canals, railroads, harbors) which benefited mostly the northern states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1939 (Reply #47)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 02:43 PM

55. I suspect the south was correct regarding the tariff money.

But today a lot of the tax money is spent in the south on things like military installations, NASA, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1939 (Reply #38)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:42 PM

159. Pork is what made government work.

One of the reasons we have this massive, intractable battle between the parties now was pork was more-or-less eliminated when Gengrich became speaker.

Yes, pork isn't pretty, but it provided the grease that caused the parties to compromise. Without pork, there's no incentive to compromise. You stick to your ideological fortress, and get rewarded by your constituents for doing nothing but guard the ramparts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:41 PM

44. #1. Proportional Representation- to get rid of gerrymandering

 

#2. Campaign Finance Reform- to get rid of legalized bribery
#3. Requirement for all firearms (new and old) to be licensed, registered and insured

I openly admit to toying with the idea of limiting 'Hate Speech' as per Europe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:44 PM

45. Several Ideas...

1. Outlaw all private campaign contributions.
2. Outlaw full-time lobbying.
3. Overturn Citizens United and burn that decision publicly.
4. Tax religions.
5. Outlaw private prison system.
6. Healthcare Amendment - In short, put single payer healthcare system in place.

There are probably others, but these are just a few off the top of my head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:47 PM

46. Massively.


Three obvious big changes:

:- Repeal the 2nd amendment. Replace it with "Armed militias being the greatest possible threat to the security of a free state, the state and federal governments shall have the power to regulate the ownership and use of purpose-made lethal weapons".

:- Make all constituencies for the senate and house of equal populace, rather than giving residents of smaller states more power.

:- "No elected official shall have any power to influence the enforcement of the law in any specific case" - electing judges, sheriffs and prosecutors is a recipe for injustice, and the current impeachment rules for the president are a farce.

Also, I'd think carefully about modifying the first amendment to permit restrictions on spending and get around CU. But I'd be careful here - we need to acknowledge that doing so *is* a massive restriction on freedom of speech, and it's precisely the kind of thing the 1st amendment was intended to prevent - the only possible justification for it is that the alternative - tantamount to vote-buying - may be even worse. Any change would need extremely careful phrasing, and I don't have a formulation that does the job but doesn't permit some pretty scary restrictions on freedom of speech.

And I'd be very tempted to repeal the 10th amendment, and give more power to the federal government and less to the states.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #46)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:40 PM

80. Why would you

 

Dilute the power of states with fewer people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Reply #80)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:12 PM

99. Why wouldn't you?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #99)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 08:00 PM

165. It was part of the "grand bargain"

That let the union be created in the first place. The smaller states wanted to be protected against the tyranny of the larger states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1939 (Reply #165)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 09:21 PM

177. Two questions: why is there an amendment process

 

and why should any person's vote count for more than another's?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #177)

Tue Jan 12, 2016, 06:52 AM

180. Okay

1. Get cracking on your lobbying process amend the Constitution to change the composition of the Senate and see how far it gets you (even with a Democratic House and Senate). Do you think Bernie Sanders would have voted for such an amendment? After you get it out of the federal govt, you still need to get it through a whole lot of legislatures. GFL

2. If you live in an area with lots of immigrants, prisons, or military facilities, your vote counts a lot more than a person who resides in an area with few of those features. If you live in an area with low voter turnout, your vote counts more as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1939 (Reply #180)

Tue Jan 12, 2016, 10:44 AM

181. 2 answers

 

1. I have

2. Question was why do small (pop) states have or deserve to have more power?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Reply #80)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 09:15 AM

110. Why would you give less power to people from larger states?


Either all Americans can have equal power, or all states - arbitrary divisions of land - can have equal power.

The first approach is fair and sensible. The second approach is unfair and absurd, but was necessary to get states to volunteer to join the union hundreds of years ago.

At present, if California were to decide to split into two states, its voters would suddenly gain twice as much power each. That's clearly absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 02:25 PM

48. Outlaw capitalism.

 

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PowerToThePeople (Reply #48)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:45 PM

86. Ha

 

Hahahahahahaha!

Ha!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 02:29 PM

49. I wouldn't mind a balanced budget amendment

 

Leaving a 18.5 trillion debt to the next generation is simply immoral.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NobodyHere (Reply #49)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:18 PM

71. I like the amendment Warren Buffett proposed somewhat tounge in cheek

It amounts to this: If congress does not pass a balanced budget, they can't be re-elected.

I actually agree that in years where we are not in severe economic crisis or are engaged in a declared war, the budget should balance. In a perfect world, we should try to get a year's budget surplus into the treasury to avoid having to immediately resort to borrowing. Where I strongly disagree with Republicans is where the cuts should be made. IMO, the bloated defense budget needs to have at least a third shaved off -- and that can be accomplished without making us one iota less secure. Next, eliminate hedge fund loopholes, and enact draconian tax penalties on corporations that ship jobs overseas. Start a multinational effort to twist the arms of the Swiss, Lichtenstein, and the Caymans to engage in transparent banking so that the IRS can find hidden money. Re-enact modest estate taxes on estates in excess of $5M. Finally, get income tax levels back to where they were under Bill Clinton.

Cutting money for education; food for the needy; winter heat assistance; and rent assistance should be a last resort. If you really want to get serious about cutting spending on those programs, raise minimum wage to levels that allow anyone working 40 hours a week to pay bills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NobodyHere (Reply #49)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:13 PM

100. Awful idea.

 

With a Constitutional requirement for a balanced budget we would have lost WWII--just for starters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #100)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:06 AM

117. I think every balanced budget proposition ever written has had a time-of-war out clause

I approve of Keynes methods as a means of getting out of a recession/depression. The problem is that, since Johnson (more to the point -- since Reagan with the exception of Clinton) deficit spending has become BAU. Interest on the debt has become a significant chunk of expenditures that I'd rather see either spent elsewhere, or refunded to the taxpayers. Where the Republicans get this argument 100% wrong is that they don't admit the real causes of our huge deficit -- our bloated defense budget; our corrupt MIC; and our misguided desire to play world cop. Earmarks for pet projects also rank high.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #117)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 12:53 PM

141. OK.

 

So war would be an exception. Given our penchant for wars I can see the so-called defense budget becoming the sole focus of our balanced budget, with everything else being cut, eventually to nothing.

Isn't that what the Republicans are trying to do already? Why give them cover?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #141)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 01:48 PM

144. You'd have to issue a war declaration. Nobody does that anymore for whatever reason.

Why give them cover? it's not a matter of cover. The nation cannot endlessly spend more than it takes in. Especially given that we now borrow considerable sums from foreign governments. As I said, the budget should be balanced, but not on the backs of the poor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NobodyHere (Reply #49)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:49 PM

160. Terrible idea.

You need the government to spend money to fight economic downturns. Because government is the only entity with enough money to spend "when it doesn't make sense".

Businesses won't invest to stop a downturn. They'll want a faster/more guaranteed ROI. Government can. But the economic downturn means lower tax receipts, so they have to have a deficit.

Remember, macroeconomics is not the same as microeconomics. Treating government spending like your personal spending is a mistake, because the environments are radically different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 02:30 PM

50. I would extend the right of privacy and free speech to the workplace.

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 02:30 PM

51. "No descendent of Prescott Bush shall be eligible for or hold Federal office"

While there may be some family members down the line who will be decent people, I don't think it's worth the risk.

I'd also reform the electoral college, and ban gerrymandering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Retrograde (Reply #51)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:24 PM

73. One interesting thing I saw recently was a map of redrawn state lines with equal populations

So Texas, California, and Florida were broken up, while the Midwest and Rocky Mountain states were consolidated into larger states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Retrograde (Reply #51)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:05 PM

149. I'm down with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 02:37 PM

53. Repeal the 3rd!!! QUARTER TROOPS!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Reply #53)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 02:55 PM

59. LOL! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Reply #53)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:22 PM

72. I love the 3rd amendment.

It might be my favorite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #72)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:44 PM

84. I'm glad

 

That no troops have been quartered in my apartment. Simply no room

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #72)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 08:06 PM

93. I know you're kidding

But it actually offers context to the 2nd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Reply #53)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 08:21 PM

95. No, absolutely not! Soldiers have as much right as any of us to be protected from

cruel and unusual punishments. (Not to mention it's far too messy for a private home, even without the preceding drawing...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 03:28 PM

62. I know this is nuts

But I'm at the point where I would do only the absolute necessary to allow any state to secede. This would be a one-time offer. Of course, on the flip side, the USG would immediately begin shutting down all federal facilities, with the seceding state absorbing that cost. Every. Federal. Agency. FBI, ATF, DEA, FWS, NPS, NASA, US Army, US Navy, US Marines, US Air Force, US Coast Guard. Establishment of DHS/ICE border crossing stations.

Sure, it's ridiculous, but you have to end this idiocy somehow, and as long as these buffoons are elected to office, and as long as "militias" think they can take over any federal facility they like, we have to do something. Until we - the current US federal government - is under the control of rational people - this is only going to get worse. We are watching the erosion of this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to matt819 (Reply #62)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:06 PM

70. I'll see your "nuts" and raise you

Going out on a limb - no matter who we nominate, I suspect conservative pundits (not the actual GOP nominee) will broadly hint that "federal overreach" has become so odious that states will be forced to seriously look at secession if the Democrat becomes president. This is pure nonsense, but it will be designed to fire up the extreme conservatives, and to scare swing voters int voting to keep the country together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 06:55 PM

64. corporations are NOT people.

Any corporation that gets involved in political activity gets its charter revoked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #64)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:33 PM

75. Right with you. Also I'd add an express & stringent conflict of interest prohibition

Not a whiff of conflict allowed. And this goes for every branch of government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #75)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:47 PM

88. Audits of all govt spending; prohibition of (1) conflicts of interest & (2) falsifying "news"

Noone's watching the store so hard earned taxpayer dollars are spent wildly irresponsibly and often
Against the public interest.

Congress critters, POTUS and the Supremes should have a high standard to hurdle for anything that suggests even a whiff of a conflict of interest. PERIOD.

The founders (Ben Franklin and...?) viewed the press as tantamount to a 4th branch of govt, intended to ensure an informed electorate. Fox, Limbaugh, et all have effectively turned the truth on its head and ruined this important and practical ideal.

And put in the damned ERA!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #64)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:25 AM

125. ABSOLUTELY!.. Job #1!. . . .n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 06:56 PM

65. Re-draw congressional districts on a physical grid that does not change, ever.

The tea-bagger-no-government morons would no longer rule from their gerry-manderd districts.

Election reform with no extra money from anywhere: americans, foreigners, or corporations. It's the only path back to democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #65)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 01:36 AM

109. Would districts remain the same even as population changes?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #65)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:04 AM

116. There would be ways around that, still. Deliberately 'stacking the deck' of a district with...

 

...the 'right type' of citizen.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #65)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:30 AM

130. See post 120

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 06:59 PM

67. End statute of limitations on assault, and write a equal rights amendment for women, gltg

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:37 PM

78. Get rid of the 2nd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #78)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:46 PM

87. The First too

 

Who needs rights and shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #78)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:56 PM

91. We could just clarify the Second Amendment, e.g. to something more like Delaware's

version:

Section 20. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

At first glance, I kind of like that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #91)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 08:08 PM

94. That's very thorough

 

I like it too. And, to be honest, much clearer than the 2d.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:38 PM

79. Funny you should ask---I started a rewrite this summer

 

When the Founding Fathers were writing the US Constitution, they concerned themselves with clearly delineating lines of Power and Property, because those were the areas in which they felt abused by the English Crown. They left some flexibility for development in these areas, following the guidelines they set to start the formulation.

They were on the verge of concerning themselves with Human Rights, and took a piecemeal stab at it, but since the concept itself didn't exist in full form (hence slavery, no rights for women, minority groups, etc) only men of property, preferably white and Christian, were considered fully human and entitled to basic rights.

But now that we've had couple hundred years of experience with the Constitution, and a couple hundred years of development in legal thought and the impact of technology on Power, Property and Human Rights, it's time for Constitution 2.0.


One thing that the 2.0 version requires is a better sense of order. Which comes first? Human rights, civil rights, property rights, power? My own preference is that they be prioritized in that order. I might even go so far as to add Commons Rights, to cover issues about ecology, pollution, natural resources, etc. at the very top. The original immigrants had no idea of waste: nothing went into trash. They never thought we might need rules about recycling!

Very well then.

Commons Rights: this is best expressed by the Biblical injunction to “replenish the earth”. Since we have only one planet that supports all our lives, we need to absolutely take care of it. Earth is our Commons, to be shared (equally) by all its children: human, animal, plant.

1. GENOMES While certain species such as polio virus or bacterial pneumonia may be eliminated without causing any harm to the rest, the designation of Undesirable/Disposable is to be rare and well researched before any species-wide genocide is undertaken. The same criteria will apply to genetic sports: unless specific designation as Undesirable attaches to a mutation, the precept is “Live and Let Live.” Similarly, genetic engineering is to be tightly controlled, if not banned. If the improvements cannot result from the usual breeding techniques, perhaps we don't want them to happen at all. These decisions should be made by universal polling. It isn't the right of any subgroup, be it government or corporate, to make such decisions for the whole planet. Such a planetary franchise will require some rethinking of the United Nations, for sure. There are New World Orders that could serve People, and this is what we should be building.

2. POLLUTION: While there are many kinds of pollution, some are worse than others. Those forms of pollution for which we have not developed techniques for recycling shall be banned:

1. Nuclear products in commercial quantities with half-life in excess of a couple weeks, or some similar standard. This eliminates nuclear power generation and nuclear warfare, including depleted uranium armor and shells.
2. Artificial chemical compounds: CFC and similar manufactured molecules that don't break down by natural processes in a reasonable amount of time. This covers most plastics, too.
3. Water shall be cleaned after use—period. If polluted bodies of water can be cleaned, they shall be.
4. Combustion shall be limited and its byproducts must be naturally recyclable. The point of emission must be limited in output to what the local environment handle on an hourly basis. Air shall not be defiled with particulates, poisonous fumes, chemically reactive compounds beyond oxygen, ozone (in appropriate quantities) and water.
5. Land and soil shall be conserved. Buildings will be energy efficient and sized appropriately...no more mansions and manors for ostentatious living, no wasting of fertile land. Soil that is farmed shall be replenished by crop rotation, regeneration, etc. More topsoil shall be made of plant and animal wastes, which are currently “wasted,” to repair past soil damage. Poisoning of the soil by heavy metals and mining waste shall be prevented and ameliorated, as we start to restore the earth. If deserts can be made to sustain plant life without human intervention after reconstruction of the ecosystem, then they can be restored as well.
6. WAR. War is the greatest pollutant we have: far worse than the automobiles and planes. It is also the chief user of nuclear products. War must go.
7. Human wastes. We have a lot of good techniques; they must be applied without exception. Improvements in recycling human waste, including bodies, once vetted, shall be implemented.
8. Man-Made trash shall be broken down to recyclable elements and reused. No landfills, no dumps.

3. Human Rights. These are rights to which each human, of any level of life, are entitled, regardless of age, sex, health, education, socio-economic level, nationality, or any other categorization that divides us.

1. Life: the right to life, once given at birth, is not rescinded by Man or Institution.
2. Liberty: the right of an individual to be an autonomous free agent, unbound to any group, cannot be taken away by any other person or institution, once that individual reaches a maturity level that the People agree to be sufficient to make decisions. The age of maturity may vary according to the situation, but the best might be age of sexual maturity, to ensure the autonomy of women over their own lives and bodies. Of course, individuals may join groups, but they shall be allowed to change their minds and leave without legal entanglements once property issues are resolved. I believe that basic human rights, freely exercised, will eliminate most crimes of passion, property and abuse of power, and hence, the need for prisons.

3.


to be continued, in my spare time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:51 PM

89. Enshrine protection of the living environment to be among the highest purposes of the state,

and grant the federal government the power necessary to make it so.

Impose strict limitations on the granting of limited liability corporate charters.

Recognize freedom of movement and travel as a fundamental right -- by which I mean "private property" can't prevent a person from walking down to the river for a drink of water. (In fact, this goes hand-in-hand with a complete reconception of land "ownership" that would be part of my agenda.)

I don't have the specific wording worked out yet.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 09:57 PM

97. A few ways

I would limit the number a representatives a state has to 12. Because of advances in transportation and agriculture, we can now have incredibly dense populations that drastically skews the power in the Senate towards rural states. Forcing states to subdivide as they grow keeps state governments "local" and well as gives fresh chances for state constitutions to have the "latest and greatest" features upon creation.

I would change our Federal election process to instant runoff voting.

I would have all Federal ballots sent and returned by mail.

I would mandate publicly-financed elections.

I would have some sort of system where congressional districts are created in a fair and compact manner. Maybe limiting the number of lines that could define a district (hard to gerrymander when you can only draw, say, six lines). A line would be a continuous section of the state border, a defined waterway (like a lake or river or beach), or a straight line on a map.


I'd even, god help me, consider dramatically increasing the size of the House. Like, tenfold. So that there's one rep for every 75,000 people instead of 750,000 (and growing). Make our representatives truly representative, instead of wealthy elite lawyers. If that happens, then add a zero to my first one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #97)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:29 AM

128. See post 120

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:07 PM

98. Do away with the Electoral College.

 

Mandate public funding of campaigns.

Add the words: "...while serving in the Militia...." to the 2nd Amendment.

Declare that artificial persons are not "persons" and don't have any effing rights, only responsibilities (and not just fiscal).

Independent commissions for re-districting.

Institute nationwide automatic voter registration (when turning 18), vote-by-mail and Instant Runoff Voting (which could help break the stranglehold the 2 existing parties have).

I could think of some more, but that will do to go on with.

ETA: Give the environment inalienable rights. Heh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #98)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:02 AM

115. Where does the 'artificial persons' come from? Fear or a need for a new round of slavery?

 

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #115)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 12:43 PM

140. Artificial personhood is a term

 

and concept that has been around for a while: a non-natural "person" (corporation) that is nevertheless allowed to make contracts, sue or be sued, etc. Doesn't have anything to do with slavery, although the 14th Amendment inadvertently (?) broadened corporate rights.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/corporation-person1.htm

Not sure if I should be offended by the implications of your question btw. Fear? Slavery? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:41 PM

101. Instant Runoff Voting. Simple. Done. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #101)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:28 AM

127. In a more general sense -- update the document to reflect two centuries of technological advancement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 12:37 AM

106. I would remove the "prisoners can be slaves" line in the 13th am.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #106)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:02 PM

148. Me too

I think that's the one great failure of the 13th Amendment is that we allowed the states a way to continue slavery. I think it needs to be no slavery period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 47of74 (Reply #148)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:18 PM

150. Imagine what America could be,if prisons were non-profit & prison slavery was unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 10:48 AM

111. Scrap it all and become a dictator.

I'd rule by facebook likes though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PersonNumber503602 (Reply #111)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 10:56 AM

113. Brilliant!

However, no quartering troops in homes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 10:59 AM

114. Abolish the House of Representatives. Expand the Senate to maybe 200 reps.

 

The country is old and established enough to not require so much adherence to the needs of individual states. The 'United' part has superceded the 'States' part. And that's good.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #114)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:30 AM

131. See post 120

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:15 AM

120. This is for several of you that have commented in various ways about gerrymandering/redistricting, e

This is from the website Mentalfloss



50 states of equal population.

Perhaps in 2050, and then every 100 years thereafter, state lines should be redrawn. Still difficult to avoid gerrymandering, though.

One proposition was made upthread to expand the number of house seats. I don't quite know how that is done without making the process unwieldy. Maybe like political conventions and have states vote on bills as delegations? One thing I'd consider strongly is an amendment to lengthen house terms (3 years, maybe?)The current method has them constantly campaigning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:17 AM

121. Ban indoor football and Astroturf

Except for places like Minneapolis where it gets really cold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to taterguy (Reply #121)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:25 AM

123. Are you kidding -- look how much better the Vikes have gotten in their short time in TCF

Ban them everywhere! Embrace the local environment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:24 AM

122. Propositions I was surprised I didn't see/didn't see more of

I was not surprised to see DUers advocate for 2A reform and against corporate personhood. I was also not particularly surprised to see DUers advocating strongly for anti-gerrymandering measures.

I was surprised that:

- there were relatively few calls to pass the ERA
- there were relatively few calls to abolish capital punishment
- there were fewer calls than I expected for an end to drug prohibition/ a right to privacy
- fewer calls think I'd have expected to make health care a right, and I think a right to housing and available food and clean water should also be considered.
- as with modifying the 2A, I was a little surprised not to see folks wanting to expand 1A protections to electronic media. Many feel that this is inferred. I'd assert that, like the right to privacy, it's possibly time to spell it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:25 AM

124. amazing that i didnt see ERA mentioned up thread...

it may be in the body of a post but i doubt it.

we have flown so far right that ideas like the ERA are simply gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Reply #124)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:27 AM

126. It's in a few posts

Specifically - I mentioned it in the 9 amendments I'd propose.

ETA: I thought I'd see it more, however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:29 AM

129. Burn it, don't write another one.

 

Constitutions have a habit of going out of date and being fetishized.

The US attitude towards the Constitution is pretty much that of Muslims towards the Koran, and the conservatism of that attitude, more than anything that's actually in the Constitution, is what makes change so difficult.

You don't actually need a constitution other than what's in the common law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frizzled (Reply #129)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:45 AM

134. Disagree 100%

 

For example, without the First Amendment you'll have prayer in school, states favoring Christianity, prosecution for "hate" speech (which might be whatever the authorities want it to be), etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frizzled (Reply #129)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:48 AM

135. Agreed. We should not worship a piece of paper but adhere to the concepts it spells out.

 

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #135)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 12:57 PM

143. We can't get some states

 

To follow the Constitution as is. Without it there's zero chance (for example) that abortion would be legal in many states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:50 AM

137. Make the presidential campaign public funded and have a 60 day period for

primary and a 60 period for national elections. Make all citizens vote or pay a fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 12:41 PM

139. Change the senate to reflect population.

It just really irks me that 1 million people in Montana have the same political power as 38 million people in California.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnionPatch (Reply #139)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 01:55 PM

145. That's the nature of the 'grand compromise'

It sets competitively other measures of representation in the House and Senate.

The house has representatives apportioned by districts based on population.
The senate has representative apportioned equally by state.

This insures that states are equally represented in one body, while population is represented equally in the other.

While I'm not sure about the 2 year terms vs 6 year terms, compared to compromises of the most recent administrations...this TRULY is a GREAT compromise



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #145)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 01:02 PM

146. I do understand that.

I just don't like it very much. It feels very anti-democratic to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnionPatch (Reply #146)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 05:58 PM

161. It does create one venue where tyranny of the majority can't be practiced

And preventing tyranny of the majority is anti-democratics...but in a good way, I think

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:25 PM

151. 1 Protect the right to peacefully grow and use plants.

2 No elected official or government employee can make more than the median household income level.

3 elections will be publically funded and equal time will be given to all candidates. taking of donations or bribe money will not be allowed.

im sure i could come up with more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WDIM (Reply #151)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:32 PM

155. My problem with #2 is that it invites corruption

...or it invites people to run for office who are independently wealthy, which is sometimes done for noble intentions and sometimes not.

Under your amendment, it would become nearly impossible for the VA or military to hire doctors; nearly impossible for DOJ to hire attorneys; difficult for the military academies to hire science and engineering professionals.

I'll tell you what I would do -- I'd rewrite the tax code to index the highest tax rate to 10 times median income, and tax that at a rate north of 50%. I have nothing against wealthy people, but I'm not looking to have an aristocracy in America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:31 PM

154. Corporations are not people. Money is not speech. The ERA is law.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 06:05 PM

162. men are corruptable

and therefore all of their institutions are subject to that corruption as well as to misreason and wrongfull judgement. I would like to see a constitutional provision for inititiave, review and recall on both federal and state levels.

As a balance to the constitutions oligarchic bias. More voices, more democracy.

As a natural control of money in politics. Every elected rep and all judges face recall.

To give the people the ability and the process to hold gov.t accountable through citizen involvement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 06:21 PM

163. No gerrymandering.

Guns must be licensed and insured in the same way automobiles are, including firearms training prior to licensure and owners of guns are responsible for all damages that result from their weapon by anyone unless the gun has been reported as stolen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 08:04 PM

166. Make the 2A an unquestionable individual right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 08:26 PM

168. make 2A so even REALLY STUPID PEOPLE can understand it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #168)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 08:54 PM

170. I agree

Post #166 should take care of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 08:56 PM

171. Might as well give the 2a crowd something to complain about for the next few years

This is what I'd do to their favorite amendment.



Yes, I just committed thought crime. My views are not approved of by the NRA. Sue me. We still have a First Amendment, despite the gun lobby's efforts to do away with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 08:56 PM

172. I would most definitely NOT

It would set a precedent to Amend the constitution on a whim. We have a very simple process for amending the constitution on MO and because of it we have term limits, a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget and all tax increases must be voter approved.
I can''t name them all off hand, but those are two of the most desctructive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 09:03 PM

174. term limits for Supreme Court Justices. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 09:26 PM

178. I wouldn't fiddle with it very

much unless a Panel comprised of Amy Goodman, Barbara Boxer, Congressman John Lewis, Gary Hart, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Congressman Raul Grijalva, Robert Redford, Congressman Keith Ellison, Wendell Berry, Sherrod Brown, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were very heavily involved in the delegate selection process.

That's a sampling. There are many more progressives who could be involved.

Abbot's notion is to squash the remaining elements of the New Deal and to assist the establishment of government-as-theocracy. We need an all-star progressive line-up to stop him in his tracks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 09:33 PM

179. I can think of a few things.

Pass the ERA - should have been done a long time ago.

Repeal the Second Amendment. The days of citizens militias are over. Is it any wonder nobody takes Yokel Haram's game of play-soldier seriously? Firearms should be strongly regulated, and people who want to possess them, for hunting or whatever, should have to get a license. Same as getting a driver's license. And have no violent criminal record.

Switch the House of Representatives to proportional representation instead of first-past-the-post winner-takes-all single-member-districts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread