Constitutional Changes

[Wild Cobra]

I was starting to respond to a post in the thread after Obama retires... (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161123) then decided it was best to create a separate topic.


you mean people are suppose to follow the consitution?

if people would get rid of the ammendents and go back to the consitution usa would be better off
If we got rid of most after the Bill of Rights, I would agree.

I think we should repeal the following:

Section 1 of the 14th amendment.

The 17th Amendment.

The 24th amendment.

The 26th amendment.

Repeal the 1929 change to 2 USC CHAPTER 1 and eliminate the 435 cap on representatives. This will effectively restore it to the 1 representative for every 30,000 or so citizens as originally laid out in the constitution.

Add an amendment (or more) as follows pertaining to congress:

No person shall hold consecutive terms in congress. They may serve multiple times, just not consecutively. There will also be no campaigning for other offices while being a congressional member. (Work for your pay dammit.)

Politics is not to be a career, but a service to government by it's citizens. Therefore, there will be no pension. Standard retirement packages with no matching funds like a 401k, 403b, or TSP can be established. A standard medical insurance package can be in place, but no more than 80% will be paid for by the tax payers. (You are one of us. Not an elitist.)

The winner of an election shall receive at least 50% of the votes. Otherwise, run-off elections will occur as needed until a candidate receives more than 50%. (No more squeezing out 3rd party candidates.)

Citizenship is not automatic by being born here. If any legal resident to these states wants their child to be a citizen, it will be granted, with no exception. If neither parent is legal, the child must use normal naturalization procedures that are established. (No more anchor babies.)

---

Who has thoughts?

[Blake]

Citizenship is not automatic by being born here. If any legal resident to these states wants their child to be a citizen, it will be granted, with no exception. If neither parent is legal, the child must use normal naturalization procedures that are established. (No more anchor babies.)


Why are 'anchor babies' a problem for you?

[Blake]

I would get rid of, or at the least, make amendments regarding the electoral college.

[Wild Cobra]

Why are 'anchor babies' a problem for you?
Why do you accept such a thing?

Do you realize we already allow more than a million people a year here in the USA by legal means of immigration? There are several reasons why allowing anchor babies is a problem. I guess if you were a concerned tax payer, it would concern you. I guess you just don't pay enough in taxes to care.

[Wild Cobra]

I would get rid of, or at the least, make amendments regarding the electoral college.
You could be more specific you know...

[Galileo]

I was starting to respond to a post in the thread after Obama retires... (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161123) then decided it was best to create a separate topic.


If we got rid of most after the Bill of Rights, I would agree.

You're not serious, are you?


I think we should repeal the following:

Section 1 of the 14th amendment.

Bad idea. This is one of the most critical parts of the US Constitution. It protects us from tyrannical state governments.


The 17th Amendment.

Yes. This is the most horrible amendment ever passed. It turned us from a republic to a degenerating democracy.


The 24th amendment.

This was a good amendment. Keep it. We don't need poll taxes.


The 26th amendment.

This is another good amendment. Adults should be able to vote, even if they are 18, 19, or 20. However, when this amendment was passed, congressional districts should have been reduced in size. We have way too big congressional districts these days.


Repeal the 1929 change to 2 USC CHAPTER 1 and eliminate the 435 cap on representatives. This will effectively restore it to the 1 representative for every 30,000 or so citizens as originally laid out in the constitution.

This is a great idea, of huge importance. The ideal number of House seats for our population is about 1700. In other words, divide each district into 4 districts.


Add an amendment (or more) as follows pertaining to congress:

No person shall hold consecutive terms in congress. They may serve multiple times, just not consecutively. There will also be no campaigning for other offices while being a congressional member. (Work for your pay dammit.)

Not really a good idea. If you are going to have term limits, then 12 years would be better.


Politics is not to be a career, but a service to government by it's citizens. Therefore, there will be no pension. Standard retirement packages with no matching funds like a 401k, 403b, or TSP can be established. A standard medical insurance package can be in place, but no more than 80% will be paid for by the tax payers. (You are one of us. Not an elitist.)

Not a good idea. Something similar was suggested by Ben Franklin at the Constitutional Convention, but drew little support. If congressman don't get good pay they are easier to bribe.


The winner of an election shall receive at least 50% of the votes. Otherwise, run-off elections will occur as needed until a candidate receives more than 50%. (No more squeezing out 3rd party candidates.)

A very good idea.


Citizenship is not automatic by being born here. If any legal resident to these states wants their child to be a citizen, it will be granted, with no exception. If neither parent is legal, the child must use normal naturalization procedures that are established. (No more anchor babies.)

Might be OK.


---

Who has thoughts?

Galileo does.

[Parker2112]

one point: Immigration only comes up during down economic times. when times get skinny, we tend to turn on illegals as an easy scapegoat. When times are fat, no one minds them coming in and working like dogs for little pay or worse, to earn a check and have the boss not pay them and call la migra so he wont have to.

My point: if we were taking care of business, this issue would be a non-issue. If we would bring home the boys and stop with the bullshit wars, and stop letting Wallstreet siphon every drop of cream from our battered economy, the immigrant workers wouldnt be a problem.

This is just another "hide the ball" argument by govt officials who dont want to have to deal with the real corruption that is destroying the country while lining their own pockets. Just like the many other arguments (abortion, religion in classrooms, sex ed, etc) that are instigated to divide the populous when real changes are undesirable to the ruling class.

moot issue.

take corrupt politicians to task. regulate wall st, but for reals this time. get $ out of politics, not more into politics as is being done. cut off the leeches that are draining our country. and immigrants do not fall into that class, as they at least give something back.

wake up sheeples.

[Galileo]

I would get rid of, or at the least, make amendments regarding the electoral college.

Bad idea. The Electoral College leaves the selection of the president to the states and retains some semblance of a republic. It also make the president independent of congress. And it works better in times of political instability would could happen in the future and have happened in the past.

The idea was from James Madison and Gouverneur Morris.

[elbamba]

I would get rid of, or at the least, make amendments regarding the electoral college.

Would you determine the presidency based on who wins more states or who wins the popular vote?

[Blake]

There are several reasons why allowing anchor babies is a problem. I guess if you were a concerned tax payer, it would concern you. I guess you just don't pay enough in taxes to care.

List the reasons.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, how are we threatened by Jim Henson's anchor babies?

[boutons_deux]

Here's an outstanding southern, white Repug asshole (is there any other kind?)

Republicans Hot, Cold On Constitution

Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia won his seat in Congress campaigning as a strict defender of the Constitution. He carries a copy in his pocket and is particularly fond of invoking the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

But it turns out there are parts of the document he doesn't care for – lots of them. He wants to get rid of the language about birthright citizenship, federal income taxes and direct election of senators, among others. He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists.

Republicans have proposed at least 42 Constitutional amendments in the current Congress

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/republicans-hot-cold-on-c_n_690745.html?view=print

==========

Repugs are 0-42 with their amendments. Losers! :lol

Nothing but childish, base-inflaming grandstanding, which is very astute politicking, since their base is infantile assholes with tempers like 2-year-olds.

[Winehole23]

Are you in love with asshole republicans, b_d?

[Winehole23]

Seems to me you'd fit right in if they're at all like you say.

[Winehole23]

0-42. Losers!

[Winehole23]

Have you considered that in the ecstasy of your disgust and the delirium of your fantasy of revenge, you begin to resemble what you hate?

[Winehole23]

Srsly dude. The ironing is thick.

[boutons_deux]

WH, GFY and all your scumbag ASSHOLE REPUG friends.

[spursncowboys]

You're not serious, are you?



Bad idea. This is one of the most critical parts of the US Constitution. It protects us from tyrannical state governments.



Yes. This is the most horrible amendment ever passed. It turned us from a republic to a degenerating democracy.



This was a good amendment. Keep it. We don't need poll taxes.



This is another good amendment. Adults should be able to vote, even if they are 18, 19, or 20. However, when this amendment was passed, congressional districts should have been reduced in size. We have way too big congressional districts these days.



This is a great idea, of huge importance. The ideal number of House seats for our population is about 1700. In other words, divide each district into 4 districts.



Not really a good idea. If you are going to have term limits, then 12 years would be better.



Not a good idea. Something similar was suggested by Ben Franklin at the Constitutional Convention, but drew little support. If congressman don't get good pay they are easier to bribe.


A very good idea.


Might be OK.



Galileo does.
I agree with your assessment of wc's assessment.

[spursncowboys]

taking the states' power to select their senator and create super size congressional districts are problems. Tweaking problems that can build a better and more workable congress. Working 10 years IMO should be the limit.

[Parker2112]

Have you considered that in the ecstasy of your disgust and the delirium of your fantasy of revenge, you begin to resemble what you hate?

CeZeAgpp5D4

[boutons_deux]

Have you considered that in the ecstasy of your disgust and the delirium of your fantasy of revenge, you begin to resemble what you hate?

If right-wingers and Repugs wanna play bad ass(holes), they can expect plenty of push back from me.

WH, asshole licker, list for me all the wonderful progress and uplifting, civilizing, progressive accomplishments Repugs have led America with these last 35 years. The Repugs and VRWC have NO redeeming characteristics, none.

[Drachen]

I know that this is unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but when I read the part about removing the limit on the amount of congressmen, all I could think of was a ton of portables littering the capitol lawn.

[Parker2112]

If right-wingers and Repugs wanna play bad ass(holes), they can expect plenty of push back from me.

WH, asshole licker, list for me all the wonderful progress and uplifting, civilizing, progressive accomplishments Repugs have led America with these last 35 years. The Repugs and VRWC have NO redeeming characteristics, none.

LUXCaXSTmns

[Blake]

Would you determine the presidency based on who wins more states or who wins the popular vote?

Eh. I think popular vote, but I'm open to other options and long as we fix the current electoral college system which is flawed and outdated, imo.

[Blake]

Bad idea. The Electoral College leaves the selection of the president to the states and retains some semblance of a republic. It also make the president independent of congress. And it works better in times of political instability would could happen in the future and have happened in the past.

The idea was from James Madison and Gouverneur Morris.

Why would a popular vote make the president dependent on Congress?

I think the Electoral College solidifies a two party system which at base, I don't like and I feel has failed us in several elections.

[Galileo]

Why would a popular vote make the president dependent on Congress?

It doesn't. I was just explaining why the Founders created it. They didn;t was a "prime minister".


I think the Electoral College solidifies a two party system which at base, I don't like and I feel has failed us in several elections.

The Electoral College does benefit the two party system. But I think retaining state control over presidential elections is more important.

I support the 2/3 rule. I think the Electoral College should require a 2/3 vote for election, just like the College of Cardinals selects the Popes. If no candidate gets 2/3, then a compromise candidate must be found when the election is thrown to the House, which could be a third party or independent candidate.

[CosmicCowboy]

I know that this is unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but when I read the part about removing the limit on the amount of congressmen, all I could think of was a ton of portables littering the capitol lawn.

Nope, they need to have a local office in their district and tele-commute from there. Keep em out of Washington and away from K-Street.

[Blake]

It doesn't. I was just explaining why the Founders created it. They didn;t was a "prime minister".

I understand why they needed an electoral college back in the day. I don't think we need it any more.


The Electoral College does benefit the two party system. But I think retaining state control over presidential elections is more important.

Why?

[TeyshaBlue]

I understand why they needed an electoral college back in the day. I don't think we need it any more.


I dunno, Blake. Remember all those Red State, Blue State maps?

That kinda looked like a case for continuance of the EC to me.

[Drachen]

Nope, they need to have a local office in their district and tele-commute from there. Keep em out of Washington and away from K-Street.

This idea has my seal of approval.

[SnakeBoy]

asshole licker

Ah, I see you've replaced pussy licker in favor of a new insult. Very creative change you've made.

[Galileo]

I understand why they needed an electoral college back in the day. I don't think we need it any more.

If you think we should have a more decentralized republic rather than a centralized democracy, then the Electoral College is preferable. As I stated earlier, in a situation of turmoil, the Electoral College works better. For example, presidential elections were held during the Civil War and the War of 1812, and went pretty smooth thanks to the Electoral College.

Why?[/QUOTE]

Because a third party candidate that got 10%, or even 20% of the vote, usually gets 0% in the Electoral College. For example, Ross Perot got 19% of the popular votes, but 0 votes in the Electoral College.

[LnGrrrR]

The whole "term limits and 5000 representatives" is a perfect way to ensure that nothing ever gets done in government... which is probably why WC likes them. :lol

[admiralsnackbar]

The whole "term limits and 5000 representatives" is a perfect way to ensure that nothing ever gets done in government... which is probably why WC likes them. :lol

It's also easier to buy off 5k representatives than have any sort of ethical and fiscal oversight in place to keep them honest. Pass on this idea.

[Galileo]

The whole "term limits and 5000 representatives" is a perfect way to ensure that nothing ever gets done in government... which is probably why WC likes them. :lol

Using an implied formula by James Madison, the ideal size of the House for our current population would be about 1700 to 1800. That translates to a House district size of below 200,000 per district.

[Wild Cobra]

List the reasons.
Why should I Chump?

I have explained the financial drain on the Social services in the past. Most the reasons deal with that, and the ones who practice identity theft to secure jobs. I'm not going to spend time elaborating.

Illegal is bad...

Repeat that 500 times, or write it on the chalkboard 500 time...

[Wild Cobra]

I know that this is unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but when I read the part about removing the limit on the amount of congressmen, all I could think of was a ton of portables littering the capitol lawn.
It was practical to limit them back in the day. Today with modern communications, we could rightfully expect them top stay at their home office. No more DC offices, DC lobbying, etc. Some or all can meet during traditional certain events, but they can conduct all their day to day business right at home.

[Wild Cobra]

Eh. I think popular vote, but I'm open to other options and long as we fix the current electoral college system which is flawed and outdated, imo.
The electoral college was made so each region has a voice. If we did popular vote only, candidates would only focus on the largest cities. This would effectively disenfranchise smaller communities from the process.

[Wild Cobra]

The whole "term limits and 5000 representatives" is a perfect way to ensure that nothing ever gets done in government... which is probably why WC likes them. :lol
Things can still get done. Just harder for an individual to influence a large amount of the vote. Representatives would be closer to their constituents. harder for special interests to buy x% of a vote.

I think it would become more reflective of the will of the people, rather than the elitists.

[Wild Cobra]

Using an implied formula by James Madison, the ideal size of the House for our current population would be about 1700 to 1800. That translates to a House district size of below 200,000 per district.
If we went to the 3 per 100,000, we would have over 3,000 representatives after this census.

[LnGrrrR]

Things can still get done. Just harder for an individual to influence a large amount of the vote. Representatives would be closer to their constituents. harder for special interests to buy x% of a vote.

I think it would become more reflective of the will of the people, rather than the elitists.

I would say that there are pros and cons. You and I both know, the bigger an organization gets, the harder it is to coordinate functions etc etc. If there were 1800 or so House Members, it would be hard to coordinate functions. You could probably have 4 or 5 people still working on a bill, but maybe there's 10 groups of 4 or 5 working on different versions of the same bill. There would have to be self-imposed levels of leadership I'm thinking.

I do think that it would be harder to buy off more people without it being noticeable, and it would also draw a greater distinction between the House and Senate.

I don't think you'd need term limits though if you magnified the House of Reps that much. I'm ok with some long-term Congressman, as they most likely know how to craft a bill (for a personal example, it's just like how people who've been at a base longer know the network better than new people, even if those new people know more about networking in general).

[Blake]

Why should I Chump?

because you are the one that claimed there are several reasons, dumbfuck.


I have explained the financial drain on the Social services in the past. Most the reasons deal with that, and the ones who practice identity theft to secure jobs. I'm not going to spend time elaborating.

of course you're not.

par for the course with you.


Illegal is bad...

Repeat that 500 times, or write it on the chalkboard 500 time...


Everything illegal is bad?

:lol x 500

[Blake]

If you think we should have a more decentralized republic rather than a centralized democracy, then the Electoral College is preferable. As I stated earlier, in a situation of turmoil, the Electoral College works better. For example, presidential elections were held during the Civil War and the War of 1812, and went pretty smooth thanks to the Electoral College.


As I stated earlier, it's outdated imo, and you pretty much confirmed it.

Of course, even in the 1876 election, the electoral college system was a sloppy mess.


Because a third party candidate that got 10%, or even 20% of the vote, usually gets 0% in the Electoral College. For example, Ross Perot got 19% of the popular votes, but 0 votes in the Electoral College.

that doesn't really explain why you think retaining state control over presidential elections is more important.

[Blake]

The electoral college was made so each region has a voice. If we did popular vote only, candidates would only focus on the largest cities. This would effectively disenfranchise smaller communities from the process.

so smaller communities don't have access to cable TV or the internets?

I wasn't aware.

[RandomGuy]

1 representative for every 30,000 or so citizens as originally laid out in the constitution.

----

Who has thoughts?

I think 10,000 congressional representatives would be a Very Bad Idea.

10,000 elections every two years?

Who would pay for their travel? Health care? Salaries? Staff salaries?

Name your local city council off the top of your head. Now figure that you move a mile or two away, and change representatives.

It would have some advantages, but I don't think the cost/benefit would be there.

[ChumpDumper]

Damn, Wild Cobra is arguing for a massive expansion of the federal government.

[admiralsnackbar]

Damn, Wild Cobra is arguing for a massive expansion of the federal government.

Nah, congressional districts would just send their representatives to Washington with drastically less money to vanish into a cloud of politicians that is orders of magnitude larger than the present one our journalists and watchdog agencies can scarcely cover already.

What could go wrong?