Reply With Quote
Why are 'anchor babies' a problem for you?
I was starting to respond to a post in the thread after Obama retires... then decided it was best to create a separate topic.
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 cons ution.
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?
Why are 'anchor babies' a problem for you?
I would get rid of, or at the least, make amendments regarding the electoral college.
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.
You could be more specific you know...
You're not serious, are you?
Bad idea. This is one of the most critical parts of the US Cons ution. It protects us from tyrannical state governments.I think we should repeal the following:
Section 1 of the 14th amendment.
Yes. This is the most horrible amendment ever passed. It turned us from a republic to a degenerating democracy.The 17th Amendment.
This was a good amendment. Keep it. We don't need poll taxes.The 24th 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.The 26th amendment.
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.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 cons ution.
Not really a good idea. If you are going to have term limits, then 12 years would be better.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 a good idea. Something similar was suggested by Ben Franklin at the Cons utional Convention, but drew little support. If congressman don't get good pay they are easier to bribe.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.)
A very good idea.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.)
Might be OK.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.)
Galileo does.---
Who has thoughts?
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 bull 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.
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.
Would you determine the presidency based on who wins more states or who wins the popular vote?
List the reasons.
Yeah, how are we threatened by Jim Henson's anchor babies?
Here's an outstanding southern, white Repug asshole (is there any other kind?)
Republicans Hot, Cold On Cons ution
Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia won his seat in Congress campaigning as a strict defender of the Cons ution. 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 do ent 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 Cons utional amendments in the current Congress
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0...tml?view=print
==========
Repugs are 0-42 with their amendments. Losers!
Nothing but childish, base-inflaming grandstanding, which is very astute politicking, since their base is infantile assholes with tempers like 2-year-olds.
Are you in love with asshole republicans, b_d?
Seems to me you'd fit right in if they're at all like you say.
0-42. Losers!
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?
Srsly dude. The ironing is thick.
WH, GFY and all your s bag ASSHOLE REPUG friends.
I agree with your assessment of wc's assessment.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
