Poll: How should the US Constitution be ammended

[aerosolben]

Perhaps we could weight the votes slightly differently from different states. Not enough to give Montana the power to cancel out California, but just a tiny tweak. Unfair? Yep. It will never happen.

Actually, we already do that - electoral representation is equivalent to Congressional representation, so smaller states have more electors per capita.

 

[dudalb]

I would abolish the electoral college, abolish the Senate, include balanced budget, include public financing of elections, include public education, include public healthcare, include explicit right to privacy, make the government unitary, not federal, include proportional representation, include instant run off voting, include equal rights amendment, include pacifist amendment (Military action must be defense of the nation or an ally and approved by Congress), include the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, include environmental defense, include rights of Native Americans and treaties to be recognized.

Okay, maybe I might re-write the whole thing .

If you want to turn the US into a Soviet style socialist state, just be honest and say so.

 

[Darth Rotor]

To the well intentioned person who posted the poll:

The Constitution should be amended per the language in the Constitution, which is contained herein:

Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Internet polls aren't part of the process, unless the founding fathers really intended that mental masturbation be part of the amendment process. See the proposed ERA for a good example of the process at work in relatively recent times.

You want something done? Do it by the means already provided. Foreigners don't get a vote.

DR

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I would abolish the electoral college, abolish the Senate, include balanced budget, include public financing of elections, include public education, include public healthcare, include explicit right to privacy, make the government unitary, not federal, include proportional representation, include instant run off voting, include equal rights amendment, include pacifist amendment (Military action must be defense of the nation or an ally and approved by Congress), include the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, include environmental defense, include rights of Native Americans and treaties to be recognized.

Okay, maybe I might re-write the whole thing .

Soviet State?

To trolls, they are still the same.

If you want to turn the US into a Soviet style socialist state, just be honest and say so.

Guess what is next.


:13:

 

[aerosolben]

You want something done? Do it by the means already provided.

Thanks, Debbie Downer.

Perhaps next you should head over to the "Bands who should have gone on to greater things thread" in the Entertainment forum, and point out that bands succeed by not just by developing loyal followings, but also wooing record executives and keeping up with popular taste in music.

 

[gdnp]

If you want to turn the US into a Soviet style socialist state, just be honest and say so.

I don't think Tsukasa Buddha needs my defense, but let's break this down

I would abolish the electoral college,
abolish the Senate,
include balanced budget,
include public financing of elections,
include public education,
include public healthcare,
include explicit right to privacy,
make the government unitary, not federal,
include proportional representation,
include instant run off voting,
include equal rights amendment,
include pacifist amendment (Military action must be defense of the nation or an ally and approved by Congress),
include the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
include environmental defense,
include rights of Native Americans and treaties to be recognized.

Jerome, dudalb: which of these provisions do you see as typical of a "Soviet style socialist state"? Public financing of elections (supported by that commie, John McCain), public education (which we already have), and public healthcare (which everyone but us already has) and making the government "unitary, not federal" are the only suggestions I see as remotely "soviet style." The other eleven are either anti-soviet or neutral.

 

[gdnp]

Internet polls aren't part of the process, unless the founding fathers really intended that mental masturbation be part of the amendment process. See the proposed ERA for a good example of the process at work in relatively recent times.

Oops. You see, the internet poll was just gonna be the first step. Once I had a good idea I was going to, like, write it up on an email, forward it to everyone I know, and have them forward it to everyone they know, and when we get up to, like, 200 signatures the person forwards it on to the head of the congress or the supreme court or whatever, and then it would get to be a law.

How silly of me. Thank you for the most instructive lesson in constitutional law. I know better now.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

John McCain is a commie.


Check his voting record.




ETA: Which of these does John McCain not support?

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

 

[Piggy]

I would turn the question around: Is the constitution perfect?

I don't believe that's the standard.

It's the longest running one we've got on the planet currently.

It's allowed the US to become a superpower -- at least in the sense that it didn't prevent it.

People risk death to get into this country.

If you want to change the Constitution, seems to me you've got to make a pretty strong case.

 

[gdnp]

John McCain is a commie.


Check his voting record.




ETA: Which of these does John McCain not support?

Which of these are constitutional ammendments and thus relevant to the thread?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Oops. You see, the internet poll was just gonna be the first step. Once I had a good idea I was going to, like, write it up on an email, forward it to everyone I know, and have them forward it to everyone they know, and when we get up to, like, 200 signatures the person forwards it on to the head of the congress or the supreme court or whatever, and then it would get to be a law.

How silly of me. Thank you for the most instructive lesson in constitutional law. I know better now.

Thanks for the smart alec reply.

All you are doing here is jacking off. You want something to change? That's damned hard work.

So, are you a poser, or a doer of deeds?

Only you know.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Thanks, Debbie Downer.

Perhaps next you should head over to the "Bands who should have gone on to greater things thread" in the Entertainment forum, and point out that bands succeed by not just by developing loyal followings, but also wooing record executives and keeping up with popular taste in music.

You think you are being funny. Jacking off, mentally, about amending the Constitution is political pornography of the most pathetic sort.

You want to change something?

Stop jacking off, and get to doing something.

This isn't where anything will happen. JREF forums are Whoville, and Horton ain't listening.

DR

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Which of these are constitutional ammendments and thus relevant to the thread?

It followed from your response. This is a conversation, yes?

I don't think Tsukasa Buddha needs my defense, but let's break this down

I would abolish the electoral college,
abolish the Senate,
include balanced budget,
include public financing of elections,
include public education,
include public healthcare,
include explicit right to privacy,
make the government unitary, not federal,
include proportional representation,
include instant run off voting,
include equal rights amendment,
include pacifist amendment (Military action must be defense of the nation or an ally and approved by Congress),
include the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
include environmental defense,
include rights of Native Americans and treaties to be recognized.

Jerome, dudalb: which of these provisions do you see as typical of a "Soviet style socialist state"? Public financing of elections (supported by that commie, John McCain), public education (which we already have), and public healthcare (which everyone but us already has) and making the government "unitary, not federal" are the only suggestions I see as remotely "soviet style." The other eleven are either anti-soviet or neutral.

:13:

 

[gdnp]

I don't believe that's the standard.

It's the longest running one we've got on the planet currently.

It's allowed the US to become a superpower -- at least in the sense that it didn't prevent it.

People risk death to get into this country.

If you want to change the Constitution, seems to me you've got to make a pretty strong case.

As Darth Rotor has so politely pointed out there is a pretty high bar to amending the constitution. Because of that some ideas that I think are good ones, like the ERA, were not passed. I do not see the harm in discussing what other people think it lacks. This is in no way different than discussing whether a VAT or flat tax would be better than the current income tax.

If I did, Darth would probably refer us to this link.

 

[Piggy]

As Darth Rotor has so politely pointed out there is a pretty high bar to amending the constitution. Because of that some ideas that I think are good ones, like the ERA, were not passed. I do not see the harm in discussing what other people think it lacks. This is in no way different than discussing whether a VAT or flat tax would be better than the current income tax.

If I did, Darth would probably refer us to this link.

You'll get no argument from me.

I'm a big fan of free speech.

I'm also a fan of that high bar.

The political winds always seem to blow stronger at low altitudes.

 

[gdnp]

It followed from your response. This is a conversation, yes?

:13:

Yes. Tsukasa Buddha posted a list of proposed CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.

You suggested that a Soviet state was being proposed.

I listed the AMENDMENTS and asked which you considered typical of a Soviet State, and included an off-hand comment on John McCain supporting public financing of elections.

Instead of responding, you attempted to derail the thread with a list of irrelevancies which are NOT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, trying to prove that John McCain is a commie.

That is not a conversation.

That is trolling.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The political winds always seem to blow stronger at low altitudes.

This is why Democracy does not work.

Good thing we have a Republic.


:13:

 

[gdnp]

Thanks for the smart alec reply.

All you are doing here is jacking off. You want something to change? That's damned hard work.

So, are you a poser, or a doer of deeds?

Only you know.

DR

What does that make you, a voyeur?

I would suggest that before launching a crusade to change the constitution, that due diligence would suggest that it would be worthwhile to determine whether change is advisable and whether it is achievable.

As to the first question, soliciting the opinions of others who may have thought about these issues in more depth than I have seemed a reasonable course. Regarding the latter, a poll seemed a reasonable way to gauge opinion of the JREF. Clearly this forum is not indicative of the US population as a whole--I think libertarians are overrepresented--but at least it is a start. I think the contribution of non-US citizens is a plus, not a minus, as they bring a different perspective.

There was the added advantage of giving me insight on some of the posters here. I have only been around for a few months, and it takes a while to be able to differentiate the hypercritical jerks and trolls from those who have something to contribute.

 

[aerosolben]

You think you are being funny.

While you, sir, are deadly serious about sexually pleasuring people with centuries-old pieces of parchment.

You want to change something?

Stop jacking off, and get to doing something.

This isn't where anything will happen. JREF forums are Whoville, and Horton ain't listening.

Do you really think the thread participants are under the impression that their congressional representatives are perusing this very thread looking for bold new political initiatives?

This a thread for idle speculation on constitutional amendments. Should we delete all the threads in the politics forum that aren't directly concerned with planning protests, coordinating petitions of elected representatives, and other topics directly related to "doing something"? Or perhaps conscientiously object to participating in them?

I suspect the vast majority of the traffic on this board is devoted to topics you seem to consider masturbatory. If you (or anyone else) want to seriously discuss how to get particular amendment passed, this is not the thread (or even perhaps forum) for you.

 

[aerosolben]

Clearly this forum is not indicative of the US population as a whole--I think libertarians are overrepresented--

Heh - welcome to the Internet - a vast wonderland of atheist libertarian IT workers who know exactly what needs to be done to save the poor ignorant souls around them from themselves.