[sarcasm]So, a bunch of Occupiers voted in an NPR poll. I'm supposed to care, why?[/sarcasm]

I read the radio.

Stupid liberals, they seem to think the 14th Amendment only applies to welfare queens and illegals, and not everyone. Case in point, this. If corporations weren't people, would they have the right to free speech? I think not. We let illegals vote, so why can't corporations spend their money how they see fit in elections?

Bukharin: I read the radio.

My work here is done.

America is a great country, or it would be if half of the population wasn't made up of terrible people who have stupid opinions about everything.

vartian: You got all the words right, but there's no heart in it.

Eh, not trolling so much as openly mocking.

RexTalionis: What I would like to see:
1) A right to recall sitting Senators. (Congressmen are exempt because they have to rerun every 2 years)
2) A codified version of the right to privacy, as opposed to one that emanates from the penumbra of the Constitution.
3) An amendment that removes Congress's ability to restrict the jurisdiction of the Judiciary.

There's probably more, but I can't think of any at the moment.

A revision of the 4th Amendment is also necessary to clarify the effects of modern technology.

I'll tell you what. The second a corporation is thrown in jail or executed under the applicable laws of this nation, then I will recognize them as people. Until then, they are entities with special rights above those of people by all accounts.

RexTalionis: 2) A codified version of the right to privacy, as opposed to one that emanates from the penumbra of the Constitution.

I can't speak to the rest, but this one strikes my fancy. It seems European privacy laws are much more in favor of the citizen than ours here in America. This is one import that would be a terrific boon for us, but you better believe that the manufacturers and service providers who mine our every move so they can sell it to ad-revenuers would spend every last cent they have buying congress critters in an effort to crush it flatter than the the height of a single atom.

\Run on sentence. Sorry.

Warlordtrooper: cmcnabb314: Funny, I read the one about abolishing the electoral college as "We the people of New York, California, and Texas"

Funny you say that considering that the current system basically means all the people in NY, Cal, and Texas get ignored. I'm so glad you think its great that our votes should count for nothing.

I'm so glad that you think that they should count for everything.

There. Now we've both posted simplistic, dishonest, pointlessly defensive horseshiat and totally advanced the discussion meaningfully.

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: [sarcasm]So, a bunch of Occupiers voted in an NPR poll. I'm supposed to care, why?[/sarcasm]

This is fark; just let the sarcasm fly tagless and then watch what happens, especially if you're the Boobieser.

/If that last bit didn't make sense, I probably got filterpwn'd

No member of Congress shall become a lobbyist or a consultant for anyone or any company or business doing business with the United States government once they have completed their service in Congress, nor shall any member of their immediate family.

As written, that is a horrible idea. I think that reform along those lines isn't a bad idea, but "consultant" is a very broad term, and the amount of companies or businesses doing business with the United States Government isn't exactly small.

RexTalionis: 2) A codified version of the right to privacy, as opposed to one that emanates from the penumbra of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, I'm guessing that in the minds of half of all Americans the phrase "right to privacy" is inextricably linked to abortion, and as such it'd never fly.

(Well, that and, you know, all the various interests allied against personal privacy. )

that bosnian sniper: Stupid liberals, they seem to think the 14th Amendment only applies to welfare queens and illegals, and not everyone. Case in point, this. If corporations weren't people, would they have the right to free speech? I think not. We let illegals vote, so why can't corporations spend their money how they see fit in elections?

1/10
The syntax and grammar are correctly formed, but the combined words only reveal whargarble.

The first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


There is nothing about the right of citizens or people for freedom of speech, only freedom of speech in general. That freedom of speech in general would apply to every entity.

That being said, there may be a case to prohibit corporations from peacefully assembling, and petitioning the Government for redress of grievances. That right is made for the people.

The Electoral College gave us George W. Bush, with his wars, tax cuts on the rich, and ruined economy, despite the fact that his opponent got half a million more votes than he did.

If that isn't a reason to abolish it, what is?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.

Lanctwa: There is nothing about the right of citizens or people for freedom of speech, only freedom of speech in general. That freedom of speech in general would apply to every entity.

Money is not speech. Perhaps the amendment should say that. When money is considered speech, rich people (and corporations) are suddenly more equal than everyone else.

As of Dec. 20, you've voted to abolish the Electoral College, to limit campaign contributions from corporations, to deny corporations the rights of citizens and to prohibit members of Congress from lobbying once they leave office

Wow. Why does these need to be codified as Amendments to the Constitution?

If you want to stop having corporations having a say in the "process", stop taxing them and tell them to f**k off.

GAT_00: Lanctwa: There is nothing about the right of citizens or people for freedom of speech, only freedom of speech in general. That freedom of speech in general would apply to every entity.

But money cannot and should not equal speech.

I agree. Speech isn't art. Speech isn't burning a flag. Speech is spoken word, and only spoken word.

Press means printed news material.

cmcnabb314: Funny, I read the one about abolishing the electoral college as "We the people of New York, California, and Texas"

Those sons of biatches! How dare they want their vote to be equal to the votes of people from smaller states?

I thought the more interesting part was the amendments that didn't pass. The respondents tended to show some restraint.

GameSprocket: I thought the more interesting part was the amendments that didn't pass. The respondents tended to show some restraint.

Agreed.

GAT_00: m0llusk: Voters to approve spending once a month? I don't want my government to screech to a halt just because I forgot to approve the national agenda this month. The place should tend to run itself.

Yeah, that one is incredibly stupid.

Eh. I suspect it'd work like voting already does: Those fired up or in the know would vote. Turnout would be between 10-30% and life would go on.

GAT_00: Lanctwa: GAT_00: Lanctwa: There is nothing about the right of citizens or people for freedom of speech, only freedom of speech in general. That freedom of speech in general would apply to every entity.

But money cannot and should not equal speech.

I agree. Speech isn't art. Speech isn't burning a flag. Speech is spoken word, and only spoken word.

Press means printed news material.

Woah, press is only printed news? Do you mean free speech does not apply to the Internet?


It's not speech. If you want free expression on the internet, we should pass a constitutional amendment allowing us to get it.

Lanctwa:
I agree. Speech isn't art. Speech isn't burning a flag. Speech is spoken word, and only spoken word.

Robert Bork, is that you?

vartian: that bosnian sniper: Stupid liberals, they seem to think the 14th Amendment only applies to welfare queens and illegals, and not everyone. Case in point, this. If corporations weren't people, would they have the right to free speech? I think not. We let illegals vote, so why can't corporations spend their money how they see fit in elections?

You got all the words right, but there's no heart in it.

I think it also showed some basic knowledge of the constitution.

m0llusk: Voters to approve spending once a month? I don't want my government to screech to a halt just because I forgot to approve the national agenda this month. The place should tend to run itself.

Some of the suggestions were really bad, and this was one of them. I can't imagine the non stop political ads if we had to vote on spending, nor the ridiculous decisions that would be made by a country full of people who can barely comprehend personal finance.

/Would pretty much create full employment for AP clerks though

Lanctwa: It's not speech. If you want free expression on the internet, we should pass a constitutional amendment allowing us to get it.

Funny the courts have ruled over and over against that all forms of expression through all modes of communication are covered by free speech provisions.

They got it about right

it would be great to get Unions out of politics.
they have corrupted the system far too long.

people are just sad that businesses have caught up to the Union racket of politics.

GAT_00: Aidan: Eh. I suspect it'd work like voting already does: Those fired up or in the know would vote. Turnout would be between 10-30% and life would go on.

Can you imagine the dysfunctions we'd have if we voted every month?

I'd be hard-pressed to imagine how they'd be much different than they already are.

Oh, except gays would be screwed. And Mexicans, blacks of all kinds, most women, art students, and poor people.

unions....NPR....libs....wharrgarbl

Proposed Amendments

1. Term limits:
a. Senators are limited to two terms.
b. Representatives are limited to six terms.
c. No person can hold elected office in Congress for a combined total of more than 12 year to include members appointed to fill vacated seats before expiration of normal term.
d.Appointing members to Congressional leadership posts by reason of seniority would be illegal.

2. Balanced budget
a. Balanced Federal budget except in times of emergency on vote of 3/4 of both Houses of congress for period not to exceed two years without another vote.
b.Repeal Federal Income tax replaced with Federal sales tax
c. End of each fiscal year federal taxing authority would expires and cannot continue without the passage of a federal budget. Each spending measure must contain the taxing authority to finance it.
d. Congressional cost living increases would be subject to the same restrictions as raises. No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Examples: Defense appropriation of X amount would require the passage of a sales tax of x% to finance it .A MEDICAID appropriation of y amount would require a y% sales tax authority in the same bill.

3. Judicial power and limits the power and limits of the Federal Judiciary would be defined in a manner similar to the Executive and Legislative branches.
a. Federal courts may reject laws and send them back to legislative bodies for correction but may not offer their own remedies in place of such laws.
b.Supreme Court decisions can be overidden by 3/4 votes of both votes Houses of Congress and approval of President.

Thomas Jefferson, 1821: "...the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little to-morrow, and advancing it's noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. ...when all government... in little as in the great thing, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."