If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Daily Show writer partners with Slate to crowdsource ideas for amending and rewriting the Constitution. Provide your ideas to the right   (hive.slate.com) divider line 592
    More: Survey, U.S. Constitution, VII  
•       •       •

9178 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 May 2012 at 1:50 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



592 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-28 09:21:59 AM

SevenizGud: 1. Don't work - don't eat.

2. The primary role of the federal government will be to ensure the liberty of the citizenry.


Do you have grandparents?
 
2012-05-28 09:23:37 AM
Freedom of CHOICE is an expressed, fundamental human right, our government shall not infringe upon it, excepting it directly harms others.


\apologies to Tom Robbins' terrific rant in Still Life With Woodpecker.
 
2012-05-28 09:23:49 AM

way south: If this is how you jusify your arguments then you should stop saying that the second amendment is anachronistic.
You want it gone because you are afraid a violent revolt might actually work.


Who's calling for a violent revolt? Why is that necessary? Please elaborate.
 
2012-05-28 09:26:48 AM

GAT_00: Amendments:
1. OK as is, but specifically state that NO religious imagery may be used in any State or Federal agency.


If that Amendment existed, I'd start a religion which worships The Capitol building.
 
2012-05-28 09:26:54 AM

GAT_00: The plea bargain is also badly abused on known BS cases where the accused can't afford to stay in jail and takes the probation plea, leaving them subservient to the justice system for the next 10 years for something they didn't do, just because they were already living at the edge of their means.

It should go.


i dont disagree that there are problems but i think on the whole the benefits outweigh the downsides. it would help if there were better lawyers for the middle and lower class.
 
2012-05-28 09:27:32 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: OK - I'll bite.

No discriminating against anyone, for any reason, Ever.

Don't be a dick.

This is not a Theocracy. You can practice your religion right up to the point that it involves using any government resource - including schools, buildings, courts, jails, the Military... Any resource - to get other people to practice it, too. That's off limits. Which means, no tax exemptions for churches, either. Churches don't get to tell The State how to run laws. The State doesn't get to tell the Church who and how to bless.

The rights of people....

OK - y'know what? I think we can narrow it down to my second point.

"Don't be a dick." For any reason. Ever.

Done.


Let's see: Government of the people, by the people and for the people. Except the religious people . Sounds kind of dickish. The current system where they simply can't favor a religion over another (including taxing the ones they don't like out of existence.) Even atheists don't have to pay taxes on their charitable donations.
 
2012-05-28 09:27:49 AM
1) Ban lobbying
2) National system of criminal law
3) Minimum age to leave school is 18 or obtaining secondary school diploma, whichever comes first.
4) Dump the Fed
5) Laws pertaining to morality subject to public referendum
 
2012-05-28 09:30:13 AM

SevenizGud: 1. Don't work - don't eat.


How do you plan on denying food to heiresses?
 
2012-05-28 09:30:17 AM
The govt will only protect your intellectual property if you pay intellectual property taxes.
 
2012-05-28 09:30:28 AM
Require sponsors of bills to write them out in longhand, personally. All amendments and attachments, likewise. Require that a final draft be written out by hand before a vote is allowed. Require the heads of all Federal agencies to write out in longhand every word of every regulation that is issued by their agency.

Make it legal to own and carry any weapon legally used by any law enforcement agency, state or federal.

Schedule Presidential and Congressional elections for the day after income tax day.
 
2012-05-28 09:31:05 AM

feckingmorons: Benevolent Misanthrope: No discriminating against anyone, for any reason, Ever.

So registered sex offenders should open baby sitting services? I'm OK with your premise, but I think it has to be a bit more defined.


Nah, I disagree. We're golden, here.
 
2012-05-28 09:31:17 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: This is not a Theocracy.


Difficulty: that's already in there.
 
2012-05-28 09:32:41 AM
If you don't pay taxes, you don't get to vote.

And if you don't own land, you don't get to vote on anything that affects property taxes.
 
2012-05-28 09:32:42 AM
Amend the constitution to make me president for life

Adopt the Canadian model for healthcare...

Begin a crash program to build dozens of nuclear power plants.

force the Nevadans to accept yucca mountain...

Triple the tax credit on cars like the volt, leaf , and natural gas civic.
 
2012-05-28 09:34:11 AM
1: The House should not be "elected" so much as "drafted". People will be selected at random to serve 2 year terms. They will draw a salary, and there will be safeguards in place to ensure they can return to their former jobs once their term has expired.

2: Any and all bills in the House or Senate must receive a vote within 2 weeks of introduction, regardless of any procedures that might cause otherwise.

3: The president will be selected by popular vote. Screw this electoral college shiat.

4: All elected federal offices will be selected via approval voting. Instead of being forced to pick just one, a voter may select as many candidates as he or she wishes. The one candidate who gets the most votes wins. Simple and elegant.

5: While corporations are defined as separate entities from their owners for legal purposes, they are not people and do not necessarily enjoy the same rights as people. The fourth amendment will be specifically defined as applying to all legal entities, but the rest of the bill of rights will be reserved for actual people.

6: Corporations exist at the leisure of the people, and can have their charter revoked by the courts for especially egregious offenses.
 
2012-05-28 09:34:25 AM
The only thing funnier than the trolls are the folks who list "solutions" to common issues.
 
2012-05-28 09:35:26 AM
Rather than paying fines... corporations that break the law will be barred from doing any kind of business for a period of time equal to the prison sentence that would have been given to an individual, had they committed the crime.
 
2012-05-28 09:36:45 AM
GAT_00
8. Death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment.

So is being able to kill another without fear of retribution to the victims of these crimes. Why are people more concerned about the welfare of murderers than the victims? You wouldn't let a rabid dog run on the playground with your children would you? You take another's life except in the case of self defense, protection of an innocent, or law enforcement, forfeit your own. And don't even try to add the military to the mix. It's a nonstarter.

/Memorial Day - remember those who gave so you can sit on your ass and post stupid stuff on the Internet.
 
2012-05-28 09:37:05 AM
Require a CDL for any vehicle which is exempt from CAFE standards.
 
2012-05-28 09:37:08 AM

HeartBurnKid: 1: The House should not be "elected" so much as "drafted". People will be selected at random to serve 2 year terms. They will draw a salary, and there will be safeguards in place to ensure they can return to their former jobs once their term has expired.

2: Any and all bills in the House or Senate must receive a vote within 2 weeks of introduction, regardless of any procedures that might cause otherwise.

3: The president will be selected by popular vote. Screw this electoral college shiat.

4: All elected federal offices will be selected via approval voting. Instead of being forced to pick just one, a voter may select as many candidates as he or she wishes. The one candidate who gets the most votes wins. Simple and elegant.

5: While corporations are defined as separate entities from their owners for legal purposes, they are not people and do not necessarily enjoy the same rights as people. The fourth amendment will be specifically defined as applying to all legal entities, but the rest of the bill of rights will be reserved for actual people.

6: Corporations exist at the leisure of the people, and can have their charter revoked by the courts for especially egregious offenses.


Oh, forgot one:

7. Patents are 5 years. Copyrights are 20 years. No extensions on either can be granted. Patents cannot be granted on purely algorithmic "inventions", nor can they be granted for mere design (that's what trademarks are for).
 
2012-05-28 09:37:43 AM

SevenizGud: 1. Don't work - don't eat.


Yes!!! Put the disabled to work!! Finally!
Lazy bastards sitting around being all disabled-y.

While we're at it... let's make the retired work as well! YOU DON'T GET TO SIT ON YOUR ASS! If you do, you DIE!!
 
2012-05-28 09:38:37 AM

bugontherug: Farkage: It is true and incredibly easy to verify so have at it!

No, it is not true. Of all the quotes you posted, only one is actually on point. And that's apparently by some state representative speaking to ratify the Virginia constitution, not the federal Constitution.

Your interpretation drains the phrase "a well regulated militia" of all meaning whatsoever. That is contrary to the basic constitutional doctrine that all words of the constitution should be construed to give them legal effect.

You yourself posted the George Washington "and disciplined" quote." Other remarks by other framers, including Thomas Jefferson, indicate that they envisioned a real militia of people regularly meeting and drilling having the right to keep and bear arms. Jefferson, if memory serves, alluded to Spartan warriors when speaking of the 2nd Amendment. People subject to a king, and who devoted their whole lives to military training.

I don't say that the framers intended the right to keep and bear arms to extend only to those who devoted their whole lives to military training. I do say they selected the words "a well regulated militia" because they intended them to have legal effect, and that quotes even you yourself have posted undermine the view that by "a well regulated militia," the framers really meant "anyone who feels like owning a gun, even if they've never reported for a drill, are part of no command structure, and have no concept of the heavy responsibility that properly attaches to firearms ownership."

Your version of the 2nd Amendment:

"Anyone who feels like owning a gun, even if they've never reported for a drill, are part of no command structure, and have no concept of the heavy responsibility that properly attaches to firearms ownership, being necessary to the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, by I prefer the language the framers ratified.


Well then, make sure you have a little understanding of what they meant. As I said, it is easily verifiable but you chose not to.
again:
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. - James Madison

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. - Alexander Hamilton

The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. - Samuel Adams

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. - Thomas Jefferson

I'm not entirely sure how you are managing to misunderstand those statements. From the Founding Fathers themselves nonetheless. They make it pretty clear that THE PEOPLE have the right to be armed.

And yet you want to pretend these provide no clarification to the purpose of the second amendment because of "But...but...but militia!!!"
"The right of The People to bear arms shall not be infringed." Anywhere else in the Bill of Rights, "The People" means everyone, yet here you would like to redefine it (just this once in the Constitution mind you) as not really meaning the people at all.
So the following (according to your logic) doesn't mean what we think after all, huh?

Amendment I
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.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And SCOTUS seems to think you are mistaken as well. Listen to the entire audio of Heller vs DC. It is easily available and provides context.
 
2012-05-28 09:39:43 AM

bugontherug: Jarhead_h: It angers me that some people construe all the words of the 2nd Amendment to have legal meaning, instead of ignoring the well regulated militia clause like I do. Because of my defective moral character, I'm going to slander everyone who holds a different view as opposing free government. Then I'm going to claim that the problem is they're not honest enough to admit they're soshialist fashist athiest muslins.

It's good to see you being honest with yourself. But just to clarify: I believe the Constitution protects a right to keep and bear arms in connection with service in a well regulated militia. Just like George Washington said.


Oww, you got me.... no not really. I'm one of what Murrary Rothbard once described as an "anarcho-patriot." Meaning I couldn't give two shiats about what the government of my homeland is because however much it has I'm going to be working to two minimize it. Put simply, right now I'm arguing for a return to the strict literal interpretation of the constitution. Should that ever happen, I'll be arguing for a return to the Articles of Confederation, and so on. Whatever government exists is government that can be gotten rid of.

"Regulated", ie. to make "regular." Think the way your grandparents talk about their bowel movements - as long as they can keep things coming out they are happy. "Milita", ie. group of volunteer irregulars. "Arms", traditionally any weapon that fires a projectile of any size.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note: the words "sporting purposes" and "self defense" do not appear. This is a military right, and it exists for one reason, so that normal people may band together to prepare to form a resistance. What that resistance forms in response to is left open ended.

I would say nice try on trying to paint me as a red state repulitard, but honestly it was pretty reactionary and downright lazy on your part so you don't even get a score.
 
2012-05-28 09:41:30 AM

shivashakti: While we're at it... let's make the retired work as well!


Yeah! How dare they retire and open up jobs for younger people!
 
2012-05-28 09:43:21 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: no tax exemptions for churches


The thing about this is that a lot of churches provide services to the community (things like food banks, counseling, shelters, etc) that they might not otherwise be able to do if they didn't get the tax breaks. And really if people not paying their taxes is something that you are concerned about you should make sure to add something in there to address the vast amount of loopholes for corporations in the tax code.

I would like it if Congress were to have to abandon their retirement plan and join everyone else in SS/401k land.
 
2012-05-28 09:44:09 AM

Hagenhatesyouall: 1. Term limits.
2. Term limits.
3. Balanced federal budget except in the event of a declared war by congress.

Which should then be subject my an immediate war tax to offset the cost

4. Federal troops may not be used for combat operations beyond 90 days unless congress declares war. No more of this "undeclared" war shiat.

define combat operations? US has treaty obligations (approved by Congress) as well

5. All votes are to be roll call votes in congress.
6. Term limits.

 
2012-05-28 09:44:27 AM
Liberal technique #55... come up with a preposterous notion, i.e., the Constitution needs "fixing," accept that as truth, then proceed to ridicule sane people who do not buy into the madness.

See also:
Global Warming
Economic Democracy
Property Rights
 
2012-05-28 09:45:51 AM
If your husband or wife or father or mother was President, you are ineligible to even run for President.

All congress people get fired every 12 years at the same time.

Supreme Court justices get to rule for 8 years.
 
2012-05-28 09:46:14 AM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Do you have a tank or two chilling in your closet, buddy? A couple of helicopters and maybe a nuclear submarine? Do you know what's going to happen if the military decides to kill you? You're going to die. Not in an awesome, slow motion movie way, but probably in a quick, pointless drone strike way. you and your precious gun will be a stain. I like guns as much as the next person, but let's be realistic here. Nobody is mounting an armed resistance to the military.


I never said anyone was, I'm just arguing the context of the amendment. People should follow the Constitution or change it, not try to redefine or marginalize the parts they don't like. That is just bad for everyone, don't you think?
 
2012-05-28 09:46:41 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: No discriminating against anyone, for any reason, Ever.


the end of affirmative action.

at least that would have helped Warren with her lies.
 
2012-05-28 09:47:25 AM

Farxist Marxist: 1) Ban lobbying
2) National system of criminal law
3) Minimum age to leave school is 18 or obtaining secondary school diploma, whichever comes first.
4) Dump the Fed
5) Laws pertaining to morality subject to public referendum


You do realize that the protection of individual rights is precisely to protect minorities from the will of the majority?
 
2012-05-28 09:47:25 AM
The RIchest Man in Babylon

CourtroomWolf: Eliminate the electoral system

This.

This is really a great idea if you live in one of the major metro areas or California because you'll always choose the President and fark the rest of the US.

Did y'all miss that part in Civics 101?
 
2012-05-28 09:49:05 AM
The constitution was designed to be changed and that is far better than finding "new" meaning in it. We have neglected changing it in favor of reinterpreting and that has hurt the courts, and citizens ability to see clearly what it is saying.
 
2012-05-28 09:50:16 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Yeah! How dare they retire and open up jobs for younger people!


Well, in this scenario, remember...you don't work, you don't eat.
So children, after being weaned, will have to work in order to live as well.

NO ONE GETS A FREE RIDE!!!!111111!11ELEVENTY!
 
2012-05-28 09:50:17 AM

bugontherug: Farkage: It is true and incredibly easy to verify so have at it!

No, it is not true. Of all the quotes you posted, only one is actually on point. And that's apparently by some state representative speaking to ratify the Virginia constitution, not the federal Constitution.

Your interpretation drains the phrase "a well regulated militia" of all meaning whatsoever. That is contrary to the basic constitutional doctrine that all words of the constitution should be construed to give them legal effect.

You yourself posted the George Washington "and disciplined" quote." Other remarks by other framers, including Thomas Jefferson, indicate that they envisioned a real militia of people regularly meeting and drilling having the right to keep and bear arms. Jefferson, if memory serves, alluded to Spartan warriors when speaking of the 2nd Amendment. People subject to a king, and who devoted their whole lives to military training.

I don't say that the framers intended the right to keep and bear arms to extend only to those who devoted their whole lives to military training. I do say they selected the words "a well regulated militia" because they intended them to have legal effect, and that quotes even you yourself have posted undermine the view that by "a well regulated militia," the framers really meant "anyone who feels like owning a gun, even if they've never reported for a drill, are part of no command structure, and have no concept of the heavy responsibility that properly attaches to firearms ownership."

Your version of the 2nd Amendment:

"Anyone who feels like owning a gun, even if they've never reported for a drill, are part of no command structure, and have no concept of the heavy responsibility that properly attaches to firearms ownership, being necessary to the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, by I prefer the language the framers ratified.


Copied and pasted, but again offers perspective. I'm outa here, things to do and all that...

"So membership in a well-regulated militia is a sufficient, but not a necessary, condition of the exercise of our right to keep and bear arms. Imagine if the Second Amendment said, "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

Surely no one would suggest that only registered voters-that is, members of the electorate-had a right to read. And yet, that is precisely the effect if the Second Amendment is interpreted to apply only to members of a militia. If the Second Amendment meant what the collectiverights advocates suggest, then the text would have read very differently. It would have said, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the states to arm their militias, shall not be infringed."

But the Second Amendment, like the First, the Fourth, the Ninth, and the Tenth Amendments, explicitly refers to the right of the people. Consider the placement of the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights, the part of the Constitution that deals exclusively with the rights of individuals. There can be no doubt that First Amendment rights, like speech and religion, belong to us as individuals. Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches are individual rights. And in the context of the Second Amendment, we secure the right of the people by guaranteeing the right of each person. Predictably, the Court's focus in the Miller case was on the militia clause."
 
2012-05-28 09:50:55 AM

Tyee: The constitution was designed to be changed and that is far better than finding "new" meaning in it. We have neglected changing it in favor of reinterpreting and that has hurt the courts, and citizens ability to see clearly what it is saying.


^^^^
THIS
 
2012-05-28 09:52:16 AM

tuffsnake: Benevolent Misanthrope: no tax exemptions for churches

The thing about this is that a lot of churches provide services to the community (things like food banks, counseling, shelters, etc) that they might not otherwise be able to do if they didn't get the tax breaks.


It would still work out.
The taxes would be based on income after expenses. The only thing that would change is that they would need to spend the money in the same year that they get it so they wouldn't have an emergency fund. They could get around that by donating to a charity that has an emergency fund.
 
2012-05-28 09:53:12 AM
An easy fix for the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms as members of said militias shall not be infringed."

There, now we've removed that bizzare loophole that the NRA's used to allow people to carry deadly weapons in public.
 
2012-05-28 09:54:42 AM

e5wsf: No property tax. Property tax makes it impossible for any citizen to outright own their home.

Congress must only be a part time position. They will receive military pay and benefits. They will live in barracks for this monthly gathering.

Members of congress may not own stocks or trade on the stock market while in office.

Members of congress shall not influence their pay in any manor.

All men and women are equal and shall not be discriminated against nor offered exclusive protections.

The Vice President will be the individual with the second highest vote count in the Presidential election.

Men and women shall arm themselves in the same manor as ANY organization with police powers over citizens of any State of the Union.

Freedom to practice religion as long as it does not infringe upon the beliefs and rights of others. This provides protection FROM religion.

The abuse of public funds is punishable by death.


That's a terrible idea, unless you're working in a system with plurality voting where after the president is decided the re-tabulate the entire vote save for the first round victor.

But even then it's a bad idea- too much opportunity for advancement of ideology via assassination. Though some will certainly joke otherwise, that's not a road we want to go down.
 
2012-05-28 09:54:43 AM

shivashakti: tenpoundsofcheese: Yeah! How dare they retire and open up jobs for younger people!

Well, in this scenario, remember...you don't work, you don't eat.
So children, after being weaned, will have to work in order to live as well.

NO ONE GETS A FREE RIDE!!!!111111!11ELEVENTY!


Sure. If work includes doing chores at home, cleaning the neighborhood, working at charities, great.
 
2012-05-28 09:55:18 AM
I'm impressed at the steam this picked up on a holiday weekend. Way to make suggestions while drunk, Farkers!

Here are my first few suggestions:

1) Rebuild Congress as a unicameral legislature. Every state gets an equal number of representatives divided into three classes with one class coming up for election every two years. All elections for Congress must use proportional representation by treating each state as a superdistrict. My preference would be for each state to have three classes of five representatives, for a total of 15 representatives per state. The representatives from each state will vote on each motion individually, and the state will vote as a block with that majority vote. Each state's vote will be weighted using the Penrose method, or the square root of their population, to ensure all states have equal power in Congress.

2) Explicitly prohibit all political activity by individuals who are not allowed to vote for a candidate/are not a constituent of the official. This means you may only donate money to Congressional candidates representing your district or state, you may only lobby officials representing your district or state, and (maybe most importantly) organizations of individuals may not donate to or lobby any candidates or officials since they can't vote for those candidates.

3) Add a new article to the Constitution detailing the rights and responsibilities of one specific class of organizations: political parties. I would model this off of the structure that Germany has in their constitution. This would have the added benefit of making uniform ballot access laws across the country and easing the ability of minor parties to form and get onto ballots. Independent candidates would have to satisfy the same criteria as political parties as well.

/subby
 
2012-05-28 09:58:06 AM
You must pass an IQ test with a score of 100-115 in order to:
--Drive
--Procreate

You must pass an IQ test with a score of 115-125 in order to:
--Vote
--Teach

You must pass an IQ test with a score of 130-145 in order to:
--Run for any elected office
 
2012-05-28 09:58:53 AM

AmorousRedDragon: way south: If this is how you jusify your arguments then you should stop saying that the second amendment is anachronistic.
You want it gone because you are afraid a violent revolt might actually work.

Who's calling for a violent revolt? Why is that necessary? Please elaborate.


Follow the argument.

The 2nd amendment is outdated because citizens are no threat to the government.
(posts picture of terror attack on government building)


Revolution is the final trump card for maintaining a free society.
If the vote is rigged, judges corrupted, lawmakers on the take, cops nothing more than state armed thugs and the military run by warlords using our armies for personal benefit... What do you do?
Ask the UN for help?

*checks up on syria*
...that might not work out.

The founding fathers wanted the citizens to own weapons because they knew ithe public would be the final resource for defending their ideals. They didn't need a law to defend the right of the military to own guns.
They didn't bother with Banning weapons from criminal hands because they knew that law would be ignored, and that smugglers themselves could become a resource in desperate times.
They wanted to protect the law abiding citizens who were, and still are, a working component of maintaining a free society. Unfortunately these are also the first to give up their armaments in peacetime.
 
2012-05-28 10:00:04 AM

CultureVulture: The RIchest Man in Babylon

CourtroomWolf: Eliminate the electoral system

This.
This is really a great idea if you live in one of the major metro areas or California because you'll always choose the President and fark the rest of the US.

Did y'all miss that part in Civics 101?


That made more sense when we were barely more than a confederacy. I don't see how the Electoral College does anything now but allow a handful of battleground states to decide the Presidency.

And California? Really? Something like 20% of the votes needed to win the Electoral College going uncontested every 4 years is a feature to you?
 
2012-05-28 10:01:34 AM
Tyee

The constitution was designed to be changed and that is far better than finding "new" meaning in it. We have neglected changing it in favor of reinterpreting and that has hurt the courts, and citizens ability to see clearly what it is saying.


Just where is this written down or expressed by any Founding Father? I missed that memo. The only people I know who want to change the Constitution are the Obamians and Leftists in general. That is what AMENDMENTS are for. Amending the Constitution, not rewriting it. The Constitution is meant to limit the government and Obama wants to trash it because it limits him and he doesn't like that - hence a flood of Executive Orders and procedures to do an end around on Congress.
 
2012-05-28 10:02:08 AM
Elected officials shall receive salary not exceeding the median household income.
 
2012-05-28 10:05:09 AM

CultureVulture: The RIchest Man in Babylon

CourtroomWolf: Eliminate the electoral system

This.
This is really a great idea if you live in one of the major metro areas or California because you'll always choose the President and fark the rest of the US.

Did y'all miss that part in Civics 101?


And right now, Ohio and Florida always choose the President and fark the rest of us. I hardly see how the current solution is better.
 
2012-05-28 10:05:28 AM

Type_Hard: I'm curious if anyone has thought through a list of things that they think should not fall under the umbrella of states rights.

The definition of marriage immediately comes to my mind. Seems bizarre to me that something so basic should be left to vary from state to state, especially in a world where I can be on the other side of the country in a matter of hours.

Maybe I'm wrong here, and I think localized control makes sense in most issues, but this seems like something that shouldn't be left to local control.

Thoughts, flames, etc...?


You are right and I agree completely. In Canada I believe the provinces started making it legal individually, but eventually it was made legal countrywide?

/Canadian
 
2012-05-28 10:05:43 AM

CultureVulture: Tyee

The constitution was designed to be changed and that is far better than finding "new" meaning in it. We have neglected changing it in favor of reinterpreting and that has hurt the courts, and citizens ability to see clearly what it is saying.

Just where is this written down or expressed by any Founding Father? I missed that memo. The only people I know who want to change the Constitution are the Obamians and Leftists in general. That is what AMENDMENTS are for. Amending the Constitution, not rewriting it. The Constitution is meant to limit the government and Obama wants to trash it because it limits him and he doesn't like that - hence a flood of Executive Orders and procedures to do an end around on Congress.


Epic reading comprehension fail.
 
2012-05-28 10:06:35 AM
I say, increment any non-list numbers by one. (eg Two-thirds becomes Three-Fourths)

Just to slow the process down.
 
Displayed 50 of 592 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report