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.

(Arizona Star)   The Constitution's final boss is too hard so we should reset it to easy level where we can change it every other week to make it work says apparent teenaged article writer   (azstarnet.com) divider line 154
    More: Asinine, consent of the governed, Articles of Confederation, Gettysburg Address, political structure, Emancipation Proclamation, unanimous consent  
•       •       •

14263 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jul 2012 at 11:51 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-05 11:05:08 AM
Agree with most of the comments that the constitution is designed to be hard to change, and that generally, that is a good thing.

That said, there are a few structural problems that I think go beyond minor grievances, and need to be solved at a constitutional level:

1) mandate Cordocet or similar rank-voting scheme, which takes away one of the big arguments against third part voting. I think this is the single biggest change we could make to break the red/blue stranglehold on our government.

2) the judicial branches of government on all levels must be chosen in a non-partisan manner. Can vote to uphold or retain.

3) similarly, district lines must be drawn impartially. Gerrymandered districts encourage extremism, instead of compromise. Legislators can draw maps, but judges should decide whether or not they are valid and impartial. Otherwise, you end up with the legislative branch deciding their own operating conditions, which is against the principle if checks and balances.

4) some sort of limits on money in politics. The current interpretation that money = speech is absurd. Unless you want to say that I have a First Amendment right to free money?

Off the top of my head, I would day that a better stand-in is time. Any person can spend as much time as they like advocating for a particular candidate. But they can't just cut a check, they have to be out there manning booths, knocking on doorknobs, etc. That is speech, yet everything else is just marketing.
 
2012-07-05 12:07:31 PM

Eddie_Dean_NY: A.) No it wouldn't and no they won't. LLCs, LLPs, and Incorporated organizations could still retain certain legal protections, just not equal to the rights of the individual citizen. You know, like "Free Speech" (I can't wait till our Supreme Court gives corporations the right to keep and bear arms.)


Interestingly enough, the 1st amendment does not confine the right of free speech to people:
"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."

This would mean that Congress cannot (nor can the states-see 14th amendment) abridge free speech, for anyone/anything. If cats, dogs, apes, whatever learn to talk, their freedom of speech cannot be abridged. If aliens land, Congress will not be permitted to silence them.

The 1st would seem to explicitly protect corporations as an entity no differently then it protects the individuals that compose that corporation.
 
2012-07-05 12:29:54 PM

pedrop357: Eddie_Dean_NY: A.) No it wouldn't and no they won't. LLCs, LLPs, and Incorporated organizations could still retain certain legal protections, just not equal to the rights of the individual citizen. You know, like "Free Speech" (I can't wait till our Supreme Court gives corporations the right to keep and bear arms.)

Interestingly enough, the 1st amendment does not confine the right of free speech to people:
"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."

This would mean that Congress cannot (nor can the states-see 14th amendment) abridge free speech, for anyone/anything. If cats, dogs, apes, whatever learn to talk, their freedom of speech cannot be abridged. If aliens land, Congress will not be permitted to silence them.

The 1st would seem to explicitly protect corporations as an entity no differently then it protects the individuals that compose that corporation.


Which is why we need an Amendment to define a corporations person-hood differently than that of the individual citizens. As S_B elaborated, corporations are not limited by certain realities as human beings are. There need to be separate conditions for corporations to operate under the law other than as protected citizens in order for citizens and government to be protected from corporations.
 
2012-07-05 01:18:04 PM

Eddie_Dean_NY: pedrop357: Eddie_Dean_NY: A.) No it wouldn't and no they won't. LLCs, LLPs, and Incorporated organizations could still retain certain legal protections, just not equal to the rights of the individual citizen. You know, like "Free Speech" (I can't wait till our Supreme Court gives corporations the right to keep and bear arms.)

Interestingly enough, the 1st amendment does not confine the right of free speech to people:
"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."

This would mean that Congress cannot (nor can the states-see 14th amendment) abridge free speech, for anyone/anything. If cats, dogs, apes, whatever learn to talk, their freedom of speech cannot be abridged. If aliens land, Congress will not be permitted to silence them.

The 1st would seem to explicitly protect corporations as an entity no differently then it protects the individuals that compose that corporation.

Which is why we need an Amendment to define a corporations person-hood differently than that of the individual citizens. As S_B elaborated, corporations are not limited by certain realities as human beings are. There need to be separate conditions for corporations to operate under the law other than as protected citizens in order for citizens and government to be protected from corporations.


I personally agree that corporate influence in politics is creating something truly awful... but... any amendment that you put forth that contradicts parts of the first would create a potential quagmire of twisted law that will no doubt be used incorrectly.

The "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is the right to corporate free speech and the reason they are allowed to try to influence Congress. Ok, so let's theoretically take that out of the picture through an amendment. Well, now protests can be said to be illegal. And how do you balance that against the right of the press to have free speech? Then every corporation could claim that since they publish a newsletter, they are now part of the press.

We need to find a way to pull money out of politics. I like the idea of public financed campaigns, everyone gets a pool of money they can pull from and that is it. Anyone who serves in Congress has to submit all of their income to the public (being the price you pay for public service, don't like it? Don't run) and anyone caught trying to hide money that they receive from lobbyists is removed from office, banned from all future public service, and jailed for no less than the remainder of their term of office. Anyone caught lobbying via money to any member of Congress will have their representative corporate charter revoked, the company fined 100x what they were attempting to bribe (let's face it, lobbying is bribery) and the board of directors jailed for no less than the remainder of the term of the politician they were trying to bribe.

Harsh? Yes. It needs to be.
 
Displayed 4 of 154 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report