Extreme Constitution Makeover: Amendments of the New Congress
“This will take members from both sides of the aisle working together in good faith to tackle our budget problems and reduce the deficit, which will put us on the road to paying off our national debt,” Cuellar said.
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) is trying to get a hand from the Constitution to keep the White House from continuously demanding debt ceiling increases.
His amendment, which would go into effect 10 years after ratification, stipulates “the United States government may not increase its debt except for a specific purpose by law adopted by three-fourths of the membership of each House of Congress.”
Donna Christensen (D), freshly sworn in to her ninth term as the delegate representing the U.S. Virgin Islands, proposed an amendment stating that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote in the election for President and Vice President shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of residency in a territory or commonwealth of the United States.”
“The over 4 million citizens in the U.S. territories are among the most patriotic Americans you will find anywhere in our country,” she said.
Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) introduced constitutional term limits for members of Congress: four terms for members of the House, and two terms for senators.
Amendment or no amendment, Fitzpatrick, who was elected in 2010, has pledged to impose the term limit on himself.
The congressman called his measure a “step in the right direction” to restoring the public’s faith in Congress.
And in an effort to beat back a Supreme Court ruling with a constitutional makeover, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), who easily fended off a challenge from Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher in November, introduced a trio of constitutional amendments on campaign finance.
One amendment would give Congress power to “set limits on the amount of contributions that may be accepted by, and the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office,” with the same power allocated to states for local and state races.
The second states that “the first article of amendment does not apply to the political speech of any corporation, partnership, business trust, association, or other business organization with respect to the making of contributions, expenditures, or other disbursements of funds in connection with public elections.”
And the final amendment combines the first two, “waiving the application of the first article of amendment to the political speech of corporations and other business organizations with respect to the disbursement of funds in connection with public elections and granting Congress and the States the power to establish limits on contributions and expenditures in elections for public office.”
The Move to Amend group has similarly been seeking to squash the Citizens United ruling by constitutional change.
“We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights,” the group says in its mission statement. “The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.”
Kaptur introduced her amendments without comment.
Suggest all the Readers here do a bit of research and use this paste as a “starter seed”:
“Franklin D. Roosevelt broke the tradition by seeking and winnings a third term in 1940, and then a fourth in 1944. To prevent future Presidents from following this precedent, the 22nd Amendment made the unwritten custom limiting presidential terms a part of the written Constitution. This amendment was adopted in 1951.
Until 1951, the Constitution place[d] no limited [sic] on the number of terms a President might serve. Franklin D. Roosevelt broke the tradition by seeking and winnings a third term in 1940, and then a fourth in 1944. [...during the Second World War...] To prevent future Presidents from following this precedent, the 22nd Amendment made the unwritten custom limiting presidential terms a part of the written Constitution. This amendment was adopted in 1951.”
You must think about the reasons behind where we stand today. [the corrections inside brackets above are mine.]
Repealing the 22nd amendment would take to long.
Dear Leader has a simpler idea based on the plan of his heroes in South American Banana Republics. In 2015 there will be a tremendous ground swell of the “people” demanding a Plebiscite to ignore the 22nd (why not he already ignores the other provisions) and recognize the amendment was racist because they knew some day a half black would be President. Therefore it will allow him to take his place as President for Life(as in his lifetime not pro-life).
Personally, I think we should scrap the Constitution and go back to the Articles of Confederation. Just shut down the bloated, out-of-control Federal government, chalk it up as a bad idea and start over again.
You would have to fight for that to happen. If my memory serves me correctly, last time around it didn’t go well for your side.
Ahh, go ahead white bread and keep trying to convince yourself of that delusion. We are stronger than ever and if the south and flyover country (your pejoritive) do get together you will not like it.
Outnumbered 4-1 last time, and held virtually the manufacturing base but no longer. And still that war was almost lost.
It is our children that make up the great majority of the U.S. military, not yours, and from one home to the next, you’re outgunned by large measure.
I won’t even mention even in the blue states, it’s only the large metropolitan areas that make you the majority – you may not even make across the state line, puke, before they vaporize your head. But I doubt a coward like you would be anywhere near the front line.
However, the thought of that is almost orgasmic.
Personally, I think you vastly misrepresent reality when attempting to represent the South relatively to some ‘political’ insurrection. But for the metro/suburan areas of the South, most are pretty strongly democrat. The overwhelming majority of the Souths population has little to no interest in the type of minority political activism found on select cable channels and all over the internet. In the metro/suburban areas, you’d be lucky to come up with a slight battalion of troops to support such a political insurrection as being presented on all the radical sites and elsewhere.
Heres your problem! It isn’t two opposing governments who are posing a threat of insurrection for the South. Its only a small, very small number of Tea party radicals ‘posing’ the threat of insurrection against the federal government.
Your best recruiting is left to drunks at bars and shooting ranges! NO rational thinking person is going to leave his/her job and family to go trodding off into some silly conceived and delusional shootout with other citizens and the federal government.
Having said that, I do understand that the activists real war is simply a war-of-words on the internet — so march on and beat the hell out that keyboard!
It would be easier to simply secede. I seriously doubt there would be many objections.
Back to school for you,Yank. Rob’s comment does not refer to the events of 1861-1865, but to 1781-1789.
Thank goodness someone knows American history!
There is a point however that the crisses of 1780′s that led to the US constitution was in part driven by the fact that the Articles of confederation were found wanting.
It is also worth noting that the last time the nation had a Constitutional convention, they exceeded their authority and over threw the Governments form of the time (ie the Articles).
In what way did the Constitutional Convention oversee its authority?
Pray for him/her/it. He/She/It is a lost, sick and miserable excuse for a human being.
And the grand issue upon which the North will take up arms is what? The right of a bunch of people in government to impose their will on the rest of the nation?
Maybe I’m cynical, but it seems to lack the moral imperative of ending slavery. You might be willing to die for what’s coming out of DC. I don’t think you’ll have much company.
That is precisely the grand issue, then and now. Congress said so in 1861, when it passed a resolution stating the purpose of the War was to prevent secession and maintain the Union. Abolitionists had been arguing for secession — by the Northern states — as a means of abolishing the Fugitive Slave Law. The Confiscation Act treated slaves as property as well. Armed invasion to prevent secession was the worst possible strategy for ending slavery, not that that was the intent. And stripping the vote and qualification for public office from white Southerners after the War was the worst possible strategy for empowering African Americans.
Lincoln himself asked, if there were no war to undo Southern secession, where would he get his revenues for his Whig-style tax-and-spend infrastructure projects … in the North?
Since the ancestors on the Southern (Tidewater) side of my family emancipated folks and lived alongside free people of color, I would urge people to look past the then-declining institution of chattel slavery and take a closer look at the parallels to perceptions of federal government tyranny and just how agitated people are getting about the possibility of going down with the Washington ship. I think it much less likely the federal government could raise an army to “teach those rebels a lesson” and quash secession these days (the promise to do so being what pushed Virginia over the edge into secession, and with her other northern tier states). I am hoping members of our standing armed forces would react like Virginians if ordered to once again quash secession by force of arms.
Despite all the mid-19th century rhetoric over slavery/abolition, people realized the economic stakes in a separate nation with low tariffs (10% vs. 50%) competing for trade. Once the Confederacy established its tariffs, Wall Street urged war. And, Radical Republican governors only wanted to end slavery (from which their states profited, too) to crush Southern states’ political power and enjoy a permanent majority.
Red state dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs has more serious implications than lobbing who’s going to “whup” whom posts back and forth might indicate (and I take Scottch’s post as more cautionary than bragging). War happened 150 years ago. I fervently hope it doesn’t happen again. I’m just pointing out the intensity of the moment, and how serious a matter central government (destructive fiscal) power and resistance to it are, and can become.
As the financial adviser commercials note, past experience is no predictor of future performance.
I have serious doubts the majority of blue state citizens would even be willing to fight to keep the US together.
In fact, were a civil war to break out I suspect a lot of them would simply go back to their country of origin as their economic refugee status became less important than their physical well being…
The last time such a conversation was held amongst the several states, the South was outnumbered at least 4:1.
Today, about 37% of the population resides in the South and it’s the most populous region.
The last time the north got aggressive, they had a total lock on manufacturing capabilities.
Today it’s known as the rust belt for good reason and manufacturing has shifted either overseas or to the South. Boeing literally had to be blackmailed to keep from moving production to a Southern state.
The last time the South had to import whatever arms they could lay their hands on, leading to the British Enfield rifle being the standard issue weapon.
Today, the South has a personal gun ownership rate that is at least 50% higher than the north. On top of that, the north is doing it’s level best to make their region as inhospitable to gun manufacturer’s as possible, while there are now plenty of gun manufacturers in the South – including plenty who provide weapons to the US military that are milspec.
No reason that manufacturing capacity could not be turned towards arming up a local regional military force if the need called for it.
Economically, the north has financial services.
Economically, the South has vast energy and other natural resource deposits, PLUS some of the largest financial institutions in the nation are located in the South.
Last time the conversation was held, the north had a distinct advantage in transportation with railroads and managed to blockade the shipping routes.
Now, the South has comparable transportation networks (air, highway, rail, shipping) that equal or exceed anything in the north and a naval blockade would not isolate the South.
Last time, the rest of the nations in the world sat on the sidelines and didn’t recognize the South as an independent nation.
Given the state of international relations, the South would likely be immediately recognized by at least a dozen different nations were it to reclaim it’s independence from the union.
I’m not saying it would be a great thing to break the country apart, but based upon all of the foregoing you might want to reconsider the confidence level you have in the north being able to keep the South in the union should it decide to secede again…..
I beleive the 4 to 1 ration is incorrect. I’ve seen numbers closer to 2 to 1 (20 to 12 mill, or 20 to 8 mill whites).
However I think you left off 2 other factors. One the ‘west’ imn 1860 was really an extention in some ways of the ‘east’… today, it would break or join the ‘old north’ The midwest also would either break or join the ‘old south’… the nukes missles are in kansas I think
I’ll admit to being a bit too vague in how I used the 4:1 ratio as it did vary depending on whether you’re talking total population or relative numbers of combatants and even exactly what year of that war you are referring to. It’s hard to determine the exact population of the South at various stages of the war because the union army in may locations utterly destroyed all official state records.
However, the fact remains the South at that time was grossly outnumbered no matter how you measured it, a fact made even more desperate when it is realized that a fairly large percentage of the union army was made up of first generation immigrants. There were literally entire military units that didn’t speak English and their commands during battle and official corresppondence was in German, for instance.
As for what the midwest and west would do were that particular conversation to be held again, I dunno…..
California, Oregon, most likely Washington would remain in the union. Arizona and Nevada are questionable and I have no idea which way they’d go. Colorado could go either way. Lots of the rest of the states, however, could end up siding with secession – but there is no prior history or tradition of that in those states so their appetite could be lukewarm at best but places like Oklahoma and Wyoming could well be on board with that plan.
One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of the west was settled by Southerners after the war as everything they had was destroyed. On top of that they were assessed back taxes that were demanded immediately by carpetbagging yankee bureaucrats in US currency.
They only had Confederate money at that point, and so many a Southern farm was sold at auction on the courthouse steps to carpetbaggers during Reconstruction.
I’ve often wondered what effect that had on the character development of the old west and how the descendents of those transplants view the government today.
NOW THAT my friend are facts that all States and their
people would be wise to heed.
Most excellent observation, and all true!
If I may, let me throw this in.
I have lived my whole life in the North,
Right next door to this Progressive/Communist
City called Chicago. We see now what thats all about
As its being shoved down our throats from 1600 Penn.
But get away from the big city’s that control the debate
and you will find God fearing, Bible and gun clinching
People like ME!
There are many more of us than them!
To make my point I would say this; There is no North/South divide as seen
Thru the talking heads. If history repeats itself there will be two choices,
Liberty or Tyranny.
There are hundreds of thousands of us “Yankees” who would stand not in front, not
Behind, but shoulder to shoulder with our Southern brethren. Count on it!
God Bless!
You are referring to the rural vs urban population, and that is most definitely a factor.
While the red vs blue state designations display a sea of red – if you break it down to the county level the effect is far more pronounced with many states nominally blue turning red – but with very dense blue population centers that overwhelm the rural vote.
No idea how that would play out, and as you note instead of things playing out with distinct states taking sides, it could be a true civil war at that point with urban vs rural interests in conflict that brings hostilities deep into nominally blue states.
At any rate, with a neighbor such as you describe, you have my deepest sympathies….
Scottch — There a bit of a flaw in your map shading concept. Given any election cycle, in any county or district in a county, the ‘vote’ differential could only be one vote, determing it to be red or blue. Total votes cast in 2012 presidential election was 124,026,000. Total population 2010 census 18 year and older was 232,500,000. Not sure how you go about casting the remaining 110,940,000 people into either red or blue in your hypothesis.
I’m a Yankee myself, and I wouldn’t be standing with you.
Scottch — you make a brillant statment “As the financial adviser commercials note, past experience is no predictor of future performance.” then you set about to contradict it. In at least this particular instance, your data is flawed. A good percentage of the “South” is poulated by northern transplants soley for the purpose of retirement and other career purposes. In both intances many of them maintain permanent residences in their native Northern states. Many coastal Westerners also continually migrate here. Most have zero allegiance to anything Southern. Then you have a sizable migration of Indian legal residents migrating into the South. They are very ‘conservative’ by definition but abhor anything ideologically politcal. Hispanics and latino’s continue to migrate to the South.
The same thing will happen to Texas as it continues to announce its economic successes going forward, much in the same way as California back in the day, Nothing in society remains static nor do ‘some’ outcomes!
One point is, that the demographics are a changin even in the South. The other point I would like to make is, that its typical for some people to get all caught up in activist movements with all their self serving propaganda and lose sight of reality. Many intellectual philosophers and historians today, rarely ever represent reality, as they attempt to shape the minds and action of others. Since I noted (I think) you’re an engineering PhD candidate, I’m certain you know the import of taking the time to validate both the information you take in and the precept of the information you send out. Doing so, often times, reveals information not being spoon fed and will give cause to pause and ponder.
I’m from the North (I’ve also lived in the South), and I think it would be a good idea for a number of states to be allowed to secede from the Union. I’d certainly have no objection, assuming that the states that secede do not decide to re-institute slavery (perhaps that’s too big an assumption). United We Aren’t.
The effort to repeal the 22nd amendment will see strong support from the media.
I’d be willing to trade. I’ll take your 22nd Amendment repeal if we also along with it repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments.
Opposition to the 17th indicates your belief in minority rule.
Sounds like Rep Kaptur (D-Ohio) is ready to start selling some waivers.
What drives Obama is his inborn nature, which is similar to that of a Vampyroteuthis Infernalis, lit. “Vampire Squid from Hell“, ramming his blood funnel into every part of America to suck dry all remaining individual freedoms. His blood lust will not be satiated unless the United States Constitution, especially including it’s Bill of Rights, and most especially the First, Second and Fourth Amendments, is a withered corpse. As this throwback fascist monstrosity was reelected this past November the mask will now come completely off and he will go into a rabid freedom killing totalitarian frenzy such as this nation has never before even imagined.
I am always surprised by the willful blindnes of the Left in that they keep thinking they can keep jacking around with the “little things” like the Constituion and not bring everything crashing down around their heads.
Not sure of they honestly don’t think its going to happen—the more so since their worldview precludes any admission of their making mistakes–so since they “never” make error they NEVER have the chance to LEARN from their mistakes.
Or if they really, honestly don’t care–anybody that could think up the Cloward and Piven strategy is, IMO deeply lacking in any degree of basic humanity–since the people that will suffer the most are the very floks they claim to be helping.
Or, if they think they be running things like some kind of “new” Barons/Dukes etc. If they can just bring down the system that is keepong them in check.
But what really blows me away–althought it shouldn’t is the havoc that a Republican president can cause by using all the stuff THEY put into place—sooner or later it WILL happen and whenit does–where are they going to hide and what are they going to since THEY got rid of all the rules protecting THEM.
I just just don’t understand.
I’d like to see an omnibus Constitutional Amendment describing special circumstances where the entire House, Senate, President, Cabinet, and Supreme Court are marched out onto the Capitol Mall, lots are drawn, and 10% hanged on the spot.
I’m not even particularly worried as to what circumstances are described or if it is ever carried out….I’d just like it to be in there to focus their attention.
We have enjoyed, for a long time, the most successful form of government in the history of the world. This was in thanks to the brilliantly written and thought out Constitution of the United States. It was brought about by an almost divine confluence of political genius and extreme patriotism. Even Obama refered to it as the best in history. Of course he then invited us to “Fundamenatly Change” it. This of course begs the question, “If you have something that is essentially perfect, why change it?” The obvious answer is that the one who wants to change what he himself acknoledges as “the best” has sinister motives in seeking to do so. The Founding Fathere acknowledged the pre-eminence of God in the cration of our Republic. Obama seeks to dismiss God from our collective concience. The reason is as obvious as it is inimical to the future of our once great republic.
Really? No bills introduced yet to amend the Constitution to ban abortion and contraception? No bill yet to overturn the 1962 SCOTUS decision and bring back state-mandated & written prayer in schools?
I’m still trying to find the one that granted abortion rights and talks about wall, church, separation, and state.
“….wall, church, separation, and state.”
Try that whole limited power thingy. If ya don’t have that, some charismatic idiot comes along and tries to take over everything, with lots of worshipful followers threatening to kill anyone who isn’t just like them.
See also what the Founders had in mind wrt freedom of religion in America. If you read it all, and don’t cherry-pick, you’ll find that they had different thoughts on the matter than you seem to think they did. (Be careful. I had a similar discussion with a christian socialist the other day. He tried what I know you’re thinking about right now, and didn’t do so well…and didn’t like it one bit.)
I’m not quite sure what Tex is asking, but let’s give a try at a reply. I think he can find much of his information contained in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. Check out the part about no establishment of religion. Opposition to abortion & contraception are strongly held religious beliefs ( http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a62.shtml ).
The decision to abort a pregnancy is a highly personal & private decision (the late Senator Barry Goldwater, primary founder of the modern conservative movement: “abortion is not a conservative issue. It’s a matter between a woman and her doctor”).
Regarding a right to privacy, suggest reading Amendments #3 and #4 to the Constitution that appear to imply a right to privacy in one’s home.
For Warren and Steve, I don’t think it takes a secret decoder ring to understand the Bill of Rights, or negative rights as Dear Leader likes to call them. It’s not even a clever ruse to suggest otherwise – truly Obama, ambulance chaser worthy. We aren’t discussing differential equations or molecular biology here.
All I really need to understand the Bill of Rights is basic understanding of why our Founding Father and Mothers felt it necessary to declare independence in the first place, much as those who proceeding them to the new land did. And yes, freedom to worship, the key words being free and worship, played a huge part of the motive.
I do think the Amendments mean exactly what they say they mean – a restriction on powers of government, more specifically Congress. No more, no less. There is no granting of abortion rights anywhere to be found, and in fact I could argue the very idea is diametrically opposed to the unalienable right to life and diametrically opposed to the basic precepts in the formation of our country.
As to your believing yourself profound Warren, that hasn’t been my impression here or my impression of the vast number of readers and their opinion either if I have read correctly.
I don’t recognize Christian Socialist, as the term frankly an oxymoron, perhaps popular in liberal circles to wrap a thin veneer of religiosity around something sounding spiritual to mask the stench of humanism.
A three paragraph letter to the Danbury Baptist Church is also an easy read – an assurance to the Church elders that our nascent government would allow the church to operate freely and without restraint, contrary to a corrupt monarchy and corrupted church.
And that from one of the more secular Founding members – the same member that happily helped construct and sign his name to Endowed by OUR CREATOR.
One other thing, Steve. I consider myself Conservative, both ‘socially’ and ‘fiscally’ and Barry Goldwater is not one I hold in high regard, and in fact loathe him. He was summarily rejected in a landslide in 1964. Find somebody else.
Anyone believing Barry Goldwater is representative of today’s Conservative right, is a poor student of history.
What so many of the evnagelical social movement ‘chose’ to be ignorant of, is the very constitution for which they attempt to use as a defense in their causes, to include abortion. For example, they rant about abortion on the basis of their religious tenants and suposed practice. Well, I know they don’t like it, but the constitution bars the congress to enact ANY laws on the basis of any religion or practice therof. The constitution does however, grant EQUAL protections for those who don’t follow any particular religion or practices thereof. Furthermore, the constitution grants all rights of freedoms to the ‘individual’ citizens and not to any special group or particular class.
Watch these same people rant to the high heavens contradicting their own interpretations of the constitution, should there be an attempt to enact the tenants of Islam and Sharia Law.
I would add the Tenth Amendment which reserves unclaimed rights to the “People.”
I myself would add to Tenth Amendment as a source of the right to abortion.
The First and the Tenth Amendments.
Jesus said to pray in your room. He didn’t mean your homeroom.
Apparently corporations aren’t people but unions are.
Well, thats what we get when special interests influence and corrupt the government and judicial. NO company regardles of its structure should have been ruled as ‘people’ in accordance to the whims of republican special interest backing — a strategy based purley on political campaign funding and advertising.
I’m waiting for people to wake up and start suing CEO’s, etc., for personal injury and a host of other civil torts and watch them claim they have protection of the corportation.
Citizens United also effects unions.
Is this how it ends? I find it hard to believe that this great country is going to spend itself into bankruptcy, turn full blown socialist, become a one party nation without some sort of fight. Can it be this simple. That’s all it takes is 8 years of an inept fool taking us down and we whimper and whine and turn into sheep.
If this all happens we can kiss the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd, hell the whole constitution good bye and say hello to Tom Friedmans world of benevolent Chinese like politburos and presumably slave labor and re-education camps. The major problem with benevolent dictators, however, is that they don’t remain benevolent for long. Eventually a Stalin type or Caligula arrives on the scene and then it gets interesting.
Good Luck. I guess I am waiting to see if a spark goes off and ignites the gaseous fumes rising up out of DC. Can’b believe it won’t happen and when it does where will the armed forces stand.
‘Good Luck. I guess I am waiting to see if a spark goes off and ignites the gaseous fumes rising up out of DC. Can’b believe it won’t happen and when it does where will the armed forces stand.”
From what I’ve read, seen and heard, the majority of the armed forces will uphold their oath: “I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;”
The President will immediately ask for and receive UN Forces.
Disappointed to hear that an amendment to repeal the 16th amendment went nowhere fast.
That has been a long dream of mine ever since the IRS harrassed me to death with NO due process. Total facist setup.
Never forget that our politicians are a product of our society. Our society is lazy (physically and intellectually), immoral, self-entitled, and interested in little but self-gratification. Is it any wonder that our leaders are comprised of people catering to these deficiencies and are more than willing to ignore our founding documents to do it?
We can’t even get our politicians to cease and desist with their constant violations of the Tenth Amendment, and our President has made it clear that he intends to rule by diktat, bypassing established methods of legislation. What difference does it make if we add or repeal any of these amendments?
TSA Pulls Plug on Airport Nude Body Scanners BY DAVID KRAVETS 01.18.13
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/tsa-abandons-nude-scanners/
…instead of removing term limits on the president, we should enact term limits on ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS….”no elected official may run (campaign) for re-election, but shall be eligible as a blank-line write-in candidate”
Agreed. One term for the President: six, perhaps eight, years. One term for Congress: four years. One term for Senators: six years.
The US justice system needs to be junked and honest men put in charge. Then the US gov’t needs to be tried for collusion with the Fed Res in defrauding the US public by means of debt currency. Interest paid since its introduction and earnings from it should be confiscated and interest on the amount of interest fraudulently paid should be charged. An honest admin with single nationality passports created, a green dollar printed by the gov’t issued and all legit debts paid.
But as no more than a concerned observer that would prefer the retro step of confrontational insurgency not to be taken, (although that is what the puppets in power seem to be trying to force) I shouldn’t advise.
To a much greater point! There are certifiable ‘nuts’ in both parties!
And, to an even great point! The constitutional charge of congress is quite well and functioning as it should in this instance — it again, completetly ignored the tired old bill attempt.
All excellent comments, but they all assume that any form of democracy can be controlled by “constitutions”, when it is plain that this has failed. Democracy is just legalised corruption. Elected officials are elected by buying votes – the very definition of corruption.
Instead a new system needs to be instigated – google sortition, wherein each citizen has an equal chance to become the ruler. Furthermore, the defining concept of the American experiment is that government should have limited powers – this should be incorporated into any new solution.
I’d try a parliamentary system first.
#9 Anonymous & Zeke: Anonymous: sorry you don’t like Goldwater and yes, the far right of today has gone beyond the simple conservatism of Goldwater and even Ronald Reagan. Again, I agree with Jeb Bush’s statement that Reagan could not be nominated in today’s Republican party. I agree with your notion of fiscal conservatism. But there is no such thing as a “social conservative.” I consider many of those so-called conservatives as bordering on religious socialists due to their desire to use big government to impose their personal religious beliefs. And that gets us back to the 1st Amendment.
Read Zeke’s comment. I agree.
“I consider many of those so-called conservatives as bordering on religious socialists due to their desire to use big government to impose their personal religious beliefs.”
You nailed it! They rail against government size and power yet, in their hypocrisy, ‘demand’ that that same government bow to thier particular brand of religious dictates as law of the land — be damned the constitution.
Funny you mention the term ‘religious socialists’ as describing them. Show me one ‘Christian church’ who has NOT doctrinally supported the long slow creep of socialism in America. Do they not know of Christian Socialism and its origins in Europe? I think they’re best suited for the Christian Socialist Party USA but they fear an honest introspection of their minds Christian indoctrination vs. their political indoctrinations.
When Spanish-speaking countries go bankrupt, tradition dictates that the military depose the president, suspend the constitution, balance the budget, and restore democracy after the economy recovers. Are we a Spanish-speaking country yet?
Anti-secessionists who cite the Civil War as an example are forgetting that in America’s first civil war of 1776, the rebels won and founded the richest nation on Earth, while the losers got hockey, a National Gun Registry, and single-payer health care.
Obama may have the votes, but his coalition of cultural elitists, welfare recipients, feminists, and college students won’t last long on any battlefield. I can already hear the chants of “Hell no, we won’t go!!”
3rd grade math test will confirm that even with a balanced budget amendment, the government would still owe the same amount and more each year with interest.
Every day or so some news anchor or politician reports that we borrow 54 cents or whatever for each dollar the government spends. This is not true. Until the 16 trillion deficit is paid off, the congress borrows every penny they spend.
The label of mandatory spending is placed upon every pet project the congress is bribed to pass. Obama phones, jobs training, child care.
No legislation is ever passed without money changing hands from some corporation or entity which will prosper from the enactment to the congress.
You have to look back almost 200 years to find a politician who did what he said he would do. Andrew Jackson was the only president in US history to pay off the national debt.
History shows us it can be done and Andrew Jackson laid out the battle plan on how to do it.