• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amending the Constitution. [W:97]

GlenS

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2013
Messages
71
Reaction score
37
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As I understand it the states can amend the Constitution without going through Congress. If a certain percentage of the states agree to an amendment the federal Congress can do nothing about it. The amendments needed are 1) Term limits for member of congress. 2) Term limits for Supreme Court Justices. 3) Clearification of the commerce clause as it was intended. 4) Members of congress cannot exempt themselves from the laws they pass. 5) Do away with the electoral college. President elected by popular vote.

Any more?
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,510
Reaction score
50,094
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hmm. Disagree with 5. Not sure about 2.

As for 3, kinda depends on what you mean by "clarify". If you mean make clear that the commerce clause was never intended to be a rubber sheet covering every dubious intervention the Fed can imagine, but was only intended to prevent the States from enacting tariffs or starting trade wars with each other, then I concur.
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Term limits for congress are meaningless until we do something about campaign contributions. Who cares if we replace the people sitting in office if their successors are bought and paid for by the same corrupt business interests?

The supreme court could reasonably have a duration to the term, rather than a lifetime appointment. It should still be pretty long, though.

The commerce clause is working as intended. Commerce has changed. Intrastate commerce is a relic of the past.

Sure, make sure that congress must play by the rules it sets. This seems reasonable.

Absolutely the electoral college should go. It's another relic of state-centric thinking that has minimal bearing on the modern landscape of this country. The fear of big states pushing around little states is completely nonsensical. States do not act as cohesive wholes, and turning them into winner-take-all battlegrounds does nothing to help this country.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,510
Reaction score
50,094
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Term limits for congress are meaningless until we do something about campaign contributions. Who cares if we replace the people sitting in office if their successors are bought and paid for by the same corrupt business interests?

The supreme court could reasonably have a duration to the term, rather than a lifetime appointment. It should still be pretty long, though.

The commerce clause is working as intended. Commerce has changed. Intrastate commerce is a relic of the past.

Sure, make sure that congress must play by the rules it sets. This seems reasonable.

Absolutely the electoral college should go. It's another relic of state-centric thinking that has minimal bearing on the modern landscape of this country. The fear of big states pushing around little states is completely nonsensical. States do not act as cohesive wholes, and turning them into winner-take-all battlegrounds does nothing to help this country.

They don't have to be winner take all; more and more states are giving out their electoral votes on a proportional basis.


For small states, though, keeping it winner-takes-all is the only way for them to avoid being completely ignored in presidential politics as "too small to bother with".
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
They don't have to be winner take all; more and more states are giving out their electoral votes on a proportional basis.

For small states, though, keeping it winner-takes-all is the only way for them to avoid being completely ignored in presidential politics as "too small to bother with".
States don't matter. The idea of ignoring some states is foolish. Neither candidate could afford to just focus on big areas (which they will only win about half of) and leave everyone else to their opponent. That's how you lose elections. The paranoia of small states is just one more stupid problem caused by state-centric mentality. We're all Americans. We don't push each other around based on something as silly as geography. It's only the anti-federalist state supremacy types, from the states too small to push anyone around, who are afraid of it happening. Methinks they do protest too much.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
117,938
Reaction score
34,042
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
States don't matter. The idea of ignoring some states is foolish. Neither candidate could afford to just focus on big areas (which they will only win about half of) and leave everyone else to their opponent. That's how you lose elections. The paranoia of small states is just one more stupid problem caused by state-centric mentality. We're all Americans. We don't push each other around based on something as silly as geography. It's only the anti-federalist state supremacy types, from the states too small to push anyone around, who are afraid of it happening. Methinks they do protest too much.
You do realize it's not about size but density, right? It's about rural states having a voice. If one is inclined to the left, we cannot ignore the bias regarding discarding the rural voice. You might consider if this bias has influenced your position.
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
You do realize it's not about size but density, right? It's about rural states having a voice. If one is inclined to the left, we cannot ignore the bias regarding discarding the rural voice. You might consider if this bias has influenced your position.
Rural people, like urban ones, are split about 50/50. The red state / blue state split is nonsense. Most states split at most 60/40, others are almost even. Rural liberals are just as ignored as urban conservatives. Why should lines on a map matter so much? When it comes to national politics, the candidate with the most votes should win. Nothing else should matter. I'm talking about every vote counting, not discarding anyone. This whole system is based on the assumption that people who live near each other will always vote in a bloc. That's just nonsense. That's not what really happens.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,510
Reaction score
50,094
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Rural people, like urban ones, are split about 50/50. The red state / blue state split is nonsense. Most states split at most 60/40, others are almost even. Rural liberals are just as ignored as urban conservatives. Why should lines on a map matter so much? When it comes to national politics, the candidate with the most votes should win. Nothing else should matter. I'm talking about every vote counting, not discarding anyone. This whole system is based on the assumption that people who live near each other will always vote in a bloc. That's just nonsense. That's not what really happens.


If the Federal government wasn't so damn powerful I wouldn't care who was President nearly as much. But it is, and it is in all our daily lives, and it's power and potential for intrusiveness is severe... and thus I do care. I live in a smaller, more rural state and don't want candidates for POTUS to ignore our viewpoints.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
117,938
Reaction score
34,042
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Rural people, like urban ones, are split about 50/50.
I don't think so. At least, not in every rural state.

This whole system is based on the assumption that people who live near each other will always vote in a bloc.
It's based on a low density state having a significant influence.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Rural people, like urban ones, are split about 50/50. The red state / blue state split is nonsense. Most states split at most 60/40, others are almost even. Rural liberals are just as ignored as urban conservatives. Why should lines on a map matter so much? When it comes to national politics, the candidate with the most votes should win. Nothing else should matter. I'm talking about every vote counting, not discarding anyone. This whole system is based on the assumption that people who live near each other will always vote in a bloc. That's just nonsense. That's not what really happens.
Because states themselves still have a vested interest in national politics independent of the individuals. We are not a governed by a single-tier system no matter how bad leftist want it to be that way.
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
If the Federal government wasn't so damn powerful I wouldn't care who was President nearly as much. But it is, and it is in all our daily lives, and it's power and potential for intrusiveness is severe... and thus I do care. I live in a smaller, more rural state and don't want candidates for POTUS to ignore our viewpoints.
Then why do you push for electoral laws that guarantee that your opinion doesn't matter, because one party or another can safely consider your state in the bag?

Because states themselves still have a vested interest in national politics independent of the individuals. We are not a governed by a single-tier system no matter how bad leftist want it to be that way.
States have no interests at all. People, and only people, have interests.

It's based on a low density state having a significant influence.
Why should density matter? Why does a less dense state need special treatment? This whole thing is nonsense. It's just smaller states who want extra control over the country despite having far less of the population. Where you live should not give you more or less power. Instead, we have a system based on gerrymandering and antiquated state-centric mentality. Every person's vote should count equally. Then state lines won't make a lick of difference. National politics should be national, not based on a few localities. Presidents wouldn't campaign state by state, because they wouldn't obtain votes state by state.

All of this was just a reaction to the flaws of the Articles of Confederation, which were flawed because of all the power they gave to states. Instead, we are one country, and every time we act like we're still a confederation, we suffer for it.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
States have no interests at all. People, and only people, have interests.
Strange that the states sue the federal government over things like Obamacare if they have no interest since not having an interest would deny them their standing in federal court to sue :2wave:
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
117,938
Reaction score
34,042
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Then why do you push for electoral laws that guarantee that your opinion doesn't matter, because one party or another can safely consider your state in the bag?
It's not so much about my opinion, it's about states organizing to establish influence.

States have no interests at all. People, and only people, have interests.
Why do you hate decentralized power?

Why should density matter? Why does a less dense state need special treatment? This whole thing is nonsense. It's just smaller states who want extra control over the country despite having far less of the population. Where you live should not give you more or less power. Instead, we have a system based on gerrymandering and antiquated state-centric mentality. Every person's vote should count equally. Then state lines won't make a lick of difference. National politics should be national, not based on a few localities. Presidents wouldn't campaign state by state, because they wouldn't obtain votes state by state.
A country is also about geographic health.

All of this was just a reaction to the flaws of the Articles of Confederation, which were flawed because of all the power they gave to states. Instead, we are one country, and every time we act like we're still a confederation, we suffer for it.
Not everyone adores centralized power.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
james madison--The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
 

John Liberty

Banned
Joined
Jun 30, 2013
Messages
275
Reaction score
72
Location
Ask the NSA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
As I understand it the states can amend the Constitution without going through Congress. If a certain percentage of the states agree to an amendment the federal Congress can do nothing about it. The amendments needed are 1) Term limits for member of congress. 2) Term limits for Supreme Court Justices. 3) Clearification of the commerce clause as it was intended. 4) Members of congress cannot exempt themselves from the laws they pass. 5) Do away with the electoral college. President elected by popular vote.

Any more?
-I like #1
-Not quite sure about #2
-LOVE #4

I think we should pass this amendment:
Alert: Senate To Vote On Paul Amendment To End Egypt Aid. Blocked 86-13 | Peace . Gold . Liberty
 

Linc

NIMBY
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
52,190
Reaction score
15,247
Location
IL—16
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
A Constitutional amendment to allow folks who are in line when the polls close to be allowed to vote, going against the new wave of Republican 21st century schizoid Jim crow laws.
james madison--The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
A Constitutional amendment to allow folks who are in line when the polls close to be allowed to vote, going against the new wave of Republican 21st century schizoid Jim crow laws.
my post does not have to do with a constitutional amendment........and nothing republican..you need to stop riding the partisan wagon of politicians, and understand ...no party is the better of the 2

the translation of my quote, is" that all DIRECT power should NEVER be in one set of hands.

direct power should be divided in two, ..if you put total power into 1 person a king, a few an oligarchy , or it your put it in only the people/the mob, they will use the power and become tyrannical.

that is why the founders, put direct power into the people [the house] and the states [the senate], because each with power... balances the other, so that neither abuse its powers.
 

P. Kersey

Banned
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
324
Location
30n x 90w
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Here is something I got by email regarding congressional reform. Slightly off topic but still relevant.

Congressional Reform Act of 2014

1. Term Limits

10 years max, some possible options are below.

A. Two five-year Senate terms

B. Five two-year House terms





2. No Tenure / No Pension

Members of Congress receive a salary while in office, that salary and all other benefits end when they leave office. No lifetime pensions, health care, etc...




3. Congress members (past, present & future) are to participate in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately.

All future funds flow into the Social Security system and Congress participates with all Americans.




4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.




5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.




6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.




7. Members of Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
(In fact I personally think that ANY public official at ANY level who is convicted of corruption in office should receive TWICE the penalty that a regular citizen receives.)




8. All contracts with past and present members of Congress are void effective 1/1/14.

The American people did not make the contract members of Congress enjoy. Congress made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.

The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
 

Linc

NIMBY
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
52,190
Reaction score
15,247
Location
IL—16
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Do you believe that people standing in line when the polls close should be barred from voting? Republicans do.
my post does not have to do with a constitutional amendment........and nothing republican..you need to stop riding the partisan wagon of politicians, and understand ...no party is the better of the 2

the translation of my quote, is" that all DIRECT power should NEVER be in one set of hands.

direct power should be divided in two, ..if you put total power into 1 person a king, a few an oligarchy , or it your put it in only the people/the mob, they will use the power and become tyrannical.

that is why the founders, put direct power into the people [the house] and the states [the senate], because each with power... balances the other, so that neither abuse its powers.
 

AlabamaPaul

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
8,834
Reaction score
2,812
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Do you believe that people standing in line when the polls close should be barred from voting? Republicans do.
I would like to see support for the assertion...
 

Linc

NIMBY
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
52,190
Reaction score
15,247
Location
IL—16
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Can you answer the question about being thrown out of voter lines?

You're ignoring the new North Carolina law you already knew about it.

Why were states on the "watch list" ready with New voter suppression laws at the moment the SCOTUS Corruptus ruled?

If you were on camera, you'd have a hard time keeping a straight face.

I would like to see support for the assertion...
 

AlabamaPaul

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
8,834
Reaction score
2,812
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
You're ignoring the new North Carolina law you already knew about it.

Why were states on the "watch list" ready with Brand-New voter suppression laws at the moment the SCOTUS Corruptus ruled?


If you were on camera, you'd have a hard time keeping a straight face.
I'm not ignoring anything. I would just like you to support your assertion that those already in line wold be denied their vote...
 

Linc

NIMBY
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
52,190
Reaction score
15,247
Location
IL—16
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
And I told you it was in the North Carolina law, now for the 2nd time.

Now keep playing your circular games on this touchy subject that Alabama is most guilty of also.

And you still haven't answered the question so I'll A$$ume you believe in throwing voters out-of-line when the bell rings.

I'm not ignoring anything. I would just like you to support your assertion that those already in line wold be denied their vote...
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm not ignoring anything. I would just like you to support your assertion that those already in line wold be denied their vote...
Good evening, AP.:2wave:

It's beyond me why presentation of simple ID is voter suppression.
 

Linc

NIMBY
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
52,190
Reaction score
15,247
Location
IL—16
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
ID has nothing to do with my conversation so quit lying. I've always supported voter ID, if for no other reason than to cause you to STFU.
Good evening, AP.:2wave:

It's beyond me why presentation of simple ID is voter suppression.
 
Top Bottom