Amending the Constitution. [W:97]

[Linc]

now in order to do just about anything in the u.s. you have to have an ID, elections are held every two years.......... is someone going to make the excuse you cannot get an ID in two years?..if voting is that important to a person, you would think they would have a ID

I have always argued for voter ID. The less excuses Repubs have the better.

the state legislature creates the voting rules for a state, not the federal government, early voting was created for people who could not vote on the actual day, or those who its hard to get around, it was not meant to have a huge window of time to vote, and because the state legislature is the one who sets the rules, its within their authority of the state to make rule changes........

this will be adjudicated before the election in 2014, and then the election in 2016 and so on

these changes are written into law, and anyone voting is expected to know them and work within them to vote.

I expect the law to change every 2-year term in legislatures run by Repubs as they fine-tune their suppression techniques

their should never be same day registration, ...all registrations needed to be verified in order to vote.

its going to be almost 90 days from the day these law is enacted and voting occurs, if someone cannot get an ID, or know when and where voting is to take place and be registered to vote, within 90 days time..........then they are really interested in voting then?......it does not sound like it to me.

This is your opinion. I believe there should be one Federal law on every issue Repubs bring up at the 50 states.

 

[Linc]

Anmd this from General Colin Powell, the GOP's current worst nightmare.

Speaking in Raleigh, Colin Powell blasts North Carolina voting law | Under The Dome

 

[Master PO]

this will be adjudicated before the election in 2014, and then the election in 2016 and so on ..

why do you believe their should be a huge window of time for people to vote?..and why it it an issue to have a large window......early voting still exist, it did not go away.

I expect the law to change every 2-year term in legislatures run by Repubs as they fine-tune their suppression techniques

well first..... whoever controls the legislature has the power [authority] to change the law......if democrats controlled it they would change to to fit what they desire....also you may note, that if the legislature changes the law, yet they still remain in office after an election, ..it must be because the people want them in that office.

I believe there should be one Federal law on every issue Repubs bring up at the 50 states.

so your saying that if a republican state legislature make a law you and Democrats dont like....then the federal government should be able to nullify that law?.....by what authority..... ,just becuase you dont like it.

and i suppose if democrats make a law, it just fine?

you are very one sided my friend.

 

[Shadow Serious]

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 agree with 1,2,3 and 4. Though for 3 it would have to be as the framers had intended and not as an excuse to expand the Federal power as has been done with the past 80 years.


I do not agree with 5. In stead of abolishing it it needs desperate reform. We need to stop having one State be the first State every time for its primary. We can put States in a few groups and rotate them every election. I would argue that all States should have caucuses select the candidates for the various Parties and all Parties that run a caucus be able to appear on the ballot for that state Period. This would counter the excuse to limit parties due to "cost" of printing ballots and I think only those who are committed to a Parties position should have a say by joining and participating in the caucus

What additional one I would add?

A. I would return appointments of members of the Senate to the State's largest legislative body. This would allow the States to have a check on the power of the Federal Government.

B. I would strip the power of recess appointments from the President. Given that we have a full time Congress instead of the part time one that our framers thought we would have, the power is not necessary and has been abused.

C. With respect to any delegate either to the United Nations or other International bodies cannot give any agreement an affirmative without a vote of the Senate confirming it; and with respect to the United Nations the delegate must vote NO if a measure before the United Nations is not agreed to by the Senate.

D. The Power of the Purse belongs to the House of Representatives and them alone. The Senate will either pass or reject a tax measure and shall not propose any measure for taxation in a bill of the Senate. The Senate may send commentary on any bill including a tax measure that has failed the Senate to the House. The Senate may after the House has passed a bill of appropriation and on review of that bill of appropriation choose to pass their own bill for discussion with the House. In no form should this ability interpreted as a means negating the Senate's prohibition on making a bill for a tax.

E. Reform of Courts inferior to the Supreme Court. The current Court system is a somewhat antiquated system and the Courts are having problems with adjudication of cases in a timely manner to to being overburdened. A more modern Court system has a separation of the Courts criminal and civil law. So let there be separate Courts for both types of law with a Superior Court of Criminal Appeals which would have Criminal courts inferior to it being the highest Court for Criminal Cases that do not have a Constitutional Issue and if a Constitutional Issue does exist the Constitutional Issue alone may be brought to the Supreme Court for hearing if they so choose; and a Superior Civil Appeals which would have inferior courts to it (also) being the highest Court for Civil Cases that do not have a Constitutional Issue and (again) if a Constitutional Issue does exist the Constitutional Issue alone may be brought to the Supreme Court for hearing if thy so choose.

F. Given that the Judicial Branch of government it is necessary for officers of the court to be members of a Bar and thus all member of the Bar are considered part of the Judicial Branch. It shall be forbidden for members of the Bar to hold membership in the Senate or the House. Furthermore this prohibition shall apply to any one who has been a member of the Bar but who has resigned their position and was a member of the Bar for at least a year for the entire time he was a member of the Bar.

G.1 Proposal to repeal the Income Tax The Income Tax would be repealed in this case

G.2 Proposal to place a cap on the percentage that the Federal Government can tax Income. I would propose that the Federal Government cannot tax more than 20% of a persons Income.

G.3 Proposal to forbid the Federal Government from taxing an Inheritance.

H. Strengthening Amendment 10. Would require the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution thru a literal reading of the Constitution and requiring that they go thru the intent of members who voted for those sections or Amendments of the Constitution.

I. The Constitution of the United States guarantees each State to be a Republic. The Supreme Court of the United States shall not have Constituional overview of any State Government so long as the State does not make a distinguishment between persons by race, creed, (and the rest) and that the State shall be allowed to design their Legislative in a way to prevent regions of the State to be over representatives due to population disparity between regions.

J. The Senate of the United States alone will have the Power to send delegates to Super-national bodies (the U.N.) with or without the advice of the President. They may choose either one of their own members or they may choose another citizen of the United States in good standing as a representative provided that 60% of the Senate approves of that person being appointed. The power of the President selecting ambassadors to foreign countries shall not be affected by this amendment.

K. The Federal Government shall not pass a tax affecting a Enumerated Right in the Constitution this shall include a tax on firearms or any thing that would relate to the use and maintenance there of, nor for output of the Press, nor shall contributions for a Church for its purposes, and nor shall a attorney for a criminal case will have his fees taxed.

L. Due to the problems having a President who kept much of his history sealed, any person who wished to be a candidate for President must unseal all financial, academic, and all legal records including presenting a valid Birth Certificate and proof that they have resided in the US for at least 14 years.

I probably can think of some more later.

 

[Shadow Serious]

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?

Our individual vote really doesn't count for much and people who share a region are more likely to agree more on those things that are more important than not. And with respect to the two parties expect to have the electorial votes in the bag, that is why we need reform on voting and reform to break the duopoly that the two Parties have.

States have no interests at all. People, and only people, have interests.

The People who are residents and citizens of a State have interests that they express thru their State and through the Electoral College (which needs reform)

Why should density matter? Why does a less dense state need special treatment?

The people of the bottom 10 in population would not get but small attention if all they had was their vote. More populated ares will always get attention.

This whole thing is nonsense. It's just smaller states who want extra control over the country despite having far less of the population.

They want a say in what happens to the country and especially what the country wants to do to them and their area.

Where you live should not give you more or less power.

Living in a dense population area allows you a greater base from which you can affect how the government makes its decisions.

Instead, we have a system based on gerrymandering and antiquated state-centric mentality.

Gerrymandering is more of an issue with Parties than with the States as an institution. You are obviously prejudiced against States and believe that they should be eliminated. This means that your opposition to the Electoral College is a consequence to your objections to the existence of the States.
Perhaps you should describe more on how we would have government without States instead of eliminating the Electoral College.

Every person's vote should count equally.

That is why we have a House of Representatives and each District should be equal in population in the State as possible. And States have Legislatures with the same principle. With my State the Supreme Court stuck down the way the Senate was elected since it was done so by each county having a rep. There is no guarantee of proportional representation written in the Constitution for States and since the State House did have proportional representation I view it as them pulling it out of their ass.

Then state lines won't make a lick of difference.

Says the person who wants to eliminate the States. The United States is too big of the country to have a Central Government system without it being Totalitarian. And that is something very few people want except some Democrats, Republicans, and Bureaucrats.

National politics should be national, not based on a few localities.

The President really isn't supposed to have much to day about domestic issues and most domestic issues are not really national ones to start with.

Presidents wouldn't campaign state by state, because they wouldn't obtain votes state by state.

They would campaign in high population centers mostly and some in the intemediate population areas and not at all over the rural areas and their point of view will not matter in the least.

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.

We do not exist under the Articles of Confederation but a Constitution that has a Federal Government, State Government and The People with separation of powers between levels. Under the Article of Confederation the states did not get powers from this but already had said powers to begin with. The States failed to give sufficient powers to the supranational body to pay of debts and for common purposes. Even the medium sized countries that exist have regional areas that deal with that region and its issues yet you want to only have a Central Government. The best that can be hopped for that it would cater to the interest of the top 10 megalopolis or less and hopefully not be too destructive of the rest. I am not confident that would happen.

 

[Shadow Serious]

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.

In my State a poll official will go to the end of the line at the time polls close and will then not allow any more people to be added at the end of the line. You will need to prove your statement with some proposed legislation at least.

 

[Master PO]

In my State a poll official will go to the end of the line at the time polls close and will then not allow any more people to be added at the end of the line. You will need to prove your statement with some proposed legislation at least.

the last part says it all...

as far as i have ever heard.......their is a deadline to vote, ...if you there an waiting by that deadline........you will get to vote, if you not, then you do not vote......i have never heard of people being denied a vote, becuase of lack of voting machines, the problem is people who believe they can show up at anytime, just because a line is still formed.

 

[Linc]

Your state has not written the same law as North Carolina.

In my State a poll official will go to the end of the line at the time polls close and will then not allow any more people to be added at the end of the line. You will need to prove your statement with some proposed legislation at least.

 

[Linc]

This is not what happened in Florida, where people waited 9 hours in Democratic precincts. What say you on that? It happened across the Nation in Dem. precincts in states run by Repups. It is and always will be about politics.

the last part says it all...

 

[Shadow Serious]

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

Would agree to two terms for the Senate but keep it 6 years. Five two-year terms for the House is OK.

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...

Agree and I might reconsider the President's Pension too, or at least prevent an ex-President from interfering in the International political arena.

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.

Good.

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

Yes.

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

I would rather not have congress have a COLA I would have it as a cap on how much they can raise it though.

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

This is a must do.

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.)

Aside for minor misdemeanors from their State and to the Capital and the reverse. Yes.

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.

Just make the above retroactive and restriction in affect to all previous members of Congress.

 

[Master PO]

This is not what happened in Florida, where people waited 9 hours in Democratic precincts. What say you on that? It happened across the Nation in Dem. precincts in states run by Repups. It is and always will be about politics.

if someone is waiting in line, and the polls closes while they are in line, then they must be able to vote, because that would be the law.

though registration and looking at those numbers [which is why there never should be same day registration] , measures should have been made to create more voting poll places.

so you think when democrats run the voting, its always fair and honest?

 

[Linc]

so you think when democrats run the voting, its always fair and honest?

I have not heard of 9-hour lines in Democratic states like my Illinois. Have you?

 

[Shadow Serious]

and the Federal government in charge of stopping states' wrongs

Who is in charge of stopping the Federal government's wrongs?

 

[Linc]

Which wrongs would those be?

Who is in charge of stopping the Federal government's wrongs?

 

[P. Kersey]

Would agree to two terms for the Senate but keep it 6 years. Five two-year terms for the House is OK.





Agree and I might reconsider the President's Pension too, or at least prevent an ex-President from interfering in the International political arena.






Good.





Yes.



I would rather not have congress have a COLA I would have it as a cap on how much they can raise it though.






This is a must do.






Aside for minor misdemeanors from their State and to the Capital and the reverse. Yes.






Just make the above retroactive and restriction in affect to all previous members of Congress.

Thanks. Appreciate your reply.

 

[Master PO]

I have not heard of 9-hour lines in Democratic states like my Illinois. Have you?

so you going to say democrats are honest and fair, and never do a wrong, when it comes to voting?

well i have not heard of 9 hour lines in my republican state.

 

[Shadow Serious]

Which wrongs would those be?

How about the abuse of power by the IRS over the approval of non-profit orgs?

 

[Linc]

Why are you ignoring Florida, just for starters?

so you going to say democrats are honest and fair, and never do a wrong, when it comes to voting?

well i have not heard of 9 hour lines in my republican state.

 

[Linc]

Were these non-profit organizations actually fronts for Republican voting groups? I'm glad to see the IRS do its job and go after these felons. Too bad the impeachable House will not fund them so they can do their job. Just as with the Veterans' Administration.

How about the abuse of power by the IRS over the approval of non-profit orgs?

 

[Linc]

Has North Carolina's voter ID law gone too far? | USCatholic.org

 

[Master PO]

Why are you ignoring Florida, just for starters?

why are you from the daily kos?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

Stop the personal attacks, folks. My infraction trigger finger is getting itchy.

 

[obvious Child]

How about the abuse of power by the IRS over the approval of non-profit orgs?

Abuse? You mean how both Democrat and Republican organizations were profiled? And how only Democrat organizations were rejected?

There is no scandal here. Only partisan hyperbole. The fact of the matter is that 501(c)4s are not suppose to be primarily political. Therefore, the Service should have profiled overly political groups.

The only people here who think there is a scandal are those who do not understand the 501(c) code.

 

[Shadow Serious]

Were these non-profit organizations actually fronts for Republican voting groups? I'm glad to see the IRS do its job and go after these felons. Too bad the impeachable House will not fund them so they can do their job. Just as with the Veterans' Administration.

You only think that one was a Republican front. Most organizations that are conservative and libertarian leaning that are NOT a front for the Republican Party. They are orgs that try to make representatives or candidates more conservative or libertarian just like the liberal or even authoritarian orgs to push their point of view. Given the make up of the Republican National Committee these orgs would be less conservative and libertarian and more of a version of Democrat lite.

 

[Shadow Serious]

Abuse? You mean how both Democrat and Republican organizations were profiled? And how only Democrat organizations were rejected?

There is no scandal here. Only partisan hyperbole. The fact of the matter is that 501(c)4s are not suppose to be primarily political. Therefore, the Service should have profiled overly political groups.

The only people here who think there is a scandal are those who do not understand the 501(c) code.

The primary focus of these orgs is education of a particular political philosophy and policies. According to the code as long as these orgs do not make their main focus on the election of canidates they are complying with the code.