• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

If you could change ONE existing law... (1 Viewer)

GreenvilleGrows said:
Out of curiosity, radcen, are you a drug dealer?
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that only a person with illicit intent is allowed to feign indignation at something that is unfair and unjust regardless how and where it is applied?

I know it's easy to become jaded and cynical in today's society, but there are a few of us who actually do believe in right and wrong, especially when the right side is doing wrong themselves. Civil asset forfeiture simply goes against everything at my core being as to what I believe justice is supposed to be. Simple as that (to use a phrase I rarely like to use). Seldom does the end justify the means.

Did I directly answer your question? No, I didn't. And I won't. You'll just have to take the time to get to know me better and figure it out for yourself. Or, assume. Your choice.
 
Your Star said:
It's in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

never said it wasn't...I'm aware of the existence of article 4 section 1

tell me, I have a permit to carry concealed weapons issued by the state of Nevada and Texas in adherence to their state laws... are those laws and permits honored in Illinois? New York? California?

the answer is no... they are not.

is this unconstitutional behavior by Illinois, California, and New York?... or is it that article 4, section one, does not function in the manner in which you say it does?

as pertaining to marriage.. how do we reconcile one state that expressly permits same sex marriage with another that expressly outlaws it?... which state law should be honored by all other states?... how do you choose supremacy of law between 2 states that have opposite and opposing laws?
 
Thrilla said:
this thread is not about corporate personhood... start a new thread is you wish to examine it in depth.
Click to expand...

Its about what law we would change. You just discussed the marriage issue. What is so different that you cannot discuss the proposal I made as a legitimate part of this thread?
 
radcen said:
1. It's too easily and too often abused by those who utilize it, as it places a profit motive where none should be.
Click to expand...
Funny... I've seized assets from people... yet I received no profit off of it. Where is this "profit motive" you speak of?

2. It completely ignores the concepts of "justice" and "innocent until proven guilty".
Click to expand...
The assets shouldn't be officially seized until after a hearing has been conducted.
3. It unfairly and unjustly punishes people who are indeed innocent.
Click to expand...
So...everyone is innocent?


The purpose of asset forfeiture is to REMOVE the profit security of those who earn money by violating the law.
 
radcen said:
Are you suggesting that only a person with illicit intent is allowed to feign indignation at something that is unfair and unjust regardless how and where it is applied?

I know it's easy to become jaded and cynical in today's society, but there are a few of us who actually do believe in right and wrong, especially when the right side is doing wrong themselves. Civil asset forfeiture simply goes against everything at my core being as to what I believe justice is supposed to be. Simple as that (to use a phrase I rarely like to use). Seldom does the end justify the means.

Did I directly answer your question? No, I didn't. And I won't. You'll just have to take the time to get to know me better and figure it out for yourself. Or, assume. Your choice.
Click to expand...

So you believe drug dealers have the right to earn a profit off of their illegal activities?
 
haymarket said:
Its about what law we would change. You just discussed the marriage issue. What is so different that you cannot discuss the proposal I made as a legitimate part of this thread?
Click to expand...

discussing it is fine.. and I said my peace to you on it.

if you are fine with not being able to sue corporations, or tax them, or have them held accountable to laws, or hold limited liability as applicable... fine by me... i just hope you understand what you are supporting.
 
Does it still only count as one law if it's a State law in the majority of States? Because my top two-- hands down-- are legalizing concealed carry without a permit and abolishing the local election of school boards. I'd have a hard time deciding between those two.

After that, it's a long long list.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Does it still only count as one law if it's a State law in the majority of States? Because my top two-- hands down-- are legalizing concealed carry without a permit and abolishing the local election of school boards. I'd have a hard time deciding between those two.

After that, it's a long long list.
Click to expand...

I'd really have to advocate for keeping the voting for school boards. It's pretty much the closest citizens get to deciding what the kids get taught and what they don't, for better or worse.
 
Thrilla said:
discussing it is fine.. and I said my peace to you on it.

if you are fine with not being able to sue corporations, or tax them, or have them held accountable to laws, or hold limited liability as applicable... fine by me... i just hope you understand what you are supporting.
Click to expand...

where do you get these conclusion that you jump to?
 
I think I would probably legalize marijuana, because that would do the most good with one law. You cut down on crime, reduce the prison population, reduce the DOJ budget, increase government revenue, and open up hemp for industrial uses. A close second would be the Patriot act.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Does it still only count as one law if it's a State law in the majority of States? Because my top two-- hands down-- are legalizing concealed carry without a permit and abolishing the local election of school boards. I'd have a hard time deciding between those two.

After that, it's a long long list.
Click to expand...
Why would you want to abolish direct election of school boards?
 
DashingAmerican said:
I'd really have to advocate for keeping the voting for school boards. It's pretty much the closest citizens get to deciding what the kids get taught and what they don't, for better or worse.
Click to expand...

Yes. That is exactly why I want to abolish it. That job is too important to be performed by people who are wholly unqualified.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Yes. That is exactly why I want to abolish it. That job is too important to be performed by people who are wholly unqualified.
Click to expand...
It's also too important to allow whichever party is in power to teach it's whims.
 
I would impose a two term limit on the federal House and Senate as we do for presidents. States could decide what term limits, if any, they wanted to impose on state legislators.
 
DashingAmerican said:
It's also too important to allow whichever party is in power to teach it's whims.
Click to expand...

How much Department of Transportation policy changes when the party in office changes? It's a very big bureaucracy in which very few positions are politically appointed-- and as bad as our Presidents have been this century, they're not half as stupid as the people who voted them into office.

radcen said:
What would be a better system?
Click to expand...

Anything at all. Hell, we would probably even be better off if we just auctioned off school board seats, and put the money into the school budgets. Sure, the school system would be bought and paid for-- but at least the corporations have a vested interest in the school system working.
 
Last edited:
Viktyr Korimir said:
How much Department of Transportation policy changes when the party in office changes? It's a very big bureaucracy in which very few positions are politically appointed-- and as bad as our Presidents have been this century, they're not half as stupid as the people who voted them into office.
Click to expand...

DoE is way more important to most people the the DoT
 
DashingAmerican said:
DoE is way more important to most people the the DoT
Click to expand...
At the federal level I would say that "most people" are wrong. Education would be better served at the state level and lower, IMO. Federal involvement should be minimal.

Much of what the DOT does could also be handled just fine at the state level, as well, though not as universally.
 
radcen said:
If you could change ONE existing law... which law would you change, and why?

I would eliminate civil asset forfeiture. Completely. Wipe it off the books. Why?

1. It's too easily and too often abused by those who utilize it, as it places a profit motive where none should be.
2. It completely ignores the concepts of "justice" and "innocent until proven guilty".
3. It unfairly and unjustly punishes people who are indeed innocent.
Click to expand...

i'd make pot legal.
 
I would add just one Constitutional Amendment: Every Federal law, past, present, and future, automatically has a 20-year sunset clause. In order for the law to remain on the books, it must be passed again by Congress and the President. This would force Congress to address and clean up a lot of their stupid laws, instead of just sweeping them under the carpet for political survivability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom