Recommended Constitutional Amendments

[Woodman909]

any assistance from government assistance weather it be a direct check or a write off any thing that increases your finances.

Okie Dokie.... I'm with you 100%

 

[Master PO]

I like your reply.
This thread is asking for proposed Amendments. My suggestion is by Amendment we define the true intent of the welfare and commerce clauses so they can no longer be misused.

problem with that is congress would still have to be part of a vote , and they are not going to vote for anything which would constrain their spending, becuase that is how a politicians work to keep getting elected....by spending other peoples money.

 

[sangha]

any assistance from government assistance weather it be a direct check or a write off any thing that increases your finances.

IOW, you want the govt to follow everyone around and keep track of everything they consume so they can measure how much your life is subsidized.

Scratch the surface of a "conservative", and you find a totalitarian

 

[YoungConserv]

IOW, you want the govt to follow everyone around and keep track of everything they consume so they can measure how much your life is subsidized.

Scratch the surface of a "conservative", and you find a totalitarian

The IRS already has that data of basic forms so there is no real increase in government power. I would rather get rid of these programs and keep voting intact but if we want to keep then I was simply pointing out how that could be done with out falling prey to the titler cycle.

 

[sangha]

The IRS already has that data of basic forms so there is no real increase in government power. I would rather get rid of these programs and keep voting intact but if we want to keep then I was simply pointing out how that could be done with out falling prey to the titler cycle.

The IRS tracks how many miles people travel on public roads?

In which fantasy world of your?

 

[YoungConserv]

The IRS tracks how many miles people travel on public roads?

In which fantasy world of your?

That wasn't what I was getting at all.

 

[vesper]

problem with that is congress would still have to be part of a vote , and they are not going to vote for anything which would constrain their spending, becuase that is how a politicians work to keep getting elected....by spending other peoples money.

Actually I think the blame should lie squarely at the feet of the citizens who voted for their representation in Congress. They are the ones that voted in those who would be inclined to support the spending of other peoples' money on THEM. Aren't we close to 50% of We the People collecting some kind of government entitlement? The increase in welfare recipients, unemployment, Obamaphones, Medicaid, food stamps, etc. are at all time highs. Heck under this administration they have extended what qualifies a person for disability. If you haven't read the list, you should. These days I think a hang nail may just be enough to qualify someone. Obviously an overwhelming group of people want something for nothing and vote for the one that promises them just that. It's like hiring someone to steal from another so they benefit from the spoils.

 

[Master PO]

Actually I think the blame should lie squarely at the feet of the citizens who voted for their representation in Congress. They are the ones that voted in those who would be inclined to support the spending of other peoples' money on THEM. Aren't we close to 50% of We the People collecting some kind of government entitlement? The increase in welfare recipients, unemployment, Obamaphones, Medicaid, food stamps, etc. are at all time highs. Heck under this administration they have extended what qualifies a person for disability. If you haven't read the list, you should. These days I think a hang nail may just be enough to qualify someone. Obviously an overwhelming group of people want something for nothing and vote for the one that promises them just that. It's like hiring someone to steal from another so they benefit from the spoils.

i dont want to draw this out and make it long and not understand able.

the 17th amendment changed america.

it removed state power from the federal government, and turned that state power over to the people.

the house is already an institution for the representation of the people.

this makes the interest of the people presented in both parts of congress, power in now concentrated only in one entity ..the people only.....that is democracy , and its evil.


before the 17th power was divided between the people and the states, ...this is what is called mixed government, which the founders created.

this divides power in 2 entities, so that no one can have all the power to be tyrannical.

before the 17th , the interest of the states and the people had to come together for legislation to be passed.......this is republican government.....not democratic government.

the founders created republican government..article 4 section 4 of the constitution.

since the states have no longer power, they can no longer stop the power of the federal government from expanding and talking over their powers.

 

[vesper]

i dont want to draw this out and make it long and not understand able.

the 17th amendment changed america.

it removed state power from the federal government, and turned that state power over to the people.

the house is already an institution for the representation of the people.

this makes the interest of the people presented in both parts of congress, power in now concentrated only in one entity ..the people only.....that is democracy , and its evil.


before the 17th power was divided between the people and the states, ...this is what is called mixed government, which the founders created.

this divides power in 2 entities, so that no one can have all the power to be tyrannical.

before the 17th , the interest of the states and the people had to come together for legislation to be passed.......this is republican government.....not democratic government.

the founders created republican government..article 4 section 4 of the constitution.

since the states have no longer power, they can no longer stop the power of the federal government from expanding and talking over their powers.

It was George Mason at the Convention in Philly 1787? that proposed the idea that the Senate be chosen by state legislators and his reasoning was basically what you have described above. By allowing the states to pick the representatives it would act as a barrier wall keeping the Federal government from becoming so powerful that it swallowed up the state legislatures. His proposal received an unanimous vote from the others present.

There is support for repealing the 17th Amendment within the Tea Party. Of course the left finds it ridiculous. I've heard it said that though there are some who fear peasants with pitchforks and torches, others fear more those peasants with pocket Constitutions.

 

[Master PO]

It was George Mason at the Convention in Philly 1787? that proposed the idea that the Senate be chosen by state legislators and his reasoning was basically what you have described above. By allowing the states to pick the representatives it would act as a barrier wall keeping the Federal government from becoming so powerful that it swallowed up the state legislatures. His proposal received an unanimous vote from the others present.

There is support for repealing the 17th Amendment within the Tea Party. Of course the left finds it ridiculous. I've heard it said that though there are some who fear peasants with pitchforks and torches, others fear more those peasants with pocket Constitutions.

the left fears it becuase the dont want republican government, they want democracy.

which works to create equally in every aspect of life....not just the law.

 

[Grendel]

2. Already covered. We don't have jurisdiction over our citizens outside the country.

There are actually laws regarding the actions of US citizens in other countries. For example, sex-tourism in Indochina is illegal, even if it's legal in the country you're in. Also, US Citizens can't travel to Cuba, even if they're leaving from a different country. In Europe and elsewhere you can buy a ticket to Cuba, but if you're a US citizen and do it, you can get jail time and a $50,000 fine.

- Clarification on the First Amendment that clearly forbids government from restricting citizens from expressing their faith including in the public square.

The government doesn't restrict citizens from expressing their faith in the public square. It restricts the government from expressing it's faith in the public square. If a citizen is told he can't preach on a street corner, that's illegal. If a local government is told it can't preach religion on the street corner, that's not illegal. Just know the difference between someone acting as a individual citizen and someone acting as an agent of the government.

- Amnesty,legal status,earned citizenship,dream act or any other form of amnesty will never be granted to those who are in the country illegally.

- Elected and appointed officials aiding or trying to aid(trying to enact amnesty,forbidding local law enforcement from aiding immigration authorities and etc. ) illegals will be removed from office,thrown in prison for a year and permanently banned from serving in elected or appointed office.

- Natural born citizenship will only be granted only those born on US soil and has at least one biological parent that is already a US citizen.US soil includes US military bases and embassies.

- Dual citizenship is banned. You are either a citizen of the USA or you are not.

- Entry into our country will be denied to those from countries we have the most illegal immigration problems with.

- In order to register to vote you must present a state issued ID and birth certificate(or certificate of naturalization).

- IN order to vote you must present a state issued ID.

- In order to get valid state ID you must present a birth certificate, SS card

-Abortion will be banned unless three or more doctors have confirmed that carrying a unborn child to 50% viability and vaginal or c-section will cost the mother her life.

Notice how many of your proposals are about what people can't do? Look at the bill of rights. It's about what the government can't stop people from doing. You want amendments on what people can't do. You want amendments restricting freedom, not protecting them.

 

[jamesrage]

Notice how many of your proposals are about what people can't do? Look at the bill of rights. It's about what the government can't stop people from doing. You want amendments on what people can't do. You want amendments restricting freedom, not protecting them.

I have no problem with that.Besides the abortion ban protects the unborn's right to life.

 

[Grendel]

I have no problem with that.Besides the abortion ban protects the unborn's right to life.

Fair enough. I always thought of the Constitution as being there to protect freedom -- protect it from government over-reach. The Constitution is there to say what the government can and cannot do. The legislature is there to say what the people can and cannot do, but they are limited in what they can decree . . . by the Constitution. The Constitution has never been a document to limit the freedom of citizens, but to limit the power of government. That's by the fact of our history as a free country, though that freedom is being threatened every day by both major political parties trying to increase the power of government, at the expense of citizen. The attempt to turn the Constitution upside-down by changing it from being a document to protect freedom to being a document to limit freedom would pretty well be the final death knell for liberty, though.

 

[YoungConserv]

Fair enough. I always thought of the Constitution as being there to protect freedom -- protect it from government over-reach. The Constitution is there to say what the government can and cannot do. The legislature is there to say what the people can and cannot do, but they are limited in what they can decree . . . by the Constitution. The Constitution has never been a document to limit the freedom of citizens, but to limit the power of government. That's by the fact of our history as a free country, though that freedom is being threatened every day by both major political parties trying to increase the power of government, at the expense of citizen. The attempt to turn the Constitution upside-down by changing it from being a document to protect freedom to being a document to limit freedom would pretty well be the final death knell for liberty, though.

That's only if you look at it only from the women's side if you look at it from the babies side liberty is preserved.

 

[Individual]

Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments would be a good start in getting power back into the hands of the States and ultimately the people.

 

[Grendel]

Repeal the [ . . . . ] 17th amendments

It always blows me away that some people don't want the right to vote.

 

[head of joaquin]

1. Repeal the 2nd Amendment.

2. Require an excise tax on the top bracket to pay for any military action within 5 years.

3. Ban activist judges from ruling that corporations are persons.

4. Ban campaign contributions except by individuals.

5. Ban local and state government from giving preferential tax breaks to favored companies, like Walmart.

6. End preferential tax treatment for religious and political organizations.

 

[Thrilla]

1. Repeal the 2nd Amendment.

2. Require an excise tax on the top bracket to pay for any military action within 5 years.

3. Ban activist judges from ruling that corporations are persons.

4. Ban campaign contributions except by individuals.

5. Ban local and state government from giving preferential tax breaks to favored companies, like Walmart.

6. End preferential tax treatment for religious and political organizations.

wow....

 

[Thrilla]

It always blows me away that some people don't want the right to vote.

that's an odd way to look at it..

 

[Grendel]

that's an odd way to look at it..

Not odd at all. 17th gave us the right to vote for our Congressmen. People want to undo that so they don't have the right to vote for their Congressmen. They don't want the right to vote.

 

[Thrilla]

Not odd at all. 17th gave us the right to vote for our Congressmen. People want to undo that so they don't have the right to vote for their Congressmen. They don't want the right to vote.

we had the right to vote for our congressmen prior to the 17th....
the 17th turned the states representatives into the people representatives... it pretty much made the two houses redundant.

 

[Grendel]

we had the right to vote for our congressmen prior to the 17th....
the 17th turned the states representatives into the people representatives... it pretty much made the two houses redundant.

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures.

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: I see the confusion. I should have said Senators, not Congressmen. Either way, people want to not have a vote. And they aren't the same, the House has smaller districts, so they're more local representation than the Senate.

 

[Thrilla]

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures.

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: I see the confusion. I should have said Senators, not Congressmen. Either way, people want to not have a vote. And they aren't the same, the House has smaller districts, so they're more local representation than the Senate.

both are now the peoples representatives.... Senators once represented the interests of the many States... now they are exactly like Representatives, they represent the interests of the people who elect them.... they are beholden to their supporters.

it's not about opposing the right to vote at all.. it's about the proper formation of government..
to me, a guy who opposes of the 17th, it's matter of proper checks and balances...to me, the 17th removed a check on the will of the mob.

I love the right ot vote, but i also have to respect what position I can rightfully vote for... for instance, i don't feel it's my right to vote for a guy in your state.. it's just not my place... your guy shouldn't be beholden to me.
same with the 17th, it's not my place to vote for a Senator who should be beholden to the States interests, not the peoples.

 

[Moot]

A voting rights amendment that guarentees the right to vote.

An amendment to remove corporate personhood.

An equal rights amendment

An amendment that SCOTUS judges have to retire at the age of 75.

 

[Grendel]

An amendment to remove corporate personhood.

That's the best one I've seen.