Recommended Constitutional Amendments

[polgara]

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.

Greetings, Moot. :2wave:

1. Without any restrictions, such as citizenship? No to that.

2. IF everyone, including unions, is included. A level playing field is important! Agree with that.

3. We already have that amendment. What would you change? No to that.

4. I question the mental acuity of anyone who is 80 years old! What makes them different? Agree with that.

 

[Moot]

Greetings, Moot. :2wave:

Hello, Polgara :aliens1:

1. Without any restrictions, such as citizenship? No to that.

Of course, the voters would have to be citizens and 18 years old in order to vote. But there would be no other restrictions or barriers imposed on the right to vote.

2. IF everyone, including unions, is included. A level playing field is important! Agree with that.

I don't think unions are corporations. Corporations are like mini governments in and of themselves, whereas unions are a joining together for common cause. For instance, the US is a union.

3. We already have that amendment. What would you change? No to that.

No, we don't. The ERA missed ratification by two or three votes.

4. I question the mental acuity of anyone who is 80 years old! What makes them different? Agree with that.

:thumbs:

 

[AliHajiSheik]

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.

pretty much....not

 

[Thrilla]

pretty much....not

that was far from compelling...

 

[Thrilla]

I love the idea about creating an amendment to abolish corporate personhood.... they make me giggle.

y'all really need to think that one through.... actually think

abolishing corporate personhood is not beneficial to anyone

 

[Thrilla]

That's the best one I've seen.

that true, it is the best....

.. if we are looking to make corporations completely unaccountable to the law... it's superb.
...if we are looking to ensure corporations cannot be sued for wrongful behavior or faulty products/service... it's the most excellent.
... if you believe that if a persons invests 100 bucks into a corporation he should be liable for billions of dollars... it's marvelous.

 

[head of joaquin]

that true, it is the best....

.. if we are looking to make corporations completely unaccountable to the law... it's superb.
...if we are looking to ensure corporations cannot be sued for wrongful behavior or faulty products/service... it's the most excellent.
... if you believe that if a persons invests 100 bucks into a corporation he should be liable for billions of dollars... it's marvelous.

Rubbish. Entities can be legally liable without being persons. Trusts are a case in point.

 

[Thrilla]

Rubbish. Entities can be legally liable without being persons. Trusts are a case in point.

incorrect... trustees are held legally liable, not the trusts themselves.

a legal person can be a trustee, that's it... a corporation can be a trustee, an individual can be too.. but a labor union cannot be ( they are an unincorporated association)

 

[Grendel]

... if you believe that if a persons invests 100 bucks into a corporation he should be liable for billions of dollars... it's marvelous.

No, just for his share. If he's entitled to his share of the profits, then he should be liable for his share of the costs.

 

[Thrilla]

No, just for his share. If he's entitled to his share of the profits, then he should be liable for his share of the costs.

aye, and I agree... it's called limited liability...and it's a good thing, a very good thing.

if you discard corporate personhood, personal liability takes the place of limited liability.... the dude who threw in for a hundred can be held liable for millions, if not billions.
with such a liability risk on the table, folks will not invest in these wealth building associations( corporations)....and that's when the economic **** hits the proverbial fan and this whole experiment called the US of A comes to a screeching halt.


abolishing corporate personhood is extreme scorched earth policy...and it would most assuredly kill the country as we know it ( most likely, we would revert back to being an agrarian society, just to feed ourselves.... right up to the point where someone with working brains cells reinstated corporate personhood.

 

[Grendel]

aye, and I agree... it's called limited liability...and it's a good thing, a very good thing.

if you discard corporate personhood, personal liability takes the place of limited liability.... the dude who threw in for a hundred can be held liable for millions, if not billions.
with such a liability risk on the table, folks will not invest in these wealth building associations( corporations)....and that's when the economic **** hits the proverbial fan and this whole experiment called the US of A comes to a screeching halt.


abolishing corporate personhood is extreme scorched earth policy...and it would most assuredly kill the country as we know it ( most likely, we would revert back to being an agrarian society, just to feed ourselves.... right up to the point where someone with working brains cells reinstated corporate personhood.

If they have limited liability, they should also have limited profits. If the shareholders were liable, they'd quit hiring sociopaths as CEOs.

 

[Thrilla]

If they have limited liability, they should also have limited profits. If the shareholders were liable, they'd quit hiring sociopaths as CEOs.

oy vey.. nevermind.

 

[Grendel]

oy vey.. nevermind.

The point is that business is supposed to carry risk. When we had more proprietorships, we had less criminal behavior in business, because the business owners were liable for what the business did. Why shouldn't business owner be held responsible for the businesses they own? If they're entitled to the profits from their ownership, they should also be entitled to the liability. Profit without risk is what breeds the criminal behavior in so many US corporations.

 

[Master PO]

The point is that business is supposed to carry risk. When we had more proprietorships, we had less criminal behavior in business, because the business owners were liable for what the business did. Why shouldn't business owner be held responsible for the businesses they own? If they're entitled to the profits from their ownership, they should also be entitled to the liability. Profit without risk is what breeds the criminal behavior in so many US corporations.

could you have said, "business should rise and fall on its own merit"

 

[Northern Light]

Our Constitution doesn't need changing, but law in general does. Increases in immigration are the fruit of our hawkish foreign policy combined with neo-liberalization of our economy. You can't have your cake and eat it too, so deal with it.

The part about asset forfeiture is ridiculous. Not even the most backwater fascist countries require that. Your property might get blown up by civil war or whatever, but nowhere forces you to give it up if you leave.

Most of the amendments the OP proposes would lead to instant economic stagnation and devaluation of our dollar. (Not that it's so valuable right now anyway.)

The Constitution works just fine, if only our government actually adhered to it anymore.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

that was far from compelling...

More so than this bit of ignorance: "it pretty much made the two houses redundant."

 

[Thrilla]

More so than this bit of ignorance: "it pretty much made the two houses redundant."

it's only "ignorance" if one is clueless as to how our bicameral legislature was set up.. and why.

now, if you don't have an actual argument or anything intelligent to say... be off with yourself.

 

[Thrilla]

The point is that business is supposed to carry risk. When we had more proprietorships, we had less criminal behavior in business, because the business owners were liable for what the business did. Why shouldn't business owner be held responsible for the businesses they own? If they're entitled to the profits from their ownership, they should also be entitled to the liability. Profit without risk is what breeds the criminal behavior in so many US corporations.

I'd like to see you information on more proprietorships = less criminal behavior.

what are you talking bout? corporate "owners" are indeed entitled to their profit ( if there is any).. and they are , indeed, held liable ..... why are you acting like they are not?
or is it you feel a corporate "owner" should be held liable for more than his investment in the venture?

"profit without risk" is how every single employee leads his/her professional life..... so don't try to sell me some bull**** about it being bad or breeding criminal behavior, it's not and it doesn't.

 

[head of joaquin]

could you have said, "business should rise and fall on its own merit"

The liability protection afforded corporations isn't based on merit; it's a result of legislative action.

At the very least corporations should stop whining about being taxed given the incredible legal protection their owners are given.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

it's only "ignorance" if one is clueless as to how our bicameral legislature was set up.. and why.

now, if you don't have an actual argument or anything intelligent to say... be off with yourself.

Don't feel bad about being ignorant of how the different houses represent their districts or states, and what different powers each has. Read up a bit more and you'll see that they are not redundant and certainly not because of the 17th amendment.

 

[Grendel]

or is it you feel a corporate "owner" should be held liable for more than his investment in the venture?

Exactly. And why shouldn't he be?

 

[head of joaquin]

what are you talking bout? corporate "owners" are indeed entitled to their profit ( if there is any).. and they are , indeed, held liable ..... why are you acting like they are not?
or is it you feel a corporate "owner" should be held liable for more than his investment in the venture?.

Everybody else is liable beyond their investments. If you don't use a corporate structure, all your property is liable for your company's negligence or misdeeds. So why should shareholders get special treatment.

I know the reason of course (it's Corps 101) but it's somewhat funny to see you pretend that corporations are the norm and that shareholders aren't getting a special benefit. It's what conservatives do best: pretend.

 

[Master PO]

The liability protection afforded corporations isn't based on merit; it's a result of legislative action.

At the very least corporations should stop whining about being taxed given the incredible legal protection their owners are given.

really, so what can you tell me about GM?

 

[Federalist]

If you could suggest constitutional amendments what would you recommend. Society has changed since the late 1700s there are things that the founding fathers would have included if they were writing it today.

- Something addressing immigration and naturalization.
- Clarification on the rights of US citizens under US law when overseas (Snowden)
- Clarification on the rights of US citizens under US law when in international waters or airspace (Snowden)
- A right to privacy applicable to invasions of privacy by government, individuals and corporations.
- A right to majority ownership of patents by the actual inventor as opposed to their employer.
- All Americans including government official shall live under that same laws with no exemptions. Congress shall pass no law requiring the people to comply with that members of congress nor any other citizen shall not also be required to comply with under an expanded definition of equal protection under the law.
- Clarification on the First Amendment that clearly forbids government from restricting citizens from expressing their faith including in the public square.
- Direct vote for President with a runoff in case no candidate receives 50% plus 1 vote.
- Prohibiting corporations and unions from being defined as people for the purposes of elections under a one man, one vote of just US citizens argument.
- Clarification on the right to a passport and freedom of travel.
- No income, estate or property taxation; just consumption taxation and taxes on imports.
- Renouncing US citizenship means you forfeit 75% of your assets.

I would a suggest an amendment to revoke Art I, sec 8 clause 1, to wit:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

[davidtaylorjr]

If you could suggest constitutional amendments what would you recommend. Society has changed since the late 1700s there are things that the founding fathers would have included if they were writing it today.

- Something addressing immigration and naturalization.
- Clarification on the rights of US citizens under US law when overseas (Snowden)
- Clarification on the rights of US citizens under US law when in international waters or airspace (Snowden)
- A right to privacy applicable to invasions of privacy by government, individuals and corporations.
- A right to majority ownership of patents by the actual inventor as opposed to their employer.
- All Americans including government official shall live under that same laws with no exemptions. Congress shall pass no law requiring the people to comply with that members of congress nor any other citizen shall not also be required to comply with under an expanded definition of equal protection under the law.
- Clarification on the First Amendment that clearly forbids government from restricting citizens from expressing their faith including in the public square.
- Direct vote for President with a runoff in case no candidate receives 50% plus 1 vote.
- Prohibiting corporations and unions from being defined as people for the purposes of elections under a one man, one vote of just US citizens argument.
- Clarification on the right to a passport and freedom of travel.
- No income, estate or property taxation; just consumption taxation and taxes on imports.
- Renouncing US citizenship means you forfeit 75% of your assets.

Marriage is one man one woman
Abortion is murder