- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 4,905
- Reaction score
- 1,578
- Location
- The darkside of the moon
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: Frank Luntz, GOP Pollster: The NRA Isn't Listening With Proposal For Armed Guards
Actually, from what i understand to do that you would need to ratify a new constitution. A bit much of a workload just to go for some gun ban or regulations. Amending the present constitution is doable also, and much easier. I would personally be up for a brand new constitution to remove many of the present problems and tweak some of our present system. I think the head of the executive should be a small committee of 5-9 people. I think all elected officials should be allowed free web space, but that we should eliminate huge campaigning entirely. We never had the web way back during colonial days, and now we have an easy way to get information out cheaply. judges should not be affiliated with any party or party lines, and ther terms should be limited to 15 years max.
buit i ramble way off topic here. Congress is able to pass the laws, the president is able to sign them into existence, and finally we have judicial review of those laws. That is a legitimate way to put a new law into the works. The courts would be where arguments about it being an infringement on the rights of the people would be made. It is good enough for anything else, and it should be good enough here. If you are afraid of not being heard join the club with the gays who have been trying to get DOMA reviewed by the supreme court who has refused to hear anything on it until recently. Congress and the president pass unconstitutional laws that violate rights all the time. We even had sexism and racism enshrined in the original constitution which we have removed. You are trying to put gun laws above every other type of law we have. let it go through the procedure and see what happens. it may not even get pass congress.
Thank you. That is indeed the proper way to go about a gun ban or massive infringement, to do it the direct and Constitutional way. If more federal power is desired then that is absolutely the correct method of getting it. No more court packing or dictionary searching to try to justify the unjustifiable, go for the gold!
Actually, from what i understand to do that you would need to ratify a new constitution. A bit much of a workload just to go for some gun ban or regulations. Amending the present constitution is doable also, and much easier. I would personally be up for a brand new constitution to remove many of the present problems and tweak some of our present system. I think the head of the executive should be a small committee of 5-9 people. I think all elected officials should be allowed free web space, but that we should eliminate huge campaigning entirely. We never had the web way back during colonial days, and now we have an easy way to get information out cheaply. judges should not be affiliated with any party or party lines, and ther terms should be limited to 15 years max.
buit i ramble way off topic here. Congress is able to pass the laws, the president is able to sign them into existence, and finally we have judicial review of those laws. That is a legitimate way to put a new law into the works. The courts would be where arguments about it being an infringement on the rights of the people would be made. It is good enough for anything else, and it should be good enough here. If you are afraid of not being heard join the club with the gays who have been trying to get DOMA reviewed by the supreme court who has refused to hear anything on it until recently. Congress and the president pass unconstitutional laws that violate rights all the time. We even had sexism and racism enshrined in the original constitution which we have removed. You are trying to put gun laws above every other type of law we have. let it go through the procedure and see what happens. it may not even get pass congress.