View Poll Results: Amendments to the US Constitution

Voters
55. You may not vote on this poll
  • Repeal the income tax and replace with the Fair Tax

    15 27.27%
  • Repeal Amendment 14

    9 16.36%
  • Abolish Govt-run welfare, health care, education, etc.

    10 18.18%
  • Mandate a balanced budget every year

    20 36.36%
  • Limit total taxes and spending to under 15%

    12 21.82%
  • Stop all wars and meddling abroad

    14 25.45%
  • Abolish all meddlesome regulations and mandates

    10 18.18%
  • Privatize social security

    12 21.82%
  • Make all states independent nations

    1 1.82%
  • Other (specify)

    25 45.45%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 108 of 108

Thread: New Constitutional Amendment

  1. #101
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: New Constitutional Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by ElijahGalt View Post
    I'm a strict constitutionalist, myself. Given enough time, modern con laws will prevent the rights of certain groups from speaking due to their political affliation. Parties and ideas will be labeled "hate speech" and will be restricted.
    What does strict constitutionalist even mean? Does that mean you reject symbolic speech since that's not what was strictly meant by speech? I have yet to meet a strict constitutionalist who wasn't a cafeteria strict constitutionalist- taking the parts they like and ignoring others.


    You're assuming I agree with such restrictions. I believe there's far too many exemptions given to the First Amendment that directly violates the original law. And if you didn't hear about the books, you haven't been paying attention.

    Will Elena Kagan Allow Books to be Banned? - Reason Magazine
    I'm discussing and debating with you, not reason magazine. If you wish to bring up a point, bring one up, don't just throw out an article without any commentary and pretend you made a point.

    VaultTech is not people. Inanimate, non-human objects and things cannot pump money anywhere. PEOPLE pump money into a race, and there will always be people who have more money to pump. It is wrong to limit the amount of money one or more individuals can spend on political advertising, regardless of the circumstances.
    Under current law, because of corporate personhood, VaultTech can cut the DNC or the RNC or whoever they want a check, or spend as much money as they want to promote a candidate. Thank you corporate personhood. Now tell me, how can a democratic form of government survive if someone with enough money can drown out all other viewpoints? How can we have goverment and not a plutocracy if elections increasingly come down to the size of your warchest?
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  2. #102
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: New Constitutional Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Why would I kid you?

    Its high time that government stopped stealing businesses from one town to another or one state to another and the main winners are the company owners. It is blatantly NOT fair to existing companies who have to compete with those getting governmental favors and largesse. If done on a national level, everybody know plays by the same rules in the same geographic area.
    I agree that the government should not dole out favos or largesse, but usually everyone has an area of exception in this matter. You may think that the government should stop giving corporate welfare to banks and oil companies, but something tells me you wouldn't mind if they "invested" public funds into companies like GE to fund renewable energy programs. Such investment would be corporate welfare, regardless of the motive.

    I don't agree with your other sentiments.

  3. #103
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: New Constitutional Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    What does strict constitutionalist even mean? Does that mean you reject symbolic speech since that's not what was strictly meant by speech? I have yet to meet a strict constitutionalist who wasn't a cafeteria strict constitutionalist- taking the parts they like and ignoring others.
    Probably the only two exemptions I would agree to would be the fighting words doctrine, and the reckless endangerment clause. All else should not be restricted.



    I'm discussing and debating with you, not reason magazine. If you wish to bring up a point, bring one up, don't just throw out an article without any commentary and pretend you made a point.
    I've already made the point, before I even cited the article. You seemed to have no recollection about the controversy, so then I supplemented my point with an article by Reason magazine which, in my humble opinion, does an excellent job of detailing the crusade by some to limit the free speech of others.

    Under current law, because of corporate personhood, VaultTech can cut the DNC or the RNC or whoever they want a check, or spend as much money as they want to promote a candidate. Thank you corporate personhood. Now tell me, how can a democratic form of government survive if someone with enough money can drown out all other viewpoints? How can we have goverment and not a plutocracy if elections increasingly come down to the size of your warchest?
    Corporations are not people, but groups of people. Groups of people are entitled to free speech, whether they're grouped according to race, religion, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, political affliation, labor association, or corporate association. The availability of funding is irrelevant to the First Amendment right. The NY Times newspaper has the ability to drown out the voice of my little high school newspaper, but that doesn't justify restricting the First Amendment rights of the former corporation to make up for the lack of speech being heard from my local HS newspaper.

    Large corporate newspapers endorse candidates, parties, and ballot measures all the time. It is their right, regardless of their level of influence. Barack Obama can speak more eloquently than I can on any given day, but that doesn't give me the right to put a muzzle over his mouth to ensure an equal voice.

    Again, the First Amendment does not distinguish between political or non-political speech, nor does it distinguish between commercial or non-commercial speech. It also says nothing in regards to the size of a person's (or group of persons) wealth.

  4. #104
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: New Constitutional Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    You don't think Redress could be 100% against libertarianism but you were still willing to use the word totalitarian...
    I used the word totalitarian before I told Redress that I didn't think he was really 100% against libertarianism.

  5. #105
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO 81506
    Last Seen
    05-30-11 @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,236

    Re: New Constitutional Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    huh?!?!? how do you figure? you did note that there is a semi-colon in there, not a simple comma, right?
    Definitely not. A semi-colon isn't enough to change the subject, only a period or a new paragraph can do that.

    To address general freedom of speech, it would need a separate amendment.

    The amendment is all about religion, not just a part of it, the protection of the those who follow it, are part of it, write about it, and talk about it.

    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    The same basic misunderstanding is in the second amendment. The subject is about a well regulated militia, maintaining the security in a free state, and the need for members to keep their flintlocks handy, not the general right for ALL people to carry guns, only the militia.

    Amendment II
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Had it been written... of a free state, AND the right to keep and bear arms, ... the case could have made...

    ricksfolly

  6. #106
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: New Constitutional Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    You want to repeal the seventeenth amendment? What makes you think a bunch of politicians can pick your senator better than you can?
    i think that state governments should have the ability to (collectively) tell the federal government to get bent. the 17th Amendment was put into place for good reasons, but it has had disastrous consequences in the form of federal usurpation of state roles.


    aside from repealing the 17th amendment, there needs to be some form of structual check on judicial supremacy. perhaps the ability of a legislature to override a SCOTUS decision with the same majority needed to override a Presidential veto, except that the Pres can then choose to veto the override in turn.

  7. #107
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: New Constitutional Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    The same basic misunderstanding is in the second amendment. The subject is about a well regulated militia, maintaining the security in a free state, and the need for members to keep their flintlocks handy, not the general right for ALL people to carry guns, only the militia.

    Amendment II
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Had it been written... of a free state, AND the right to keep and bear arms, ... the case could have made...

    ricksfolly
    you do realize that they also generally defined "militia" as "every adult male, excepting Quakers"?

    quick examples

    "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." George Mason (3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

    "The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..." -- Richard Henry Lee writing in "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788, page 169.

    "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." -- Tench Coxe - 1788.
    TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

    Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are--
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;
    and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


    every able-bodies American Male over the age of 17 (you signed your draft card, right?) is considered a member of the unorganized militia.

  8. #108
    is totally not a robot.
    Juiposa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ontario
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 10:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,591
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: New Constitutional Amendment

    I'd love to see government run health care like we have here in Canada.
    "After all, you know, there are worse things in life than death. I mean, if you've ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman, you know exactly what I mean."
    -Woody Allen

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •