• 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!

We need a 28th Amendment

Deuce said:
Why not get rid of 50 IRSs instead of 1?
Click to expand...

Only one of them is the most corrupted politically motivated tool of control and retribution in the history of the republic.

The 50 in the States are watched more closely because the are closer to people that care.
 
The Penguin said:
How are you supposed to do that when the only people those politicians listen to are their wealthiest campaign contributors?
Click to expand...

How exactly do you believe blacks, women, and the LGBT gained their rights? The Federal Government didn't all of a sudden wake up one morning and decided to give them their rights. You consistently push change. It's not easy, but throughout history it's the small groups of dedicate people who create the most effective change for freedom and liberty.
 
code1211 said:
That is right.

However, splintering the income stream among the 50 states as opposed to the huge sewer pipe that our leaders bath in daily would help to achieve your goals.

Dismantle the Washington DC central government scheme and you dismantle the wishing well fountain of cash to be stolen from.

Thieves rob banks because they keep the money there.

Thieves go to Washington for the same reason.
Click to expand...


The problem isn't central government, the problem is money's influence over government. My amendment solves that issue.
 
munson said:
How exactly do you believe blacks, women, and the LGBT gained their rights?
Click to expand...

First of all, blacks and women gained their rights 50 and 40 years ago...and many of those rights are still under assault today. Secondly, the LGBT rights had to be solved by the Supreme Court, not votes in the states. Remember, most states voted to ban gay marriage in 2004. It took a SCOTUS decision to undo that, not political campaigning.


The Federal Government didn't all of a sudden wake up one morning and decided to give them their rights. You consistently push change. It's not easy, but throughout history it's the small groups of dedicate people who create the most effective change for freedom and liberty.
Click to expand...

LOL! And you think rich billionaires are those people?
 
code1211 said:
The problem will not be solved until the large sum of money is dispersed to the states where the watchful can do their work.
Click to expand...

See, I don't understand that line of reasoning. State governments are centralized governments too, are they not? I also don't understand why you think states can do things better than the federal government. It sounds to me like "leaving it up to the states" is code for block grants given to states to use as their wish...which we know was the result of the 1996 Welfare Reform that turned welfare into block grants. The result? Conservative states use that welfare block grant not on welfare, but to close budget deficits that result from their tax cuts. Arizona did that very thing earlier this year when they cut welfare in the state to close a budget gap that magically appeared after their 2011 tax cuts.
 
The Penguin said:
First of all, blacks and women gained their rights 50 and 40 years ago...and many of those rights are still under assault today. Secondly, the LGBT rights had to be solved by the Supreme Court, not votes in the states. Remember, most states voted to ban gay marriage in 2004. It took a SCOTUS decision to undo that, not political campaigning.
Click to expand...

Regardless if it's 40 or 50 years ago, people made that change. If it wasn't for the LGBT movement the SCOTUS, or arguably any court, would have even heard the case.



The Penguin said:
LOL! And you think rich billionaires are those people?
Click to expand...

You think rich politicians who are heavily and extensively lobbied by corporations and billionaires/millionaires will draft an amendment like the one you purpose?
 
munson said:
Regardless if it's 40 or 50 years ago, people made that change. If it wasn't for the LGBT movement the SCOTUS, or arguably any court, would have even heard the case.
Click to expand...

Well, no...you didn't have to be a member of some "movement" to challenge a law that violates you Constitutional rights. So I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Secondly, people didn't make that change...legislatures and the courts did. People voted to ban gay marriage in 2004, just like people voted to ban interracial marriage in the 1950's and 60's...both times the laws weren't overturned by "people", but by Congress and the Courts.


You think rich politicians who are heavily and extensively lobbied by corporations and billionaires/millionaires will draft an amendment like the one you purpose?
Click to expand...

Thing about Constitutional Amendments is that they don't have to originate in Congress. They can originate in the States. It's just a matter of getting it on the ballot first. Once it's on the ballot, and the voters approve it, the State House is next...and if the State House votes against what the voters of the State voted for...well...they will lose their seats in the next election (or that election).
 
The Penguin said:
See, I don't understand that line of reasoning. State governments are centralized governments too, are they not? I also don't understand why you think states can do things better than the federal government. It sounds to me like "leaving it up to the states" is code for block grants given to states to use as their wish...which we know was the result of the 1996 Welfare Reform that turned welfare into block grants. The result? Conservative states use that welfare block grant not on welfare, but to close budget deficits that result from their tax cuts. Arizona did that very thing earlier this year when they cut welfare in the state to close a budget gap that magically appeared after their 2011 tax cuts.
Click to expand...

State government may be just as inefficient and inept as the Feds, but the mistakes they make will be made on a vastly smaller scale.

They are, by definition and location, less centralized than the feds.

If the block grants are used to work the will of the people, why is that bad? Does the government exist to serve the people or do the people exist to serve the government?
 
The Penguin said:
Well, no...you didn't have to be a member of some "movement" to challenge a law that violates you Constitutional rights. So I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Secondly, people didn't make that change...legislatures and the courts did. People voted to ban gay marriage in 2004, just like people voted to ban interracial marriage in the 1950's and 60's...both times the laws weren't overturned by "people", but by Congress and the Courts.
Click to expand...

In a movement, there is more than just one voice. It seems that you're arguing that Congress is moral and ethical. On that not, we disagree. I don't believe Congress would've acted on gay marriage if it wasn't for the movements at the State level.



The Penguin said:
Thing about Constitutional Amendments is that they don't have to originate in Congress. They can originate in the States. It's just a matter of getting it on the ballot first. Once it's on the ballot, and the voters approve it, the State House is next...and if the State House votes against what the voters of the State voted for...well...they will lose their seats in the next election (or that election).
Click to expand...

And it won't get on the ballot unless people push for it.
 
That wouldnt really prevent any of the things that currently happen to stop. There would still be money under the table. All major companies have their "man in Washington". The only way to really solve all this mess that you and I are so frustrated with is to find and elect government people who are willing to kill the bureaucracies and dump our monetary policies. There is always gonna be ass kissing, dirty deals, we just hafta keep it from being able to effect all the rest of us. And the only way to do that is to have the federal government reduced dramatically.
 
Yeah...no more Amendments...that should be the 28'th Amendment.


;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom