• 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!

Let’s pretend that we are the founding fathers righting the bill of rights and constitution

Babykat

Babykat

Active member
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
443
Reaction score
67
Location
USA, Alabama
Gender
Female
What I would like to see in this tread is people submitting constitutional articles or amendments with an argument to support it. Others can debate against it or vote for it. With 10 votes it is ratified. But please keep in mind your main objective is to support your individual states and keep as much power as you can at the state level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Free beer. Anybody against that will be stripped of citizenship. I win, and without reason or logic at all - just a craven appeal to our more base instincts.
 
Babykat said:
What I would like to see in this tread is people submitting constitutional articles or amendments with an argument to support it. Others can debate against it or vote for it. With 10 votes it is ratified. But please keep in mind your main objective is to support your individual states and keep as much power as you can at the state level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
15 Year Supreme Court Appointment. It is unavoidable that such appointments will be political, this would prevent a disproportionate influence of a president who can nominate multiple Justices who then influence policy for possibly 30+ years. This not being in place greatly exacerbates polarization, because of the power of the president to shape the law for such a duration.
 
humbolt said:
Free beer. Anybody against that will be stripped of citizenship. I win, and without reason or logic at all - just a craven appeal to our more base instincts.
Click to expand...

Hang on one god damned second!

Exactly what type of beer is going to be free?
 
one thing i'd do would be to take about fifteen unnecessary and confusing commas out of the second amendment and write it so that you can actually tell what it means. i'm unsure how that version of it made it through the first draft, much less the final one.
 
humbolt said:
Free beer. Anybody against that will be stripped of citizenship. I win, and without reason or logic at all - just a craven appeal to our more base instincts.
Click to expand...

One I vote against this one. First on the bases that it’s not free it would have to be taxed funded. Second not everyone likes beer or alcohol are you proposing that we force them to drink it even if it’s against their religion or just make them pay for it via taxes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
TrueScotsman said:
15 Year Supreme Court Appointment. It is unavoidable that such appointments will be political, this would prevent a disproportionate influence of a president who can nominate multiple Justices who then influence policy for possibly 30+ years. This not being in place greatly exacerbates polarization, because of the power of the president to shape the law for such a duration.
Click to expand...

As of yet we haven’t even set up a hierarchy. Is it going to be one president or 4. If so what powers does he have and what powers does the Supreme Court have if we set one up in the hierarchy. We need to start at the beginning.
 
TrueScotsman said:
15 Year Supreme Court Appointment. It is unavoidable that such appointments will be political, this would prevent a disproportionate influence of a president who can nominate multiple Justices who then influence policy for possibly 30+ years. This not being in place greatly exacerbates polarization, because of the power of the president to shape the law for such a duration.
Click to expand...

But I really do like the idea of term limits


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
To return the government to the definitions of the US Constitution - meaning the federal courts have NO authority over the other federal branches of government.
 
Helix said:
one thing i'd do would be to take about fifteen unnecessary and confusing commas out of the second amendment and write it so that you can actually tell what it means. i'm unsure how that version of it made it through the first draft, much less the final one.
Click to expand...

I agree better wording would be important to improve understanding of the intent of the law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
joko104 said:
To return the government to the definitions of the US Constitution - meaning the federal courts have NO authority over the other federal branches of government.
Click to expand...

This isn’t about returning to the constitution that was written before. It’s about if we had to write it in todays society. As if it had never before been written.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Helix said:
one thing i'd do would be to take about fifteen unnecessary and confusing commas out of the second amendment and write it so that you can actually tell what it means. i'm unsure how that version of it made it through the first draft, much less the final one.
Click to expand...

Colons and semicolons were invented in 1494. WTF Founders!
 
I would have an ammendment stating that, legally, a "person" cannot be a corporation or any group of people, can only be a sentient, biological entity and that any non-persons are restricted from political speech, lobbying and voting.
 
I propose we start with creating a governing body consisting of representatives from each state equally with 3 presidents serving a 3 year term on rotating elections. With the president in his last year of office being the senior president and serving only as a tie breaker for the other two presidents. The representatives from the states will propose bills and laws for consideration and vote on such bills. The presidents will serve as monitor for the representatives. A 51% yes vote is required for the bill to pass. It can be vetoed by the president. But only if all 3 of them agree. Once vetoed the bill can still go into effect if it gets a 3/4 of approval by the representatives of the states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
What if keeping "as much power as you can at the state level" is far to generic and broad in modern times?
 
D_NATURED said:
I would have an ammendment stating that, legally, a "person" cannot be a corporation or any group of people, can only be a sentient, biological entity and that any non-persons are restricted from political speech, lobbying and voting.
Click to expand...

I have great empathy for your position. Would probably eliminate restrictions to free speech because they would cause a knee jerk reaction from opponents. But the SC ruling on Citizens United is maybe the best example we have of the SC not seeing the forest for the trees or straining the brain to get where they wanted to go.

Corporations are designed to protect individuals. In other words, Individuals do not have the rights and privileges of a corporation. If they did, we would not have even devised this thing called a corporation. It thus makes no sense whatsoever to loop back and give corporations the rights and privileges of an individual. Perhaps the most absurdly illogical conclusion by any SC ever.

But I have to believe they would have to find a way around the free speech issue. Somehow they would have to untie the knot they tied between free speech and the rights of an individual v the function and privileges of a corporation. It would have to be done in such a way as to not raise knee jerk reactions from free speech proponents.
 
Last edited:
Babykat said:
What I would like to see in this tread is people submitting constitutional articles or amendments with an argument to support it. Others can debate against it or vote for it. With 10 votes it is ratified. But please keep in mind your main objective is to support your individual states and keep as much power as you can at the state level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Political parties would be banned. Only unaffiliated candidates could run for office.
 
jnug said:
I have great empathy for your position. Would probably eliminate restrictions to free speech because they would cause a knee jerk reaction from opponents. But the SC ruling on Citizens United is maybe the best example we have of the SC not seeing the forest for the trees or straining the brain to get where they wanted to go.

Corporations are designed to protect individuals. In other words, Individuals do not have the rights and privileges of a corporation. If they did, we would not have even devised this thing called a corporation. It thus makes no sense whatsoever to loop back and give corporations the rights and privileges of an individual. Perhaps the most absurdly illogical conclusion by any SC ever.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Corporations live forever, can generate vast wealth, in excess of any human beings potential, and can't be imprisoned, drafted or otherwise phisically impaired. They deserve NO human rights. They exist at the discretion of humans, to SERVE humanity, not to rule it.
 
Babykat said:
But I really do like the idea of term limits


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Term limits would actually be counterproductive. We need people who know their jobs. The main reason being we have intelligence on world affairs that only a select few know. We don't need a bunch of rookies every few years having to get up to speed. And, many argue that term limits breed corruption but I would argue the exact opposite. If you know you are only going to be in office for a few years then it incentivises some to be as corrupt as possible before they have to leave office.
 
jnug said:
I have great empathy for your position. Would probably eliminate restrictions to free speech because they would cause a knee jerk reaction from opponents. But the SC ruling on Citizens United is maybe the best example we have of the SC not seeing the forest for the trees or straining the brain to get where they wanted to go.

Corporations are designed to protect individuals. In other words, Individuals do not have the rights and privileges of a corporation. If they did, we would not have even devised this thing called a corporation. It thus makes no sense whatsoever to loop back and give corporations the rights and privileges of an individual. Perhaps the most absurdly illogical conclusion by any SC ever.
Click to expand...

So what I’m hearing from both of you is only legal individual citizens hold the rights of citizenship. (Rights of citizenship meaning rights to vote, propose bills, run for office and other wise influence government) and No organization or group can hold the rights of citizenship. How would this effect political parts being they are groups.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Babykat said:
I propose we start with creating a governing body consisting of representatives from each state equally with 3 presidents serving a 3 year term on rotating elections. With the president in his last year of office being the senior president and serving only as a tie breaker for the other two presidents. The representatives from the states will propose bills and laws for consideration and vote on such bills. The presidents will serve as monitor for the representatives. A 51% yes vote is required for the bill to pass. It can be vetoed by the president. But only if all 3 of them agree. Once vetoed the bill can still go into effect if it gets a 3/4 of approval by the representatives of the states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I have to at least give you an "A" for thinking outside the box. Interesting thoughts.
 
Babykat said:
What I would like to see in this tread is people submitting constitutional articles or amendments with an argument to support it. Others can debate against it or vote for it. With 10 votes it is ratified. But please keep in mind your main objective is to support your individual states and keep as much power as you can at the state level.
Click to expand...

Mr Person said:
What if keeping "as much power as you can at the state level" is far to generic and broad in modern times?
Click to expand...

Babykat said:
? Broad and generic
Click to expand...

Yes, I said the "main objective" you say we should have is too broad and generic. What's the question?



Giving states as much power as possible isn't a sensible goal in its own right. Some things work better with states handling them and other things require unified control, at least if America is going to function like a country.

The Articles of Confederation were a study in giving "as much as power" at state level as possible and they were a failure back then. Things are far more complex now; the world and country are much more interconnected. To function as one country, there are plenty of things that the federal government should have significantly more power over. Simply giving as much power as one can to the states is too broad and generic - it does not specify which powers or why - and thus not a sensible goal to have in the first place.
 
Corporations aren't people and money is not free speech.

Ditch partisan gerrymandering also. Employ only one districting algorithm for all the states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom