Total Recall

Total Recall

"If I am not me, den who da hell am I?" - Douglas Quaid (Arnold Schwarzenegger) from the movie Total Recall

Not since 1992 have we made an Amendment to the United States Constitution. I propose that it is time to Amend it again. Let me explain first by clearing something up for those who read my blog and/or my posts. I am neither a supporter of The Republican Party or The Democrat Party. I am a supporter of the U.S. Constitution, the intent of the Nation Founded by our Founding Fathers and I am staunchly against a One World Government, The United Nations and Socialism. While I am a Conservative Capitalist, I am not opposed to Liberals and their beliefs. Let me give you some examples:

Abortion - I believe that Abortion is morally wrong. I believe that it is murder; but I believe that a woman should have the right to choose. She must answer to her Maker. Not to me. Not to you. If a woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy can live with the choice, then so be it.

Gay Marriage - I think marriage is a union between a man and a woman. While I think it would be easier for homosexuals to find another term other than marriage for their union and then fight for legislation that extends all the rights to them that are afforded to married men and women, that's not happening. So fine let them get married; I just don't agree with it. Again, as with most differences between Conservatives and Liberals I believe the choices are moral choices, not political choices.

See somethings are personal choices and some things go against the grain of the nation that We The People call America. Conservatives and Liberals have many differences and there is one simple way to mend the differences between us. Let's look at a few.

The Right to Bare Arms:

Conservatives Believe: You have a right to defend yourself against criminals. More guns mean less crime.

Liberals Believe: Guns kill people. Guns kill children.

Both sides are correct. You do have the right to defend yourself and guns do kill people. But Amendment II of The United States Constitution says the following:

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.

Answer to the problem: Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals. You have a choice. Create legislation and if by common consent we all agree to vote your legislation into law, you have succeeded. If we don't have common consent and you can't live with it the Good Lord has created many other lands for you to reside on.

I could go down the list but my point is simple. If it is a Law; if it is part of the foundation that made this country great; if it is agreed by common consent, Then Love It or Leave It.

But let's look at one more quick example and move on to the point of this article. Take for instance Proposition 8 in California. The Common Consent was to Vote Yes on 8. You may not agree with it, but it was the Common Consent. If you are Gay and you want to be married you have two choices. Move to a State or another country that allows Gay Marriage or create legislation that would allow the definition of marriage to be altered on a national level and see if you can get the Common Consent of the nation. If you get the Common Consent of the people then it is no longer a moral issue, it is a law and we all will abide. Otherwise refer to Amendment X of the Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

It's not difficult: Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals.

So let's get to the point of this whole article. I believe we need a new Amendment to the Constitution. I propose Amendment XXVIII: Any member of The United States Congress in order to preserve our nation from the degeneration of our Government and The Constitution of The United States of America, by majority written petition by the citizens of the accused Congress Members state or district, shall be subject to recall proceedings for failure to represent the justifiable Common Consent of We The People of The United States of America.

Currently 18 States permit citizens to recall State Officials. Seven states require that certain provisions be met before a drawing up a petition for the removal of a public official. Thus only 36% of our Senators can be Recalled and 14% must meet certain provisions in order to be Recalled.

Now, We The People of The United States of America elect our Senators and Representatives to be our voices on Capitol Hill and carry out the will of our Common Consent. Yet when the majority of Americans cried out to our Congress to not sign the Stimulus Bill into law they did it anyhow, based solely on their belief that they knew what was best for you and your family. Furthermore Gross Negligence was committed by any member of Congress who voted for the Stimulus Package without first examining every word in it. Thus we have the AIG bonus scandal. What Scandal will be next?

So here is what I am asking you to do. I humbly request you to respond in one of two ways; either here in this forum or on my blog at where a poll will be posted: DO YOU BELIEVE AMERICA NEEDS TO ADD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT XXVIII TO THE CONSTITUTION? Also, do you think you can write it better; and if so how would you write it? I also humbly ask that you get as many of your friend involved as well. The only way we will get noticed is in numbers.

Please keep this in mind, and I mean this with all sincerity, I am in no way trying to promote my blog or T-Shirts, or anything else for that matter. It is not a source of primary income for me. If you like what you see, then great; that's capitalism. I am not a political pundit, nor am I seeking fame for my opinions. I am trying to give people as many avenues as possible to express their opinions and trying to make my voice heard in as many public arenas as I possibly can. I love my Country and I love her people. It's time to Re-Take Our Nation. Not for the Right. Not for the Left. Not for the Republicans. Not for the Democrats. FOR AMERICANS!

Thank You for taking the time to read this and for voting! GOD BLESS AMERICA!

20% approval rating, 90% retention rate. If we can't or won't vote them out when their terms are up, what good will it do us to have the right to vote them out early?

Re-Take Our Nation said:

Abortion - I believe that Abortion is morally wrong. I believe that it is murder; but I believe that a woman should have the right to choose.

Click to expand...

You can't really think it is morally wrong and view it as equivalent to murder if you think it should be legal.If you genuinely feel this way about abortion it is something you do not think should be legal. You can be against abortion,you can not give a **** about abortion, you can be for abortion or you can be for abortion but its not something you would do.

She must answer to her Maker. Not to me. Not to you. If a woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy can live with the choice, then so be it.

Click to expand...

Then by that argument why not legalize murder(although technically it couldn't be called murder if it is legal). I must answer to my maker not you,so I should be allowed to terminate anyone I choose?

Gay Marriage - I think marriage is a union between a man and a woman. While I think it would be easier for homosexuals to find another term other than marriage for their union and then fight for legislation that extends all the rights to them that are afforded to married men and women, that's not happening.

Click to expand...

I find that most people who buy into this marriage semantics game are either ignorant or they are being deceptive. Civil unions,domestic partnerships and what ever else you call it is just marriage with a different name. If I called a cow turd a t-bone steak would you want to eat it,**** no you wouldn't want to eat it. Politicians who play these semantics games are scum who are trying to cater to both sides because they know there idiots who buy into the notion that somehow changing the name makes it different and there those who support gay marriage and see through the semantics.

So let's get to the point of this whole article. I believe we need a new Amendment to the Constitution. I propose Amendment XXVIII: Any member of The United States Congress in order to preserve our nation from the degeneration of our Government and The Constitution of The United States of America, by majority written petition by the citizens of the accused Congress Members state or district, shall be subject to recall proceedings for failure to represent the justifiable Common Consent of We The People of The United States of America.

Click to expand...

How would these recall proceedings work? Would only the districts these politicians represent be allowed to start recall proceedings? For example would only the people in Murtha's district be allowed to start recall proceedings or would say people in Nevada be allowed to start recall proceedings against Murtha?

Now, We The People of The United States of America elect our Senators and Representatives to be our voices on Capitol Hill and carry out the will of our Common Consent. Yet when the majority of Americans cried out to our Congress to not sign the Stimulus Bill into law they did it anyhow, based solely on their belief that they knew what was best for you and your family.

Click to expand...

As long as politicians do not have to read out loud every bill they create and explain in laymans terms what exactly this bill does and why we need on tv, they will always do **** like this.

Furthermore Gross Negligence was committed by any member of Congress who voted for the Stimulus Package without first examining every word in it.

Click to expand...

Then require by law that every one who signs the bill must read it themselves and explain on tv why they are or are not supporting this bill.

Thus we have the AIG bonus scandal. What Scandal will be next?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call the AIG bonus thing a scandal. I call it a redirection of the American people's anger at the politicans. Those is office bailed out AIG,the American people are angry at the politicians .So the policians basically just removed themselves from the cross hairs of the American people's anger and put AIG in it's place by going like LOOK AIG IS SPENDING NICKLE ON SOME GUM!!!!!!(yes million dollars bonuses are chump change compared to the hundred billion plus dollars our politicians spent on bailouts, foreign aid and other things)

So here is what I am asking you to do. I humbly request you to respond in one of two ways; either here in this forum or on my blog at where a poll will be posted: DO YOU BELIEVE AMERICA NEEDS TO ADD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT XXVIII TO THE CONSTITUTION? Also, do you think you can write it better; and if so how would you write it? I also humbly ask that you get as many of your friend involved as well. The only way we will get noticed is in numbers.

Please keep this in mind, and I mean this with all sincerity, I am in no way trying to promote my blog or T-Shirts, or anything else for that matter. It is not a source of primary income for me. If you like what you see, then great; that's capitalism. I am not a political pundit, nor am I seeking fame for my opinions. I am trying to give people as many avenues as possible to express their opinions and trying to make my voice heard in as many public arenas as I possibly can. I love my Country and I love her people. It's time to Re-Take Our Nation. Not for the Right. Not for the Left. Not for the Republicans. Not for the Democrats. FOR AMERICANS!

Thank You for taking the time to read this and for voting! GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Click to expand...

I like the whole making recall elections for state representatives a lot easier. As long as it is only the politician's constituents and no one else it should be law that any politician can be recalled. However I do not think it will cut down pork and other reckless and needless spending.

I think the following will cut on pork-

1.Require author of the bill to read the whole entire thing out loud in front of a tv cameras and explain in front of a tv cameras in laymans terms(because rat lawyer speak can be confusing to some),require them to explain what this bill and does (in laymans terms) and why we need it(in laymans terms) on tv. Not only would this cut in pork this would also make them stop writing bills the size of dictionaries.

2. Require the the author an amendment to a bill to read it out loud in front of tv cameras,explain in laymans terms what the amendment it and does and why we need this amendment.

3. Require everyone(senators,congress and president) to the read the bills, require that they themselves first before signing or not signing it and require them to explain on tv why they are signing it or why they are not signing it and sign a statement that they have read the bill.



With these three things in place no politician would dare try to sneak in some pork knowing that his actions can be seen on a youtube video. NOr would they be able to claim that they didn't know that was in the bill before they signed it

I kind of wish there was a way of making a "no-confidence" so we could force the congress to reorganize.

Rhis simply cannot be done. Aside from the POTUS, we do not elect a national representative, we elect a state representative (Senator) or a regional representative (Representative in the House). This amendment would be unconstitutional itself and would never pass. It is up to the states to add an amendment as such because these members of the US Congress are state representatives, not national representatives.

Now if you were to ask me if I would like to see my state propose such an amendment to the State Constitution, then I would say yes, but not specifically as it is worded. Special elections cost money, lots of money, but in very rare circumstances I believe that something like this would be warranted. I wouldn't want to have someone removed from office after being elected just a year or two earlier unless they have committed some grievous act (like murder, perjury, etc...). But instead of an amendment to the US or a state's Constitution for this, I would rather see the terms changed to something shorter than 6 years, like it is in the US Senate currently. Maybe 3 years or even 4 years instead of 6. I would like to keep them staggered so that they do not line up directly with the POTUS election years. There is a simpler solution to this than creating an avenue for removal that will no doubt be abused based on partisan politics.

Re-Take Our Nation said:

The Right to Bare Arms:

Conservatives Believe: You have a right to defend yourself against criminals. More guns mean less crime.

Liberals Believe: Guns kill people. Guns kill children.

Both sides are correct. You do have the right to defend yourself and guns do kill people. But Amendment II of The United States Constitution says the following:

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.

Answer to the problem: Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals. You have a choice. Create legislation and if by common consent we all agree to vote your legislation into law, you have succeeded. If we don't have common consent and you can't live with it the Good Lord has created many other lands for you to reside on.

I could go down the list but my point is simple. If it is a Law; if it is part of the foundation that made this country great; if it is agreed by common consent, Then Love It or Leave It.

Click to expand...

Lord.

First learn to write reasonably well before you presume to write amendments to the Constitution.

Secondly, you're proposing to let "laws of common consent" trump the Constitution? Majority overrules the Bill of Rights?

If so WHAT THE @#$#% DO YOU WANT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FOR? Frack, the incredible ignorance!
Do you know what the Constitution is FOR? Limited government? Rule of law, not of the mob? Law of the land?

In one breath you propose a new amendment, and in the next you propose allowing simple majority rule to trump the Constitution?

:damn


G.

Just another spam-bot....