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

[Babykat]

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.

I propose that the only federal elections and term limits fall on the presidents and people he appoints to federal office. That it is up to the states to decided of to elect and limit their own representatives.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deuce]

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.

Why not just eliminate SCOTUS altogether

 

[Babykat]

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.

It would be your job as a representative of your state to help define that line between what power the federal government should have and what power the state should keep. If this is confusing for you look at the United Nations as an example. It nation in the UN agrees to give so much power to the UN. But they try to keep as much power for them selfs as they can. When we won the revolution we where a bunch of states agreeing to work together thus these United States. Once the right to leave the union had been taken away from the states we became The United States. Having different states with almost complete control over local law enables the state to create an environment suited for its people. Like if one state doesn’t allow gay marriage while another does. The people who dislike gay marriage could move to the state that doesn’t allow it. While the rest can live how they want. By the way I do support the LGBT community being transgender myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jnug]

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

Actually I do not think the individual rights v corporate privileges thing would be the tough one to beat. There has to be a way around the free speech issue. That is the tough one. Frankly they are oil and water, oranges and apples, not one type of oil and another type of oil or both apples or both oranges. That is part of where the SC screwed up IMO.

If there is such a thing as free speech should a corporation not have it? I would say yes or see ya' to newspapers just as an example. I have not spent much time on the free speech issue in this particular case. But the tree I would probably bark up if I was trying to beat the free speech issue would be to claim that speech was actually the product of something like a newspaper. Hence you really could build an argument for why you cannot impair their free speech because you would then be impairing their entire ability to make a buck.

For a corporation making a product, its marketing material would not be an issue. That speech is not their product. Its the means by which they sell their product. So corporations could continue to market their products without being impaired by anything I would be doing in an effort like I am describing.

So the above represents where I would likely try to build an argument. Again IMO the free speech issue is the only even potential road block. The entire rest of Citizens United is IMO ridiculous.

As to political parties, they are not guaranteed in the Constitution for one thing. For another raising money is not the same thing as contributing money. That distinction would appear to provide just the loophole I would need to let political parties off the hook and into the "club" with newspapers. In fact now that I think about it just a little bit, it probably protects their free speech the same way I am suggesting would be the case for a newspaper. Isn't speech the product of a political party?

 

[Babykat]

Actually I do not think the individual rights v corporate privileges thing would be the tough one to beat. There has to be a way around the free speech issue. That is the tough one. Frankly they are oil and water, oranges and apples, not one type of oil and another type of oil or both apples or both oranges. That is part of where the SC screwed up IMO.

If there is such a thing as free speech should a corporation not have it? I would say yes or see ya' to newspapers just as an example. I have not spent much time on the free speech issue in this particular case. But the tree I would probably bark up if I was trying to beat the free speech issue would be to claim that speech was actually the product of something like a newspaper. Hence you really could build an argument for why you cannot impair their free speech because you would then be impairing their entire ability to make a buck.

For a corporation making a product, its marketing material would not be an issue. That speech is not their product. Its the means by which they sell their product. So corporations could continue to market their products without being impaired by anything I would be doing in an effort like I am describing.

So the above represents where I would likely try to build an argument. Again IMO the free speech issue is the only even potential road block. The entire rest of Citizens United is IMO ridiculous.

As to political parties, they are not guaranteed in the Constitution for one thing. For another raising money is not the same thing as contributing money. That distinction would appear to provide just the loophole I would need to let political parties off the hook and into the "club" with newspapers. In fact now that I think about it just a little bit, it probably protects their free speech the same way I am suggesting would be the case for a newspaper. Isn't speech the product of a political party?

If you notice I didn’t list free speech in the rights of citizenship. Limiting free speech would effect more then just corporations. Religions, social movements, and universities all use free speech and they are groups of people driven by common goals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jnug]

If you notice I didn’t list free speech in the rights of citizenship. Limiting free speech would effect more then just corporations. Religions, social movements, and universities all use free speech and they are groups of people driven by common goals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Speech is not the product of Religion though. Faith is there product. They should not even be in the discussion. They are free to speak their minds on faith. In this Constitutional Republic, that should be their limit. Many of them but not all of them make a profit on that product but it is their product just the same. Would just about allow them speech on anything but politics.

The product for a university is education. They don't really fit as a problem group either.

Social movements...they are simply another form of a political party. So they would fit in under the same rule I am trying to make for political parties and newspapers. So far I don't see an issue.

 

[Luckyone]

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

Article 1

Section 3

1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,3 for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

I believe this is an injustice as it does not represent the population. California has close to 40 million people and Wyoming has 565,000. As such I would keep 2 senators for each state for populations of 5 million or less but I would increase the senators by 1 for each 5 million people. For example, with California having 40 million, it would be the initial 2 senators and an additional 7 more. For Texas that has 28 million, they would get the initial 2 and 4 more, etc.

Article 2

Section 1

2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

I would do exactly the same with the electoral college, or simply eliminate it.

 

[Babykat]

I believe this is an injustice as it does not represent the population. California has close to 40 million people and Wyoming has 565,000. As such I would keep 2 senators for each state for populations of 5 million or less but I would increase the senators by 1 for each 5 million people. For example, with California having 40 million, it would be the initial 2 senators and an additional 7 more. For Texas that has 28 million, they would get the initial 2 and 4 more, etc.



I would do exactly the same with the electoral college, or simply eliminate it.

Out of the 50 states there are only nine that would get the extra representatives. I’m pretty sure that if this article where to get voted on by true representatives of all 50 states it wouldn’t pass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Babykat]

I believe this is an injustice as it does not represent the population. California has close to 40 million people and Wyoming has 565,000. As such I would keep 2 senators for each state for populations of 5 million or less but I would increase the senators by 1 for each 5 million people. For example, with California having 40 million, it would be the initial 2 senators and an additional 7 more. For Texas that has 28 million, they would get the initial 2 and 4 more, etc.



I would do exactly the same with the electoral college, or simply eliminate it.

Although I may agree with you. It’s not about what’s right or wrong it’s about what you can get to pass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Babykat]

Speech is not the product of Religion though. Faith is there product. They should not even be in the discussion. They are free to speak their minds on faith. In this Constitutional Republic, that should be their limit. Many of them but not all of them make a profit on that product but it is their product just the same. Would just about allow them speech on anything but politics.

The product for a university is education. They don't really fit as a problem group either.

Social movements...they are simply another form of a political party. So they would fit in under the same rule I am trying to make for political parties and newspapers. So far I don't see an issue.

I’m not arguing about free speech I believe it shouldn’t be limited. I made clear and defined terms on what rights of citizenship where and freedom of speech was not in them. Yes social movements are similar to political parties. But different in the fact that they don’t influence as large a group as political parties. They would be more likened to special interest groups. But I’m not arguing about freedom of speech.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jnug]

I’m not arguing about free speech I believe it shouldn’t be limited. I made clear and defined terms on what rights of citizenship where and freedom of speech was not in them. Yes social movements are similar to political parties. But different in the fact that they don’t influence as large a group as political parties. They would be more likened to special interest groups. But I’m not arguing about freedom of speech.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know you're not but it happens to be about the only real stumbling block or difficult position to attack in the Citizens United decision. The rest of that decision is just ridiculous. In fact Speech was one of the bedrock's of the majority opinion that being that newspapers were corporations and you could not step on their Speech or you would literally strike down newspapers and their ability to be a corporate enterprise. But what is the product of a newspaper? Speech is the product of a newspaper. They report and they editorialize. That is it. That is all they do.

Ergo, IMO the way to treat newspapers is to treat Speech as their product thus preventing the Court from denying them Speech because you would deny them their ability to be a corporate enterprise entirely. If we did that, the more I think about it, the more you could go right down the line and define organizations by what they produce whether they generate a profit doing it or not (which frees non-profits from the discussion)and whether they are large or small. If their product is Speech then they must be allowed to speak. It would segregate organizations for which Speech is actually their product from organizations for which Speech does not effect their ability to be a corporate enterprise. If you are a corporation that make shovels as your product shovels are not Speech, hence you are not even part of the discussion. Your shovels are not at issue and your marketing material is not at issue.

So newspapers and other news organizations are in the club by virtue of the fact that Speech is their product. Political parties and social movements end up covered under the same rule. Frankly size is not a relevant consideration. The product of a religious group is faith not speech and as such they are not even part of the discussion. They should be able to speak freely on all matters of faith which really means they would have the right to speak on all matters other than politics which is exactly how it should be in this Constitutional Republic. The Product of a university is education and they would be free to speak as long as their Speech furthers the education of their students which would give them the right to speak about just about anything including politics.

Further then if you are a corporation other than one who's product is actually speech you have certain privileges BUT NOT because they are rights of the individual that have been bequeathed to you as a corporation under the absurd, convoluted logic of the Citizens United ruling.

You could go right down the line, organization by organization, determine what their product is whether they generate a profit on it or not and either put them in one basket or the other. Should be a pretty popular idea in a capitalistic society.

 

[SmartCat]

The only Amendment in the Bill of Rights I care about is the First Amendment. I would like to rewrite that so that it protects religious freedom, and open political discussion, and nothing else. It would not protect pornography, obscenity, flag desecration, and political contributions. The rights guaranteed in the other nine amendments I would leave up to the voters.

I would even let the voters decide issues like prayer and Bible reading in public schools, manger scenes on the county court house, and stuff like that.

I do not see much use for the Supreme Court.

I would eliminate the Electoral College, and probably the Senate. I would give the president line item veto power. I would make it clear that the federal government has power over the state governments, and that the state governments have power over local governments.

My changes would make the government more democratic and also more powerful. I would clearly describe the U.S. government as a democracy, silencing those who claim, "The United States is a republic, not a democracy."

 

[Babykat]

The only Amendment in the Bill of Rights I care about is the First Amendment. I would like to rewrite that so that it protects religious freedom, and open political discussion, and nothing else. It would not protect pornography, obscenity, flag desecration, and political contributions. The rights guaranteed in the other nine amendments I would leave up to the voters.

I would even let the voters decide issues like prayer and Bible reading in public schools, manger scenes on the county court house, and stuff like that.

I do not see much use for the Supreme Court.

I would eliminate the Electoral College, and probably the Senate. I would give the president line item veto power. I would make it clear that the federal government has power over the state governments, and that the state governments have power over local governments.

My changes would make the government more democratic and also more powerful. I would clearly describe the U.S. government as a democracy, silencing those who claim, "The United States is a republic, not a democracy."

I would choice at this time to remove my state from your democracy. At this moment due to the high cost of winning the war against Britains you don’t have the military power to force me to stay. Plus most states at the time fear falling under a tyrannical government again and would leave with me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Babykat]

Please we aren’t here to debate the current constitution. But instead in this simulation we are creating a new constitution. Acting as if we where the founding fathers.

So imagine we have finally after 8 years of brutal war against the tyrannical British monarchy won our freedom. We have been recognized as an independent nation. We are still under rule by the Congress of the Confederation (which is just the Continental Congress renamed) and the Articles of Confederation (if your not familiar with the Articles of Confederation please read up on them) are the laws that govern and bind us. It is now 4 years after the wars end. A call comes in there is to be a great convention in Philadelphia in the same building they signed the Declaration of Independence. Each state is sending representatives and your state has put their faith and trust in you. As you make the long trip you consider what you maybe walking into. Are they planning on making changes to the Articles of Confederation. Are they planning on disbanding the confederation. Once you reach Philadelphia you here rumors that they are planning on writing a new constitution. Your mind drifts home what would be best for your people, your state.

For this simulation each person as the full right of a state. Which means you have the right to present, debate, and submit amendment to articles. You have the right to vote on articles or with draw from the confederation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

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

"Corporations are people too, my friend." (Mitt Romney)



I am "okay" with that, with some reservations, or rather, I WOULD BE, however the subtle nuance that most people MISS is the difference between corporations being "people" and a corporation being "A PERSON", as in "the equivalent of an individual"...a SINGLE individual.

As it happens, seldom does "The XYZ Widget Corp" enlist the voices of the folks down on the assembly line, but rather, the exclusive voices of the folks in the boardroom and the major stockholders. When's the last time anyone heard of Nike foreswearing sweatshop labor because some eleven year olds collapsed from heat prostration on a factory floor in Southeast Asia?

Corporations aren't interested in being treated like "people", they're interested in being treated as "A PERSON" because a tightly knit small inner circle of corporate beneficiaries will be well motivated to seek and create consensus, most likely with the rank and file workers and other labor never even knowing what is afoot.

Thus, Romney's admonition, while noble sounding, is...in reality, VAPORWARE, as in "doesn't really exist".

And if it really ever DID exist, Romney would be labeling it SOCIALISM, and campaigning against it.

 

[Babykat]

I know you're not but it happens to be about the only real stumbling block or difficult position to attack in the Citizens United decision. The rest of that decision is just ridiculous. In fact Speech was one of the bedrock's of the majority opinion that being that newspapers were corporations and you could not step on their Speech or you would literally strike down newspapers and their ability to be a corporate enterprise. But what is the product of a newspaper? Speech is the product of a newspaper. They report and they editorialize. That is it. That is all they do.

Ergo, IMO the way to treat newspapers is to treat Speech as their product thus preventing the Court from denying them Speech because you would deny them their ability to be a corporate enterprise entirely. If we did that, the more I think about it, the more you could go right down the line and define organizations by what they produce whether they generate a profit doing it or not (which frees non-profits from the discussion)and whether they are large or small. If their product is Speech then they must be allowed to speak. It would segregate organizations for which Speech is actually their product from organizations for which Speech does not effect their ability to be a corporate enterprise. If you are a corporation that make shovels as your product shovels are not Speech, hence you are not even part of the discussion. Your shovels are not at issue and your marketing material is not at issue.

So newspapers and other news organizations are in the club by virtue of the fact that Speech is their product. Political parties and social movements end up covered under the same rule. Frankly size is not a relevant consideration. The product of a religious group is faith not speech and as such they are not even part of the discussion. They should be able to speak freely on all matters of faith which really means they would have the right to speak on all matters other than politics which is exactly how it should be in this Constitutional Republic. The Product of a university is education and they would be free to speak as long as their Speech furthers the education of their students which would give them the right to speak about just about anything including politics.

Further then if you are a corporation other than one who's product is actually speech you have certain privileges BUT NOT because they are rights of the individual that have been bequeathed to you as a corporation under the absurd, convoluted logic of the Citizens United ruling.

You could go right down the line, organization by organization, determine what their product is whether they generate a profit on it or not and either put them in one basket or the other. Should be a pretty popular idea in a capitalistic society.

And

"Corporations are people too, my friend." (Mitt Romney)



I am "okay" with that, with some reservations, or rather, I WOULD BE, however the subtle nuance that most people MISS is the difference between corporations being "people" and a corporation being "A PERSON", as in "the equivalent of an individual"...a SINGLE individual.

As it happens, seldom does "The XYZ Widget Corp" enlist the voices of the folks down on the assembly line, but rather, the exclusive voices of the folks in the boardroom and the major stockholders. When's the last time anyone heard of Nike foreswearing sweatshop labor because some eleven year olds collapsed from heat prostration on a factory floor in Southeast Asia?

Corporations aren't interested in being treated like "people", they're interested in being treated as "A PERSON" because a tightly knit small inner circle of corporate beneficiaries will be well motivated to seek and create consensus, most likely with the rank and file workers and other labor never even knowing what is afoot.

Thus, Romney's admonition, while noble sounding, is...in reality, VAPORWARE, as in "doesn't really exist".

And if it really ever DID exist, Romney would be labeling it SOCIALISM, and campaigning against it.

What would this article of the constitution look like. Let’s call it (article 1.) write a proposed article with the wording used to convey the true intent of the law. Try to make it iron clad so no loop holes exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

And



What would this article of the constitution look like. Let’s call it (article 1.) write a proposed article with the wording used to convey the true intent of the law. Try to make it iron clad so no loop holes exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have to wait till morning, I want to try to put some time into this.

 

[Babykat]

Have to wait till morning, I want to try to put some time into this.

Sounds good. I’m stuck in a disaster zone right now. So there isn’t much for me to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AlphaOmega]

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.

There is no "free" beer. Who will pay for it?

 

[humbolt]

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

I was kidding. I'm not in favor of revisiting the Bill of Rights.

 

[humbolt]

There is no "free" beer. Who will pay for it?

The wealthy.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

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.

Federal courts don’t currently have authority over the federal government, they have authority to enforce U.S. laws. If that conflicts with something the federal government wants to do, that’s on the federal government.

 

[noonereal]

Free beer.

I absolutely support you on this but I do need ask, who pays? Nothing is "free" and as much as I'd like to have beer as a right before I vote in the affirmative I need to know how it gets paid for.

 

[noonereal]

What I would like to see in this tread is people submitting constitutional articles or amendments with an argument to support it.

I would submit an article that would make it illegal for any elected official to knowingly lie to his constituency.

Argument to support?

It's common ****in sense.

 

[AlphaOmega]

The wealthy.

So wealthy people don't get free beer, their money gets taken and used to buy others beer. Sounds like democratic socialism to me. No thanks.