My Pet Amendment

[Rich2018]

The lawmakers. That's the who.

And what would be their names, where can I read what they said about the Constitution and the federal government's rights in passing laws ?

 

[aociswundumho]

Says who ?

Says anybody who can read.

Note: I asked "says who" (person or persons) not "what" (document, book)

I'm not interested in YOUR interpretation.

If the state decides the limits of its own power, then there is no limit. The constitution is written in simple language. Shall not be infringed means just what it says.

 

[Rich2018]

Says anybody who can read.

Including the people who drafted and passed a law regarding firearms

Those people ?

Could they read ?

If the state decides the limits of its own power, then there is no limit....

Not in a democracy, where the members of the government face periodic election.

 

[Samwise]

And what would be their names, where can I read what they said about the Constitution and the federal government's rights in passing laws ?

Im sure they are legit. They rule you.

 

[aociswundumho]

Could they read ?

Apparently not.

Not in a democracy, where the members of the government face periodic election.

Yay, I get to quote my avatar:

"A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.”

 

[aociswundumho]

Rational levels of gun control.

The 2nd was written in an era when we didn't have a standing professional army and it create a militia army of citizen soldiers. That obviously doesnt apply now.

Of course it applies now.

Suppose Trump gets the entire federal government behind him and decides to suspend further elections and declares himself president for life. This isn't some pie in the sky scenario, it's happened many, many times throughout the 20th century. Are you going to just lay down and submit to Trump? Or are you going to fight?

 

[Samwise]

Rational levels of gun control.

The 2nd was written in an era when we didn't have a standing professional army and it create a militia army of citizen soldiers. That obviously doesnt apply now.

Do you wish to boss your fellow man around? Like tell them what they may own?

 

[Rich2018]

Im sure they are legit. They rule you.

Who do ?

What would be their names, where can I read what they said about the Constitution and the federal government's rights in passing laws ?

 

[COTO]

Got a pet amendment you'd like to see proposed to the Constitution?

They wouldn't require amendments, but:

1. Reinstatement of Glass-Steagall (United States Banking Act of 1933).

2. Abolition of the Federal Reserve and return to a pre-1911 US central bank.

3. Return to a fixed commodity peg for the USD (the Gold Standard would be ideal, but I'd even be willing to tolerate some blockchain-protected national cryptocurrency at this point; anything that would remove the federal government's [and approved institutions'] ability to expand the credit supply at will).

The amendment itself would simply guarantee that no citizen could by charged or prosecuted by the state for the slaying of a legislator who votes to dismantle any of these protections once reinstated. Call it the "Try it again and die" amendment.

 

[Samwise]

Who do ?

What would be their names, where can I read what they said about the Constitution and the federal government's rights in passing laws ?

The state rules you. You've heard of the state, right?

 

[Rich2018]

Yay, I get to quote my avatar:

"A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.”

I suppose you're right to be cynical of the political awareness of Americans, I mean Trump still has blind apologists weaned on Fox "News"


“A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national election.”

― Bill Vaughan

 

[Rich2018]

The state rules you. You've heard of the state, right?

So you're now adopting the psyche of a down trodden peasant under the unrepentant dominance of the tyrant ?

 

[Samwise]

So you're now adopting the psyche of a down trodden peasant under the unrepentant dominance of the tyrant ?

No.

You are aware that we are the state, right?

 

[Rich2018]

No.

You are aware that we are the state, right?

The unrepentant domination of the tyrant ?

 

[JD1965]

They wouldn't require amendments, but:

1. Reinstatement of Glass-Steagall (United States Banking Act of 1933).

2. Abolition of the Federal Reserve and return to a pre-1911 US central bank.

3. Return to a fixed commodity peg for the USD (the Gold Standard would be ideal, but I'd even be willing to tolerate some blockchain-protected national cryptocurrency at this point; anything that would remove the federal government's [and approved institutions'] ability to expand the credit supply at will).

The amendment itself would simply guarantee that no citizen could by charged or prosecuted by the state for the slaying of a legislator who votes to dismantle any of these protections once reinstated. Call it the "Try it again and die" amendment.

Gawd, I had forgotten Glass-Steagall. Back in the aughts, that's all I blogged/commented on. Sandy Weil, head of Chase had the pen Clinton used to repeal it, on his NYC penthouse wall. And yes, of course the issue regarding banking. Although I like the spirit of "try it again and die" I would probably vote against it. The important point is that you identified key issues upon which all others rest. I did too. And I'm sure if you and I were in a chamber with hundreds of other Americans we could reason with them why these issues need to be considered before others.

 

[Rich2018]

Gawd, I had forgotten Glass-Steagall. Back in the aughts, that's all I blogged/commented on. Sandy Weil, head of Chase had the pen Clinton used to repeal it, on his NYC penthouse wall. And yes, of course the issue regarding banking. Although I like the spirit of "try it again and die" I would probably vote against it. The important point is that you identified key issues upon which all others rest. I did too. And I'm sure if you and I were in a chamber with hundreds of other Americans we could reason with them why these issues need to be considered before others.

It would make an interesting TV reality show, broadcast on 4th July to see what kind of new Constitution they came up with.

 

[JD1965]

It would make an interesting TV reality show, broadcast on 4th July to see what kind of new Constitution they came up with.

It was already done a couple of summers ago. Convention of States held a mock convention in Williamsburg. But why smear the Constitution with a remark implying a convention would come up with a new one? As if that is the only possibility.

Also, you said no one would be interested in talking amendments, which is and always will be false. As long as there are Americans there will be people interested in amendments.

 

[Rich2018]

It was already done a couple of summers ago. Convention of States held a mock convention in Williamsburg. But why smear the Constitution with a remark implying a convention would come up with a new one? As if that is the only possibility.

Also, you said no one would be interested in talking amendments, which is and always will be false. As long as there are Americans there will be people interested in amendments.

I don't think I said that no-one's interested in passing amendments but since the Constitution is so old, it's about time it was replaced by a new one.

I think it would be exciting to move to a parliamentary democracy in the USA.

Divorce the offices of head of state and head of the government.

Scrap the Senate who do nothing useful at all.

 

[Samwise]

I don't think I said that no-one's interested in passing amendments but since the Constitution is so old, it's about time it was replaced by a new one.

I think it would be exciting to move to a parliamentary democracy in the USA.

Divorce the offices of head of state and head of the government.

Scrap the Senate who do nothing useful at all.

Agreed. All the states should simply leave the union. Then they, as independent states, can fashion whatever treaties they wish between themselves.

 

[Rich2018]

Agreed. All the states should simply leave the union. Then they, as independent states, can fashion whatever treaties they wish between themselves.

If they pass an amendment allowing for dissolution of the Constitution they could do exactly that.

They might even vote to return to benevolent rule and become crown colonies again.

 

[Samwise]

If they pass an amendment allowing for dissolution of the Constitution they could do exactly that.

They might even vote to return to benevolent rule and become crown colonies again.

Not necessary. The constitution has no language that says they may not leave. No amendment required.

 

[Rich2018]

Not necessary. The constitution has no language that says they may not leave. No amendment required.

In your untrained, uneducated opinion.

When will you understand that your opinion is worthless ?


Especially when you say every constitution scholar and judge is wrong and you're right.

 

[Samwise]

In your untrained, uneducated opinion.

When will you understand that your opinion is worthless ?


Especially when you say every constitution scholar and judge is wrong and you're right.

When will you produce the language you claim exists?

 

[Rich2018]

When will you produce the language you claim exists?

I did, if you want to read the full text, Google Joseph Story, Secession

Tell me what you find

 

[Sabre]

Yes it would but there is no public support for it

A ban on nicotine would also be beneficial but would not have public support

I used to think a ban of drugs was sensible and the War on Drugs necessary but after study of the Portuguese experience when they legalized all drugs I'm not so sure.
I think the legalization of drugs should be investigated in the USA.

No I don't drink anymore

I think that Americans however should be free to inject themselves with whatever they want.

The purpose of law is to protect people, I don't think we should be aiming to protect people from themselves.
However you can argue that a drug addict is harming his dependents - which is why I think the Affordable Healthcare Act was warranted. This would be be my biggest concern over legalizing drugs.

There is no such concern over guns...they hurt owners in many cases, but they also destroy the lives of others. An obscene number of others.

That obscene number in 2019 was 15,781 deaths from all gun related deaths, homicides, suicides and accidents.
You did not mention autos but lets include them for fun, 2019- 26,730 lost their lives in or because of autos.
You did mention drugs, no problem there though, only 69,029 died from overdoses, but hey, that's down from the previous year. and you believe that is OK "Americans however should be free to inject themselves with whatever they want." Why not, it's called natural selection.
You also mentioned alcohol, yeah, the big winner - approximately 88,000 a year die from alcohol related causes.
You fret over the lives of others affected by guns, what about the families affected by drugs and alcohol? Pretty high number there.

So we have:
Guns = 15,781
Autos = 26,730
Drugs = 69,029
Alcohol = 88,000

Yeah, gotta get those guns....