• 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!

A few proposed amendments

Superfly said:
Yeah alot of stuff has happened in the last few years that we never expected to happen. Things that we didn't plan on having to worry about.
Click to expand...

Here's an excellent opportunity to group them all together and make it clear what is expected of presidential candidates. Obviously we can't count on everyone to follow historical precedent.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Here's an excellent opportunity to group them all together and make it clear what is expected of presidential candidates. Obviously we can't count on everyone to follow historical precedent.
Click to expand...

Yes. I was walking through the house today and one of the guests on one of the news shows said that we were in uncharted territory here. Nobody really knew what to do, because we've never had a president break the law before.
 
Superfly said:
Yes. I was walking through the house today and one of the guests on one of the news shows said that we were in uncharted territory here. Nobody really knew what to do, because we've never had a president break the law before.
Click to expand...

Must be those liberal shades your wearing (or the dope you're smoking) - Clinton raping women, Obama giving BILLIONS to terrorists, Watergate (may be too young to understand that one), etc...
 
JimHackerMP said:
Our constitution could use a bit of an overhaul. There are a few amendments I could foresee the utility of, however.

Congressional Compensation

Sec. 1. The XXVII article of amendment to the constitution is hereby repealed.
Sec. 2. No law, varying the compensation for the services of senators and representatives, shall take effect for at least ten years.
Sec. 3. Senators and representatives shall receive a salary, paid out of the Treasury; as well as a compensation for expenses to be strictly monitored by the Treasury, and cash salary for serving as officers and on committees of either house. But no senator or representative shall receive any other emolument or salary other than the aforementioned cash salary.

(affects 27th Amendment; and Art. I, Sec. 6, cl. 1)

Gerrymandering

I wouldn't know how to word this one. But prohibit the "enumeration" of representatives by political or politically-related authorities by the state governments after each national census.

(affects Art. 1, Sec. 2, cl. 3)

Limits on bills--content

All bills must relate to but one subject, to be expressed in the title, and all amendments thereto must be germane.

A lot of states have this, Maryland included. Typically, our bills do not exceed 50 pp I understand.


Any other thoughts?
Click to expand...

How would you limit PAC's spending raising money and spending it on their behalf? How would you stop them from simply deferring the payments until after they are out of office or re-directing them to family members?
 
Waddy said:
How would you limit PAC's spending raising money and spending it on their behalf? How would you stop them from simply deferring the payments until after they are out of office or re-directing them to family members?
Click to expand...

They do seem pretty adept at getting around the rules. Not a surprise, so many of them are lawyers. But I'm sure that could be put into legal language, too. It's probably better solved by legislation. The constitution is the organic law of the nation. I dont see how prohibition against PACs could be written into the federal constitution.
 
JimHackerMP said:
They do seem pretty adept at getting around the rules. Not a surprise, so many of them are lawyers. But I'm sure that could be put into legal language, too. It's probably better solved by legislation. The constitution is the organic law of the nation. I dont see how prohibition against PACs could be written into the federal constitution.
Click to expand...

There are so many abuses of our system that it boggles the mind. But welfare queens ain't got nothing on these guys.

I read that career military officers usually get a promotion just before retirement to boost their pensions. And it is common for officers who are part of the decision making process approving major new programs and purchases go to work for the companies they favored while making those decisions as officers. Cronyism is rampant.

Politicians become lobbyists or "consultants" if they are barred from being lobbyists directly.

Congressmen routinely act on the exact kind of insider information they locked Martha Stewart up for. After all, they are the insiders. And all perfectly legal for them; but not us.

I could create a list a mile long of this stuff. I know it's always gone on but today it's a fricking science. Disgusting.
 
My uncle was a Captain in the US Navy. He didn't get an extra promotion to pad his retirement account. I am curious to know where you read that. Maybe you should ask an actual member of the military? The military is a meritocracy, while not perfect, much better than anywhere in the civilian world. You're confusing Congress with the military, I think.

However, I agree with the rest of what you stated in your last post, about Congressmen.
 
Helix said:
manipulating congressional districts for political gain would definitely be a federal issue.
Click to expand...

How do you propose to draw district lines without political bias? If a computer drew the lines many minority dem districts would evaporate. Shella Jackson Lee’s dem district is only as wide as a city street in places as it moves around Houston to gather up Black to vote for her. The district I live in is about 80 miles long and takes in part of Austin, San Marcos, San Antonio and beyond. And Republicans drew those lines.
 
JimHackerMP said:
My uncle was a Captain in the US Navy. He didn't get an extra promotion to pad his retirement account. I am curious to know where you read that. Maybe you should ask an actual member of the military? The military is a meritocracy, while not perfect, much better than anywhere in the civilian world. You're confusing Congress with the military, I think.

However, I agree with the rest of what you stated in your last post, about Congressmen.
Click to expand...
When I was in the USAF enlisted personal were given 20% disability to make up for the taxes when they retired. Air Force rules limited giving promotions to officers who didn’t fly so there weren’t last minute promotions of the administration class of officers below Bird Colonel.
 
Iron River said:
How do you propose to draw district lines without political bias? If a computer drew the lines many minority dem districts would evaporate. Shella Jackson Lee’s dem district is only as wide as a city street in places as it moves around Houston to gather up Black to vote for her. The district I live in is about 80 miles long and takes in part of Austin, San Marcos, San Antonio and beyond. And Republicans drew those lines.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ndering/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.51046e437475
 
Howard the Duck said:
How about:

No president can take the oath of office who did not release his last 10 tax returns and the results of a full physical exam as directed by Congress from an approved physician before labor day of the election year.
Click to expand...

1st amendment problem there
 
Term Limits on Congress and SCOTUS: two terms in Congress; fifteen years on SCOTUS.
 
Rich2018 said:
Based on what ?

Are they all doctors ?

How would you ever put into words what the legal physical fitness requirements are ?


Totally impossible.
Click to expand...

Congress is required to set similar standards on a regular basis. And I said nothing about Congress setting physical standards. I said they should set standards for presidential physicals.

Lol.
 
Howard the Duck said:
No, it's a proposed amendment. Amendments are inherently constitutional.
Click to expand...


your proposed admendment would be a 1st amendment problem, because it would [force] a person to disclose private info about themselves.

meaning the subject of force speech would be at the center of a debate over the proposed amendment
 
Master PO said:
your proposed admendment would be a 1st amendment problem, because it would [force] a person to disclose private info about themselves.

meaning the subject of force speech would be at the center of a debate over the proposed amendment
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but in the end the mere act of ratification resolves any conflict.

You could also make the case after Roe that the 14th amendment grants candidates a right to privacy over their medical records.

We've had a productive discussion here. Let it be our little secret.
 
howard the duck said:
perhaps, but in the end the mere act of ratification resolves any conflict.

You could also make the case after roe that the 14th amendment grants candidates a right to privacy over their medical records.

We've had a productive discussion here. Let it be our little secret.
Click to expand...


the idea of compelling a person to show his tax statements to run for president will never happen because it facts monumental obstacles.

1.....to compel a person to show his taxes would be forced speech, this would be a 1st amendment violation

2.... You would be creating an amendment with applies to 1 single person and that violates equality under the law, because all laws are to apply to everyone.

3 ....the founders stated in the constitution there shall be "no religious test for office", and your amendment would run parallel to that, so the argument would be made that if the founders choose to not have a religious test, they most certainly would also not want a financial test.

4...... And last the most important. You would be seeking to put in to the federal constitution, a constitution which lays the structure of the federal government, delegates its powers and places restrictions on the federal government, an amendment which places a compulsory task on the back of an individual citizen, which is not the purpose of the constitution, as the constitution is created to apply to government.
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
the idea of compelling a person to show his tax statements to run for president will never happen because it facts monumental obstacles.

1.....to compel a person to show his taxes would be forced speech, this would be a 1st amendment violation

2.... You would be creating an amendment with applies to 1 single person and that violates equality under the law, because all laws are to apply to everyone.

3 ....the founders stated in the constitution there shall be "no religious test for office", and your amendment would run parallel to that, so the argument would be made that if the founders choose to not have a religious test, they most certainly would also not want a financial test.

4...... And last the most important. You would be seeking to put in to the federal constitution, a constitution which lays the structure of the federal government, delegates its powers and places restrictions on the federal government, an amendment which places a compulsory task on the back of an individual citizen, which is not the purpose of the constitution, as the constitution is created to apply to government.
Click to expand...

You don't get it. Amendments are inherently constitutional. They make things constitutional that weren't constitutional previously.
 
Howard the Duck said:
You don't get it. Amendments are inherently constitutional. They make things constitutional that weren't constitutional previously.
Click to expand...

you are not getting it

i understand that once something is in the constitution, it is not unconstitutional.

what i am saying is that what you propose is in itself violating the founding principles of what the constitution is created on.

to create an amendment the debate of ideas would have to take place on a congressional level and then a state level, and there is simply no chance in h*ll that an amendment which would strike at the core of our organic laws and what we as a people have always been held as our traditions and values is not going to be set aside for such an amendment.
 
Master PO said:
you are not getting it

i understand that once something is in the constitution, it is not unconstitutional.

what i am saying is that what you propose is in itself violating the founding principles of what the constitution is created on.

to create an amendment the debate of ideas would have to take place on a congressional level and then a state level, and there is simply no chance in h*ll that an amendment which would strike at the core of our organic laws and what we as a people have always been held as our traditions and values is not going to be set aside for such an amendment.
Click to expand...

But there is absolutely no mechanism stopping that from happening.
 
Howard the Duck said:
But there is absolutely no mechanism stopping that from happening.
Click to expand...


no person in their right mind is going to do something which has never been done, and was never meant to be done, which is what you wish to do by applying constitutional law to a citizen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom