The Constitution Needs an Amendment

The reason for a represtative being sent to Washington was because of the lack of speed in communications at that time. He was supposed to go to Washington and do what his constituents wanted him to do.

With the communications today, I think we should modify the process to where the House and Senate continue with writing laws as they currently do, but after a bill passes both houses, the bill goes to a vote by the people. Open the polls once a month and let the people vote on what becomes law. If the bill passes the vote, it goes to the President for signature or veto.
 
With the communications today, I think we should modify the process to where the House and Senate continue with writing laws as they currently do, but after a bill passes both houses, the bill goes to a vote by the people. Open the polls once a month and let the people vote on what becomes law. If the bill passes the vote, it goes to the President for signature or veto.
Click to expand...

Another option is eliminating D.C. as the primary gathering place, and require business to be run out of their home offices. All hearings, debates, negotiations etc would be conducted by open access teleconferences. No more closed door face to face meetings except for national security matters. Such meetings could become the area where abuse occurs, but this could be reduced by having the meetings monitored by citizens with security clearances, judges, etc.
 
Right. Nobody hated us before 2000. Not even those terrorists who were planning 9/11 during Bubba's watch. Nosireeeee
Click to expand...
Certain people always hated us for being in Saudia Arabia which they consider holy land. But after they did their deed, the rest of the world was on our side. Even Iran sent condolences. We suddenly had lots of goodwill but Wonderboy promptly turned them into enemies. When Bubba travelled to other countries, people turned out because he was popular. As opposed to President Einstein who is despised everywhere.
 
This thread is not about the reasons for any current wars. This thread is not about Bush or any other specific President.

That is all off-topic for this thread.

ETA: This thread is not about Oil.
 
4. Separation of Powers, lawyers are forbidden to serve in Congress, Senate or the Executive branch of Government, except for positions like Attorney General which require a lawyer.
Click to expand...

Nice but what makes a lawyer a lawyer. If he has a law degree, passed his state's bar exam and practices law (at least befroe running for office) it is obvious he is a lawyer.

What if he passed the bar but never practiced?

What if he never took the bar but got a law degree?

What if a "Government Legislation" degree was offerred that was exactly like a law degree minus the title "Law Degree".

Sorry but that is impossible to institute.

As far as term limits... Yes the peopel should have a right to elect who they wish but at the same time the longer a person is in power the easier it is for corruption to keep them there even against the will of the people. Sorry but there is no "One Man Only" who can do the job. Step down and make room for another. The ability to limit corruption and protect the process is better than following the process blindly until it becomes meaningless.

Shortenned terms... I do not think they are needed because we really have enough campaigning already.

Anything that makes government less efficient is GOOD.

I would far rather have a governement that was too slow and clumsy to pass any legislation than have one that can do so at will. We alerady have laws that govern every waking and sleeping moment of our lives. We could go another 100 years without one new law and probably be no worse off for it. Anything that derails the process fo writing legislation (which is an inherint limitation on freedom) is a good thing.
 
Different terms of office where considered during the framing of our federal Constitution and a number of states had one year terms for members of the lower house of their bicameral legislatures.

In general, a shorter term binds the interests of a legislator closer to those of the people he represents but as the political passions of the people are rather transitory, a shorter term also creates instabilities in government.

I accept as true the premise, as put forth in our Declaration of Independence, that the purpose of just government is to secure our unalienable rights. I note that the democratic form of government is at times much inclined to violate those rights when that is the will of a political majority, most especially with regard to our private property rights and the right of each man to benefit from the outputs of his own labor.

It is my view that we have made something of a religion of democratic government as if "majority makes right" is somehow a perfect method of creating and sustaining a just society when it is a best only modestly better then "might makes right". As I do not think the United States suffers from a deficiency of democracy, but rather from an overabundance, I would not be at all inclined to support any amendment to our federal Constitution that would make our government more democratic in form including any amendment that would call for more frequent elections by shortening the terms of office.

It is easy to forget that there are only imperfect forms of government, all of which will fail to some extent in the task of securing our liberties. The measure of how just is a government is not in how democratic is its form, but how closely its actions adhere to the noble purposes for which it was instantiated. A just government is not defined by how many people and how frequently the governed are allowed to vote, it is determined by how indefatigably the government guards our sacred liberties.

I value our individual unalienable rights, our fundamental liberties, over the democratic process and the tyranny of a political majority is no less burdensome than is the tyranny of a few or the one.

Respectfully,
Richard
 
I think the best thing we could is bar anyone working for the Federal gummit from becoming a lobbyist. It's way too much of an in-crowd system of governing.
 
Eliminate the rules of seniority. Often voters choose to return an incumbent, who has served multiple terms, because he has attained greater influence and power to help his constituents.
 
They would have to flip and flop according to the latest poll numbers rather than take a stand according to their own ideals.
Click to expand...

That's another way of saying "they would have to do what the PEOPLE want rather than give us the finger and do what THEY want".
 
Ted Kennedy and the likes would no longer be in office.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Even though I happen to be on his side of most subjects, the shortening of the time constant of the electoral feedback loop would more than compensate anything good he has done by replacing that with the governed being governed more by their own consent and less by the consent of special interests of all sorts.
 
All federal laws (and regulations?) would have a mandatory sunset after 10 years.

Prior to passage, any federal law would have to be read aloud three times, with a majority of the members of the respective chamber (House or Senate) in physical attendance.

Make the members of Congress actually earn their pay. Not many 2,000-page budget bills would be passed if the members of Congress had to sit and listen to them being read three times.
Click to expand...

Accountability. Just like the rest of us have to have.

Do you get your job review every 6 years? What if you were the average joe and you did? This is what you would do.

Nothing for 5 years. Then you would panic to get your stuff done during the sixth year (like exerting your influence to reduce gas-oline prices).

The government is there to do a job. To do that, it needs to be frequently reviewed.

Name me a company that doesn't do an annual review.
 
True badbob, thus why you get rid of the 16th. So they can't have an income tax and heap it on top of ther things. Also, the Flat Tax and Fair Tax are completely different plans. Fair Tax is the on people should be supporting.
 
That's another way of saying "they would have to do what the PEOPLE want rather than give us the finger and do what THEY want".
Click to expand...

Hate to say it but we have a Republic not a True Democracy. We are supposed to vote for the individual we have the most faith will legislate responisbly and to some degree as we wish. We do not and were never intended to vote as a population on everything. There are simply times when the majority can be wrong or has been misled by some demagogue. The purpose of a Republic (representative government) is to provide an insulation against mob mentality which is what true democracy degrades into.

In Iraq a true democracy would decide to run the sunnis out of Iraq or kill them because the shiites are a majority. Does that make it right? All democracies are vulnerable to the same flaw.
 
How about for every new Federal bill passed... two must be eliminated completely.

Heck, make it three or four, we've got plenty.
 
Nice one Sec, very, um "appropriate" link. I like it! :D

I better stay out of this one for the moment. I'm already a little fired up tonight. Wouldn't want to say "too" much without the proper frame of mind behind it. So for the moment I'll just add my nod to the fact things are in dire need of drastic change before we end up back in the middle ages as a population of surfs busting our keesters so the fat and happy lord governors can stay fat and happy... Oh, wait--we're already there. :barf:
 
We've made a number of errors in amending the constitution.
--Central bank: bad decision
--Income tax: another bad decision
--Direct election of senators: really stupid decision

And the capstone of stupidity is federal withholding of income tax. Make every mother's child write a check to the federales for governmental "services" and revolution will ensue in a very short time. People simply will not tolerate the nonsense that passes for government now.

How many times do you hear of a taxpayer who pays $10,000 in taxes via withholding yet wiggs completely out at paying another $100 with his return. Hello, you just got thumped for ten grand yet you get PO'd at paying another C-note? The only way it can be explained is if the taxpayer considers withheld tax as lost income.
 
Musketeer commented, "Nice but what makes a lawyer a lawyer. If he has a law degree, passed his state's bar exam and practices law (at least befroe running for office) it is obvious he is a lawyer."

Because of the separation of the three branches of Govenment, and the attitude of lawyers toward the separation of church and state, I believe lawyer have no place in the legislative or executive branches, except where a lawyer is specifically required i.e. Attorney General.

As for "what is a lawyer" that's easy, every state has a system for licensing lawyers, they take a bar exam, or pay a substitute to take it for them, bribe the right people, or have good family connections in the shyster biz and get "admitted to the bar."
After that they should never be allowed to run for or serve in the legislature or executive branches. Our complicated laws that mean whatever the shysters want them to mean are the reason.

Geoff
Who also thinks our "Officer's of the Courts" should have their prices set by the people to $50 per hour, logged hours only, or as much less as they care to charge, it would level the playing field. Ancient Joke: Lawyer arrives at Pearly Gates and gets the usual interview with St. Peter. "But I'm too young to die, I'm only 38!" To which St. Pete replies, "According to your billable hours you're 117!"
 
This transfers power near total power to the unelected adminstrative personnel because a legislature that has no institutional memory and meets so infrequently will be forced to grant sweeping powers to the agencies, no matter how little government you imagine will exist. It makes the current situation with agencies running our lives even worse
Click to expand...

I'll admit, I had to think about this for awhile before posting my reply.

Like it or not, we are already at the mercy of administrative personnel. Rules are made, with the power of law, that never see the light of day on the Presidents desk. Limiting the legislatures time to do damage will not worsen this.

Limiting elected officials time in office forces them to work for a living, under the same rules as the rest of us. When (if) they return to office, they may have the incentive to reduce the power of these agencies.

You would still have your state and city governments for your local needs, and the courts for your protection from unjust laws.

Less government is good government.

By the way, I considered an exemption for time of war, but then figured all that would do is ensure a constant state of war.
 
As interesting as the oil refining process may be for some, it is off topic to this thread in particular and off topic to L&P in general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top