priority area for new Constitution

[Procrustes Stretched]

“Give a majority of the States the right to overrule the court.”

Ignorance of, and contempt for, the rule of law as exhibited here is not justification to abandon the rule of law.

Huh?? We're talking about a new constitution - i.e. changing the rule of law. I'm not sure I agree with the proposal, but it's not ignorant or contemptuous. It just doesn't give the Court the supreme power you'd prefer.

trying to imagine supreme power in the hands of another branch of government?

wtf?

 

[dcraelin]

I think it interesting that the Roman Senate was officially advisory only ......We could use such a change

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I think it interesting that the Roman Senate was officially advisory only ......We could use such a change

JEsus, that's as uninformed and dumb as it gets

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

you could wright provisions that allow for a larger court which would make them les suseptable to coercion I think

Nope, just hold the courts to actual verbiage and original intent. It's really not that hard.

Its been pretty hard thru the years I would say...how do you hold the court...whos doing the holding...these people are given life tenure...

The articles had a random aspect to the chosing of judges...I think this would be an improvement

Give a majority of the States the right to overrule the court, that would be the ultimate balance of power. Of course it would take an amendment that would never make it through the congress so the States would have to exercise article 5. Considering most State level politicians have aspirations to federal office I doubt they have the balls either.

They can already do this...

through a constitutional amendment


god you people are dense sometimes

Not through a simple majority they cant....That is an interesting idea....worth consideration

simple majorities are recipes for dysfunction

 

[Little-Acorn]

what areas do you think are a priority for change

1. legislative
2. executive
3. judicial
4. amendment process

Is there any particular reason you think the Constitution needs to be changed?

 

[Little-Acorn]

If we HAVE to change it, I would suggest that the only change needed, is to specify penalties for those who violate it.

Perhaps something like, any legislator who votes for a bill that is later found unconstitutional (or an executive who signs it into law), is removed from office and imprisoned for 1 to 3 years. After he serves his sentence, he is then eligible to run for office again, if he can find anybody who still wants to elect him. After a second offense, removal from office becomes permanent, and he is ineligible to hold any office of public trust from then on.

Plenty more politicians where they came from. Keep kicking them out until you have a group that doesn't violate the Constitution.

Clearly a win-win.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Good Golly! Most people would not support punishing opinions.

It's not punishing opinions. It's punishing illegal acts.

There are laws against robbing banks. It you rob one, you are violating the law, and you will be put in prison or etc. It doesn't matter if, in your opinion, the money should be yours instead of the bank depositors. The law was put there for a reason, whether you personally disagree with it or not.

Similarly, there are laws against robbing the public treasury (for example), whether by using a gun or by using an illegal act of the legislature. But there are no punishments called out for the latter.

Since this OP person is so eager to change the Constitution, I suggest that he make that change.

 

[dcraelin]

I think it interesting that the Roman Senate was officially advisory only ......We could use such a change

JEsus, that's as uninformed and dumb as it gets

its a statement of fact and an opinion, which you haven't refuted ...just jumped right to insult ....

Benjamin Franklin didnt want a Senate either.....I think he was just a wee bit smarter than you.

 

[dcraelin]

Nope, just hold the courts to actual verbiage and original intent. It's really not that hard.

Its been pretty hard thru the years I would say...how do you hold the court...whos doing the holding...these people are given life tenure...

The articles had a random aspect to the chosing of judges...I think this would be an improvement

Give a majority of the States the right to overrule the court, that would be the ultimate balance of power. Of course it would take an amendment that would never make it through the congress so the States would have to exercise article 5. Considering most State level politicians have aspirations to federal office I doubt they have the balls either.

They can already do this...

through a constitutional amendment


god you people are dense sometimes

Not through a simple majority they cant....That is an interesting idea....worth consideration

simple majorities are recipes for dysfunction

no dysfunction is what we got ..............mixed with corruption

 

[dcraelin]

what areas do you think are a priority for change

1. legislative
2. executive
3. judicial
4. amendment process

Is there any particular reason you think the Constitution needs to be changed?

It allows concentration of power for one.

Hasn't' kept up to the representative ratio envisioned by the founders.

 

[Skylar]

We don't need a new constitution. Just need to follow the old one

no, the old one is flawed ..has led to the corruption we now witness at the highest levels

The 'highest rate' according to who?

Was Obama's Secretary of the Interior indicted on 41 felony counts?

Was Obama's Chief of Staff given 3 years probation for lying to congress?

Was Obama's national security advisor convicted of 5 criminal counts?

Was Obama's OTHER national security advisor also convicted and fined $20,000?

Was Obama's principle contractor for the Office of Public Diplomacy convicted of conspiracy to defraud the US?

Was Obama's Assistant HUD secretary convicted of bribery and obstruction of justice.

Was Obama's Secretary of the Interior's personal assistant convicted of 13 counts, including conspiracy and perjury?

Was Obama's Treasury Secretary sent to prison?

How many EPA officials did prison time for misuse of funds and perjury under Obama?

You may be scrubbing history for the sake of convenience.

 

[dcraelin]

We don't need a new constitution. Just need to follow the old one

no, the old one is flawed ..has led to the corruption we now witness at the highest levels

The 'highest rate' according to who?

Was Obama's Secretary of the Interior indicted on 41 felony counts?

Was Obama's Chief of Staff given 3 years probation for lying to congress?

Was Obama's national security advisor convicted of 5 criminal counts?

Was Obama's OTHER national security advisor also convicted and fined $20,000?

Was Obama's principle contractor for the Office of Public Diplomacy convicted of conspiracy to defraud the US?

Was Obama's Assistant HUD secretary convicted of bribery and obstruction of justice.

Was Obama's Secretary of the Interior's personal assistant convicted of 13 counts, including conspiracy and perjury?

Was Obama's Treasury Secretary sent to prison?

How many EPA officials did prison time for misuse of funds and perjury under Obama?

You may be scrubbing history for the sake of convenience.

try to stay on topic will ya....I said nothing about "highest rate" which you put in quotes. ????

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Good Golly! Most people would not support punishing opinions.

It's not punishing opinions. It's punishing illegal acts.

There are laws against robbing banks. It you rob one, you are violating the law, and you will be put in prison or etc. It doesn't matter if, in your opinion, the money should be yours instead of the bank depositors. The law was put there for a reason, whether you personally disagree with it or not.

Similarly, there are laws against robbing the public treasury (for example), whether by using a gun or by using an illegal act of the legislature. But there are no punishments called out for the latter.

Since this OP person is so eager to change the Constitution, I suggest that he make that change.

Good grief!

Comparing criminal violations of the law with errors made in the actions of carrying out official duties by elected officials?

Nuts!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

dcraelin

I think it interesting that the Roman Senate was officially advisory only ......We could use such a change

JEsus, that's as uninformed and dumb as it gets

its a statement of fact and an opinion, which you haven't refuted ...just jumped right to insult ....

Benjamin Franklin didnt want a Senate either.....I think he was just a wee bit smarter than you.

Gawd, you are ignorant of both the debates over forming a government and their context? You're using quotes of people taken out of context (and probably posted on some imbecilic blog) and missing the context of the debate and the compromise: 1787 A Great Compromise

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Skylar

We don't need a new constitution. Just need to follow the old one

no, the old one is flawed ..has led to the corruption we now witness at the highest levels

The 'highest rate' according to who?

Was Obama's Secretary of the Interior indicted on 41 felony counts?

Was Obama's Chief of Staff given 3 years probation for lying to congress?

Was Obama's national security advisor convicted of 5 criminal counts?

Was Obama's OTHER national security advisor also convicted and fined $20,000?

Was Obama's principle contractor for the Office of Public Diplomacy convicted of conspiracy to defraud the US?

Was Obama's Assistant HUD secretary convicted of bribery and obstruction of justice.

Was Obama's Secretary of the Interior's personal assistant convicted of 13 counts, including conspiracy and perjury?

Was Obama's Treasury Secretary sent to prison?

How many EPA officials did prison time for misuse of funds and perjury under Obama?

You may be scrubbing history for the sake of convenience.

try to stay on topic will ya....I said nothing about "highest rate" which you put in quotes. ????

run away! retreat. Skylar was spot on and you went into ignore mode

 

[dcraelin]

Skylar

We don't need a new constitution. Just need to follow the old one

no, the old one is flawed ..has led to the corruption we now witness at the highest levels

The 'highest rate' according to who?

Was Obama's Secretary of the Interior indicted on 41 felony counts?

Was Obama's Chief of Staff given 3 years probation for lying to congress?

Was Obama's national security advisor convicted of 5 criminal counts?

Was Obama's OTHER national security advisor also convicted and fined $20,000?

Was Obama's principle contractor for the Office of Public Diplomacy convicted of conspiracy to defraud the US?

Was Obama's Assistant HUD secretary convicted of bribery and obstruction of justice.

Was Obama's Secretary of the Interior's personal assistant convicted of 13 counts, including conspiracy and perjury?

Was Obama's Treasury Secretary sent to prison?

How many EPA officials did prison time for misuse of funds and perjury under Obama?

You may be scrubbing history for the sake of convenience.

try to stay on topic will ya....I said nothing about "highest rate" which you put in quotes. ????

run away! retreat. Skylar was spot on and you went into ignore mode

spot on?....he said something about "highest rate" which was not even in my post. If youre going to reply make it somewhat responsive. Skylar and Dante...tried to find an emoticon for a clown show , couldnt.

 

[dcraelin]

dcraelin

I think it interesting that the Roman Senate was officially advisory only ......We could use such a change

JEsus, that's as uninformed and dumb as it gets

its a statement of fact and an opinion, which you haven't refuted ...just jumped right to insult ....

Benjamin Franklin didnt want a Senate either.....I think he was just a wee bit smarter than you.

Gawd, you are ignorant of both the debates over forming a government and their context? You're using quotes of people taken out of context (and probably posted on some imbecilic blog) and missing the context of the debate and the compromise: 1787 A Great Compromise

yes yes the GREAT Compromise......gives us somewhat the reasons for the Senate......but I'm saying it could now be modified,.....in a GREATER Compromise, to relieve us of some of the thievery by Senate.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

dcraelin

I think it interesting that the Roman Senate was officially advisory only ......We could use such a change

JEsus, that's as uninformed and dumb as it gets

its a statement of fact and an opinion, which you haven't refuted ...just jumped right to insult ....

Benjamin Franklin didnt want a Senate either.....I think he was just a wee bit smarter than you.

Gawd, you are ignorant of both the debates over forming a government and their context? You're using quotes of people taken out of context (and probably posted on some imbecilic blog) and missing the context of the debate and the compromise: 1787 A Great Compromise

yes yes the GREAT Compromise......gives us somewhat the reasons for the Senate......but I'm saying it could now be modified,.....in a GREATER Compromise, to relieve us of some of the thievery by Senate.

You lose people to your side of any argument when you engage in such hyberbole and craziness. It is why people like you who engage in the paranoid style in American politics are always seeing your worst nightmares come true. It's all a conspiracy...we are all against you

 

[dcraelin]

dcraelin

I think it interesting that the Roman Senate was officially advisory only ......We could use such a change

JEsus, that's as uninformed and dumb as it gets

its a statement of fact and an opinion, which you haven't refuted ...just jumped right to insult ....

Benjamin Franklin didnt want a Senate either.....I think he was just a wee bit smarter than you.

Gawd, you are ignorant of both the debates over forming a government and their context? You're using quotes of people taken out of context (and probably posted on some imbecilic blog) and missing the context of the debate and the compromise: 1787 A Great Compromise

yes yes the GREAT Compromise......gives us somewhat the reasons for the Senate......but I'm saying it could now be modified,.....in a GREATER Compromise, to relieve us of some of the thievery by Senate.

You lose people to your side of any argument when you engage in such hyberbole and craziness. It is why people like you who engage in the paranoid style in American politics are always seeing your worst nightmares come true. It's all a conspiracy...we are all against you

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

dcraelin

JEsus, that's as uninformed and dumb as it gets

its a statement of fact and an opinion, which you haven't refuted ...just jumped right to insult ....

Benjamin Franklin didnt want a Senate either.....I think he was just a wee bit smarter than you.

Gawd, you are ignorant of both the debates over forming a government and their context? You're using quotes of people taken out of context (and probably posted on some imbecilic blog) and missing the context of the debate and the compromise: 1787 A Great Compromise

yes yes the GREAT Compromise......gives us somewhat the reasons for the Senate......but I'm saying it could now be modified,.....in a GREATER Compromise, to relieve us of some of the thievery by Senate.

You lose people to your side of any argument when you engage in such hyberbole and craziness. It is why people like you who engage in the paranoid style in American politics are always seeing your worst nightmares come true. It's all a conspiracy...we are all against you

take out your dentures and blough me