What Amendment would you support.

Discussion in 'Congress' started by RetiredGySgt, Aug 13, 2011.

  1. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,584
    Thanks Received:
    5,906
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,009
    Balanced Budget Amendment?

    Term limits for Congress Amendment?

    Line Item Veto for President Amendment?

    Just curious?

    I am opposed to the second and third. The first would have to allow for some debt in order for the Government to work and would defeat the purpose.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. The Infidel
    Offline

    The Infidel EVIL CONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    17,252
    Thanks Received:
    3,170
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AMERITOPIA
    Ratings:
    +3,173

    yes yes and yes..... but it seems like a can of worms, messing with it.
     
  3. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    A pure flat income tax with no deductions.
     
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,584
    Thanks Received:
    5,906
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,009
    The Congress not the President is responsible for Legislation allowing an amendment for a line item veto would destroy the given power of Congress and transfer to the President to much power. By picking and choosing what lines to remove a President can totally change the intent and purpose of a bill.

    My opposition to a term limit is that the PEOPLE already have that power. If they are to stupid to exercise it why demand the Government protect themselves from themselves?
     
  5. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,584
    Thanks Received:
    5,906
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,009
    That doesn't require an amendment. Further one could read the Constitution as opposing the tiered system though we now have almost 100 years of precedence to protect it.
     
  6. The Infidel
    Offline

    The Infidel EVIL CONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    17,252
    Thanks Received:
    3,170
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AMERITOPIA
    Ratings:
    +3,173

    Hey.... stop trying to make me think.


    Im tired!






    :lol:
     
  7. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    They’re all bad ideas, the first in particular. As noted, don’t destroy the Constitution because the people are too lazy or stupid to do their job.

    The only amendment I’d support would be a single six-year term for the president. Every president since 1951 is in re-election mode for the first four years, to the great detriment of the Nation; and if re-elected an ineffective lame duck the second term, also to the detriment of the Nation.
     
  8. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,584
    Thanks Received:
    5,906
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,009
    I personally would repel the term limits for President. If the people are dumb enough to want to keep reelecting the same person to President, that is the people's business.

    Now I would support an age limit. No one over 80 can elected to any Federal Office.
     
  9. zzzz
    Offline

    zzzz Just a regular American

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,072
    Thanks Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Yountsville
    Ratings:
    +429
    I think the best solution would be to call for a Constitutional convention. And to that end the delegates would have to be comprised of citizens who hold no Federal office. A convention would allow the people to amend the Constitution and by eliminating the Federal politicians maybe we can eliminate the special interests influence on the process. Look at what can be done.
    Right to firearms can be spelled out.
    Citizenship can be defined specifically.
    Balanced Budget requirements
    War powers can be defined.
    and others.

    Do it all at the same time just like the original Constitution was done.
     
  10. code1211
    Offline

    code1211 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,999
    Thanks Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +845


    The Balanced Budget Amendment, however, to be somewhat effective, it should include the line item Veto.

    As far as leaving room for emergency expenditures, it should also include a plan to reduce and eliminate the debt and in about a million years to start a savings program.

    Any excess over the tax revenues would need some ridiculous majority. 75% from each House and the Presidential approval.
     

Share This Page