Will You Join The Revolution? Sign The Pledge!!!

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I'm shocked that so many of you are this happy with how our congress has been running things over the last several years. Very shocked.

To those who don't like this idea just keep on keeping on with the status quo. Pretend like your not part of the problem all you want...as the saying goes "ignorance is bliss". Keep putting the same deadbeats who passed the laws that caused our governmental problems in the first place in office, its america your free to vote how you want.

Me personally, I think re-electing the same failures of representatives over and over again is lemming like at best and idiotic at worse. But thats my opinion.

Keep on keeping on with the status quo you congress supporters.

The only problem with your premise, Pilgrim, is that you present no alternative. The Constitution sets forth the manner in which Congress operates, with specific rules for the House and the Senate. The corruption comes from those who broadly define "freedom of speech" to include influence peddling as opposed to simple advocacy. There IS nothing wrong with the system; it's adherence to that system, period, that has been bastardized.

And my suggestion would be effective within the system that is set up.

Who is it that is not adhering to the system?

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm shocked that so many of you are this happy with how our congress has been running things over the last several years. Very shocked.

To those who don't like this idea just keep on keeping on with the status quo. Pretend like your not part of the problem all you want...as the saying goes "ignorance is bliss". Keep putting the same deadbeats who passed the laws that caused our governmental problems in the first place in office, its america your free to vote how you want.

Me personally, I think re-electing the same failures of representatives over and over again is lemming like at best and idiotic at worse. But thats my opinion.

Keep on keeping on with the status quo you congress supporters.

The only problem with your premise, Pilgrim, is that you present no alternative. The Constitution sets forth the manner in which Congress operates, with specific rules for the House and the Senate. The corruption comes from those who broadly define "freedom of speech" to include influence peddling as opposed to simple advocacy. There IS nothing wrong with the system; it's adherence to that system, period, that has been bastardized.

And my suggestion would be effective within the system that is set up.

Who is it that is not adhering to the system?

I think on the most basic level, we're all agreeing that "the system" is broken. But "the system" itself was set up to work, so I would argue that we need to get rid of the spoilers of "the system," the K-Street lobbyists, which we all agree upon (I think). It would take some research, but I'm wondering who first set up a system of REGISTERING lobbyists in the first place, which legitimized payola, and which seemed to open the door. (Ah, now it's legal for me to lobby Congress instead of just knocking on doors and hoping someone will listen to me...)

 

[Avatar4321]

I think on the most basic level, we're all agreeing that "the system" is broken. But "the system" itself was set up to work, so I would argue that we need to get rid of the spoilers of "the system," the K-Street lobbyists, which we all agree upon (I think). It would take some research, but I'm wondering who first set up a system of REGISTERING lobbyists in the first place, which legitimized payola, and which seemed to open the door. (Ah, now it's legal for me to lobby Congress instead of just knocking on doors and hoping someone will listen to me...)

You want to get rid of the lobbyists? Then limit the Federal Government like the founders wanted. There is no point to lobbying for unconstitutional things when the government shows an actual interest and resolve to follow the Constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

The only problem with your premise, Pilgrim, is that you present no alternative. The Constitution sets forth the manner in which Congress operates, with specific rules for the House and the Senate. The corruption comes from those who broadly define "freedom of speech" to include influence peddling as opposed to simple advocacy. There IS nothing wrong with the system; it's adherence to that system, period, that has been bastardized.

And my suggestion would be effective within the system that is set up.

Who is it that is not adhering to the system?

I think on the most basic level, we're all agreeing that "the system" is broken. But "the system" itself was set up to work, so I would argue that we need to get rid of the spoilers of "the system," the K-Street lobbyists, which we all agree upon (I think). It would take some research, but I'm wondering who first set up a system of REGISTERING lobbyists in the first place, which legitimized payola, and which seemed to open the door. (Ah, now it's legal for me to lobby Congress instead of just knocking on doors and hoping someone will listen to me...)

Just like entitlements and other government largesse, we have allowed these to accrue slowly and incrementally until one day the dependencies it creates are recognized for the unacceptable and destructive conditions that they are. To avoid unacceptable suffering, those dependencies often have to be reduced slowly and incrementally just as they accrued.

The only way to accomplish that is to reform the system to what it once was. You take away Congress's ability to distribute payola. And then it doesn't matter how much money voluntarily flows to members of Congress or the President. The ability of the contributors to personally benefit from it will be drastically limited, and corruption in both Congress and its beneficiaries will be essentially eliminated.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The only problem with your premise, Pilgrim, is that you present no alternative. The Constitution sets forth the manner in which Congress operates, with specific rules for the House and the Senate. The corruption comes from those who broadly define "freedom of speech" to include influence peddling as opposed to simple advocacy. There IS nothing wrong with the system; it's adherence to that system, period, that has been bastardized.

And my suggestion would be effective within the system that is set up.

Who is it that is not adhering to the system?

I think on the most basic level, we're all agreeing that "the system" is broken. But "the system" itself was set up to work, so I would argue that we need to get rid of the spoilers of "the system," the K-Street lobbyists, which we all agree upon (I think). It would take some research, but I'm wondering who first set up a system of REGISTERING lobbyists in the first place, which legitimized payola, and which seemed to open the door. (Ah, now it's legal for me to lobby Congress instead of just knocking on doors and hoping someone will listen to me...)

And i'm not proposing throwing out our system, im proposing working within the system to affect a change.

We need to get back to limiting the power and scope of the federal government and the only way to do that is to vote out the progressive republican and democrat congresspeople who continually grow and expand every aspect of the federal govt. Some of the good ones will have to go the first time around too just for the sake of proving a point as citizens of this great nation.

 

[HUGGY]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYB4bT_mMj4]YouTube - Beck - Lost Cause[/ame]

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Huggy

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGjKsVYUMKw]YouTube - Never Reelect Your Congressman[/ame]

 

[Foxfyre]

And my suggestion would be effective within the system that is set up.

Who is it that is not adhering to the system?

I think on the most basic level, we're all agreeing that "the system" is broken. But "the system" itself was set up to work, so I would argue that we need to get rid of the spoilers of "the system," the K-Street lobbyists, which we all agree upon (I think). It would take some research, but I'm wondering who first set up a system of REGISTERING lobbyists in the first place, which legitimized payola, and which seemed to open the door. (Ah, now it's legal for me to lobby Congress instead of just knocking on doors and hoping someone will listen to me...)

And i'm not proposing throwing out our system, im proposing working within the system to affect a change.

We need to get back to limiting the power and scope of the federal government and the only way to do that is to vote out the progressive republican and democrat congresspeople who continually grow and expand every aspect of the federal govt. Some of the good ones will have to go the first time around too just for the sake of proving a point as citizens of this great nation.

I wish it was that simple. But even though I was leery of Barack Obama because of his public track record, I couldn't imagine that even he would govern so dramatically different than his campaign rhetoric. Had he campaigned honestly in how he would govern, he couldn't have been elected dog catcher even in Illinois. At the very worst we would have Hillary now and, as bad as she probably would be, she would be a distinct improvement.

So where are you going to find all these trustworthy legislators who will govern as they campaign? How many of the bunch we now have in Washington are governing as they campaigned? How many are truly strong enough to keep from succumbing to the pressures to do it the "Washington" way?

Yes, we need to send the best people we can get to Washington. People with education and insight and a strong grasp on the virtues of modern American conservatism. But until you end payola in government, the beneficiaries of that payola will ensure that government remains self-serving and corrupt.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I think on the most basic level, we're all agreeing that "the system" is broken. But "the system" itself was set up to work, so I would argue that we need to get rid of the spoilers of "the system," the K-Street lobbyists, which we all agree upon (I think). It would take some research, but I'm wondering who first set up a system of REGISTERING lobbyists in the first place, which legitimized payola, and which seemed to open the door. (Ah, now it's legal for me to lobby Congress instead of just knocking on doors and hoping someone will listen to me...)

And i'm not proposing throwing out our system, im proposing working within the system to affect a change.

We need to get back to limiting the power and scope of the federal government and the only way to do that is to vote out the progressive republican and democrat congresspeople who continually grow and expand every aspect of the federal govt. Some of the good ones will have to go the first time around too just for the sake of proving a point as citizens of this great nation.

I wish it was that simple. But even though I was leery of Barack Obama because of his public track record, I couldn't imagine that even he would govern so dramatically different than his campaign rhetoric. Had he campaigned honestly in how he would govern, he couldn't have been elected dog catcher even in Illinois. At the very worst we would have Hillary now and, as bad as she probably would be, she would be a distinct improvement.

So where are you going to find all these trustworthy legislators who will govern as they campaign? How many of the bunch we now have in Washington are governing as they campaigned? How many are truly strong enough to keep from succumbing to the pressures to do it the "Washington" way?

Yes, we need to send the best people we can get to Washington. People with education and insight and a strong grasp on the virtues of modern American conservatism. But until you end payola in government, the beneficiaries of that payola will ensure that government remains self-serving and corrupt.

Where shall we find them? In our neighborhoods, our workplaces, our places where the community gathers.

If we kick them all out, then keep booting out those who dont live up to their promises we can have our country back under the control of the people within 10 years (the senate may take 12 years).

Did you watch the old man video? its a new one a few posts up .

Do you have a better way to effect a change that brings the power back to its rightful holders, the people?

 

[Foxfyre]

And i'm not proposing throwing out our system, im proposing working within the system to affect a change.

We need to get back to limiting the power and scope of the federal government and the only way to do that is to vote out the progressive republican and democrat congresspeople who continually grow and expand every aspect of the federal govt. Some of the good ones will have to go the first time around too just for the sake of proving a point as citizens of this great nation.

I wish it was that simple. But even though I was leery of Barack Obama because of his public track record, I couldn't imagine that even he would govern so dramatically different than his campaign rhetoric. Had he campaigned honestly in how he would govern, he couldn't have been elected dog catcher even in Illinois. At the very worst we would have Hillary now and, as bad as she probably would be, she would be a distinct improvement.

So where are you going to find all these trustworthy legislators who will govern as they campaign? How many of the bunch we now have in Washington are governing as they campaigned? How many are truly strong enough to keep from succumbing to the pressures to do it the "Washington" way?

Yes, we need to send the best people we can get to Washington. People with education and insight and a strong grasp on the virtues of modern American conservatism. But until you end payola in government, the beneficiaries of that payola will ensure that government remains self-serving and corrupt.

Where shall we find them? In our neighborhoods, our workplaces, our places where the community gathers.

If we kick them all out, then keep booting out those who dont live up to their promises we can have our country back under the control of the people within 10 years (the senate may take 12 years).

Did you watch the old man video? its a new one a few posts up .

Do you have a better way to effect a change that brings the power back to its rightful holders, the people?

No. In retrospect, we probably will have to replace many if not most of the existing members of Congress in order to see any real reform for the long haul. My concern, however, is taken from recent history. That 1994 visionary class of newly elected Republicans and a large voting block of conservative Democrats did initiate a great deal of reform, salvaged Bill Clinton's failing presidency, and restored much fiscal accountability to the system. But slowly, but surely, we then saw most of them move on, and most of those who stayed got sucked into the Washington machine and all its dishonesty and corruption and irresponsibility.

So, let's compromise here.

I agree we need to support the reformers/Tea Partiers/tax protestors, etc. who want to dig us out of the insane morass that now exists.

And you agree that we also need to restore the system to what it was intended to be and that means that the reformers go to Washington with the intention of making law that will stop all new payola and start slowly rolling back the entitlements that now exist until the states and local communities are in full charge there and the Federal government is out of that business entirely.

 

[drsmith1072]

Yes as George Soros has done consistently in promoting an agenda dear to Moveon.org and other leftwing groups. Yes as T. Boone Pickens has done running a massive ad campaign promoting use of natural gas and wind power, which of course he invests heavily in, as beneficial to America. Yes as GM and Ford and Toyota and KIA and Hundai spend billions in advertising promoting their cars, trucks, and SUVs.

SCOTUS was quite right, however, that all these groups are perfectly entitled to use their own money to promote whatever they want to promote through whatever medium is willing to take it. It isn't even an issue of fairness. It is an issue of unalienable rights to ones own opinion and one's own thoughts and ideas and the pursuit of one's own fortune by legal means. Whether it is one billionaire with more money than God spending it on some cause or whether it is millions of everyday Americans pooling their funds, it is a First Amendment issue. If you silence one, you give the government the right to silence anybody.

However, if you forbid Congress to use the people's money to provide any form of charity, benevolence, or reward to ANY individual, group, entity, special interest, corporation or whatever unless it provides the same benefit to all regardless of socioeconomic or political status, then there isn't much incentive for anybody to manipulate the system

And that's what we should be focusing on. Not trying to 'get' some group we disapprove of.

What are you talking about?? I thought I asked a pretty straight forward question and yet for some reason I didn't get an answer. LOL

LOL at your "SCOTUS was quite right" argument. Giving the same rights of freedom of speech to a company is hardly a first amendment issue but since your talking heads are defending it I can see why you would follow suit. LOL Oh and since companies now have that human right what other human rights do companies qualify for? LOL Right to life?? LOL

And once again you present an argument that doesn't seem to make sense. You continue to believe that the problem lies with big government and present restricting that as an answer to all of your problems. LOL

As for what we should be focusing on you seem to contradict yourself with your statement about not trying to "get" some group that you disagree with because you seem to be going after big government at every turn. LOL

I thought I answered you quite completely. Earlier I had pointed out that corporations are limited to how much they can contribute directly to any candidate just as individuals are.

Not really but if you say so.

So let me try to explain this more clearly than I apparently explained it. Huggy, you might listen in here as your post, other than being pro big authoritarian government and no private healthcare entity or oil company has a right to exist, was not easy to follow.

The issue before the Supreme Court was not - repeat was NOT - about campaign contributions.

and I don't think I said that the supreme court ruling was about campaign contributions. Could you show me when and where I did?
My question about limits was posed to pilgrim who made some comment about limiting contributions so I asked my question and didn't get a response. LOL So fox, why present this as your new main argument in response to my post when I never said anything of the sort??

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a corporation or any other like entity could spend its own money promoting a candidate, cause, issue, or piece of legislation within so many days prior to a general election. SCOTUS quite properly identified all entities as made up of Americans with a Constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech, and, short of inciting to riot or insurrection, the right to express any opinion they wanted to express through whatever medium was willing to allow them to express it.

They ruled that it was a violation of the First Amendment to deny a corporation or a union or a political action group or an afternoon bridge club the right of free expression about anything.

So, we on the right have to put up with George Soros or unions or big corporations or T Boone Pickens or whomever or whatever promoting a candidate or cause or initiative or whatever, and you on the left will just have to put up with people saying things you don't want to hear too. Any other approach would take away a freedom that would give government license to eventually take anything it wants.

LOL I know what the court ruling was about and if you had actually READ my previous posts that you replied to but didn't actually respond to the content of then you would know that I had already stated what the decision was about.
Furthermore, how does repeating what has already been said support your previous argument on how applying a restriction to the federal government will remove the payola from the system when your idea does nothing to limit or restrcit lobbying?

Why no response to post #108?? LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

LOL and yet according to the recent Supreme Court decision don't they have the RIGHT to spend their money how they see fit?
Right leaning court with a right leaning activist decision. If you have a problem with these activist justices and their decision then blame the republicans that put them there. LOL

This is the problem we have. We either throw out the First Amendment and deny free speech to corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else we think is abusing the system. . .

or. . .

We reform the system so that the Federal government is prohibited from directly benefitting any individual, entity, group, etc. Whatever laws they pass applies equally to everybody and all. Thus, corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else cannot specificially or directly benefit from lobbying efforts. They will be like all other Americans informing their elected representatives of what would be useful and helpful for them to function better and more effectively, but they would know that if they are benefitted, so is everybody else.

And that removes all the payola from the system right there.

The rules have been strengthened concerning reporting where a lawmaker receives political donations from, and they also need to comply with stricter reporting on their financials. It's fairly easy now to track who receives what from where, but the public really doesn't seem to care. For example, where was the outrage that medical-affiliated lobbyists spent $3 million+ to put the kibosh on provisions they didn't want in the health care reform bill(s)? We can track who on capital hill benefited from that money, but did anyone care?

I think that they should all be forced to wear nascar jackets with patches that show who gave them money. LOL Or when they are speaking on an issue and it's televised a little pop up video bubble should pop up and list who gave them money as they are speaking on the issue. That way you get an idea as to why they have their current position on said issue.

 

[drsmith1072]

This is the problem we have. We either throw out the First Amendment and deny free speech to corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else we think is abusing the system. . .

or. . .

We reform the system so that the Federal government is prohibited from directly benefitting any individual, entity, group, etc. Whatever laws they pass applies equally to everybody and all. Thus, corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else cannot specificially or directly benefit from lobbying efforts. They will be like all other Americans informing their elected representatives of what would be useful and helpful for them to function better and more effectively, but they would know that if they are benefitted, so is everybody else.

And that removes all the payola from the system right there.

The rules have been strengthened concerning reporting where a lawmaker receives political donations from, and they also need to comply with stricter reporting on their financials. It's fairly easy now to track who receives what from where, but the public really doesn't seem to care. For example, where was the outrage that medical-affiliated lobbyists spent $3 million+ to put the kibosh on provisions they didn't want in the health care reform bill(s)? We can track who on capital hill benefited from that money, but did anyone care?

So what advantage was there to the lawmakers to accommodate the lobbyists? Take away that advantage and the lobbyists can spend as much as they want for whatever they want and it is unlikely to sway anybody unless the requests are in the interest of the general welfare.

HUH?? So how do you take away the advantage lawmakers get to accomodate the lobbyists without limiting how much spending the lobbyists can engage in when the spending they engage in is one of the advantages??

 

[drsmith1072]

I'm shocked that so many of you are this happy with how our congress has been running things over the last several years. Very shocked.

To those who don't like this idea just keep on keeping on with the status quo. Pretend like your not part of the problem all you want...as the saying goes "ignorance is bliss". Keep putting the same deadbeats who passed the laws that caused our governmental problems in the first place in office, its america your free to vote how you want.

Me personally, I think re-electing the same failures of representatives over and over again is lemming like at best and idiotic at worse. But thats my opinion.

Keep on keeping on with the status quo you congress supporters.

The only problem with your premise, Pilgrim, is that you present no alternative. The Constitution sets forth the manner in which Congress operates, with specific rules for the House and the Senate. The corruption comes from those who broadly define "freedom of speech" to include influence peddling as opposed to simple advocacy. There IS nothing wrong with the system; it's adherence to that system, period, that has been bastardized.

Sometimes there doesn't need to be an alternative. When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with? Sometimes we just need to stop. Period.

But the problem is a system that has gradually evolved that allows the fire to exist in the first place. And there, the problem is the system.

So when your house burns to the ground and you put out the fire are you not going to build or buy a new house (or alternative shelter of choice)?? You focus on the fire as you ignore what burned.

Your analogy doesn't really seem to apply.

 

[Foxfyre]

Furthermore, how does repeating what has already been said support your previous argument on how applying a restriction to the federal government will remove the payola from the system when your idea does nothing to limit or restrcit lobbying?

I didn't say applying a restriction to the federal government will remove the payola from the system. I said that forbidding the federal government from distributing payola will remove any necessity to limit or restrict lobbying or making ones wants, wishes, hopes, desires known by any other means, such restriction which the Supreme Court says is unconstitutional to do.

 

[drsmith1072]

The solution is so simple it blows my mind neither one of you 2 suggest it.

CAP THE AMOUNT YOU CAN DONATE. Say $5,000 is the MAX an individual can donate to one specific politician. Therefore GE can only give $5,000 to a canidate if htey want to support said canidate and I can give a canidate up to 5,000 also.

Pretty easy solution guys.

Unless you see a big hole in it I am missing.

There already ARE caps, and has been for a long time.

The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law Brochure

Your link makes the(not your) claims of corporations donating millions to canidates a red herring.

However i dont see anything in there preventing said corporations from spending millions on ads instead of donating to campaigns. I think that will be the problem area with McCain Feingold being gone.

UH correct me if I am wrong but wasn't your claim pertaining to how much individuals (YOU) can DONATE to a campaign and not about how much individuals can spend on ads?? Isn't that what maggie was responding to?

I think the whole "spend as much as "you" want on ads" is a huge hole that you missed in your original argument.
Because honestly there is no way individuals can compete with multibillion dollar corporations that now count as individuals where ads are concerned and who can flood the airwaves and every other media format with endless ads meant to sway the public into supporting or being against which ever candidate that corporation thinks will benefet their needs.

Where does this fit into the interest of the general welfare?

 

[drsmith1072]

I think on the most basic level, we're all agreeing that "the system" is broken. But "the system" itself was set up to work, so I would argue that we need to get rid of the spoilers of "the system," the K-Street lobbyists, which we all agree upon (I think). It would take some research, but I'm wondering who first set up a system of REGISTERING lobbyists in the first place, which legitimized payola, and which seemed to open the door. (Ah, now it's legal for me to lobby Congress instead of just knocking on doors and hoping someone will listen to me...)

You want to get rid of the lobbyists? Then limit the Federal Government like the founders wanted. There is no point to lobbying for unconstitutional things when the government shows an actual interest and resolve to follow the Constitution.

WOW, another one trying to blame the federal government for everything.

BTW what are you talking about that is unconstitutional?? Care to explain what youare talking about in some specifics??

 

[drsmith1072]

And my suggestion would be effective within the system that is set up.

Who is it that is not adhering to the system?

I think on the most basic level, we're all agreeing that "the system" is broken. But "the system" itself was set up to work, so I would argue that we need to get rid of the spoilers of "the system," the K-Street lobbyists, which we all agree upon (I think). It would take some research, but I'm wondering who first set up a system of REGISTERING lobbyists in the first place, which legitimized payola, and which seemed to open the door. (Ah, now it's legal for me to lobby Congress instead of just knocking on doors and hoping someone will listen to me...)

Just like entitlements and other government largesse, we have allowed these to accrue slowly and incrementally until one day the dependencies it creates are recognized for the unacceptable and destructive conditions that they are. To avoid unacceptable suffering, those dependencies often have to be reduced slowly and incrementally just as they accrued.

The only way to accomplish that is to reform the system to what it once was. You take away Congress's ability to distribute payola. And then it doesn't matter how much money voluntarily flows to members of Congress or the President. The ability of the contributors to personally benefit from it will be drastically limited, and corruption in both Congress and its beneficiaries will be essentially eliminated.

Once again you present this argument of restricting the federal government when it doesn't make any sense.

Congress' job is to pass legislation. People lobby congress to get the legislation that they want passed, passed.
So please explain HOW you are going to take away congress' ability to distribute the payola??

 

[HUGGY]

I think on the most basic level, we're all agreeing that "the system" is broken. But "the system" itself was set up to work, so I would argue that we need to get rid of the spoilers of "the system," the K-Street lobbyists, which we all agree upon (I think). It would take some research, but I'm wondering who first set up a system of REGISTERING lobbyists in the first place, which legitimized payola, and which seemed to open the door. (Ah, now it's legal for me to lobby Congress instead of just knocking on doors and hoping someone will listen to me...)

You want to get rid of the lobbyists? Then limit the Federal Government like the founders wanted. There is no point to lobbying for unconstitutional things when the government shows an actual interest and resolve to follow the Constitution.

WOW, another one trying to blame the federal government for everything.

BTW what are you talking about that is unconstitutional?? Care to explain what youare talking about in some specifics??

I'm still on the fence with Avatar's intentions. Sometimes this member seems lucid, honest and straight forward and then what appears to be pure stupidity and naivete takes over. There are a significant number of paid internet contributors to the top political messageboards to spread disinformation and dilute intelligent discourse. I'm not sayin Avatar is a mole...but if not...at the very least Bi-polar with a stong leaning towards bad thinking when in the Mr Hyde mode.

 

[drsmith1072]

Furthermore, how does repeating what has already been said support your previous argument on how applying a restriction to the federal government will remove the payola from the system when your idea does nothing to limit or restrcit lobbying?

I didn't say applying a restriction to the federal government will remove the payola from the system. I said that forbidding the federal government from distributing payola will remove any necessity to limit or restrict lobbying or making ones wants, wishes, hopes, desires known by any other means, such restriction which the Supreme Court says is unconstitutional to do.

Uh??? forbiding the federal government from doing something is applying a restriction to the federal government. LOL

Furthermore, you continue to make basically the same statement (with a new twist every now and then) and continune to provide no substantive way to accomplish the goal of your statement.

Your argument is kind of like the underpants gnomes from southpark.

Step 1: Steal underpants

Step 2: <looks around and then shrugs sholders>

Step 3: make profit.

You have presented an idea and a result but you leave out the important intermediate step of describing a realistic way of how you will actually reach the result.

How about some specifics as to how you can realistically accomplish your goal?