CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[boedicca]

They aren't limited to the government provided financing that you are advocating.

But they are in the rest of the civilized world's elections. So again, how does that happen?

That works really well for Putin. For the Russian people? Not so much.

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you have nothing to support your baseless position.

I call shenanigans. Please provide a link to a credible source that shows that 100% of campaign financing in the rest of the civilized world is provided by the government.

Certainly, just as soon as you provide the quote from me where I claimed that "100% of campaign financing in the rest of the civilized world is provided by the government".

You can't because I didn't so I will spare you the embarrassment of having to admit that you indulged in hyperbole and just provide you with two links. Yes, they show that some nations don't have campaign limits but they do have other restrictions that negate the impact of unlimited campaign spending. Try and figure out how that works from the links provided before you respond and save us both the time of doing that silly dance. Thank you.

International campaign finance How do countries compare - CNN.com

How Our Campaign Finance System Compares to Other Countries

Here you go, bub.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your ignorance of how elections work in the rest of the civilized world is irrelevant. Elections with limited campaign financing replace parties and incumbents in power all the time.

I mean, it works in North Korea, right?

 

[Desperado]

The one we have is fine, no need for changes.

 

[Foxfyre]

If she has to prove that, you have to prove that limiting campaign contributions would result in better government. It never has in the past.

It is only logical that all things being equal with finances, the incumbent already has the name and face recognition and it is a lot more difficult for a newcomer to gain the attention of the public.

Thank you for making my point. Name recognition requires advertising. Having substantive debates requires being able to make a cogent point that will resonate with the voters.

As far as proving that limited campaign financing works just take a look at the rest of the civilized world that manages to get by with elections lasting a mere 6 weeks from start to finish once every 5 years or so. They swap parties in and out and incumbents lose their seats to newcomers all the time.

Do you need links for how that that works in those nations because I can provide you with them if you don't believe me.

Incumbents have the advantage in name recognition due to the news cycle. They get free sound bite quotes and interviews on public policy related issues and events to pump up their visibility. These are FREE PUBLICITY and not available to challengers.

And yet challengers win elections without that publicity. How does that happen?

They aren't limited to the government provided financing that you are advocating.

But they are in the rest of the civilized world's elections. So again, how does that happen?

Really? Perhaps you would like to review Germany's laws that put no restraints of any kind on amounts but only restrictions on how much can be deducted from taxes. Campaign contributions cannot be deducted from taxes in the USA.

Further the German government funds political PARTIES, not candidates, and leaves it up to the local folks how much campaign advertising they are willing to tolerate.

Germany has provided public funding to the political parties since 1958. Since then, the Federal Constitutional Court has frequently ruled on the fair distribution of government funds to the parties and on the tax treatment of private donations, thus causing frequent changes in legislation. Currently, the overall annual amount that can be allotted to the parties is €133 million.1] Parties receive funds in proportion to the latest election results plus a partial matching of €0.38 per donated Euro for private donations up to €3,300. The parties, in return, must submit yearly financial statements to the legislature. In these, only contributors of more than €10,000 per year must be named. Private individuals may deduct 50 percent of their donations below €3,000 (twice that for joint returns) from taxable income, or claim a tax credit of €825 (€1650 for joint returns). There are no limits on private or corporate contributions.

Aside from a prohibition on influencing the voters on Election Day in or near the polling place, Germany has no federal legislation on political advertisements. Political speech may be robust, but it is not exempt from the governance of the criminal laws, and these contain stringent provisions against various forms of hate speech, insult, and defamation. There are no limits on campaign spending.
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/germany.php[/indent]
So perhaps you will acknowledge your error and apologize to those members you insulted who pointed it out to you?​

 

[Foxfyre]

But they are in the rest of the civilized world's elections. So again, how does that happen?

That works really well for Putin. For the Russian people? Not so much.

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you have nothing to support your baseless position.

I call shenanigans. Please provide a link to a credible source that shows that 100% of campaign financing in the rest of the civilized world is provided by the government.

Certainly, just as soon as you provide the quote from me where I claimed that "100% of campaign financing in the rest of the civilized world is provided by the government".

You can't because I didn't so I will spare you the embarrassment of having to admit that you indulged in hyperbole and just provide you with two links. Yes, they show that some nations don't have campaign limits but they do have other restrictions that negate the impact of unlimited campaign spending. Try and figure out how that works from the links provided before you respond and save us both the time of doing that silly dance. Thank you.

International campaign finance How do countries compare - CNN.com

How Our Campaign Finance System Compares to Other Countries

Here you go, bub.

View attachment 34856

Yep. He said it. He probably won't acknowledge it, but he said it. I have already provided evidence of how that is incorrect however.

 

[Derideo_Te]

But they are in the rest of the civilized world's elections. So again, how does that happen?

That works really well for Putin. For the Russian people? Not so much.

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you have nothing to support your baseless position.

I call shenanigans. Please provide a link to a credible source that shows that 100% of campaign financing in the rest of the civilized world is provided by the government.

Certainly, just as soon as you provide the quote from me where I claimed that "100% of campaign financing in the rest of the civilized world is provided by the government".

You can't because I didn't so I will spare you the embarrassment of having to admit that you indulged in hyperbole and just provide you with two links. Yes, they show that some nations don't have campaign limits but they do have other restrictions that negate the impact of unlimited campaign spending. Try and figure out how that works from the links provided before you respond and save us both the time of doing that silly dance. Thank you.

International campaign finance How do countries compare - CNN.com

How Our Campaign Finance System Compares to Other Countries

Here you go, bub.

View attachment 34856

Thank you for proving me right in that I did not post what you falsely alleged.

 

[boedicca]

That works really well for Putin. For the Russian people? Not so much.

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you have nothing to support your baseless position.

I call shenanigans. Please provide a link to a credible source that shows that 100% of campaign financing in the rest of the civilized world is provided by the government.

Certainly, just as soon as you provide the quote from me where I claimed that "100% of campaign financing in the rest of the civilized world is provided by the government".

You can't because I didn't so I will spare you the embarrassment of having to admit that you indulged in hyperbole and just provide you with two links. Yes, they show that some nations don't have campaign limits but they do have other restrictions that negate the impact of unlimited campaign spending. Try and figure out how that works from the links provided before you respond and save us both the time of doing that silly dance. Thank you.

International campaign finance How do countries compare - CNN.com

How Our Campaign Finance System Compares to Other Countries

Here you go, bub.

View attachment 34856

Thank you for proving me right in that I did not post what you falsely alleged.

Your logic and reading comprehension are equally faulty.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So perhaps you will acknowledge your error and apologize to those members you insulted who pointed it out to you?

Since I never "insulted" anyone I have nothing to apologize for. If you believe I did then feel free to report me to the mods since this is the CDZ.

 

[Derideo_Te]

That works really well for Putin. For the Russian people? Not so much.

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you have nothing to support your baseless position.

I call shenanigans. Please provide a link to a credible source that shows that 100% of campaign financing in the rest of the civilized world is provided by the government.

Certainly, just as soon as you provide the quote from me where I claimed that "100% of campaign financing in the rest of the civilized world is provided by the government".

You can't because I didn't so I will spare you the embarrassment of having to admit that you indulged in hyperbole and just provide you with two links. Yes, they show that some nations don't have campaign limits but they do have other restrictions that negate the impact of unlimited campaign spending. Try and figure out how that works from the links provided before you respond and save us both the time of doing that silly dance. Thank you.

International campaign finance How do countries compare - CNN.com

How Our Campaign Finance System Compares to Other Countries

Here you go, bub.

View attachment 34856

Yep. He said it. He probably won't acknowledge it, but he said it. I have already provided evidence of how that is incorrect however.

The "evidence" you provide corroborated my position that the government was providing the funding for elections.

"Germany has provided public funding to the political parties since 1958."

 

[boedicca]

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you have nothing to support your baseless position.

I call shenanigans. Please provide a link to a credible source that shows that 100% of campaign financing in the rest of the civilized world is provided by the government.

Certainly, just as soon as you provide the quote from me where I claimed that "100% of campaign financing in the rest of the civilized world is provided by the government".

You can't because I didn't so I will spare you the embarrassment of having to admit that you indulged in hyperbole and just provide you with two links. Yes, they show that some nations don't have campaign limits but they do have other restrictions that negate the impact of unlimited campaign spending. Try and figure out how that works from the links provided before you respond and save us both the time of doing that silly dance. Thank you.

International campaign finance How do countries compare - CNN.com

How Our Campaign Finance System Compares to Other Countries

Here you go, bub.

View attachment 34856

Yep. He said it. He probably won't acknowledge it, but he said it. I have already provided evidence of how that is incorrect however.

The "evidence" you provide corroborated my position that the government was providing the funding for elections.

"Germany has provided public funding to the political parties since 1958."

You are twisting yourself in knots, hun. Try reading for comprehension.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I call shenanigans. Please provide a link to a credible source that shows that 100% of campaign financing in the rest of the civilized world is provided by the government.

Certainly, just as soon as you provide the quote from me where I claimed that "100% of campaign financing in the rest of the civilized world is provided by the government".

You can't because I didn't so I will spare you the embarrassment of having to admit that you indulged in hyperbole and just provide you with two links. Yes, they show that some nations don't have campaign limits but they do have other restrictions that negate the impact of unlimited campaign spending. Try and figure out how that works from the links provided before you respond and save us both the time of doing that silly dance. Thank you.

International campaign finance How do countries compare - CNN.com

How Our Campaign Finance System Compares to Other Countries

Here you go, bub.

View attachment 34856

Yep. He said it. He probably won't acknowledge it, but he said it. I have already provided evidence of how that is incorrect however.

The "evidence" you provide corroborated my position that the government was providing the funding for elections.

"Germany has provided public funding to the political parties since 1958."

You are twisting yourself in knots, hun. Try reading for comprehension.

Ironic!

 

[boedicca]

Certainly, just as soon as you provide the quote from me where I claimed that "100% of campaign financing in the rest of the civilized world is provided by the government".

You can't because I didn't so I will spare you the embarrassment of having to admit that you indulged in hyperbole and just provide you with two links. Yes, they show that some nations don't have campaign limits but they do have other restrictions that negate the impact of unlimited campaign spending. Try and figure out how that works from the links provided before you respond and save us both the time of doing that silly dance. Thank you.

International campaign finance How do countries compare - CNN.com

How Our Campaign Finance System Compares to Other Countries

Here you go, bub.

View attachment 34856

Yep. He said it. He probably won't acknowledge it, but he said it. I have already provided evidence of how that is incorrect however.

The "evidence" you provide corroborated my position that the government was providing the funding for elections.

"Germany has provided public funding to the political parties since 1958."

You are twisting yourself in knots, hun. Try reading for comprehension.

Ironic!

Here's Irony:

boedicca says: "They aren't limited to the government provided financing you are advocating."

you say: "BUT THEY ARE IN THE REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD'S ELECTIONS."

Breaking it down:

I say they aren't limited.

You say they are.

So, again: provide the proof that candidates in the Rest of the Civilized world are limited to government provided financing.

 

[Foxfyre]

Since the discussion has veered into the conflict between those who use government for their own benefit vs those in government who use government for their own benefit. . . I propose something like the following to be incorporated into the new constitution:

1. No person elected to Congress may serve for more than 12 consecutive years.

2. Those who have served 12 consecutive years will not be eligible for election or appointment to federal office for a period of two years.

3. Terms for senators will be limited to 6 years with 1/3 of the senate rotating off in each 2-year election.

4. Terms for members of the House will be two years.

5. Offices for senators and congressmen will be furnished with basic inexpensive but functional furniture and equipment purchased via lowest bidder. Any additional furnishings and decorations will be paid for by the official using the office space.

6. A reasonable allowance is allowed each member of Congress to provide living expenses, travel expenses, maintenance of his/her office, compensation for a staff, and a reasonable personal salary. Any additional expense above and beyond the allowance is at the expense of the member of Congress. Any unused portion of the allowance will be returned to the national treasury at the end of each fiscal year.

7. The government can arrange for a group healthcare plan for elected, appointed, and hired federal personnel, but each person will pay the full cost of participation in that plan.

8. All federal elected, appointed, and hired federal personnel will fund their own 401K or other retirement plan that will go with them when they return to the private sector. No taxpayer funds will be used for retirement plans for anybody.
(Some provision may be made for a stipend for the President who will generally be expected to perform ceremonial duties following a tenure as president. We can hash that out later.)

And further:

9. Congress may exempt itself from no law that is passed for anybody else.

10. Congress may allocate no funds or benefit, or make any regulation, establish any policy, or enact any law that benefits or disadvantage any individual, group, entity, or demographic that does not benefit or disadvantage all without respect for politics or socioeconomic status.

11. The Congress and President will begin each year with a zero based budget--the baseline budget process will be discontinued at all levels--and will be required to stay within budget boundaries except in very specific emergencies that will be defined elsewhere.

12. Only the bare basics of government administrative functions will be included in the annual operating budget. All other allocations of any kind will be presented as single (not included with any other legislation) issues in a stand alone bill requiring an up or down vote by both House and Senate and signed by the President for passage.

(No. 12 above removes the need for a line item veto power given to the President which would have its own problems.)

There's probably more, but I think this would be a good start.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Framers' original intent is determined by the Supreme Court, in accordance with the doctrine of judicial review as authorized by Articles III and VI of the Federal Constitution, and as practiced by Colonial courts for well over a century before the advent of the Foundation Era.

The supremacy of the Federal courts and the authority of the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'd like to see two rights made explicit:

- The right to privacy
- Property rights

Two other changes:

- A cost benefit analysis requirement before passing a law.
- A requirement that making violations of regulations or laws "criminal offenses" must be justified with a valid harm being done. Dealing with crimes entails force, which in the extreme is deadly. Minor infractions of social engineering schemes don't warrant such force.

I am convinced that if they stop just living their lives long enough to consider their perception of better and best, good and evil, right and wrong, most people are pretty conservative (aka libertarian little "L" or classical liberal) in their point of view. But my greatest fear is that a new constitutional convention would include so many hard core progressives as they are defined these days that we would immediately lose all the protections we now enjoy via the existing constitution. They would give all authority to govern to a central government instead of to the people as the Founders intended.

Property rights are certainly among those unalienable rights the Founders intended to be secured by the federal government even as they struggled to find a means to ensure that all the land and resources did not wind up in the hands of a very few. As it turned out, the Homestead laws coupled with liberty were more efficient to distribute resources than they had even hoped.

And IMO, except for situations that involve shared water, land, air, and any other resources that cross state lines, the federal government should have no involvement whatsoever in how people use their property and should be involved in no social engineering whatsoever.

If property rights were considered unalienable, then there would be no such thing as imminent domain.

 

[Spare_change]

I'd like to see two rights made explicit:

- The right to privacy
- Property rights

Two other changes:

- A cost benefit analysis requirement before passing a law.
- A requirement that making violations of regulations or laws "criminal offenses" must be justified with a valid harm being done. Dealing with crimes entails force, which in the extreme is deadly. Minor infractions of social engineering schemes don't warrant such force.

I am convinced that if they stop just living their lives long enough to consider their perception of better and best, good and evil, right and wrong, most people are pretty conservative (aka libertarian little "L" or classical liberal) in their point of view. But my greatest fear is that a new constitutional convention would include so many hard core progressives as they are defined these days that we would immediately lose all the protections we now enjoy via the existing constitution. They would give all authority to govern to a central government instead of to the people as the Founders intended.

Property rights are certainly among those unalienable rights the Founders intended to be secured by the federal government even as they struggled to find a means to ensure that all the land and resources did not wind up in the hands of a very few. As it turned out, the Homestead laws coupled with liberty were more efficient to distribute resources than they had even hoped.

And IMO, except for situations that involve shared water, land, air, and any other resources that cross state lines, the federal government should have no involvement whatsoever in how people use their property and should be involved in no social engineering whatsoever.

If property rights were considered unalienable, then there would be no such thing as imminent domain.

There isn't ... it's called eminent domain.

Imminent domain is where we Christians go ...

 

[boedicca]

I'd like to see two rights made explicit:

- The right to privacy
- Property rights

Two other changes:

- A cost benefit analysis requirement before passing a law.
- A requirement that making violations of regulations or laws "criminal offenses" must be justified with a valid harm being done. Dealing with crimes entails force, which in the extreme is deadly. Minor infractions of social engineering schemes don't warrant such force.

I am convinced that if they stop just living their lives long enough to consider their perception of better and best, good and evil, right and wrong, most people are pretty conservative (aka libertarian little "L" or classical liberal) in their point of view. But my greatest fear is that a new constitutional convention would include so many hard core progressives as they are defined these days that we would immediately lose all the protections we now enjoy via the existing constitution. They would give all authority to govern to a central government instead of to the people as the Founders intended.

Property rights are certainly among those unalienable rights the Founders intended to be secured by the federal government even as they struggled to find a means to ensure that all the land and resources did not wind up in the hands of a very few. As it turned out, the Homestead laws coupled with liberty were more efficient to distribute resources than they had even hoped.

And IMO, except for situations that involve shared water, land, air, and any other resources that cross state lines, the federal government should have no involvement whatsoever in how people use their property and should be involved in no social engineering whatsoever.

If property rights were considered unalienable, then there would be no such thing as imminent domain.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

And it's not Imminent, it's Eminent.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'd like to see two rights made explicit:

- The right to privacy
- Property rights

Two other changes:

- A cost benefit analysis requirement before passing a law.
- A requirement that making violations of regulations or laws "criminal offenses" must be justified with a valid harm being done. Dealing with crimes entails force, which in the extreme is deadly. Minor infractions of social engineering schemes don't warrant such force.

I am convinced that if they stop just living their lives long enough to consider their perception of better and best, good and evil, right and wrong, most people are pretty conservative (aka libertarian little "L" or classical liberal) in their point of view. But my greatest fear is that a new constitutional convention would include so many hard core progressives as they are defined these days that we would immediately lose all the protections we now enjoy via the existing constitution. They would give all authority to govern to a central government instead of to the people as the Founders intended.

Property rights are certainly among those unalienable rights the Founders intended to be secured by the federal government even as they struggled to find a means to ensure that all the land and resources did not wind up in the hands of a very few. As it turned out, the Homestead laws coupled with liberty were more efficient to distribute resources than they had even hoped.

And IMO, except for situations that involve shared water, land, air, and any other resources that cross state lines, the federal government should have no involvement whatsoever in how people use their property and should be involved in no social engineering whatsoever.

If property rights were considered unalienable, then there would be no such thing as imminent domain.

There isn't ... it's called eminent domain.

Imminent domain is where we Christians go ...

Thanks for the correction. Not my first time mixing those up.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'd like to see two rights made explicit:

- The right to privacy
- Property rights

Two other changes:

- A cost benefit analysis requirement before passing a law.
- A requirement that making violations of regulations or laws "criminal offenses" must be justified with a valid harm being done. Dealing with crimes entails force, which in the extreme is deadly. Minor infractions of social engineering schemes don't warrant such force.

I am convinced that if they stop just living their lives long enough to consider their perception of better and best, good and evil, right and wrong, most people are pretty conservative (aka libertarian little "L" or classical liberal) in their point of view. But my greatest fear is that a new constitutional convention would include so many hard core progressives as they are defined these days that we would immediately lose all the protections we now enjoy via the existing constitution. They would give all authority to govern to a central government instead of to the people as the Founders intended.

Property rights are certainly among those unalienable rights the Founders intended to be secured by the federal government even as they struggled to find a means to ensure that all the land and resources did not wind up in the hands of a very few. As it turned out, the Homestead laws coupled with liberty were more efficient to distribute resources than they had even hoped.

And IMO, except for situations that involve shared water, land, air, and any other resources that cross state lines, the federal government should have no involvement whatsoever in how people use their property and should be involved in no social engineering whatsoever.

If property rights were considered unalienable, then there would be no such thing as imminent domain.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

And it's not Imminent, it's Eminent.

I didn't make a judgment on it. I simply pointed out that if the Founders actually thought property rights were unalienable there wouldn't be eminent domain. There is no such thing as an unalienable right.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'd like to see two rights made explicit:

- The right to privacy
- Property rights

Two other changes:

- A cost benefit analysis requirement before passing a law.
- A requirement that making violations of regulations or laws "criminal offenses" must be justified with a valid harm being done. Dealing with crimes entails force, which in the extreme is deadly. Minor infractions of social engineering schemes don't warrant such force.

I am convinced that if they stop just living their lives long enough to consider their perception of better and best, good and evil, right and wrong, most people are pretty conservative (aka libertarian little "L" or classical liberal) in their point of view. But my greatest fear is that a new constitutional convention would include so many hard core progressives as they are defined these days that we would immediately lose all the protections we now enjoy via the existing constitution. They would give all authority to govern to a central government instead of to the people as the Founders intended.

Property rights are certainly among those unalienable rights the Founders intended to be secured by the federal government even as they struggled to find a means to ensure that all the land and resources did not wind up in the hands of a very few. As it turned out, the Homestead laws coupled with liberty were more efficient to distribute resources than they had even hoped.

And IMO, except for situations that involve shared water, land, air, and any other resources that cross state lines, the federal government should have no involvement whatsoever in how people use their property and should be involved in no social engineering whatsoever.

If property rights were considered unalienable, then there would be no such thing as imminent domain.

There isn't ... it's called eminent domain.

Imminent domain is where we Christians go ...