If the Constitution were yours to change...

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Constitution was ratified by liberals by and large.

too stupid and 100% liberal. If so then they were liberals who liked very very tiny government as do modern conservatives and libertarians.


See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

By doing what?

Feats of strength!

passing a test like you would to drive a car to do brain surgery

Conservatives are clearly ignorant of what inalienable rights means.

They’re also ignorant of the fact that tests as a prerequisite to voting are illegal and un-Constitutional. See: Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966).

 

[candycorn]

The Constitution was ratified by liberals by and large.

too stupid and 100% liberal. If so then they were liberals who liked very very tiny government as do modern conservatives and libertarians.


See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?

Not sure what, if any of that, was a response to me or the OP. Anyway, Liberals ratified the Constitution. If you doubt that, well, you're as ignorant as I first thought.

 

[bornright]

By doing what?

Service in the military and paying taxes. That would totally destroy the democratic party.

So people who can't pass the medical can never vote?

Freedom is free for some people. How can they love this country unless they have paid some price for it? I gave you two things that could be used to allow you to vote and I am sure we could come up with other duties that could qualify you, being a 18 year old sleeping on daddy's couch is not one of them.

 

[konradv]

What changes, if any, would you make to it?

Institute a system to publicly finance elections.

 

[whitehall]

It's always been a dream of the radical left to eliminate the last obstacle to the revolution. Why feed into their fantasy?

 

[GHook93]

Feats of strength!

passing a test like you would to drive a car to do brain surgery

Conservatives are clearly ignorant of what inalienable rights means.

They’re also ignorant of the fact that tests as a prerequisite to voting are illegal and un-Constitutional. See: Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966).

Get an education you ignorant ****. The Morgan Case upheld the constitutionality of Voting Rights Act of 1965. The case stated that Voting Right Act was constitutional based on 14th amendment and did not shoot down the state law that had a literacy test for voting.

That case was about challenging the Voter Right Act. What Morgan did was made it so no state or state law could challenge the Voter Right Act, however, a Fed Law (which has been passed or considered) could overturn the law (and it could be challenged in it's own right).

The Voter Right Act for the most part is a great law, however, gerrymandering side effect has made political districting a ******* joke. That was a indirect effect of this law.



In all honesty I think a literacy test wouldn't be a bad idea. I mean if you can't read, how the hell do you know the issues or who or what to vote on?

 

[candycorn]

What changes, if any, would you make to it?

Institute a system to publicly finance elections.

Totally agree. Whate elections though? City? State? Federal?

 

[dblack]

In all honesty I think a literacy test wouldn't be a bad idea. I mean if you can't read, how the hell do you know the issues or who or what to vote on?

If illiterate people could 'opt out' of government, then your view might have merit. But they can't.

Government is imposed on us, nominally, via our consent. And I don't know of any conception of "consent" in a democracy that wouldn't include the right to vote. And no conception of "equal protection" that would allow such a right to be reserved for, or withheld from, specific classes of otherwise law abiding citizens.

 

[Darkwind]

Everyone should have to earn the right to vote.

By doing what?

Being self sufficient and not a burden upon the taxpayer.

 

[konradv]

What changes, if any, would you make to it?

Institute a system to publicly finance elections.

Totally agree. Whate elections though? City? State? Federal?

Pretty much all. If we expect our representitives to do what the majority wants, the majority is going to have to pay, not just a relatively small minority of large donors. While small donors do represent a significant portion of donations, it's the large donors that get listened to the most.

 

[candycorn]

Institute a system to publicly finance elections.

Totally agree. Whate elections though? City? State? Federal?

Pretty much all. If we expect our representitives to do what the majority wants, the majority is going to have to pay, not just a relatively small minority of large donors. While small donors do represent a significant portion of donations, it's the large donors that get listened to the most.

I think it's a good idea. But I do also think that every 2 years for Federal elections, radio, print, and television should have to give free air time to the serious candidates. Your idea is to attack the source of the money; I'd like to help eliminate the need for the moeny in the first place.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Totally agree. Whate elections though? City? State? Federal?

Pretty much all. If we expect our representitives to do what the majority wants, the majority is going to have to pay, not just a relatively small minority of large donors. While small donors do represent a significant portion of donations, it's the large donors that get listened to the most.

I think it's a good idea. But I do also think that every 2 years for Federal elections, radio, print, and television should have to give free air time to the serious candidates. Your idea is to attack the source of the money; I'd like to help eliminate the need for the moeny in the first place.

too stupid!!! rather than manipulate elections to win why not think of just one good reason for someone to vote libturd??

IF you can present the best reason please do so or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so. IF thinking isn't for you then maybe you should not be here??

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Totally agree. Whate elections though? City? State? Federal?

Pretty much all. If we expect our representitives to do what the majority wants, the majority is going to have to pay, not just a relatively small minority of large donors. While small donors do represent a significant portion of donations, it's the large donors that get listened to the most.

I think it's a good idea. But I do also think that every 2 years for Federal elections, radio, print, and television should have to give free air time to the serious candidates. Your idea is to attack the source of the money; I'd like to help eliminate the need for the moeny in the first place.

But why stop at Federal elections? And who decides the standard for a "serious" candidate? I envision such a scenario as leading to a great deal of complexity, and the loopholes that come with it. Seems more efficient to make sure that nobody spends more than a fixed amount on a single campaign.

 

[konradv]

Pretty much all. If we expect our representitives to do what the majority wants, the majority is going to have to pay, not just a relatively small minority of large donors. While small donors do represent a significant portion of donations, it's the large donors that get listened to the most.

I think it's a good idea. But I do also think that every 2 years for Federal elections, radio, print, and television should have to give free air time to the serious candidates. Your idea is to attack the source of the money; I'd like to help eliminate the need for the moeny in the first place.

But why stop at Federal elections? And who decides the standard for a "serious" candidate? I envision such a scenario as leading to a great deal of complexity, and the loopholes that come with it. Seems more efficient to make sure that nobody spends more than a fixed amount on a single campaign.

It would require a system of town halls and open mikes with pre-primaries to determine which party affiliates and independents could go further.

While spending no more than a fixed amount would be more efficient, it solves neither the cheating problem nor the fact that those who can bundle the most donations will get preferential treatment.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I think it's a good idea. But I do also think that every 2 years for Federal elections, radio, print, and television should have to give free air time to the serious candidates. Your idea is to attack the source of the money; I'd like to help eliminate the need for the moeny in the first place.

But why stop at Federal elections? And who decides the standard for a "serious" candidate? I envision such a scenario as leading to a great deal of complexity, and the loopholes that come with it. Seems more efficient to make sure that nobody spends more than a fixed amount on a single campaign.

It would require a system of town halls and open mikes with pre-primaries to determine which party affiliates and independents could go further.

While spending no more than a fixed amount would be more efficient, it solves neither the cheating problem nor the fact that those who can bundle the most donations will get preferential treatment.

too stupid !!! lots of very rich candidates lose and since much of the big money goes to Democrats you should love the current system.
If you want to improve the electoral process. 100% follow the Constitution and give voters a political IQ test.

How can voting possibly work if you have people voting on monetary policy when they don't even know what monetary policy is.

 

[konradv]

But why stop at Federal elections? And who decides the standard for a "serious" candidate? I envision such a scenario as leading to a great deal of complexity, and the loopholes that come with it. Seems more efficient to make sure that nobody spends more than a fixed amount on a single campaign.

It would require a system of town halls and open mikes with pre-primaries to determine which party affiliates and independents could go further.

While spending no more than a fixed amount would be more efficient, it solves neither the cheating problem nor the fact that those who can bundle the most donations will get preferential treatment.

too stupid !!! lots of very rich candidates lose and since much of the big money goes to Democrats you should love the current system.
If you want to improve the electoral process. 100% follow the Constitution and give voters a political IQ test.

How can voting possibly work if you have people voting on monetary policy when they don't even know what monetary policy is.

It's about trying to put together a better system that isn't tilted towards special interests, NOT whether I'm a Democrat or Republican.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually, greenbacks were a form of counterfeiting. Free banking, the system we had prior to Lincoln, is the only monetary system fit for a free society. Fiat money is for serfs.

Fiat currency is critical to a growing economy.

Consider the 1980s when a new technology, the digital age, arose. IF we had a locked currency, then more good chasing a static supply of money, would do what? Now SHOULD the introduction of new currency devalue existing goods? Does that make economic sense? Should the wealth of a producer of cotton be taken because someone builds an iPod? Because, without fiat currency, that is exactly what happens.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Change the 2nd amendment to specify who isn't allowed to own firearms.

Simple, anyone who votes democrat.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's about trying to put together a better system that isn't tilted towards special interests, NOT whether I'm a Democrat or Republican.

too stupid!! there are only 2 political ideas in the world: Democrat and Republican; thats why those are the only two names that appear when you enter the voting booth!!

Now you know your ABCs too.