My Proposed Amendment To The US Constitution

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The only hope for this country is universal school choice. Divorced from the sociopolitical philosophy of America's founding, namely, Lockean natural law, the Constitution can be subverted to mean virtually anything.

Universal school choice? Show me a universal school, please.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Impeachment is used only when someone complains about a judge. I am proposing a regular review of their performances.

Why? That's what appeals courts do.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A review conducted by a partisan body is ludicrous.

 

[Ringtone]

Universal school choice? Show me a universal school, please.

Universal school choice would be the end of the government's monopoly over education. Liberty's a good thing. You might want to try it sometime.

 

[Viktor]

Really? Well, currently four members of the Court either don't have the first clue about the sociopolitical philosophy on which this nation was founded or are rank subversives. Choose.

The President nominated them and the Senate confirmed them and they are all lawyers. You really are arrogant.

 

[Viktor]

A review conducted by a partisan body is ludicrous.

Your solution is a petition drive to not reelect them.

 

[Ringtone]

The President nominated them and the Senate confirmed them and they are all lawyers. You really are arrogant.

And you really are naive, and your proposal is a horrible idea. So nanernanernaner.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Universal school choice would be the end of the government's monopoly over education. Liberty's a good thing. You might want to try it sometime.

Government has no monopoly over education. You are free to have your kids attend charter schools (which are public schools BTW), private schools or create another generation of morons by home schooling them.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Your solution is a petition drive to not reelect them.

No, petitions carry exactly zero weight in our federal systems.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I am 75 years old and retired. Besides, I would make a lousy politician.

Like Biden?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Like Biden?

Viktor is a youngster compared to Biden.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The problem with that is the Senate is full of corrupt and incompetent politicians. Fat chance at having a senate committee qualified to do that.

I agree, all this would do is get rid of judges from the side that was not in the majority of the Senate at that time

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I cannot imagine the bedlam that would be wrapped up in another Constitutional Convention at this point.

I mean, it's like pulling teeth just to get an infrastructure bill through. We just came hours from another government shutdown. And someone is considering opening the door to a page-one rewrite of the entire founding document?

A Successful Attempt by the Colonial Plutocracy to Create a House of Lords

It should have been a temporary start-up document, to be superseded by all subsequent legislation.

Because of the Constitution's stranglehold on the people's will, the debate about a bill can't be only about whether the proposed legislation is good for the country. Overriding that discussion, it first has to be settled whether the bill is Constitutional. Therefore, having a Constitution is not good for the country.

 

[MisterBeale]

We know the kkk kaucus hasn't.

That's not a very nice way to talk about the Congressional Progressive Caucus - Wikipedia

 

[$ecular#eckler]

IMO?

I have always viewed folks that lobby for the reconstruction of a new Constitution as some representative of a powerful interest group that has an agenda to slip into a new constitution, a provision for their interest to make them untouchable.

You have never encountered anyone campaigning for a complete reordering of the federal constitution. At best, you have heard media pundits false claims that there are people who want a new Constitution. If there were a "powerful interest group" involved, then there would be a tangible record of an advertising campaign you could present as evidence for your claim, which otherwise, is a delusion.

Given our government, and Constitution, are now the oldest on the planet, it really is a special kind of stupid to want to throw the whole thing out and lobby for a new one.

You have never encountered the arguments that I am presenting as reason for a reordering of the entire three levels of government charters. I am not just campaigning for a new federal constitution.

1) The three-part separation theory is incomplete. It does not define the proper subdivision of the three parts, and the (erroneous) deployment there of is the source of our partisan problems compouded by some of the incorrect adjustments deployed in the evolution of the government and society.

a) The game theory of the "Constitution" is very different than what the founders' designed. The founders themselves changed it. The Twelfth Amendment directly changes a check and balance on the presidency, so that the vice-president is a lackey of the president.

b) The 17th Amendment eliminated a check and balance on the condition of the state governments, and elevated the partisan problems of the states to the federal legislature.

c) And the limiting of the House of Representative seats to 435 fails to meet the expectations of the tremendous diversity that the society has evolved to. Not to forgive the original scheme fails to meet the expectations of the "interest groups." How is a representative supposed to represent all of the different people in the constituent district?

2) The State Department cannot provide a reliable government charter for the developing societies, because our system only works, because it is the product of its evolution of ad hoc adjustments. This problem leads to the immigration problem we endure.

3) The only way to effectually contest the claims of "systemic biases" is by having a constitutional convention that gathers the diversity of delegates to guard against "systemic biases."

You have never heard those arguments before - never. This is new stuff.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

I cannot imagine the bedlam that would be wrapped up in another Constitutional Convention at this point.

I mean, it's like pulling teeth just to get an infrastructure bill through. We just came hours from another government shutdown. And someone is considering opening the door to a page-one rewrite of the entire founding document?

That is a reason why we need to have one. We need to figure out how to fix that problem. How do we organize a constitutional convention to handle the diversity and solve the problems that the subsisting system seems to fail.

If you weren't so dull, then you would have recognized the problem.

I am proposing a three-level constitutional convention series; although, each state will probably be the seemingly starting point to organize multiple municipal conventions.

Get it??? Municipalities will be the starting point for trying to figure out how to compose the ultimate reliable government chartering system for all levels of government. The best ideas will be elevated to compete at the state level.

How else would it be done? Why couldn't you figure that out?

Just cannot image much beyond what you third grade teacher taught you about government, can you?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

You would definitely need an Amendment for that. Good luck.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Every once in a while a new nutcase comes along declaring "I shall FIX the Constitution!" then never even tries to make his hairbrained notion a reality.

I am not a nutcase. I am the sane person in the insane world. I am the only person able to describe the incompleteness of the three-part separation theory. No political science or law scholar has been able to recognize that the three-part separation theory does not formulate how to subdivide the three parts, which are obviously, subdivided.

I have composed the formula for subdividing the three parts and the generational outline for a reliable government chartering system for all levels of government and for at least three population sizes for municipalities: small, standard, and large.

I am doing what it is you should expect a person to do to campaign the device - I am appealing to the general public on the internet discussion forum that gathers the brilliant people like you. How else would you expect a person to do so?

Write a book, and get some publisher to campaign it???

Get some famous person to campaign it???

You are the hairbrained.

 

[MisterBeale]

You have never encountered anyone campaigning for a complete reordering of the federal constitution. At best, you have heard media pundits false claims that there are people who want a new Constitution. If there were a "powerful interest group" involved, then there would be a tangible record of an advertising campaign you could present as evidence for your claim, which otherwise, is a delusion.




You have never encountered the arguments that I am presenting as reason for a reordering of the entire three levels of government charters. I am not just campaigning for a new federal constitution.

1) The three-part separation theory is incomplete. It does not define the proper subdivision of the three parts, and the (erroneous) deployment there of is the source of our partisan problems compouded by some of the incorrect adjustments deployed in the evolution of the government and society.

View attachment 571769


a) The game theory of the "Constitution" is very different than what the founders' designed. The founders themselves changed it. The Twelfth Amendment directly changes a check and balance on the presidency, so that the vice-president is a lackey of the president.

View attachment 571772


b) The 17th Amendment eliminated a check and balance on the condition of the state governments, and elevated the partisan problems of the states to the federal legislature.

View attachment 571774

c) And the limiting of the House of Representative seats to 435 fails to meet the expectations of the tremendous diversity that the society has evolved to. Not to forgive the original scheme fails to meet the expectations of the "interest groups." How is a representative supposed to represent all of the different people in the constituent district?

View attachment 571784


2) The State Department cannot provide a reliable government charter for the developing societies, because our system only works, because it is the product of its evolution of ad hoc adjustments. This problem leads to the immigration problem we endure.
View attachment 571777


3) The only way to effectually contest the claims of "systemic biases" is by having a constitutional convention that gathers the diversity of delegates to guard against "systemic biases."

View attachment 571781

You have never heard those arguments before - never. This is new stuff.

View attachment 571783

. . . and how exactly do you intend to keep corporate interests, oligarchs, international covert entities, and the Deep State out of the whole scheme of creating a new constitution?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

. . . and how exactly do you intend to keep corporate interests, oligarchs, international covert entities, and the Deep State out of the whole scheme of creating a new constitution?

I am not forbidding them from participating. As far as I am concerned, everyone is invited. I am not afraid that the nefarious people are so sneaky that their schemes will be unchallenged by the smart and honest litigation lawyers that will be participating and competing for the honor of being a signatory to the document that succeeds the almighty United States Constitution of 1787.