- Moderator
- #41
I agree.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Reaffirming the Almighty United States Constitution
- Thread starter $ecular#eckler
- Start date
I agree.
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 59,447
- 36,235
- 2,615
so I disagreed to your idea and your response was to tag all my comments with a dislike,,,You were doing it to me.your feelings arent my problem,, and I am against a CC without any clarification of what the goal is,,You senselessly dissed me in the past with thumbs down reactions to my campaign for a constitutional convention, and here you are claiming to be working on a path to restoring the Constitution, but unwilling to help out those who want to do the same.I didnt diss you,, just pointed out that would be a restoration not a revolution,,
am I wrong about that??
And then, you may have noticed, that there are plenty of people who are getting it all mixed up, and think that restoring the constitution is the same as reordering it - so . . .
I'm going to argue that either way requires the same rules for organizing people to do it!
what I am for is a restoration to constitutional limited government that doesnt require a CC,,,
and before you complain about others disliking your opinion you shouldnt troll their comments and tag every comment with dislikes like you did to me and others a few weeks ago,,,
very mature of you,,
Pellinore
Platinum Member
- May 30, 2018
- 1,994
- 1,153
- 940
One thing I have long thought of as a good step would be to pass an Amendment that would prohibit winner-takes-all Electoral College votes. Originally, the idea was closer to the way Maine and Nebraska allocate their EC votes -- namely, the votes go the way each district voted, with the remaining 2 being awarded to the overall state winner. It was Thomas Jefferson who came up with the winner-take-all scheme in order to give Virginia more proportional power, and everyone else then parroted it to keep up.
Establishing proportional allocation would give a voice to a shocking amount of voters (California Republicans, for example, or Texas Democrats) whose votes are perpetually swept away, eliminate the dominance of swing states, and more closely represent the people as originally designed.
Otherwise, I'd listen to Supreme Court reform, and enshrining Marbury vs. Madison as an Amendment rather than a replaceable ruling. I can't imagine having a full-fledged Constitutional Convention these days, allowing our dysfunctional Congress the possibility of rewriting literally every word; it would be apocalypse-level chaos.
Establishing proportional allocation would give a voice to a shocking amount of voters (California Republicans, for example, or Texas Democrats) whose votes are perpetually swept away, eliminate the dominance of swing states, and more closely represent the people as originally designed.
Otherwise, I'd listen to Supreme Court reform, and enshrining Marbury vs. Madison as an Amendment rather than a replaceable ruling. I can't imagine having a full-fledged Constitutional Convention these days, allowing our dysfunctional Congress the possibility of rewriting literally every word; it would be apocalypse-level chaos.
- Moderator
- #44
so I disagreed to your idea and your response was to tag all my comments with a dislike,,,You were doing it to me.your feelings arent my problem,, and I am against a CC without any clarification of what the goal is,,You senselessly dissed me in the past with thumbs down reactions to my campaign for a constitutional convention, and here you are claiming to be working on a path to restoring the Constitution, but unwilling to help out those who want to do the same.I didnt diss you,, just pointed out that would be a restoration not a revolution,,
am I wrong about that??
And then, you may have noticed, that there are plenty of people who are getting it all mixed up, and think that restoring the constitution is the same as reordering it - so . . .
I'm going to argue that either way requires the same rules for organizing people to do it!
what I am for is a restoration to constitutional limited government that doesnt require a CC,,,
and before you complain about others disliking your opinion you shouldnt troll their comments and tag every comment with dislikes like you did to me and others a few weeks ago,,,
very mature of you,,
Maturity is not a common trait on these forums.
- Moderator
- #45
One thing I have long thought of as a good step would be to pass an Amendment that would prohibit winner-takes-all Electoral College votes. Originally, the idea was closer to the way Maine and Nebraska allocate their EC votes -- namely, the votes go the way each district voted, with the remaining 2 being awarded to the overall state winner. It was Thomas Jefferson who came up with the winner-take-all scheme in order to give Virginia more proportional power, and everyone else then parroted it to keep up.
Establishing proportional allocation would give a voice to a shocking amount of voters (California Republicans, for example, or Texas Democrats) whose votes are perpetually swept away, eliminate the dominance of swing states, and more closely represent the people as originally designed.
Otherwise, I'd listen to Supreme Court reform, and enshrining Marbury vs. Madison as an Amendment rather than a replaceable ruling. I can't imagine having a full-fledged Constitutional Convention these days, allowing our dysfunctional Congress the possibility of rewriting literally every word; it would be apocalypse-level chaos.
A full blown constitutional convention would be a disaster. It is quite obvious that Congress is bought and paid for. Between big money donors and special interest groups, Congress has little interest in what is good for the population and/or the nation.
- Banned
- #46
One thing I have long thought of as a good step would be to pass an Amendment that would prohibit winner-takes-all Electoral College votes. Originally, the idea was closer to the way Maine and Nebraska allocate their EC votes -- namely, the votes go the way each district voted, with the remaining 2 being awarded to the overall state winner. It was Thomas Jefferson who came up with the winner-take-all scheme in order to give Virginia more proportional power, and everyone else then parroted it to keep up.
Establishing proportional allocation would give a voice to a shocking amount of voters (California Republicans, for example, or Texas Democrats) whose votes are perpetually swept away, eliminate the dominance of swing states, and more closely represent the people as originally designed.
Otherwise, I'd listen to Supreme Court reform, and enshrining Marbury vs. Madison as an Amendment rather than a replaceable ruling. I can't imagine having a full-fledged Constitutional Convention these days, allowing our dysfunctional Congress the possibility of rewriting literally every word; it would be apocalypse-level chaos.
The Socialists would jump on a Constitutional Convention like white on rice. They would do away with anything approaching individual rights and replace them with Socialist collective rights.
- Banned
- #47
The 14th was not just about previous state of servitude. It was also about race and color.Couldn't care less.Repeal every Amendment after the 13th, for starters.You are dependent on someone else figuring out how to do it.thats a restoration not a revolution,, I'm in,,
No, let's not do that.
For starters, the amendments 14 thru 27 were passed legally and according to the US Constitution.
For another reason, it would remove good and valid amendments.
Such as:
14th - Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude
19th - Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on sex
22nd - Limits the number of times a person can be elected President
24th - Prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of a poll tax or any other tax
26th - Prohibits the denial of the right of US citizens eighteen years of age or older to vote on account of age
Unless you want to go through the proper steps for each amendment, namely to create another amendment to remove it. Like we did for the 18th amendment (Prohibition).
We throw out the baby with the bathwater because it contains Rosemary's baby.
The provision in the 14th, viz. voting not being contingent on previous state of servitude, is antiquated and irrelevant...The rest of it has been the source of an avalanche of litigious mischief and chicanery ever since.
The rest of it can be handled by the states or re-enacted on a case-by-case basis.
Repealing the 19th amendment would remove women's ability to vote. Since women make up 51% of the population, good luck getting that amendment to fly.
The rest were constitutional amendment passed by the methods detailed in the US Constitution. Wouldn't throwing them out also be ignoring the US Constitution that you want followed?
In what way?
The rest were constitutional amendment passed by the methods detailed in the US Constitution. Wouldn't throwing them out also be ignoring the US Constitution that you want followed?
Couldn't care less.....If they're as self-evidently as good as you would claim, then there will be no challenge getting them re-established.
- Moderator
- #48
The 14th was not just about previous state of servitude. It was also about race and color.Couldn't care less.Repeal every Amendment after the 13th, for starters.You are dependent on someone else figuring out how to do it.thats a restoration not a revolution,, I'm in,,
No, let's not do that.
For starters, the amendments 14 thru 27 were passed legally and according to the US Constitution.
For another reason, it would remove good and valid amendments.
Such as:
14th - Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude
19th - Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on sex
22nd - Limits the number of times a person can be elected President
24th - Prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of a poll tax or any other tax
26th - Prohibits the denial of the right of US citizens eighteen years of age or older to vote on account of age
Unless you want to go through the proper steps for each amendment, namely to create another amendment to remove it. Like we did for the 18th amendment (Prohibition).
We throw out the baby with the bathwater because it contains Rosemary's baby.
The provision in the 14th, viz. voting not being contingent on previous state of servitude, is antiquated and irrelevant...The rest of it has been the source of an avalanche of litigious mischief and chicanery ever since.
The rest of it can be handled by the states or re-enacted on a case-by-case basis.
Repealing the 19th amendment would remove women's ability to vote. Since women make up 51% of the population, good luck getting that amendment to fly.
The rest were constitutional amendment passed by the methods detailed in the US Constitution. Wouldn't throwing them out also be ignoring the US Constitution that you want followed?
In what way?
The rest were constitutional amendment passed by the methods detailed in the US Constitution. Wouldn't throwing them out also be ignoring the US Constitution that you want followed?
Couldn't care less.....If they're as self-evidently as good as you would claim, then there will be no challenge getting them re-established.
That you "couldn't care less" shows your disdain for the US Constitution. The amendments were passed according to the methods described in the US Constitution.
If you want to repeal them by the methods outlined in the US Constitution, that is fine. Good luck getting them to pass.
- Banned
- #49
The Constitution is impotent whether I "disdain" it or not.....What has been piiled onto it post-13th Amendment is a very large source of what's been screwing the nation over in the here and now.The 14th was not just about previous state of servitude. It was also about race and color.Couldn't care less.Repeal every Amendment after the 13th, for starters.You are dependent on someone else figuring out how to do it.thats a restoration not a revolution,, I'm in,,
No, let's not do that.
For starters, the amendments 14 thru 27 were passed legally and according to the US Constitution.
For another reason, it would remove good and valid amendments.
Such as:
14th - Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude
19th - Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on sex
22nd - Limits the number of times a person can be elected President
24th - Prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of a poll tax or any other tax
26th - Prohibits the denial of the right of US citizens eighteen years of age or older to vote on account of age
Unless you want to go through the proper steps for each amendment, namely to create another amendment to remove it. Like we did for the 18th amendment (Prohibition).
We throw out the baby with the bathwater because it contains Rosemary's baby.
The provision in the 14th, viz. voting not being contingent on previous state of servitude, is antiquated and irrelevant...The rest of it has been the source of an avalanche of litigious mischief and chicanery ever since.
The rest of it can be handled by the states or re-enacted on a case-by-case basis.
Repealing the 19th amendment would remove women's ability to vote. Since women make up 51% of the population, good luck getting that amendment to fly.
The rest were constitutional amendment passed by the methods detailed in the US Constitution. Wouldn't throwing them out also be ignoring the US Constitution that you want followed?
In what way?
The rest were constitutional amendment passed by the methods detailed in the US Constitution. Wouldn't throwing them out also be ignoring the US Constitution that you want followed?
Couldn't care less.....If they're as self-evidently as good as you would claim, then there will be no challenge getting them re-established.
That you "couldn't care less" shows your disdain for the US Constitution. The amendments were passed according to the methods described in the US Constitution.
If you want to repeal them by the methods outlined in the US Constitution, that is fine. Good luck getting them to pass.
- Moderator
- #50
The Constitution is impotent whether I "disdain" it or not.....What has been piiled onto it post-13th Amendment is a very large source of what's been screwing the nation over in the here and now.The 14th was not just about previous state of servitude. It was also about race and color.Couldn't care less.Repeal every Amendment after the 13th, for starters.You are dependent on someone else figuring out how to do it.thats a restoration not a revolution,, I'm in,,
No, let's not do that.
For starters, the amendments 14 thru 27 were passed legally and according to the US Constitution.
For another reason, it would remove good and valid amendments.
Such as:
14th - Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude
19th - Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on sex
22nd - Limits the number of times a person can be elected President
24th - Prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of a poll tax or any other tax
26th - Prohibits the denial of the right of US citizens eighteen years of age or older to vote on account of age
Unless you want to go through the proper steps for each amendment, namely to create another amendment to remove it. Like we did for the 18th amendment (Prohibition).
We throw out the baby with the bathwater because it contains Rosemary's baby.
The provision in the 14th, viz. voting not being contingent on previous state of servitude, is antiquated and irrelevant...The rest of it has been the source of an avalanche of litigious mischief and chicanery ever since.
The rest of it can be handled by the states or re-enacted on a case-by-case basis.
Repealing the 19th amendment would remove women's ability to vote. Since women make up 51% of the population, good luck getting that amendment to fly.
The rest were constitutional amendment passed by the methods detailed in the US Constitution. Wouldn't throwing them out also be ignoring the US Constitution that you want followed?
In what way?
The rest were constitutional amendment passed by the methods detailed in the US Constitution. Wouldn't throwing them out also be ignoring the US Constitution that you want followed?
Couldn't care less.....If they're as self-evidently as good as you would claim, then there will be no challenge getting them re-established.
That you "couldn't care less" shows your disdain for the US Constitution. The amendments were passed according to the methods described in the US Constitution.
If you want to repeal them by the methods outlined in the US Constitution, that is fine. Good luck getting them to pass.
Just to clarify, are you proposing amendments to remove the current 14th thru 27th amendments? Or are you proposing those amendments be removed another way?
- Banned
- #51
The Constitution is impotent whether I "disdain" it or not.....What has been piiled onto it post-13th Amendment is a very large source of what's been screwing the nation over in the here and now.The 14th was not just about previous state of servitude. It was also about race and color.Couldn't care less.Repeal every Amendment after the 13th, for starters.You are dependent on someone else figuring out how to do it.thats a restoration not a revolution,, I'm in,,
No, let's not do that.
For starters, the amendments 14 thru 27 were passed legally and according to the US Constitution.
For another reason, it would remove good and valid amendments.
Such as:
14th - Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude
19th - Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on sex
22nd - Limits the number of times a person can be elected President
24th - Prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of a poll tax or any other tax
26th - Prohibits the denial of the right of US citizens eighteen years of age or older to vote on account of age
Unless you want to go through the proper steps for each amendment, namely to create another amendment to remove it. Like we did for the 18th amendment (Prohibition).
We throw out the baby with the bathwater because it contains Rosemary's baby.
The provision in the 14th, viz. voting not being contingent on previous state of servitude, is antiquated and irrelevant...The rest of it has been the source of an avalanche of litigious mischief and chicanery ever since.
The rest of it can be handled by the states or re-enacted on a case-by-case basis.
Repealing the 19th amendment would remove women's ability to vote. Since women make up 51% of the population, good luck getting that amendment to fly.
The rest were constitutional amendment passed by the methods detailed in the US Constitution. Wouldn't throwing them out also be ignoring the US Constitution that you want followed?
In what way?
The rest were constitutional amendment passed by the methods detailed in the US Constitution. Wouldn't throwing them out also be ignoring the US Constitution that you want followed?
Couldn't care less.....If they're as self-evidently as good as you would claim, then there will be no challenge getting them re-established.
That you "couldn't care less" shows your disdain for the US Constitution. The amendments were passed according to the methods described in the US Constitution.
If you want to repeal them by the methods outlined in the US Constitution, that is fine. Good luck getting them to pass.
The 13th amendment has become a joke because all of us have become slaves of the State.
$ecular#eckler
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- #52
You do not know what a full blown constitutional convention would be.One thing I have long thought of as a good step would be to pass an Amendment that would prohibit winner-takes-all Electoral College votes. Originally, the idea was closer to the way Maine and Nebraska allocate their EC votes -- namely, the votes go the way each district voted, with the remaining 2 being awarded to the overall state winner. It was Thomas Jefferson who came up with the winner-take-all scheme in order to give Virginia more proportional power, and everyone else then parroted it to keep up.
Establishing proportional allocation would give a voice to a shocking amount of voters (California Republicans, for example, or Texas Democrats) whose votes are perpetually swept away, eliminate the dominance of swing states, and more closely represent the people as originally designed.
Otherwise, I'd listen to Supreme Court reform, and enshrining Marbury vs. Madison as an Amendment rather than a replaceable ruling. I can't imagine having a full-fledged Constitutional Convention these days, allowing our dysfunctional Congress the possibility of rewriting literally every word; it would be apocalypse-level chaos.
A full blown constitutional convention would be a disaster. It is quite obvious that Congress is bought and paid for. Between big money donors and special interest groups, Congress has little interest in what is good for the population and/or the nation.
The topic of this discussion is not about constitutional convention it is about how do we get the almighty United States Constitution enforced.
$ecular#eckler
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- #53
You tagged all of my comments with a dislike, including the opening post. Which makes no sense, unless you are jealous.so I disagreed to your idea and your response was to tag all my comments with a dislike,,,You were doing it to me.your feelings arent my problem,, and I am against a CC without any clarification of what the goal is,,You senselessly dissed me in the past with thumbs down reactions to my campaign for a constitutional convention, and here you are claiming to be working on a path to restoring the Constitution, but unwilling to help out those who want to do the same.I didnt diss you,, just pointed out that would be a restoration not a revolution,,
am I wrong about that??
And then, you may have noticed, that there are plenty of people who are getting it all mixed up, and think that restoring the constitution is the same as reordering it - so . . .
I'm going to argue that either way requires the same rules for organizing people to do it!
what I am for is a restoration to constitutional limited government that doesnt require a CC,,,
and before you complain about others disliking your opinion you shouldnt troll their comments and tag every comment with dislikes like you did to me and others a few weeks ago,,,
very mature of you,,
Now, in this discussion you have claimed that you have been developing a way to enforce the Constitution. What do you have?
$ecular#eckler
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- #54
What do you have?how would you know what I'm doing??You are dependent on someone else figuring out how to do it.thats a restoration not a revolution,, I'm in,,
hate to break it to you but I started yrs ago,,
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 59,447
- 36,235
- 2,615
it starts locally and using states rights to push back against fed over reach,,You tagged all of my comments with a dislike, including the opening post. Which makes no sense, unless you are jealous.so I disagreed to your idea and your response was to tag all my comments with a dislike,,,You were doing it to me.your feelings arent my problem,, and I am against a CC without any clarification of what the goal is,,You senselessly dissed me in the past with thumbs down reactions to my campaign for a constitutional convention, and here you are claiming to be working on a path to restoring the Constitution, but unwilling to help out those who want to do the same.I didnt diss you,, just pointed out that would be a restoration not a revolution,,
am I wrong about that??
And then, you may have noticed, that there are plenty of people who are getting it all mixed up, and think that restoring the constitution is the same as reordering it - so . . .
I'm going to argue that either way requires the same rules for organizing people to do it!
what I am for is a restoration to constitutional limited government that doesnt require a CC,,,
and before you complain about others disliking your opinion you shouldnt troll their comments and tag every comment with dislikes like you did to me and others a few weeks ago,,,
very mature of you,,
Now, in this discussion you have claimed that you have been developing a way to enforce the Constitution. What do you have?
$ecular#eckler
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- #56
Decent idea, how do you get it going - just keep saying it and then wait for the politicians to do it???it starts locally and using states rights to push back against fed over reach,,You tagged all of my comments with a dislike, including the opening post. Which makes no sense, unless you are jealous.so I disagreed to your idea and your response was to tag all my comments with a dislike,,,You were doing it to me.your feelings arent my problem,, and I am against a CC without any clarification of what the goal is,,You senselessly dissed me in the past with thumbs down reactions to my campaign for a constitutional convention, and here you are claiming to be working on a path to restoring the Constitution, but unwilling to help out those who want to do the same.I didnt diss you,, just pointed out that would be a restoration not a revolution,,
am I wrong about that??
And then, you may have noticed, that there are plenty of people who are getting it all mixed up, and think that restoring the constitution is the same as reordering it - so . . .
I'm going to argue that either way requires the same rules for organizing people to do it!
what I am for is a restoration to constitutional limited government that doesnt require a CC,,,
and before you complain about others disliking your opinion you shouldnt troll their comments and tag every comment with dislikes like you did to me and others a few weeks ago,,,
very mature of you,,
Now, in this discussion you have claimed that you have been developing a way to enforce the Constitution. What do you have?
$ecular#eckler
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- #57
You don't have years into it
9thIDdoc
Gold Member
- Aug 8, 2011
- 7,956
- 3,112
- 325
OP=
Agent provocateur
Description
Description
An agent provocateur is a person who commits or who acts to entice another person to commit an illegal or rash act or falsely implicate them in partaking in an illegal act, so as to ruin the reputation or entice legal action against the target or a group they belong to or are perceived to belong to. Wikipediaprogressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 59,447
- 36,235
- 2,615
it can only come from the people forcing the politicians to do it,, or run for office themselves,,Decent idea, how do you get it going - just keep saying it and then wait for the politicians to do it???it starts locally and using states rights to push back against fed over reach,,You tagged all of my comments with a dislike, including the opening post. Which makes no sense, unless you are jealous.so I disagreed to your idea and your response was to tag all my comments with a dislike,,,You were doing it to me.your feelings arent my problem,, and I am against a CC without any clarification of what the goal is,,You senselessly dissed me in the past with thumbs down reactions to my campaign for a constitutional convention, and here you are claiming to be working on a path to restoring the Constitution, but unwilling to help out those who want to do the same.I didnt diss you,, just pointed out that would be a restoration not a revolution,,
am I wrong about that??
And then, you may have noticed, that there are plenty of people who are getting it all mixed up, and think that restoring the constitution is the same as reordering it - so . . .
I'm going to argue that either way requires the same rules for organizing people to do it!
what I am for is a restoration to constitutional limited government that doesnt require a CC,,,
and before you complain about others disliking your opinion you shouldnt troll their comments and tag every comment with dislikes like you did to me and others a few weeks ago,,,
very mature of you,,
Now, in this discussion you have claimed that you have been developing a way to enforce the Constitution. What do you have?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 200
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 40
- Views
- 819
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 106
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 214
- Replies
- 105
- Views
- 682
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 146
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 142
- Views
- 629
- Replies
- 2K
- Views
- 68K
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 28
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8038
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-