We need a new Constitution, yes or no?

[Pete7469]

Those who say "we need to follow the one we got" should realize a Constitution that isn't enforced perhaps means it needs better enforcement provisions.

We need to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments if anything. I like Levin's ideas of "Liberty Amendments" as well.

The enforcement has to be at the ballot box.

 

[candycorn]

Well, the whole idea is to have as many categories as you need but for the sake of argument, lets call them A-D.
Category A ZIP codes have 10,000 people plus.
Category B ZIP codes have 5K-9,999 people
Category C ZIP codes have 1K-4,999 people
Category D ZIP codes have less than 1,000 people
These are just examples....you can have infinite number of categories based on populations and how you wish to divide them up. You could also do it property tax revenue, income, etc...
Anyway, if you have, for the sake of argument, 5,0000 zip codes and 10 members of Congress, each draws 500 zip codes from the different categories so that each elected official gets 500 zip codes but instead of one guy being a rural favorite and the other guy having large population centers; she/he now has a mix.

Does sound like a good process if your going to stay with representatives from districts. I myself would favor a system of proportional representation based on a statewide vote.

Elaborate on what you mean. Iowa has 6 electoral votes which means it has 4 districts and two senators.

Would you change the number of reps?
Would you change whom they represent?

I'm confused by what you are proposing.

well keep in mind you could have a pretty steep tax rate, say 50% plus on large expenditures. This would dent the mismatch....plus raise money for a program as you outlined. Not sure on how to handle soft money...I certainly wouldnt personally be opposed new wording in Constitution that would regulate that, generally.. But I'm trying to come up with fairly non-contentious things to do, and I can see a lot of opposition to that by some (mostly special interests) who would claim it amounts to violation of speech.

There is no ceiling on how much one is willing to spend for the Presidency. I mean, these guys spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a job that pays hundreds of thousands of dollars. It makes no sense on the surface.

So if caps mean nothing, you simply eliminate the need for the commodity all together. I think the courts would recognize the government sovereignty and allow the feds to fund any citizen able to get a certain level of support from across the nation.

For example, did you know that UPS/Fed Ex/mom-and-pop courier service cannot use your mail box? Only the USPS can because it is the one recognized method of government notification.

Im not all that concerned about the electoral college, but would perhaps modify it...Your proposal would have a problem if candidate won popular vote but not electoral...then what do yo do?

Not at all. The 12th amendment kicks in as it would if there is no electoral vote winner.
In this day and age of instant returns; we know fairly quickly that the republicans lost. Why not require the person who wins to simply win both...the majority of the electoral college votes and the plurality of the popular vote. I'm not saying you need to get 50% of the PV but you should be the most popular if you're going to sit atop the government.

I see what you mean by the 12th amendment ,.....that would probably work.

There is no need to take the popular vote out of the equation and time has proven that the electoral vote has worked. Why not have both? That's my point.

 

[dblack]

Yes, I do! We may differ on which court decisions were errors but the process by which the court is reversed does not always go through the court itself. Congress rewrites legislation when it believes that the court has overstepped it's bounds and then subsequent rulings redress the balance.

The entire 3 branch check & balance structure of government tends to shift from side to side over time. But each time it swings a little too far in one direction it always swings back again. The make up of the SCOTUS is dependent upon who is in the WH and the Senate when appointments are made and We the People decide who occupies those elected positions.

The decisions made by the SCOTUS affect how we vote and that will in turn alter who will next be sitting on the bench albeit the time lapse between the events is longer than we may like.

Alright. I can work with that. But I can't accept the shifting interpretation approach that CCJones seems to be advocating. I also agree with you that extreme measures like jury nullification are untenable and, while they may be justified at some point, are tantamount to revolution - a last resort at best.

The approach that CCJ is advocating is the current system that you and I just agreed on. He is just explaining it from a legal perspective as opposed to my layman's approach.

Which causes me to doubt whether we actually agreed. This:

The Constitution is not a 'contract,' and the interpretive authority of the courts as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, and as codified by the Constitution in Articles III and VI, clearly establishes that to interpret the Constitution is not to 'change' the Constitution, where the amendment process is utterly inappropriate to bring resolution to the conflicts and controversies of the day; existing Constitutional jurisprudence is more than adequate to address that need.

... particularly the bolded portion, is dubious. It's short hop from "utterly inappropriate to bring resolution to the conflicts and controversies of the day", to "inconvenient to the agenda of the current regime". And history has clearly shown this approach to be a vehicle to re-interpreting the Constitution to change its meaning, and not simply to refine it to a particular context.

 

[Harry Dresden]

No link provided!

Your personal opinion carries no weight except with those who are equally biased against education and government.

The Constitution is taught in schools as the Supreme Law of the Land, nothing more and nothing less.

so where is your link?.......because unless you provide one....that is your opinion too...just sayin.....

I haven't expressed an opinion! I am stating a FACT which every kid in school is taught. Bizarre that you would believe that the Articles of the Constitution are "opinion".

Article VI | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

ARTICLE VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Bizarre that you would believe that the Articles of the Constitution are "opinion".

thats not what i am saying and you know it.....you asked him for proof....but yet you felt you did not need to back up your claim....just like you wanted him to prove to you that there may be schools out there who DONT cover the Articles or just skim over them....it would fall upon you to prove he is full of shit and show that he is wrong.... when you say someone is wrong and ask someone for a link to prove it.....then its only right that you should post a link backing up what you are saying......if you did not ask to prove his shit....then we would not be having this conversation....

 

[Derideo_Te]

Alright. I can work with that. But I can't accept the shifting interpretation approach that CCJones seems to be advocating. I also agree with you that extreme measures like jury nullification are untenable and, while they may be justified at some point, are tantamount to revolution - a last resort at best.

The approach that CCJ is advocating is the current system that you and I just agreed on. He is just explaining it from a legal perspective as opposed to my layman's approach.

Which causes me to doubt whether we actually agreed. This:

The Constitution is not a 'contract,' and the interpretive authority of the courts as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, and as codified by the Constitution in Articles III and VI, clearly establishes that to interpret the Constitution is not to 'change' the Constitution, where the amendment process is utterly inappropriate to bring resolution to the conflicts and controversies of the day; existing Constitutional jurisprudence is more than adequate to address that need.

... particularly the bolded portion, is dubious. It's short hop from "utterly inappropriate to bring resolution to the conflicts and controversies of the day", to "inconvenient to the agenda of the current regime". And history has clearly shown this approach to be a vehicle to re-interpreting the Constitution to change its meaning, and not simply to refine it to a particular context.

Consider the popular movement to prohibit alcohol. Would it have been better to simply establish State regulations that controlled when and where it could be sold and to whom or was the overreach of the Constitutional Amendment the appropriate means to "bring resolution to the conflicts and controversies" of that era?

Contrast that to the DOMA legislation that was, in essence, just another form of "prohibition" by much the same kind of people. They certainly wanted an Amendment rather than DOMA.

Amendments that have stood up over time have been those that expand the Constitution to embrace new realities rather than seek to impose restrictions. The "agenda" of the "current regime" varies constantly depending on whether or not they have the necessary support of Congress and the special interests. The prior administration had 4 years of complete control over both the Executive and Legislative branches. Would you have been happy to have removed the Judicial Review process on their "agenda"?

 

[Harry Dresden]

SCOTUS is empowered by the Constitution and precedent and case law to act as the only premier interpreter of the law.

We are a republic not a democracy.

Well obviously you cut and paste that from somewhere as you are far left we all know you do not believe it.

I do believe it, and unlike you, I can write originally, and not have to cut and paste like you.

Marbury and precedent and case law since then makes SCOTUS the decision maker on federal law.

That you don't like is immaterial.

Jake....someone constantly saying....."more Liberal bullshit from the Far Left Obama Drones"......is not cut and paste....its just all this Far Right Wing Drone knows how to say....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Amendment cannot be the only way to change the Constitution.

And it is fallacious that we should have to adhere to the 'original meaning' of the FFs.

An example is that slavery and segregation required a war, a civil rights bill several times, and two amendments.

Another is the ongoing marriage equality movement.

 

[Harry Dresden]

In 4016 B.C. a person had the right to own slaves. That slave would consider his owner to be a violent criminal. Would that slave have the right to defend himself against his owner? Not according to the law of the land in 4016 B.C. In fact that slave would be considered as the violent criminal.

So what was true in 4016 B.C. is no longer true today. It didn't work in the 1860's and so it was "fixed" by a bloody civil war.

We have improved on the "basic tenets of the Constitution of the USA" during the intervening 200+ years. We have abolished slavery and amended voting rights for all citizens instead of only white males.

So the process that was built into the Constitution to "fix it" was there because the FF's were astute enough to know that society evolves and if the Constitution did not evolve to keep pace with society it would become irrelevant.

We live in a different age that is more enlightened than when the Constitution was originally written and so We the People should work together to ensure that the government of the people and by the people is actually FOR ALL of the people too.

the constitution as it was written was a pretty perfect document. most of what we really need to govern is pretty much spelled out in the original intent. I struggle with modern day interpretations of the constitution. because then it comes down to what their interpretations are. and that becomes a huge risk factor, especially in a climate like we have today where special interests control government. not the people. and who is to say how things will change going forward. no one ever foresaw a Nazi Germany, or a Stalinist Russia. depending who is interpreting really has a significant impact.

I would prefer the interpretations to be of those who wrote it. those who fought and risked their lives to end a tyranical government. those who had experienced first hand the need to keep government in the hands of the people not in the hands of those governing or their financial backers.

Agreed absolutely that the special interests are calling the shots and that goes for all 3 branches. We the People have to fight to protect our rights and that requires eternal vigilance. I don't foresee a tyrannical government in our future but if it happens it will be from within.

We are not perfect and we will only succeed if we unite our strengths to compensate for our weaknesses. Together this nation has accomplished great things but divided it is going nowhere. Time to put aside the petty differences of opinion and get on with growing a future for our kids and grandchildren in my opinion.

i agree....but this will never happen until the Far Left and Right are restricted to offices which have no bearing on peoples lives...until then we will be divided....because thats what they want....their mantra is...."if you dont think like us....then **** you....you belong with them"....

 

[Derideo_Te]

so where is your link?.......because unless you provide one....that is your opinion too...just sayin.....

I haven't expressed an opinion! I am stating a FACT which every kid in school is taught. Bizarre that you would believe that the Articles of the Constitution are "opinion".

Article VI | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

ARTICLE VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Bizarre that you would believe that the Articles of the Constitution are "opinion".

thats not what i am saying and you know it.....you asked him for proof....but yet you felt you did not need to back up your claim....just like you wanted him to prove to you that there may be schools out there who DONT cover the Articles or just skim over them....it would fall upon you to prove he is full of shit and show that he is wrong.... when you say someone is wrong and ask someone for a link to prove it.....then its only right that you should post a link backing up what you are saying......if you did not ask to prove his shit....then we would not be having this conversation....

Let me reiterate, I never made any claim, I stated a fact. And to prove that it was a fact I provided a link for your benefit.

He was the one who made an allegation without providing any substantiation. Go and reread the thread and you will see that is exactly what transpired.

The onus is on him to prove his allegation first and foremost. It is not on anyone else to disprove an unproven allegation. I recommend that you learn the rules of debating before continuing any further.

 

[Kosh]

Well obviously you cut and paste that from somewhere as you are far left we all know you do not believe it.

I do believe it, and unlike you, I can write originally, and not have to cut and paste like you.

Marbury and precedent and case law since then makes SCOTUS the decision maker on federal law.

That you don't like is immaterial.

Jake....someone constantly saying....."more Liberal bullshit from the Far Left Obama Drones"......is not cut and paste....its just all this Far Right Wing Drone knows how to say....

Wrong! and if you are going to quote me at least don't lie when you do it.

Now prove I am a " Far Right Wing Drone".

Lets see you do it, I asked once to do it before and you provided zero proof so I can imagine that the same result will happen this time.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I do believe it, and unlike you, I can write originally, and not have to cut and paste like you.

Marbury and precedent and case law since then makes SCOTUS the decision maker on federal law.

That you don't like is immaterial.

Jake....someone constantly saying....."more Liberal bullshit from the Far Left Obama Drones"......is not cut and paste....its just all this Far Right Wing Drone knows how to say....

Wrong! and if you are going to quote me at least don't lie when you do it.

Now prove I am a " Far Right Wing Drone".

Lets see you do it, I asked once to do it before and you provided zero proof so I can imagine that the same result will happen this time.

Sure, why not?

Drive by posts by Kosh in this thread;

#122
Oh my the irony of those comments from a far left Obama drone.

#123
Oh my the deluded far left chime and show they have no clue what the Constitution is all about.

#125
See even more proof that the far left does not have a clue what the Constitution is and how they far more dangerous than ISIS.

#128
So the racist far left Obama drone is going to lecture someone on Congress when they support a president that does not care about the Constitution and has been shot down by the Supreme Court a record nine times (9-0) for his unconstitutional acts.

#192
And the far left talking points comes out and shows that the far left wants legislation from the bench and continues to show that they do not understand the Constitution.

#193
Ironic comments from the racist far left posters that do not understand the constitution.

#195
More far left propaganda based on far left talking points!

 

[Harry Dresden]

I haven't expressed an opinion! I am stating a FACT which every kid in school is taught. Bizarre that you would believe that the Articles of the Constitution are "opinion".

Article VI | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Bizarre that you would believe that the Articles of the Constitution are "opinion".

thats not what i am saying and you know it.....you asked him for proof....but yet you felt you did not need to back up your claim....just like you wanted him to prove to you that there may be schools out there who DONT cover the Articles or just skim over them....it would fall upon you to prove he is full of shit and show that he is wrong.... when you say someone is wrong and ask someone for a link to prove it.....then its only right that you should post a link backing up what you are saying......if you did not ask to prove his shit....then we would not be having this conversation....

Let me reiterate, I never made any claim, I stated a fact. And to prove that it was a fact I provided a link for your benefit.

He was the one who made an allegation without providing any substantiation. Go and reread the thread and you will see that is exactly what transpired.

The onus is on him to prove his allegation first and foremost. It is not on anyone else to disprove an unproven allegation. I recommend that you learn the rules of debating before continuing any further.

2nd Amendment implied that some schools teach a watered down version if i got him right...... you did not PROVE that schools around the country do not teach this....out here there are teachers who i would not put it past them to mention this as quickly as possible and get on past it....thats not teaching thats skimming over it and then say we covered it .....there are teachers who do not particularly like this Govt....and thats MY opinion,and im sure many more in this Country have the same one....and i doubt very much you would be able to prove me wrong..

 

[Harry Dresden]

I do believe it, and unlike you, I can write originally, and not have to cut and paste like you.

Marbury and precedent and case law since then makes SCOTUS the decision maker on federal law.

That you don't like is immaterial.

Jake....someone constantly saying....."more Liberal bullshit from the Far Left Obama Drones"......is not cut and paste....its just all this Far Right Wing Drone knows how to say....

Wrong! and if you are going to quote me at least don't lie when you do it.

Now prove I am a " Far Right Wing Drone".

Lets see you do it, I asked once to do it before and you provided zero proof so I can imagine that the same result will happen this time.

you asked me and i proved it....how many times do i have to prove it?.....90% of the shit you post is calling someone a far left Obama drone.....Even if the poster is not a far lefty....it doesnt matter to you....if someone has the gall and audacity to not agree with you he automatically is labeled a far left drone....a moderate righty would not do that....because they know not everyone on the left is far left....you already made your bed Kosh.....to late to change the sheets....

 

[Derideo_Te]

Bizarre that you would believe that the Articles of the Constitution are "opinion".

thats not what i am saying and you know it.....you asked him for proof....but yet you felt you did not need to back up your claim....just like you wanted him to prove to you that there may be schools out there who DONT cover the Articles or just skim over them....it would fall upon you to prove he is full of shit and show that he is wrong.... when you say someone is wrong and ask someone for a link to prove it.....then its only right that you should post a link backing up what you are saying......if you did not ask to prove his shit....then we would not be having this conversation....

Let me reiterate, I never made any claim, I stated a fact. And to prove that it was a fact I provided a link for your benefit.

He was the one who made an allegation without providing any substantiation. Go and reread the thread and you will see that is exactly what transpired.

The onus is on him to prove his allegation first and foremost. It is not on anyone else to disprove an unproven allegation. I recommend that you learn the rules of debating before continuing any further.

2nd Amendment implied that some schools teach a watered down version if i got him right...... you did not PROVE that schools around the country do not teach this....out here there are teachers who i would not put it past them to mention this as quickly as possible and get on past it....thats not teaching thats skimming over it and then say we covered it .....there are teachers who do not particularly like this Govt....and thats MY opinion,and im sure many more in this Country have the same one....and i doubt very much you would be able to prove me wrong..

You are making the same allegation so the onus is not on me to "prove you wrong" but for you to provide credible substantiation that your allegation is not just your own biased opinion.

So now that you have made that unproven allegation the onus is on you to provide a credible nonpartisan source.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuABhumm6fY"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuABhumm6fY[/ame]

 

[Kosh]

Jake....someone constantly saying....."more Liberal bullshit from the Far Left Obama Drones"......is not cut and paste....its just all this Far Right Wing Drone knows how to say....

Wrong! and if you are going to quote me at least don't lie when you do it.

Now prove I am a " Far Right Wing Drone".

Lets see you do it, I asked once to do it before and you provided zero proof so I can imagine that the same result will happen this time.

Sure, why not?

Drive by posts by Kosh in this thread;

#122
Oh my the irony of those comments from a far left Obama drone.

#123
Oh my the deluded far left chime and show they have no clue what the Constitution is all about.

#125
See even more proof that the far left does not have a clue what the Constitution is and how they far more dangerous than ISIS.

#128
So the racist far left Obama drone is going to lecture someone on Congress when they support a president that does not care about the Constitution and has been shot down by the Supreme Court a record nine times (9-0) for his unconstitutional acts.

#192
And the far left talking points comes out and shows that the far left wants legislation from the bench and continues to show that they do not understand the Constitution.

#193
Ironic comments from the racist far left posters that do not understand the constitution.

#195
More far left propaganda based on far left talking points!

And how does that prove it?

 

[Kosh]

Jake....someone constantly saying....."more Liberal bullshit from the Far Left Obama Drones"......is not cut and paste....its just all this Far Right Wing Drone knows how to say....

Wrong! and if you are going to quote me at least don't lie when you do it.

Now prove I am a " Far Right Wing Drone".

Lets see you do it, I asked once to do it before and you provided zero proof so I can imagine that the same result will happen this time.

you asked me and i proved it....how many times do i have to prove it?.....90% of the shit you post is calling someone a far left Obama drone.....Even if the poster is not a far lefty....it doesnt matter to you....if someone has the gall and audacity to not agree with you he automatically is labeled a far left drone....a moderate righty would not do that....because they know not everyone on the left is far left....you already made your bed Kosh.....to late to change the sheets....

Wrong! Once again!

If someone posts far left propaganda it gets called out.

I will call someone a "far left Obama drone" if they deserve it, or to mock someone like you that can not tell the difference.

So once again you posted lies and no proof.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Wrong! and if you are going to quote me at least don't lie when you do it.

Now prove I am a " Far Right Wing Drone".

Lets see you do it, I asked once to do it before and you provided zero proof so I can imagine that the same result will happen this time.

Sure, why not?

Drive by posts by Kosh in this thread;

#122
Oh my the irony of those comments from a far left Obama drone.

#123
Oh my the deluded far left chime and show they have no clue what the Constitution is all about.

#125
See even more proof that the far left does not have a clue what the Constitution is and how they far more dangerous than ISIS.

#128
So the racist far left Obama drone is going to lecture someone on Congress when they support a president that does not care about the Constitution and has been shot down by the Supreme Court a record nine times (9-0) for his unconstitutional acts.

#192
And the far left talking points comes out and shows that the far left wants legislation from the bench and continues to show that they do not understand the Constitution.

#193
Ironic comments from the racist far left posters that do not understand the constitution.

#195
More far left propaganda based on far left talking points!

And how does that prove it?

I recommend that you apply to your local community college for adult remedial education and have them teach you how to communicate effectively.

 

[Kosh]

Let me reiterate, I never made any claim, I stated a fact. And to prove that it was a fact I provided a link for your benefit.

He was the one who made an allegation without providing any substantiation. Go and reread the thread and you will see that is exactly what transpired.

The onus is on him to prove his allegation first and foremost. It is not on anyone else to disprove an unproven allegation. I recommend that you learn the rules of debating before continuing any further.

2nd Amendment implied that some schools teach a watered down version if i got him right...... you did not PROVE that schools around the country do not teach this....out here there are teachers who i would not put it past them to mention this as quickly as possible and get on past it....thats not teaching thats skimming over it and then say we covered it .....there are teachers who do not particularly like this Govt....and thats MY opinion,and im sure many more in this Country have the same one....and i doubt very much you would be able to prove me wrong..

You are making the same allegation so the onus is not on me to "prove you wrong" but for you to provide credible substantiation that your allegation is not just your own biased opinion.

So now that you have made that unproven allegation the onus is on you to provide a credible nonpartisan source.

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuABhumm6fY

No such thing exists, so you want people to provide something that does not exist in reality.

 

[Derideo_Te]

2nd Amendment implied that some schools teach a watered down version if i got him right...... you did not PROVE that schools around the country do not teach this....out here there are teachers who i would not put it past them to mention this as quickly as possible and get on past it....thats not teaching thats skimming over it and then say we covered it .....there are teachers who do not particularly like this Govt....and thats MY opinion,and im sure many more in this Country have the same one....and i doubt very much you would be able to prove me wrong..

You are making the same allegation so the onus is not on me to "prove you wrong" but for you to provide credible substantiation that your allegation is not just your own biased opinion.

So now that you have made that unproven allegation the onus is on you to provide a credible nonpartisan source.

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuABhumm6fY

No such thing exists, so you want people to provide something that does not exist in reality.

Yes, there is no proof that either 2ndA or HD are correct in their baseless allegation about what schools are teaching.

Which establishes that this is only their own personal biased opinion and has no connection with reality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wrong! and if you are going to quote me at least don't lie when you do it.

Now prove I am a " Far Right Wing Drone".

Lets see you do it, I asked once to do it before and you provided zero proof so I can imagine that the same result will happen this time.

you asked me and i proved it....how many times do i have to prove it?.....90% of the shit you post is calling someone a far left Obama drone.....Even if the poster is not a far lefty....it doesnt matter to you....if someone has the gall and audacity to not agree with you he automatically is labeled a far left drone....a moderate righty would not do that....because they know not everyone on the left is far left....you already made your bed Kosh.....to late to change the sheets....

Wrong! Once again! If someone posts far left propaganda it gets called out. I will call someone a "far left Obama drone" if they deserve it, or to mock someone like you that can not tell the difference. So once again you posted lies and no proof.

You goof ball, that is how you are treated - a far right propagandist who is treated the way he treats others. You will get no respect until you start posting worthy commentary and material while laying off the trolling.

Tis what it is.