We need a new Constitution, yes or no?

[nodoginnafight]

That's exactly the intellectual level I expect in your posts. It's why I rarely waste my time engaging you.

I'm not an "educator." Yet another failed guess. How often can one person be THAT wrong????

 

[Harry Dresden]

I tried to, but he merely called for security to remove me from his rally. His sexist manpig security guards groped and fondled me on my wrists and forearms as they hauled me out of the area, leaving me traumatized by the level of almost-rape and violation of my personal bubble I'd endured.



That's the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard. Wrongpublicans don't believe in logic, they're racist! Irredeemably so. All of them. Every single one. Prove me wrong.

i know a republican married to a very black woman.....

"I can't be racist, I have African-American friends!"

A typical fallacy used by racists to try to camouflage their rabid hatred of all things non-white.



Who undoubtedly took advantage of his or hyr status as an underprivileged minority who could be deported by the bigots at ICE to force a marriage upon him or hyr.



So a guy she's not even related to is gay, and she's glad he's not related to hyr. Big deal.

and she hung with one of the black woman clerks at break time and did baking with her after work....

Just because you help a slave doesn't mean you're not engaging in slavery. Sharing the strong, independent African-American womyn's work load by "baking with hyr" does nothing to stop the institutionalized racism that runs rampant in America, and only serves to further the patriarchal expectation that womyn stay in the kitchen.

guess there goes your stupid theory...

Nope. Try again, manpig, this time without using all the ridiculous fallacies closet racists always have to resort to.

so you get your "theory" shot down and so you come up with your delusions of why these people had their relationships.....you are about as ridiculous as your boyfriend Dean....

 

[EconChick]

yet another "all you libs think ..." post.

From someone who hears from conservatives what liberals think.

Maybe you should talk less and listen more.

(Same thing for liberals who want to tell us all what conservatives think)

Ratchet down attack mode a bit (yeah, pun intended) - and really listen to people.

And stop pretending you're some objective, in-the-middle guy. You're as liberal as they come on the topic of economics.

And don't give the usual...."I'm really a conservative."

Try backing off on the lectures and talking about the topic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm also about ready to argue for a poll test. I've been against it my whole life, just as our founding fathers were against it. But allowing the insane to take over the insane asylum is pretty much where we're at in this country.

And a typical lib has no idea why that drives us sane people crazy.

Given the ignorance of the Constitution, its case law, and the role of the judiciary in American governance exhibited by you and others on the right, the notion of requiring a 'poll test' in order for a citizen to exercise the fundamental right to vote is irony indeed.

Trust me, you wouldn't want to take that wager.

As for your presumption of omnipotence about the law, try listening to Jonathan Turley, a prominent LIBERAL Const Law Professor at GWU who says Obama is throwing us into a Constitutional crisis....yet your brain is well mapped to O's on law.

And you would scream if a far right law prof was on BHO's side.

You are merely partisan not patriotic.

 

[nodoginnafight]

yet another "all you libs think ..." post.

From someone who hears from conservatives what liberals think.

Maybe you should talk less and listen more.

(Same thing for liberals who want to tell us all what conservatives think)

Ratchet down attack mode a bit (yeah, pun intended) - and really listen to people.

And stop pretending you're some objective, in-the-middle guy. You're as liberal as they come on the topic of economics.

And don't give the usual...."I'm really a conservative."

Try backing off on the lectures and talking about the topic.

WOW, took you three different times to try to load up the "right" response.

LOL - talk less, listen more. You won't have to ramble around so much trying to figure out what you want to say.

 

[JakeStarkey]

EconChick merely wails and flails, nothing worthy on the OP

 

[EconChick]

That's exactly the intellectual level I expect in your posts. It's why I rarely waste my time engaging you.

I'm not an "educator." Yet another failed guess. How often can one person be THAT wrong????

LMAO, you're damn right you have no ability to educate.

So you led people to believe you were dealing with educators in the edu system.

What....you just sell helmets or something? You keep dousing your credibility.

If you're not an educator, your post was disingenuous about the high schools.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Perhaps with a new Constitution there will be the desire to enforce it.

Dont know what your getting at with the schools teach comment.

The current trend is to do what feels right. Not what IS right, but what feels right. You hear it all the time.

What kind of society do we want to be....

This is nothing more than code for, I want to do this and I don't care if it hurts more than it helps. I want it.

People are being taught in our schools that the Constitution is obsolete, even though it is the most relevant document in the world today. They are being taught that it is better to do what we feel than to think things through and make choices that may not seem compassionate, but will server the greater good.

If you do not desire to enforce the law of the land, then any document that purports to be the law, is worthless. Because there is no desire to enforce it.

New or old.

Yeah, I'd like to see that too.

 

[EconChick]

EconChick merely wails and flails, nothing worthy on the OP

Exhibit number 200.

One libtard lectures all about no attacks.

I've not addressed you in this thread.....yet you race in to attack.

Usual idiocy.

 

[nodoginnafight]

That's exactly the intellectual level I expect in your posts. It's why I rarely waste my time engaging you.

I'm not an "educator." Yet another failed guess. How often can one person be THAT wrong????

LMAO, you're damn right you have no ability to educate.

So you led people to believe you were dealing with educators in the edu system.

What....you just sell helmets or something? You keep dousing your credibility.

If you're not an educator, your post was disingenuous about the high schools.

Because YOU can't conceive of why a non-educator would spend that much time in schools - then you think it is impossible. Because we all know that if YOU can't conceive it, it doesn't exist.

You're a sad little thing. Good luck to you.

 

[nodoginnafight]

EconChick merely wails and flails, nothing worthy on the OP

Well, she isn't going to suddenly develop thinking skills. If you choose to engage her - you're gonna get what you asked for.

 

[BillyP]

We need a new Constitution outlawing guns and latinos.

 

[Harry Dresden]

You take Liberal Media seriously? I think Liberal Media is a right wing plant.

i take her as about as seriously as i take Franco....

She sounds exactly like that flake, Maddow. The avatar is fitting.

her reply to what i said told me all i needed to know about her......she just cant accept that not all "righties" fit her view of them....so then she comes up with the usual excuses as to why that is....she is a typical far lefty....just like her cousins on the far right,its if you dont see things my way,well then you just cant see...so **** you....she cant spell either, almost as bad as TM....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Given the ignorance of the Constitution, its case law, and the role of the judiciary in American governance exhibited by you and others on the right, the notion of requiring a 'poll test' in order for a citizen to exercise the fundamental right to vote is irony indeed.

Just by supporting a poll test, she automatically flunks the poll test.

Ohhhhhhhh, so now all of a sudden what the fat old white guys who founded the country said is GOOD!

I love catching you libs in your egregious hypocricies. You have libs all over this board saying the Const is outdated, justifying why they ignore it wholesale.

Where are you setting them straight.

You have no idea how much those of us who believe in the founding principles LOATHE you liberals for it.

Look you have waded into the realm of intellectual discussion and keep falling off the tracks, rolling down the embankment, and slamming into the river.

Are you mental? The founders HAD poll tests. One of them would have kept you from voting,

for lack of a penis. (I assume, lol)

 

[Harry Dresden]

I'm also about ready to argue for a poll test. I've been against it my whole life, just as our founding fathers were against it. But allowing the insane to take over the insane asylum is pretty much where we're at in this country.

And a typical lib has no idea why that drives us sane people crazy.

Given the ignorance of the Constitution, its case law, and the role of the judiciary in American governance exhibited by you and others on the right, the notion of requiring a 'poll test' in order for a citizen to exercise the fundamental right to vote is irony indeed.

Trust me, you wouldn't want to take that wager.

As for your presumption of omnipotence about the law, try listening to Jonathan Turley, a prominent LIBERAL Const Law Professor at GWU who says Obama is throwing us into a Constitutional crisis....yet your brain is well mapped to O's on law.

your wasting your time....Jones just spouts off....he never answers any post aimed at him....why he even posts is a mystery....

 

[gipper]

Does anyone really think a new constitution would be a solution?

After all, a new constitution would be written by politicians and we all know most of them are liars, cheats, and criminals.

 

[Harry Dresden]

We need a new Constitution outlawing guns and latinos.

and people who think like you.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

I feel you, why would you want a new one when you've already contorted the one we have into what you wanted it to say? Why start over?

If we started over we'd just formally codify all of the progressive advances that have been labeled by conservatives as 'judicial activism'.

actually if we look at most of the progresive changes to the constitution they were initiated by republicans.

By Republicans who weren't conservatives.

 

[dblack]

Does anyone really think a new constitution would be a solution?

After all, a new constitution would be written by politicians and we all know most of them are liars, cheats, and criminals.

I think it would help. It would get people asking questions and thinking about things that everyone takes for granted now. And it would clarify consent. It might not give anyone exactly what they want, but it would need to approved by a super-majority, and that would give us something closer to real consensus. It's the thrashing back and forth between competing political philosophies, with only slim majority support each time that's killing us.

 

[candycorn]

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.

like some countries do now I would do with US representatives on a state level. let voters vote for party slates. if Democrats get 40% of the vote in a state they would get roughly 40% of the representatives slots available for that state. Ill maybe post a more detailed outline later.

Not sure I like that idea. I like the idea of districts but districts should not be drawn to render an electoral outcome. Since geography isn't being considered now, I say we stop pretending it matters at all and have a non-contiguous district that is drawn by zip-codes; only because it's the most apolitical pre-drawn lines we have. Area codes could be used as well but they are not geographically identified either.

What I fear would happen in your model is that whichever party is in power in the State legislatures would relegate the minority party/parties to poorer areas of the nation for their "40% (or whatever portion of the vote they got). So, just to use California as an example, the GOP legislature would assign the Dems to poorer areas of the State.

Or is there something tying the areas represented to the 40% as in your example? Who would determine which 40% of Tennessee or Texas would be represented by whom?

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.

Yeah I see what you saying on funding but I dont think it would fly with a large swath of the population. I don't see what your saying with the UPS example.

The USPS--United States Postal Service--is the only entity that can legally place anything in your mailbox. This is federal law. That is why you have door hangers, telephone books (when there were such things) layed on your porch, and the USPS/FED EX drivers leave a sticky note on your door.

Using that as precedent, the Feds could state the same thing for federal elections; that only a government agency can fund candidates.

There would have to be an extensive amount of legal groundwork to be laid but there is precedent.

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.

Yes I think it would work with the backup constitutional provison you showed, but remember Bush v Gore didnt accept going that route...I think the courts interfered there where they shouldn't have. Also think a recount might be messy if someone wanted to contest a nationwide vote.

Bush v. Gore was not determined by the candidates not wanting to use the 12th amendment. The candidates have no choice. Whoever won Florida would win the election by getting over 270.

Currently the only way the 12th amendment comes into play is if neither candidate gets to 270.

In my system, if you don't make it to 270 OR if you don't get the plurality of popular votes, the 12th takes over.