We need a new Constitution, yes or no?

[gipper]

We don't need a new constitution. We need a people willing to follow the one we have.

The people are corrupt

Exactly. That is why it will never work.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Just because current jurisprudence aligns with your subjective partisan dogma doesn't mean it's faithfully following the Constitution. More and more people think the Court has sold us out, and that's a problem. Without willing consent, the Constitution, and our nation, is on shaky ground.

So how do you propose to change the Constitution?

I'd leave most of it in place. Just clarify some things, close the up the loopholes that ambitious leaders have teased apart (general welfare clause, commerce clause). I'd ban the use of discriminatory taxation to implement social policy. ....

The Constitution was a compromise from the outset. What are you willing to compromise on in order get what you want?

 

[dblack]

So how do you propose to change the Constitution?

I'd leave most of it in place. Just clarify some things, close the up the loopholes that ambitious leaders have teased apart (general welfare clause, commerce clause). I'd ban the use of discriminatory taxation to implement social policy. ....

The Constitution was a compromise from the outset. What are you willing to compromise on in order get what you want?

You mean if were up to me? Depends on what was offered I suppose. The most important thing, as I indicated earlier, is a clear consensus on the scope and purpose of government, and I'd compromise quite a bit to get that. As it is, no one really knows what to expect from government, and I find that completely untenable.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'd leave most of it in place. Just clarify some things, close the up the loopholes that ambitious leaders have teased apart (general welfare clause, commerce clause). I'd ban the use of discriminatory taxation to implement social policy. ....

The Constitution was a compromise from the outset. What are you willing to compromise on in order get what you want?

You mean if were up to me? Depends on what was offered I suppose. The most important thing, as I indicated earlier, is a clear consensus on the scope and purpose of government, and I'd compromise quite a bit to get that. As it is, no one really knows what to expect from government, and I find that completely untenable.

How about reducing military spending to just 20% of current levels?

How about a 50% national debt surtax on all income that exceeds 25 times the poverty level that only applies if the national debt exceeds 10% of GDP?

How about eliminating the income cap for SS?

 

[dblack]

The Constitution was a compromise from the outset. What are you willing to compromise on in order get what you want?

You mean if were up to me? Depends on what was offered I suppose. The most important thing, as I indicated earlier, is a clear consensus on the scope and purpose of government, and I'd compromise quite a bit to get that. As it is, no one really knows what to expect from government, and I find that completely untenable.

How about reducing military spending to just 20% of current levels?

How about a 50% national debt surtax on all income that exceeds 25 times the poverty level that only applies if the national debt exceeds 10% of GDP?

How about eliminating the income cap for SS?

I'm not sure how any of these would be constitutional issues.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You mean if were up to me? Depends on what was offered I suppose. The most important thing, as I indicated earlier, is a clear consensus on the scope and purpose of government, and I'd compromise quite a bit to get that. As it is, no one really knows what to expect from government, and I find that completely untenable.

How about reducing military spending to just 20% of current levels?

How about a 50% national debt surtax on all income that exceeds 25 times the poverty level that only applies if the national debt exceeds 10% of GDP?

How about eliminating the income cap for SS?

I'm not sure how any of these would be constitutional issues.

None of these are either;

Just clarify some things, close the up the loopholes that ambitious leaders have teased apart (general welfare clause, commerce clause). I'd ban the use of discriminatory taxation to implement social policy. ....

But if you want to add those to the Constitution then you have to be willing to give up something in order to have them included.

 

[regent]

The Constitution will never satisfy all Americans, it didn't totally satisfy all the framers that wrote the Constitution. Adams and Jefferson both founders, one a framer, disagreed on the Constitution's intent and meaning until they both died on the same day, but at the end they had put their differences away. Even some of the votes to ratify the new Constitution were often close, But like the framers we have compromised and accepted what is and wait for an election. To satisfy all, we would need one Constitution per-citizen.

 

[dblack]

How about reducing military spending to just 20% of current levels?

How about a 50% national debt surtax on all income that exceeds 25 times the poverty level that only applies if the national debt exceeds 10% of GDP?

How about eliminating the income cap for SS?

I'm not sure how any of these would be constitutional issues.

None of these are either;

Just clarify some things, close the up the loopholes that ambitious leaders have teased apart (general welfare clause, commerce clause). I'd ban the use of discriminatory taxation to implement social policy. ....

???

But if you want to add those to the Constitution then you have to be willing to give up something in order to have them included.

The items you cited are specific policy proposals, not modifications to the Constitution. We can talk about those things if you want, but I'm not sure what bearing they'd have on the contents of the Constitution.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'm not sure how any of these would be constitutional issues.

None of these are either;

???

But if you want to add those to the Constitution then you have to be willing to give up something in order to have them included.

The items you cited are specific policy proposals, not modifications to the Constitution. We can talk about those things if you want, but I'm not sure what bearing they'd have on the contents of the Constitution.

The items you cited were non specific policy proposals that you wanted to become modifications to the Constitution.

If you want to impose policy on the Constitution, and you do, then you must be willing to compromise and allow policy impositions that you don't agree with.

 

[dblack]

None of these are either;

???

But if you want to add those to the Constitution then you have to be willing to give up something in order to have them included.

The items you cited are specific policy proposals, not modifications to the Constitution. We can talk about those things if you want, but I'm not sure what bearing they'd have on the contents of the Constitution.

The items you cited were non specific policy proposals that you wanted to become modifications to the Constitution.

If you want to impose policy on the Constitution, and you do, then you must be willing to compromise and allow policy impositions that you don't agree with.

Ok, I guess. But what you're saying doesn't make sense. Do you understand the difference between laws and constitutional rules?

I'd support cutting the military budget even further than you suggested, during peacetime. Were you suggesting that should be formulated as a constitutional amendment? As far as tax rates go, that just depends on Congress and the President, so again, I'm not sure how that applies.

This exchange leaves me feeling we're not on the same page at all. What IS a Constitution in your view? What is it for?

 

[Derideo_Te]

???



The items you cited are specific policy proposals, not modifications to the Constitution. We can talk about those things if you want, but I'm not sure what bearing they'd have on the contents of the Constitution.

The items you cited were non specific policy proposals that you wanted to become modifications to the Constitution.

If you want to impose policy on the Constitution, and you do, then you must be willing to compromise and allow policy impositions that you don't agree with.

Ok, I guess. But what you're saying doesn't make sense. Do you understand the difference between laws and constitutional rules?

I'd support cutting the military budget even further than you suggested, during peacetime. Were you suggesting that should be formulated as a constitutional amendment? As far as tax rates go, that just depends on Congress and the President, so again, I'm not sure how that applies.

This exchange leaves me feeling we're not on the same page at all. What IS a Constitution in your view? What is it for?

Perhaps you should ask your question about your own proposals;

(general welfare clause, commerce clause). I'd ban the use of discriminatory taxation to implement social policy. ..

How do you intend to alter the Constitution when it comes to "the use of discriminatory taxation to implement social policy"?

What specific changes do you intend to make to the general welfare and commerce clauses?

 

[dblack]

The items you cited were non specific policy proposals that you wanted to become modifications to the Constitution.

If you want to impose policy on the Constitution, and you do, then you must be willing to compromise and allow policy impositions that you don't agree with.

Ok, I guess. But what you're saying doesn't make sense. Do you understand the difference between laws and constitutional rules?

I'd support cutting the military budget even further than you suggested, during peacetime. Were you suggesting that should be formulated as a constitutional amendment? As far as tax rates go, that just depends on Congress and the President, so again, I'm not sure how that applies.

This exchange leaves me feeling we're not on the same page at all. What IS a Constitution in your view? What is it for?

Perhaps you should ask your question about your own proposals;

(general welfare clause, commerce clause). I'd ban the use of discriminatory taxation to implement social policy. ..

How do you intend to alter the Constitution when it comes to "the use of discriminatory taxation to implement social policy"?

What specific changes do you intend to make to the general welfare and commerce clauses?

I suppose I'd rephrase the taxation power to make it clear that A) it's merely the power to raise money for the implementation of the other enumerated powers, and not to be construed as a 'general power to spend', and B) that taxes are to be applied equally to all with the sole purpose of raising revenue for government, not for the purpose of incentivizing or punishing behaviors.

I'd probably just remove the commerce clause altogether, and reaffirm economic freedom by adding it to the protections of the first amendment, along with freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

I wasn't trying to stir up shit by dismissing your issues, but those are temporal issues that would be subject to change with each successive administration, whereas Constitutional amendments change the rules government must follow in making law. As such, Constitutional rules aren't subject to (frequent) change, and are in place so we'll all know what to expect from government. I'm hoping you get that distinction, because its crucial.

That's one of the reasons I want to see Constitutional amendments, or even a Constitutional Convention, take center stage. It would help to elevate this important concept in the national consciousness. Too many people see Constitutional issues as just another policy decision, and they're more fundamental than that. They define what issues are legitimate targets for government policies and which aren't.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Ok, I guess. But what you're saying doesn't make sense. Do you understand the difference between laws and constitutional rules?

I'd support cutting the military budget even further than you suggested, during peacetime. Were you suggesting that should be formulated as a constitutional amendment? As far as tax rates go, that just depends on Congress and the President, so again, I'm not sure how that applies.

This exchange leaves me feeling we're not on the same page at all. What IS a Constitution in your view? What is it for?

Perhaps you should ask your question about your own proposals;

(general welfare clause, commerce clause). I'd ban the use of discriminatory taxation to implement social policy. ..

How do you intend to alter the Constitution when it comes to "the use of discriminatory taxation to implement social policy"?

What specific changes do you intend to make to the general welfare and commerce clauses?

I suppose I'd rephrase the taxation power to make it clear that A) it's merely the power to raise money for the implementation of the other enumerated powers, and not to be construed as a 'general power to spend', and B) that taxes are to be applied equally to all with the sole purpose of raising revenue for government, not for the purpose of incentivizing or punishing behaviors.

I'd probably just remove the commerce clause altogether, and reaffirm economic freedom by adding it to the protections of the first amendment, along with freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

I wasn't trying to stir up shit by dismissing your issues, but those are temporal issues that would be subject to change with each successive administration, whereas Constitutional amendments change the rules government must follow in making law. As such, Constitutional rules aren't subject to (frequent) change, and are in place so we'll all know what to expect from government. I'm hoping you get that distinction, because its crucial.

That's one of the reasons I want to see Constitutional amendments, or even a Constitutional Convention, take center stage. It would help to elevate this important concept in the national consciousness. Too many people see Constitutional issues as just another policy decision, and they're more fundamental than that. They define what issues are legitimate targets for government policies and which aren't.

I didn't presume that you were "trying to stir up shit".

The National Debt and Taxation are Constitutional issues since you will find Amendments relating to both. Therefore there is nothing wrong with another Amendment that imposes a conditional tax that is applied only to the National Debt under specific circumstances.

As far as Taxation being a "general power to spend" or "incentivizing or punishing behaviors" that falls under policy and is not a Constitutional matter. Giving tax breaks to homeowners and applying surcharges to yachts are legitimate policy decisions for Congress to make. The wording of an Amendment such as you suggest could be misconstrued and therefore be impractical.

 

[dblack]

Perhaps you should ask your question about your own proposals;



How do you intend to alter the Constitution when it comes to "the use of discriminatory taxation to implement social policy"?

What specific changes do you intend to make to the general welfare and commerce clauses?

I suppose I'd rephrase the taxation power to make it clear that A) it's merely the power to raise money for the implementation of the other enumerated powers, and not to be construed as a 'general power to spend', and B) that taxes are to be applied equally to all with the sole purpose of raising revenue for government, not for the purpose of incentivizing or punishing behaviors.

I'd probably just remove the commerce clause altogether, and reaffirm economic freedom by adding it to the protections of the first amendment, along with freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

I wasn't trying to stir up shit by dismissing your issues, but those are temporal issues that would be subject to change with each successive administration, whereas Constitutional amendments change the rules government must follow in making law. As such, Constitutional rules aren't subject to (frequent) change, and are in place so we'll all know what to expect from government. I'm hoping you get that distinction, because its crucial.

That's one of the reasons I want to see Constitutional amendments, or even a Constitutional Convention, take center stage. It would help to elevate this important concept in the national consciousness. Too many people see Constitutional issues as just another policy decision, and they're more fundamental than that. They define what issues are legitimate targets for government policies and which aren't.

I didn't presume that you were "trying to stir up shit".

The National Debt and Taxation are Constitutional issues since you will find Amendments relating to both. Therefore there is nothing wrong with another Amendment that imposes a conditional tax that is applied only to the National Debt under specific circumstances.

As far as Taxation being a "general power to spend" or "incentivizing or punishing behaviors" that falls under policy and is not a Constitutional matter. Giving tax breaks to homeowners and applying surcharges to yachts are legitimate policy decisions for Congress to make. The wording of an Amendment such as you suggest could be misconstrued and therefore be impractical.

How so? Whether or not targeted tax breaks or surcharges are "legitimate policy decisions" can, and should in my view, be specified in the Constitution. I wasn't suggesting any specific wording, but the expression of intent would go a long way toward cleaning up the tax code. As it is, the Court accepts (according to Robert's ruling re: ACA) the current practice of using discriminatory taxation to implement social policy. It's possible to make it clear that is not an intended purpose for taxation.

You could set up provisions in the Constitution limiting the percentage of the budget that could be applied to defense, which is why I asked you if you wanted to frame your proposal as a Constitutional amendment. I'd probably be ok witha that - our current military budget is insane - but it seems risky in times of war. Presumably there would be some emergency provision.

 

[regent]

One amendment I could live with, is one that gives the Supreme Court the power to declare laws of Congress and acts of the president as Constitutional or not. I mean put it in writing.

 

[CorvusRexus]

I was telling those who draw congressional districts to stop pretending geography matters and then draw a district that looks like a starfish simply to ensure a district breaks one way or the other.

I think geography should matter which is why I want to use the ZIP codes that were drawn without political ends in mind. So if you live at 5th and Elm, you have Jane Doe as your representative until she resigns or loses the election.

I'm not sure how it works in proportional representation. It sounds like if Jane is a Democrat and the Republicans win 75% in the state, Jane my lose her seat without ever having given me a choice between her stands on issues, her vision for the future or her voting record and that of her opponent.

Is that the case?


Getting money out of politics as to where Obama (or Bush or whomever) doesn't ever have to go to another fundraiser?

I think it would be a quiet day on the message board but other than that, I think it would have broad based support across the nation.

If only a government agency could fund candidates, than only the candidate for the current majority would ever get any funding.

Factually incorrect.

Currently to get on the ballot in X state/district, you need a number of signatures. If you get the signatures, you get the funding in my model. If you do not, you do not get the funding. It's that simple.

However, once a general election began (the campaign season directly leading to November AFTER the primaries are over), if candidates were given an equal amount by the government, it could be done more fairly. However, a system would have to be devised to determine those who have a legitimate chance of being elected so the system isn't flooded by 3rd party candidates who may only draw a handful of votes.

Again, you could make a stipulation as to being on the ballot in a number of states equalling the minimum for a majority of electoral votes.

The total amount given could be changed by a simple bill that passes the House and Senate, and perhaps the Vice President (or President if you really want). Anyway, because this would affect BOTH parties equally, Congress could perhaps handle this matter without an "Us vs. Them" mentality.

It will be fine because it's cut and dried; you get X number of sigs on the ballot in the primaries, you get the funding. You get on X number of states in the General, you get the funding. Regardless of whether you are a DEM, REP, LIB, CONS or whatever.

Okay, fair enough. You had not stated that originally as far as I know, but now that you have, I rescind my objections.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Agree. Despite their rhetoric about "respecting the rule of law," conservatards can't wait to abolish the highest law in the land, the U.S. Constitution, for the purpose of re-writing it to exclude African-Americans. Their racism and hatred of President Obama has driven them to seek to destroy the very thing they claim to love.

Tell Allan West that.

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.

2. You can't believe that shit you just spouted. Republicans don't hate blacks for being black. It isn't logical and Republicans believe in logic.

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.

Actually anyone who feels the need to interject a person's COLOR into the discussion over simply debating the issues is undoubtably racist. It's also hardly "logical" as it dumbs down that person's overall perception of things, by holding that view over anyone who shares a difference of opinion or happens to disagree with your political ideology.

 

[AntiParty]

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.

No matter how many Constitutions we may write in YOUR opinion, the same thing will happen. Just like any book, the words may be twisted or defined differently. (Generally, the primary definition is the definition....for future reference to avoid the crazies)

Our Constitution was MADE to change and adapt to future situations, so why would we need a new one?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

No matter how many Constitutions we may write in YOUR opinion, the same thing will happen. Just like any book, the words may be twisted or defined differently. (Generally, the primary definition is the definition....for future reference to avoid the crazies)

Our Constitution was MADE to change and adapt to future situations, so why would we need a new one?

We don't.

But the Constitution was 'made' to neither change nor adapt to future situations, as to interpret the Constitution is not to 'change' the Constitution, it rather determines its meaning and the intent of the people who created it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ok, I guess. But what you're saying doesn't make sense. Do you understand the difference between laws and constitutional rules?

I'd support cutting the military budget even further than you suggested, during peacetime. Were you suggesting that should be formulated as a constitutional amendment? As far as tax rates go, that just depends on Congress and the President, so again, I'm not sure how that applies.

This exchange leaves me feeling we're not on the same page at all. What IS a Constitution in your view? What is it for?

Perhaps you should ask your question about your own proposals;

(general welfare clause, commerce clause). I'd ban the use of discriminatory taxation to implement social policy. ..

How do you intend to alter the Constitution when it comes to "the use of discriminatory taxation to implement social policy"?

What specific changes do you intend to make to the general welfare and commerce clauses?

I suppose I'd rephrase the taxation power to make it clear that A) it's merely the power to raise money for the implementation of the other enumerated powers, and not to be construed as a 'general power to spend', and B) that taxes are to be applied equally to all with the sole purpose of raising revenue for government, not for the purpose of incentivizing or punishing behaviors.

I'd probably just remove the commerce clause altogether, and reaffirm economic freedom by adding it to the protections of the first amendment, along with freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

I wasn't trying to stir up shit by dismissing your issues, but those are temporal issues that would be subject to change with each successive administration, whereas Constitutional amendments change the rules government must follow in making law. As such, Constitutional rules aren't subject to (frequent) change, and are in place so we'll all know what to expect from government. I'm hoping you get that distinction, because its crucial.

That's one of the reasons I want to see Constitutional amendments, or even a Constitutional Convention, take center stage. It would help to elevate this important concept in the national consciousness. Too many people see Constitutional issues as just another policy decision, and they're more fundamental than that. They define what issues are legitimate targets for government policies and which aren't.

Thank goodness none of this will ever come to pass, and for good reason.