OOPS. Not ratified until 1789 --I knew that ( not ).
EMBARRASSMENT ^2 for a professional historian, think I will go to
a local priest and get his advice on suitable penance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Amendments ?
Don't get me started. Well, OK, get me started, but you will regret it.
====================================================
( 1 ) Slight change in the electoral college, add 1 electoral vote for each
state
( 50 for now ) to any candidate for prez who wins the USA popular vote.
Keep everything else about it the same, but we don't need any more
minority presidents. "Plus 50" should be sufficient. Otherwise I like
the Electoral College for the reasons envisioned at the time.
Puleeze, don't bring up Al Gore, that is NOT the point
and not something I feel like debating. Anyway, it could have
been W in 2004 if Kerry had taken Ohio, same thing.
Provision for recounts only in STATES ( no national recount )
where the margin of victory is less than 1/4th of 1 %.
----------------------------------------------------------------
( 2 ) Direct non-partisan national election of Supreme Court Justices
to serve 8 year terms with only one re-election possible.
No more judicial gerontocracy.
Staggered elections similar to those for the Senate.
Part of the Amendment would make it a requirement to interpret
the Constitution strictly, make Originalist interpretation mandatory.
No more goddamned judicial activism.
------------------------------------------------------------------
( 3 ) Criminalization of homosexuality.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
( 4 ) Criminalization of Islam
------------------------------------------------------------------
( 5 ) Criminalization of coal strip mining in mountain country, but
OK in flat-land areas if no problems with water tables, etc
-------------------------------------------------------------------
( 6 ) Change in the Amendment process. An amendment is ratified
when it is approved by states representing 3/4ths of the US
population
NOT by 3/4ths of states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
( 7 ) Anti-Gerrymandering Amendment. Within some small tolerance
allowance,
all congressional districts shall be as geographically compact
as possible,
with major consideration for local traditions, with the
objective of
making as many districts in all states as politically
competitive as possible.
No more ( or only very few ) "safe" districts which are not
competitive.
And no more racial or ethnic "quotas" in who gets elected.
Conversely, no districts should be drawn up to disenfranchise
racial or ethnic minorities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
( 8 ) Sociobiology Amendment, that is, an amendment which says that some
occupations are, for sociobiological reasons, suited better for
one gender
than for the other. This should not be interpreted to mean a
return
to the situation a century ago, but women in combat would be
outlawed,
maternity leaves for women might be a good idea but would be an
absurdity
for men, and on an on, putting an end to feminist nonsense
once and for all.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
( 9 ) Third party representation in Congress. 20 at-large seats would
be created
over and above the current mix, and reserved for third parties
and
apportioned according to national popular vote totals.
For example, if Libertarians got a lot of " other " votes
they might end up
with 5 seats, Greens with 4, Socialists with 3, and so forth.
Time to end
shutting out third parties --who have always contributed to
national debate
in new and sometimes important ways.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
( 10 ) Statehood policy for foreign nations. Make it a permanent part of
US policy,
intrinsic to our system, to seek to expand the republic,
generation after generation
and eventually bring most of the world into the American
system. Usual process.
Period of territorial status, length of time depending on how
long it takes people
to learn English ( hereby the official language ), integrate
American institutions
in an area, become familiar with US law, etc etc. A formula
would be agreed to
such that, say, Mexico , if its people wanted to join, would be
divided
into maybe 20 territories , which would then become states as
they become
ready. Obviously this would allow US citizens, businesses, etc,
to do
whatever is in their perceived best interests, within US law,
in Mexico.
But the idea is much grander and an objective would be to
maintain
some semblance to the current US demographic mix. Russia might
sign up,
for instance, Taiwan, Cyprus, Panama, and I'd go for Haiti,
too, to finally
make that nation into something fit for human habitation, an
example
of what the US can do for even the worst basket-case nation.
Show the world that we are superior in just about everything.
Call it the "US Exceptionalism Amendment."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, maybe not an amendment, but whatever it takes to retry Roe v Wade
and any other cases which are brought before the High Court on false
pretenses.
As everyone should know, Roe v Wade was decided at least partly
on perjured testimony. This should NOT be allowed to stand.
===========================================
Well, lots more where these came from, but for starters.
Billy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
So, what are your suggestions ? Am eager to find out .
Who knows ? Maybe I will steal a few of your ideas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
In a message dated 10/10/2010 8:33:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
Of course it's an assumption. '1787' in abstract is real close to the time
of drafting and The Federalist Papers and all of that. I know that it was
not ratified until 1789.
50 new amendments??? Oh, so you want it to look more like the Texas
Constitution with 467 or so?? Not sure that's an improvement there, buddy. :-)
I think that most of the commerce clause "case law" needs to be chunked.
If it isn't, that clause may well be the clause that destroys the rest of
the document.
You'll have to tell me more about your 50 amendments. There's a few I
would like eliminated, I know that.
David
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which
he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.--Thomas Jefferson
On 10/10/2010 10:10 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote:
Assumption ? ? ?
We need to have that document from back then, I think it was called "The
Constitution" or something, actually taken seriously. Instead of serious
attempts being made to go around it.
Not remotely my intention although maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear. I
was thinking
--metaphorically-- of everything SINCE the Constitution.
Actually, to be technical, more like everything from JQ Adams and Andrew
Jackson onward.
I am a Strict Constructionist / Originalist even if I think we need about
50 new Amendments,
BR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
In a message dated 10/10/2010 7:08:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes:
I'd have been more impressed with Thomas Jefferson rather than Teddy, but
that's my choice. :-)
We need to have that document from back then, I think it was called "The
Constitution" or something, actually taken seriously. Instead of serious
attempts being made to go around it.
Take the "Bush tax cuts." On 01/01/2011, all tax rates in all brackets go
up. It doesn't stop at the dear Presidents line in the sand of $250,000. If
you paid ANY taxes, they will go up. I haven't reached that level, and yet
the percentage in my bracket is going UP. Do tell me how an increase is a
decrease. So all of the hot air about this not impacting the middle class
is just that: hot air. To top that off, the Marriage Penalty is back, and
allowances for offspring are up for reduction as well.
My former college roommate has a small business. Small businesses
basically file a return not that much different from that of an individual.
Different deductions and no individual exemptions are about the only
difference.
With those differences, it does not take long-if you made any money at
all-to get up there in the income column. Just as for individual the rates on
the brackets go up, the same applies here. So he's probably not going to hire
another clerk (even if he needs one due to the increased paperwork in the
health insurance sales business), because the new taxes will come close to
the salary a clerk would get paid, and the IRS demands its pound of flesh
first. So the clerk will not be hired, the IRS has their salary in their
vaults.
And pardon me if all I hear lately from the administration is condemnation
of the court ruling allowing corporate contributions and condemnation of
corporations while they are silent on the unions, due to the massive
advantages Democrats have with union thugs. According the the Democratic
administration, union thugs are all sweetness and light (even the ones that
beat
folks up for not voting "correctly") but the only font of wickedness is the
Republican party and Corporations. Or have you ignored Obama lately? God
knows I've tried...
Does the above paragraph strike you as ludicrous as well?
One of your other charts confirmed my suspicions, Lehman Brothers gave
more the the Republicans than the Democrats, so it was not rescued. Goldman
Sachs gave more money to the Democrats, and it was rescued. Nice way to
"legally" reduce contributions to Republicans. So what if it cost the economy
several thousand jobs.
Sincerely yours,
P. J. O'Rourke
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which
he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.--Thomas Jefferson
On 10/10/2010 7:49 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote:
David :
Far be it from me to put all the "evil ones" in the Republican Party. Just
saying that
wealth and the GOP go together like hand-in-glove. Doesn't mean that , say,
there isn't Big Money that flows to the Left from Hollywood or elsewhere.
Clearly there is. But there is a reason why, most of the time, the
Republicans
are the ones in Congress who stick up for the wealthy.
Just as there is a reason why some Democrats have jumped ship and
want the Bush tax cuts extended to everyone, including the $ 250,000 crowd.
The mutineers are in hock to Big Wealth.
My argument is that wealth simply is no guarantee of virtue , investing
in America,
not transferring most of one's money to the Caymans or Switzerland, not
shipping
a large # of jobs overseas, etc,.
Yet to hear it from the GOP leadership, the saints among us are all
millionaires
and the only font of wickedness in the USA consists of the unions.
Such a view strike me as ludicrous ( insane, absurd on the face of it,
demented, etc ).
I have plenty of things to say about the social policies of the Democrats,
about
their fiscal policies, etc, which have been made abundantly clear in the
past months
and years.
IMHO. we are dealing with two Evil and Stupid Parties even if one is
more Evil and the other is more Stupid.
Sincerely
Theodore Roosevelt
PS
We need to go back to 1787 and start over.
=============================================================
In a message dated 10/10/2010 4:46:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes:
Although, oddly enough, I saw a couple of polls this week where Bush
out-polled Obama. A couple were within the margin of error, too. Simply
amazing.
I wouldn't have given 45 % either on virtue, but I also wouldn't have put
ALL of the evil ones all in the Republican Party. I might put them all in
the Demonrat Party. :-) Doing a hell of a job there, Barry. Warren Buffet
is one of Obama's advisers. I would speculate that Gates and Jobs are also
in the Democratic camp, whatever somewhat strange bedfellows that might be.
To put it kindly, the only Republican megabuck people I could have named
(before Obama started going after the Koch family this week), would have
been the Wal-Mart Waltons. Perhaps Rupert Murdock, but then he sort of spreads
his contributions to both parties. Yet, on the other hand, I can name
Buffet, Soros, Immelt, Zucker, Gates, and Jobs without breaking a sweat. Not
to
mention Kennedy and Kerry (Heinz), and Kohl.
Most of the rich oil barons are long gone, and their money divided amongst
the heirs, at least in the US.
Here's a story about some Rich Democrats trying to turn Texas Blue
_http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-shadow-party-how-a-washington-based-libera
l-activist-is-trying-to-turn-texas-blue-whether-texans-want-it-or-not/_
(http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-shadow-party-how-a-washington-based-liberal-ac
tivist-is-trying-to-turn-texas-blue-whether-texans-want-it-or-not/)
Do note "whether Texans want it or not." Of course, some of them won
their money in lawsuits or got it from lucrative government contracts (like
Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Bill White). But it's always the
Republicans that are corrupt. (Nevermind Waxine Waters, Charlie Rangel, the
late John
Murtha, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Blago.) Nancy Pelosi said that she would
"drain the swamp." All she did was restock it with Democratic crooks.
David
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
_<[email protected]>_ (mailto:[email protected])
Google Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_
(http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism)
Radical Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_
(http://radicalcentrism.org/)
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_
(http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism)
Radical Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_
(http://radicalcentrism.org/)
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
