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] 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]
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]
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]
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-liberal-activist-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]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: 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
