BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use

Subject: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 01:24 PM

I remember all the blather about constitutional ammendments regarding exactly who can marry who but there are some that really may save the union in times to come.

Some that come to mind...

No offspring of a former President may run for the Presidency.

Establishment of a State Religion will be considered both unconstitutional and a treasonous capital crime.

Presidential signing statements must first be approved by the High Court and Congress.

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 01:40 PM

No offspring of a former President may run for the Presidency. What about spouses?

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional amendments we could use
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 01:44 PM

1. No citizen of this nation shall be required to pay more than 15% of his revenue for the support of governments.

2. No revenue producing entity shall be exempt from taxation applied to the citizens of the nation, regardless of function, purpose or creed. The Federal government, if carrying more debt than it can pay, shall be levied on its revenue stream as though a corporation and any resultant taxes directed to retire such debt.

3. The right of the American citizen to self-determination in all matters of speech, association, assembly, sexuality, reproduction, and unhindered travel with the territories of the United States shall not be constrained except in time of war legally declared as such by the Congress assembled to the minimum degree necessary.

4. The intentional falsification in public statements by the President or any member of his Administration shall be grounds for impeachment.

5. No offense by a citizen in underpaying or evading payment of legal taxes shall be deemed more than a civil offense, nor shall any citizen be charged with criminal charges for such offenses on their own merits.

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 02:08 PM

I can see that rich people would really love 1 and 5 there.

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 05:39 PM

We could press for ratification of the outstanding 27th ammendment, although it should be clarified before adoption:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

The useful part is in question:

"This amendment, submitted to the States in the 11th Congress (in 1810), said that any citizen who accepted or received any title of nobility from a foreign power, or who accepted without the consent of Congress any gift from a foreign power, ... would no longer be a citizen There is some debate about whether this amendment was actually ratified or not, mostly by those who put forth ... that if it had been, most (if not all) legislators who are lawyers, and who use the title "Esquire" would no longer be citizens, and hence, no longer be able to serve in Congress. This amendment is still outstanding.

"Congressional research shows that the amendment was ratified by twelve states, the last being in 1812."

More recent ammendments have included a time limit for ratification by the states. This one did not, so it remains "pending."

(maybe I'm just joking) ?????

John

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 05:44 PM

In order to restore any resemblence of the democracy that Tom J. and the FFs had in mind for US the following ammendment:

"The Senate shall be comprised of 4 Senators from the 10 most populated states, 3 Senators for the next 10 most populates states and 2 Senators from the remaining states."

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 05:55 PM

The president shall have no veto over legislation that is legally passed by both houses of Congress.

The president shall have no authority to take the country to war without a formal declaration of war that is first passed in both houses of Congress.

All military actions taken by the United States against other sovereign nations, whether those military actions are in the form of land, sea, or aerial assault or assault by paramilitary forces financed through the United States government or through its affiliates or its governmental agencies, including the CIA, and whether or not those paramilitary forces are in uniform of the USA or not....all such military actions shall be regarded legally as full acts of war....and if so, they shall be deemed wholly illegal and unconstitutional unless they have received prior authorization by a formal declaration of war passed by both houses of Congress.

The launching of any such military actions without said formal declaration of war being passed first by Congress shall result in immediate impeachment proceedings against the officials directly responsible for commanding and initiating those actions...up to and including the president.

All citizens who are in need of medical assistance shall receive it without delay, and at no charge, and on a completely equal basis, said medical assistance to be provided through a universal government-financed health care system that will compensate medical staff and medical professionals for the work they do at a fair rate, again, on a completely equal basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: DougR
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 05:57 PM

Right Robert. That would ensure that the most populated states would control the government and pass all laws. Folks living in the less populated states might feel a bit neglected though, don't you think?

I would favor a Constitutional Amendment requiring the federal government to balance the budget each fiscal year as many states have to do.

I would also favor an amendment that would bar "pork barrel" spending from the federal budget.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 06:05 PM

I like your amendments, Doug. Good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 06:15 PM

Anyone in the middle class would as well, McGrath. It is not impossible, if you make only 30,000/yr to spare $4500 -- difficult, yes. And that's why sometimes people default on taxes, and why especially for the lower end of the income bracket ladder, there should never be any more than civil charges brought. The man who makes 300,000 a year can spare $45,000 if he lives rationally. And the man who makes $3,000,000 can spare $450,000 assuming he does the same.

SUch a pattern of tax payment would proabbly greatlty increase Federal revenues (for one reason, because schools, foundations, and temples and churches would also be paying as they are not doing now).

Maybe it should be 10%...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 06:18 PM

Well, Dougie, that's what I would expect from you, ol' buddy... Like hopw many people live in Arizona??? A couple dozen??? 50??? Okay, maybe a couple hundred...

Why should Arizona have has much clout in the Senate as Calitfornia which has 77 people for every 1 Arizonian??? That ain't democracy... That is tyranny...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 06:20 PM

IF such a direct, uniform tax were ALL the code, thousands of IRS employees could be taken off citizen-harassment, and ut to work trimming pork and theft and deceit out of the actual energies of the Government.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 06:36 PM

I agree with you, Amos...

And I agree with lots of the proposed ammmendments but...

...unless we restore the democratic system all these great ammendments are pipe dreams...

Fix the sytem first and then the system can fix the other stuff...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 06:37 PM

Christ alive what do you think causes recessions?   Balanced fricking budgets! Do you read history, or just have faith?

And Amos, I am deeply shocked.

My suggestions:

No person shall (directly or indirectly) be detained by any authority without the effective right to challenge such detention in the ordinary courts of the Untied States of America, nor without reasonable cause, regardless of the place of such detention.

Any person knowingly telling any untruth in the course of actual or purported discharge of any political office shall be liable to diesmissal from that office.

No justice shall sit in any trial in the Supreme Court of the United States or of any State unless he shall first have declared on oath upon penalty of perjury that he has no political view on the content of the trial.

During the period commencing with the opening of candidacy for any election for the presidency or for a seat in the senate or congress, or an election to determine who may be a candidate in any such election, and ending with the first determination of the outcome of such election no news or entertainment medium capable of receipt by more than 15% of the relevant electorate shall publicise the views of any such candidate unless giving equally prominent and fair coverage to the views of all candidates, but this may be achieved by a series of publicantions at different times.

No person (legal or natural) directly or indirectly controlling any news or entertainment medium capable of receipt by more than 15% of the population of the United Sates of America or of any State of the United States of America shall control any other such.

Notwithstanding the freedom of speech protected by this constitution it shall be lawful and constitutional for the United States or any state therewithin to prohibit any speech or writing that shall revile any person or group of persons on any ground of colour race creed religion (or similar belief) gender or sexual preference, but this shall not of itself render any particular conduct lawful.

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 12:27 AM

Assessment of eliminating income tax . In a related analysis the site concluded the expense of annual tax preparation to the public is over $11billion/yr.

Why you could have a whole war for that much, if you organized it intelligently.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 10:46 AM

An ammendment to solve the Anchor Baby problem would be nice.

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Gorgeous Gary
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 12:30 PM

In the building code development process, there's a rule that any amendment to a proposal has to be deemed within the scope of the original proposal to be accepted. For example, I couldn't modify a proposal on basement wall design with an amendment on roof shingles.

A constitutional amendment placing that rule on congressional bills would fix a *lot* of problems. No more trying to poison a bill by hanging on a rider not relevant to the bill itself, but that you know will get it voted down.

-- Gary

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 12:40 PM

Gary:

I wonderful idea, one I have also promoted at various times. Constitutionally mandated relevance and transparency.


Cheers.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 01:25 PM

I sort of like the idea of a six-year term for the President, with an option for a single two-year extension by popular vote. Maybe they'd spend more time presiding and less campaigning.

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 01:46 PM

It's time that all apes and monkeys got the vote! You heard me...All of 'em!

Even gorillas.

I'm not prejudiced.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Naemanson
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 01:08 AM

I'd be happy if they could outlaw bribery, uh, I mean, lobbying.

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 12:22 PM

How about a recall provision for your President similar to that they have for Governor in California? (And they have for president in Venezuela, where Chavez's opponents came badly unstuck back in 2004.)

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 12:35 PM

Equal Rights Amendment. This one is long overdue.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 03:32 PM

Amos commented:


Anyone in the middle class would as well, McGrath. It is not impossible, if you make only 30,000/yr to spare $4500 -- difficult, yes.

Amos, as I read the original proposal earlier in the thread, that 15% would include not only income tax but property taxes, sales taxes (in the USA, 5%, 6%, 8% and more right there), various taxes on utilities, dog license taxes, automobile license taxes, and more, many of which are what might be called "invisible taxes", which we often don't think of.

Limiting all of those to 15% would be a great boon to almost all of the populace. To get to keep 85% of our income, free of any taxation, would feel great! But see my last paragraph, below.

It would, of course, not be a "progressive" tax, so that Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and their ilk would be enchanted.

Limiting the total of all taxes to 15% of the GDP would, of course, severely limit the scope of all government, high and low, which might be enchanting to Libertarians, but the rest of us would soon, I think, be rather disenchanted with the whole business and want our lost governmental services back, even despite our higher effective income.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 03:50 PM

Do you have any numbers indicating how much such a tax would ADD to the total state and federal revenues by (a) eliminating costly evasion schemes and (b) eliminating wide-spread exemptions?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 03:54 PM

Cuckoo!

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 04:02 PM

What do you mean, precisely, Mister Bridge?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 11:27 AM

Richare Bridge: YOU ARE CORRECT SIR

there are better ways to stop unlimited borrowing of moaney that then goes to good ol boy defense contractors and the 4 banking families.

____________________________________________



I have not heard anyone say this yet ...

What if George W had gotton his Social Security reform ?

Wall Street would have had ALL that money to dump on the Stock Market and Deritive sub prime bond market.

Social Security would be gone in a big fat hurry instead of 20 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 07:57 PM

Donuel - I bet it'll be a long time now, before anybody has the balls to suggest putting SS money into the stock market.

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 07:59 PM

On the other hand, maybe the Bush people knew the sub-prime thing was coming, and wanted to use the SS money to bail them out so everything wouldn't collapse on George W.'s watch.

Subject: RE: BS: Constitutional ammendments we could use
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 10:12 PM

I have a high opinion of you riginslinger. It is true that the entire banking industry knew that rating the sub prime bonds as AAA was pure fiction and a bald faced lie. Of course they could sell more AAA bonds than B bonds. They also knew that any drop in housing prices put the scheme in the toilet. Greenspan said 6 years ago that the housing market was full of froth (his word for bubbles about to burst)

As for using the money as a bail out I am dubious. Just like a bank robber all they wanted was the cash. Let someone else bail out the ship. In this case we are the galley slaves who will do the bailing for 3 generations - if there are no disasters or collapse of our infrastructure in the meantime.