The Watering Hole

Politics
15 posts
I'm interested in hearing some thoughts. I'm obviously a romantic who believes in the whole living document ideal and in preserving what our founding fathers laid the groundwork for. Anything that should be changed?

You seem to like the second change.
The first 10 are a good idea..
They came up with Article V.
chase — Feb 24, 2010The first 10 are a good idea..


Only the first ten?  I thought the 13th was timely... And 14, 15, 19, and 24... though the fact that we needed those shows just how fucked we were when the constitution was drafted, and how out of date it really is.
whats your suggestion, ditch it and move on? i'm not trying to troll. genuinely curious. i have spoken with several people who think it is time to acknowledge it served it's purpose but its time to move on.

the oath i took prevents me from considering that possibility. i have a feeling i wouldn't agree with that mindset anyways
Why change it when they can simply ignore it?  If you read the original healthcare abomination after the first vote, you'd see clauses that treat some people differently.  Also, I'm willing to bet a lot of money (if I had any ;D ) that the 2010 Census will ask for your race.  How are either of those the same as "All men are created equal?"

Free speech is allowed as long as you don't say anything that pisses people off (and, whatever you do, don't say "Fuck" on TV or you can get fined $250,000 - the same applies for showing a nipple).  Well, at least you can still take any supplement that you want.  Riiiiiiiight.
The constitution was ignored when it came to slavery.
It is pretty ironic that one of the amendments was to outlaw slavery.

You would have thought " All men were created equal" would have covered that.

apparently not.
Yep, the constitution needs updating, and quite often is, and the Bible needs to be done away with and a new book of life be written. Maybe Kev would do it. ;D
CraigBert — Feb 24, 2010Why change it when they can simply ignore it?  If you read the original healthcare abomination after the first vote, you'd see clauses that treat some people differently.  Also, I'm willing to bet a lot of money (if I had any ;D ) that the 2010 Census will ask for your race.  How are either of those the same as "All men are created equal?"

Free speech is allowed as long as you don't say anything that pisses people off (and, whatever you do, don't say "Fuck" on TV or you can get fined $250,000 - the same applies for showing a nipple).  Well, at least you can still take any supplement that you want.  Riiiiiiiight.


Craig, nowhere in the Constitution does it say "all men are created equal."  You are quoting from the Declaration of Independence, which does not have any force of law over the citizenry.  In fact, you'd probably find the preamble to the Constitution reprehensible, since it includes the statement "promote the general Welfare".  Look at that.  Fucking WELFARE in  the first paragraph of the Constitution.

Chase, I would change many things.  First among those, States should be equally represented in both the House and the Senate.  There is no decent argument that anyone can make that California, with 12% of the population, should have two Senators, and Wyoming, with .2% of the population, should also have two.  It is entirely possible, under the Constitution, that legislation can be passed through the Senate by representatives of 20% of the US population.  And a fillibuster-proof supermajority requires representatives of only 25% of the country.

Sure, you can say, you live in California... but that's my point.  I have a 1 in 8 chance of living in California as a US citizen.  It's not just that I think we get the short end of the stick, I think we don't even get the bark, based on our population.

And the electoral college is the same thing.  Wyoming gets 1 elector for every 170,000 people.  Texas gets 1 for every 700,000.  It's ridiculous.  Assign an elector for every 200,000 people.  Or every 500,000 people.  Or get rid of the electoral college altogether.

I don't think Supreme Court justices should serve for life.  I think they should get a limited term.  E.g. 24 years.   A supreme in the prime of life could theoretically serve 50 years in the current court.  This is way too long.  A lot can change in 50 years, and we need fresh, smart, able legal minds on the court.

I don't think representatives should be elected every two years.  I think 3-4 years at a minimum.  The current system requires representatives to campaign constantly, and consequently, posture constantly, and consequently, get nothing done.  

I think political campaigns should be publically financed, with a limit for each candidate that is the same, per office.  You run out of money?  No more ads.  Go do some interviews.  
i don't think more government is the answer california is looking for. recent budget problems highlight that fact
charger — Feb 25, 2010[quote author=CraigBert link=1266980390/0#6 date=1267052436]Why change it when they can simply ignore it?  If you read the original healthcare abomination after the first vote, you'd see clauses that treat some people differently.  Also, I'm willing to bet a lot of money (if I had any ;D ) that the 2010 Census will ask for your race.  How are either of those the same as "All men are created equal?"

Free speech is allowed as long as you don't say anything that pisses people off (and, whatever you do, don't say "Fuck" on TV or you can get fined $250,000 - the same applies for showing a nipple).  Well, at least you can still take any supplement that you want.  Riiiiiiiight.


Craig, nowhere in the Constitution does it say "all men are created equal."  You are quoting from the Declaration of Independence, which does not have any force of law over the citizenry.  In fact, you'd probably find the preamble to the Constitution reprehensible, since it includes the statement "promote the general Welfare".  Look at that.  Fucking WELFARE in  the first paragraph of the Constitution.



Doh!  Sorry, I knew that but was typing replies too quick (lots of crazy stuff happening in my life right now - nothing is getting the correct amount of thought at the moment).

Your other comments made me think of a good topic to start though!
chase — Feb 25, 2010i don't think more government is the answer california is looking for. recent budget problems highlight that fact

What does that have to do with the federal representatives CA gets?  Don't you think we should have a representative  say in what gets passed through Congress, if 1 in 8 Americans live here?  Why does Wyoming even have an equally representative say in what happens here?

I think you somehow managed to miss the entire point of my post.  
Ah so "All men are created equal" is not constitutional.

Explains the "No Slavery" amendment,

Chase - it is not one of the first 10, I presume you forgot about this one with your earlier comment !



chase — Feb 24, 2010The first 10 are a good idea..


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

13th - unlucky number - for some.
Chargers point about democratic representation based more on population is a dramatic one.

It has to be addressed with regards to the senate vote.
That  is just arcane.