new President NEW CONSTITUTIONAL Convention?

MeBaby · Nov 9, 2008

imported post

jmlefler wrote:

1. Repeal the 16th amendment

2. Repeal the 17th amendment

3. Repeal the Federal Reserve Act

4. Pass a 'Right to Privacy' amendment

5. Enlarge the House of Representatives at least 5 fold

6. Simplify the process of running for office

7. Only allow those eligible to vote for a candidate to donate to a candidate

For starters...:dude:

Carry on

8. Don't allow ANY laywers in Congress :celebrate

9. Make Congress a part-time job again like it was during the founder's days. :celebrate

Alexcabbie · Nov 9, 2008

imported post

Keep 'em coming, folks! These coments are EXACTLY what the First Amendment was designed to make possible (and what the Second Amendment was designed to protect). There has been much talk about the new Administration planning to squelch dissent by among other things re-instituting the "Fairness Doctrne". They may even try to interfere with the "Blogosphere" of which this forum is a part. Just in case this happens, remember that Xerox machines exist. By God, I for one will write stuff, copy it and insert it into news-rack copies of the Washington Post in the middle of the night if it comes to that. WE WILL NEVER BE SILENCED. Tyrant wannabes take note.

PT111 · Nov 9, 2008

imported post

Could I ask why repeal the 17th amendment and enlarge the House five fold? Unless you live in California I seeno advantage to either of these.

Repeal of the 17th directly conflicts with your wanting to make it easier to run for office.

Flintlock · Nov 9, 2008

imported post

Enforce the 10th Amendment. That simply takes care of a lot of the issues. Enforce Article IV.

RepealAmendment XVI.

Alexcabbie · Nov 9, 2008

imported post

PT111 wrote:

Could I ask why repeal the 17th amendment and enlarge the House five fold? Unless you live in California I seeno advantage to either of these.

Repeal of the 17th directly conflicts with your wanting to make it easier to run for office.

Repeal of the 17th Amendment would make every State election a de facto Federal election and would result in Senators who would be beholden to the People and not their own pompous asses.

A five-fold increase of the House would mean that instead of a diverse and Gerrymandered district of residents who have practically no common cause, one who ran for the House would be addressing the concerns of citizens who belong to between one and three local civic associations. Would this lead to an increase in House bickering? Yep. And that's the whole point. Personally Iwould love to tune into C-Span to watch the fist-fights. No matter who got the crap beat outta them, they would most likely deserve it.

Tomahawk · Nov 9, 2008

imported post

Repealing amendments? Enforcing ammendments? Keep dreaming.

Defeating Obama in the presidential election would've been much easier.

Alexcabbie · Nov 9, 2008

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

Enforce the 10th Amendment. That simply takes care of a lot of the issues. Enforce Article IV.

RepealAmendment XVI.

Agreed, except that franchising those over the age of 18 should NOT be repealed. If at age 18 you are fully bound by your words and deeds and can be forced to pick up a rifle and do battle in our common defense, then you are by God old enough to have a smoke, have a drink, and have your vote counted. In 1972 at age 19 I took leave of my assignment in Panama and flew home to Dayton to cast my vote for Richard Nixon; whom I knew was a no-goodnik but also that he ws better than that schnook McGovern.

Alexcabbie · Nov 9, 2008

imported post

WHOOPS! my bad! only one "X". Yeah, go back to apportioning taxes among the Several States. THAT will keep them good and busy, and what is more, gang-fights on C-Span!!! What fun! And no, folks, I am not joking. That would be a joy to behold!

I can see however where one might think repeal of the XXVI would be a good idea, seeing as how so many dumbass kids voted for Obama. But like I said, old enough to die for your country.....

AWDstylez · Nov 9, 2008

imported post

MeBaby wrote:

8. Don't allow ANY laywers in Congress :celebrate

9. Make Congress a part-time job again like it was during the founder's days. :celebrate

Yea, you wouldn't want people that actually understood law to be involved in the legal system. :quirky

Citizen · Nov 9, 2008

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Repealing amendments? Enforcing ammendments? Keep dreaming.

Defeating Obama in the presidential election would've been much easier.

Amendment XXVIII (proposed)

The right of Indigenous Americansto not have their culture and artifactsmisused bycynical IT geeks shall not be violated.

MeBaby · Nov 10, 2008

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

MeBaby wrote:

8. Don't allow ANY laywers in Congress :celebrate

9. Make Congress a part-time job again like it was during the founder's days. :celebrate

Click to expand...

Yea, you wouldn't want people that actually understood law to be involved in the legal system. :quirky

Do you ever say anything in any other tone than a smartazz tone? :cuss:

Virtuallynone of the founding fathers were laywers if any. How do you explain that? Maybe laywers are the problem and have caused the system to be so complicated. I submit that they ARE the problem and it seems that they have you convinced that they are necessary to "interpret" the law for you.

You complain about people calling you a troll and blame it on people just "not agreeing" with you. The problem is not that they disagree with you (although they do) it is that you talk down to EVERYONE you talk to. :banghead:

Citizen · Nov 10, 2008

imported post

MeBaby wrote:

SNIP Virtuallynone of the founding fathers were laywers if any.

I have differing information.

Check out the activities of the Constitutional Convention--The Founders, if you will.

The committee that was tasked with writing Article III (judiciary) were all lawyers, if I I remember.

Alexander Hamiltonwas definitely a lawyer.

marshaul · Nov 10, 2008

imported post

MeBaby wrote:

Do you ever say anything in any other tone than a smartazz tone? :cuss:

Virtually none of the founding fathers were laywers if any. How do you explain that? Maybe laywers are the problem and have caused the system to be so complicated. I submit that they ARE the problem and it seems that they have you convinced that they are necessary to "interpret" the law for you.

You complain about people calling you a troll and blame it on people just "not agreeing" with you. The problem is not that they disagree with you (although they do) it is that you talk down to EVERYONE you talk to. :banghead:

Jefferson was a lawyer. In fact, he learned by "reading the law".

Citizen wrote:

Alexander Hamilton was definitely a lawyer.

Please don't blaspheme on this fine forum. Anything that can be said about Hamilton can be turned into an argument for the opposite.

Citizen · Nov 10, 2008

imported post

marshaul wrote:

SNIP Jefferson was a lawyer. In fact, he learned by "reading the law".

Edmund Burke had something to say about that sort of thing. One of my favorite all-time quotes. He was addressing Parliament about the colonies.

Permit me, Sir, to add another circumstance in our colonies, which contributes no mean part towards the growth and effect of this untractable spirit. I mean their education. In no country perhaps in the world is the law so general a study. The profession itself is numerous and powerful; and in most provinces it takes the lead. The greater number of the deputies sent to the congress were lawyers. But all who read, and most do read, endeavour to obtain some smattering in that science. I have been told by an eminent bookseller, that in no branch of his business, after tracts of popular devotion, were so many books as those on the law exported to the plantations. The colonists have now fallen into the way of printing them for their own use. I hear that they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone's Commentaries in America as in England. General Gage marks out this disposition very particularly in a letter on your table. He states, that all the people in his government are lawyers, or smatterers in law; and that in Boston they have been enabled, by successful chicane, wholly to evade many parts of one of your capital penal constitutions. The smartness of debate will say, that this knowledge ought to teach them more clearly the rights of legislature, their obligations to obedience, and the penalties of rebellion. All this is mighty well. But my honourable and learned friend on the floor, who condescends to mark what I say for animadversion, will disdain that ground. He has heard, as well as I, that when great honours and great emoluments do not win over this knowledge to the service of the state, it is a formidable adversary to government. If the spirit be not tamed and broken by these happy methods, it is stubborn and litigious. Abeunt studia in mores. This study renders men acute, inquisitive, dexterous, prompt in attack, ready in defence, full of resources. In other countries, the people, more simple, and of a less mercurial cast, judge of an ill principle in government only by an actual grievance; here they anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of the grievance by the badness of the principle. They augur misgovernment at a distance; and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze. (emphasis added)

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s2.html

Flintlock · Nov 10, 2008

imported post

John Adams was a lawyer.. As was John Jay,

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h460.html

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

Alexcabbie · Nov 10, 2008

imported post

Wonder how fast they had to run to chase a horse-drawn ambulance.........:celebrate

Tomahawk · Nov 10, 2008

imported post

John Adams was also a lawyer. A very good defense attorney, in fact. He represented the British soldiers who were accused of murder in the Boston Massacre, and tried in a Mass. court. Adams was the only reputable attorney who would take the case, and he got them all aquittals or light sentences. He believed it important that even "bad" guys should get a fair trial under the law.

AWDstylez · Nov 10, 2008

imported post

MeBaby wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

MeBaby wrote:

8. Don't allow ANY laywers in Congress :celebrate

9. Make Congress a part-time job again like it was during the founder's days. :celebrate

Click to expand...

Yea, you wouldn't want people that actually understood law to be involved in the legal system. :quirky

Click to expand...

Do you ever say anything in any other tone than a smartazz tone? :cuss:

We're typing text on the internet; there is no tone.

If you don't want me "talking down" to you, why don't your provide a list of who was a lawyer and who wasn't. Then when you get done realizing that most of them WERE lawyers, you can explain how all those supposedly non-lawyers were able to draw up accurate and comprehensive legal documents that live on to this day.

Why would you NOT want lawyers ina law making position? Who would be better for that spot? Would you rather have Joe Idiot that needs to have his hand held through the law making process because he doesn't know a damn thing? Most politicians have law backgrounds, and rightfully sobecause they make the LAWS. Saying lawyers should be banned from politics is like saying professional baseball players should be banned fromMLB or teachers should be banned from boards of ed./education commities or gun owners should be banned from NRA leadership, etc.

marshaul · Nov 10, 2008

imported post

Gentlemen, let's please remain civil.

For me, it's easy to reach a middle ground on this issue. Sure, you want legal documents to be drafted by folks with experience dealing with the intricacies of, for example, the ramifications of a portion of a legislative body with regards to the whole. On the same token, our courts have devolved into something of an oligarchy, with no respect for pro se representation or jury nullification, whereas it's clear our legal system was intended to function on a level an ordinary citizen could interact with. This trend, needless to say, has ineffectualized much of the power of the citizenry in combatting corruption and tyranny on the part of our government's legislative and judicial bodies.

AWDstylez · Nov 11, 2008

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Gentlemen, let's please remain civil.

For me, it's easy to reach a middle ground on this issue. Sure, you want legal documents to be drafted by folks with experience dealing with the intricacies of, for example, the ramifications of a portion of a legislative body with regards to the whole. On the same token, our courts have devolved into something of an oligarchy, with no respect for pro se representation or jury nullification, whereas it's clear our legal system was intended to function on a level an ordinary citizen could interact with. This trend, needless to say, has ineffectualized much of the power of the citizenry in combatting corruption and tyranny on the part of our government's legislative and judicial bodies.

So what do you propose? Has the legal system really got that much more complicated or has the ordinary citizen gotten dumber?

new President NEW CONSTITUTIONAL Convention?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Campaign Veteran

Banned