[Ask the Gulch] People complain but in 200 plus years and more have never thought it important enough to amend the Constitution on a variety of subjects. What's your favorite candidate?

Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 10 months ago to Ask the Gulch
75 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Mylist would start by replacing people with citizens for census purposes followed by putting the old versions in the back and showing the amended version in the front. That way northern democrats would not have to keep apologizing for the 3/5ths rule. I might also like to see a mandatory first page to all congressional bills. Title, One paragraph mission statement or statement of intent and extent. Next Constitutional Cite to check validity. Estimated Cost and finally Source of Funding. Two other add ons might be if a dollar is taken from A to fund B then how does that affect C since A no longer has a dollar to spend in their store? the crowining touch would be denying anything which did not fit the description in the Mission Statement.

My last submission is initiative, referendum and recall for all States specifically including State Delegates to the US Congress.

Your turn!


All Comments

  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    True... so the next best thing is get appointed. funny isn't. If a person is religious the MSM treats them like a chew toy. If a person is non-religious the same. If someone opts to a Constitutional right such as freedom of religion the same. FTMSM They aren't on our side. So...next best thing. Read Machiavelli and Sun Tsu. Sometimes power behind the throne is better than a front row seat.

    Now all of that and ten dollars will get you a cup of coffee. What may make points is anyone asks one of the fatal attacks. In yourown probably going to use it myself today or tomorrow. "Ah I see you are one of those who against the Constitution and pro-fascist better yet pro left wing fascist. otherwise you wouldn't have asked such a question. Then keep punching them with embarrassing but witty when possible follow ups Whatever they go after figure out their weak spot. if it's taxes ask how much they earn and how much they paid. etc. This works best when it's being monitored by other reporters or forms of media.

    Sample. OK City Bomb. the plans came from a government manual. the manual was declassified by one of our Presidents I attended a gun show and the press looking to see if such manuals were for sale were kept out. Pick up a copy and walked out side. Oh iyou want to know about that book. Follow the money. See who profits. how do you mean? look inside the front cover it's plainly printed for all to see. US Government Printing Office. gee how did tghat happen. etc. etc. etc. the interview was neveer prnted nor televised. it was their President. You don't have to make them look stupid. That's normal. You just have to make them look stupid in front of a camera. They eat their own young.

    May not get you elected but it will make you feel much much better.

    the other thing to remember is when someone tapes you it's also permission to tape them. You don't have to ask.at that point. Not even if it's on or off the record. If they go first. Hello this call is being recorded for quality control purposes....that's all it takes. People get really stupid over the phone they think their nameless, faceless and safe.

    That Little Black Book episode? Another papeer made a story about the story that was suppressed. Then it sort of died.

    The book used to cost $4.95 Who knows how much money the US Government Printing Office made on that one title alone.

    Mama Gumps wood shed is a place they like to avoid but as Nancy Pelosillyni routinely finds out. Her fault her pain our gain..

    They may outnumber us but nobody likes to be made to look stupid they tend to take it out on the nearest most visible target. Especially right before election day.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There's some truth in your comments and analysis, but I would bet every dollar I own that there are tens of millions of voters who would vote against anyone self-professed to be an atheist... large or small "A".

    And the MSM would treat me like a dog treats a chew-toy...

    Gulchers seem to keep considering themselves (or us) as typical, average and sensible.

    Many of us may be sensible, but looking across the US electorate, I think it's incredibly stupid to even try to consider US as 'typical or average.'

    We are hopelessly outnumbered by 'the rest of them.'
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yeah, me too. That's why you're my kind of legislator. I doubt if any Objectivist could get elected to anything, but if one ran, I'd vote for him/her if only to make a statement.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Why not? Separation of church and state makes the subject untouchable. I'm reminded of marital fidelity and the Clintons. Little Miss Nobodies Business is now running for office. As I recall her root party needs reminding of these past misdeeds just as Kerr needs reminding of his failure as a militry officer. Some subjects are best left alone by certain people whose track records is far far far from acceptable to others. Personally I don't care what your religion s but I do care what the political affiliation is for candidates running for judge or sheriff. Especially for judges i also want to know if they are ACLU members. Kiss of death along with school board members who are NEA supporters and anyone who is a Secular Progressive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How well I remember those days. Our comment was I thought service members were a minority group. Many of us were forced out of our career paths to feed the family. That's when I took the job of police officer. Surprise surprise one day when I pulled over a traffic violater. Took one look and when asked to give a break said...Sorry i can't help you. You aren't a minority But I dd make the date to pay or request a court date after the next payday. Wasn't over rent but the the principle was the same.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, it is easily apparent just from the cases they take, that their definition of Civil Liberties is skewed to be "those that match our liberal contributors". As an E4 in the Navy, I tried to get them to help in a dispute with a landlord who made us leave our apt in San Diego with no notice, so they could rent it for double when the rents spiked in the late 70's. They said they couldn't help us since we were not a minority group. I have never believed a word they say since.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Of course. It's a case of the ACLU trying to get their nose under the tent to make a constitutional change without and amendment. I brand them enemies domestic straight up - no question.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are only buying the right to pay rent to the government. Short version. I would have to re-read the technical aspects but a number of taxes besides income tax were slated to be replaced and then banned using the end user consumption tax. anyone up on that?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 10 years, 10 months ago
    The response was so overwhelming I should have name the thread Wealth of The Nation. Onward with hopefully our new wifi system and upward!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ DriveTrain 10 years, 10 months ago
    Given what we know about what the "Green" totalitarian-wannabes are attempting vis-à-vis rights and property, I have an idea that not only should be considered a vital change, but which I think would be an easy sell to the American population for ratification:

    A Constitutional Amendment to abolish, in total, all residential property taxation - on a nationwide basis (i.e., overruling the objections of States - feedback welcomed from Constitutional law buffs on this point,) as a human rights violation.

    Here's something to think about:
    Not one person in the United States of America, including you, owns his home. Not one. You may have paid for a home, you may have signed paperwork which says you are a home owner, but you do not own your home.

    If you must pay someone else on a regular basis for the privilege of using some piece of property, whether it's a house or a car or a sofa or a roto-tiller, on pain of losing that privilege if you refuse to pay, then you are not an owner. You are a renter.

    'See what I'm getting at here? So why have we tolerated the intolerable for so long?

    The entire concept of residential property taxation is a negation of the right to home ownership at its root - it's government exercising brute force to designate itself, not you, as the de facto "owner," in perpetuity, of the home you have paid for - to which landed nobility you must either maintain rent payments or get thrown out onto the street. In a direct sense, residential property taxation is the relegation of the American individual to serfdom.

    We must ask ourselves and the rest of the American people to step back, take a look at the militant injustice of property taxation, and question not only why we put up with it, but why we allowed an imposition so thoroughly alien to human rights to be initiated in the first place. Residential property taxation must be abolished, in total - with an eye toward the eventual abolition of all property taxation, residential, commercial or otherwise. If State and Local governments have to find ways to end their profligate spending when this "revenue stream" is removed, tough. Our right to the homes we have purchased is something we never should have surrendered, and must take back, by reason, by ethics, by the most fundamental principles of human rights.

    This would also serve to drive a nice big stake through the heart of the "green" campaign to destroy the concept of individually-owned rural properties or even of individual family homes, and to herd us into retro-Stalinist urban anthills - the paradigm that goes variously as "Smart Growth," "Sustainable _ [insert anything here] _," "Agenda 21," etc.

    Malta, Lichtenstein, Croatia, Thailand, Monaco, Fiji, the Cook Islands, New Zealand, Israel, Dubai, and Bahrain are just a few of the countries where there is no residential property taxation at all, or at most a one-time tax on purchase or sale of a residence but no perpetual, annual tax on property. The United States of America, once the leader of the free world, has a less-just tax policy than Croatia? Than Malta? Than Dubai? America should be leading the way by example - in abolishing the barbaric anachronism of residential property taxation entirely, as a new human rights paradigm for the entire world. We must fight to make that abolition a reality, and a Constitutional Amendment may be the best way to get it done.

    A close second - though only after sweeping legislative action to create the condition it presupposes - would be an Amendment to bar government from "owning" any of the people's land other than that situated beneath legitimate government buildings and facilities. The legislative action in question would be: the comprehensive sell-off of all current government land holdings (or "designations" as "national monuments" or "wildlife refuges" or "ocean preserves" or "wetlands" or "scenic baubles" or "stuff we greens like lots and lots and you filthy humans will not be allowed to touch," etc.) that do not fit the description of such legitimate facilities. I would even argue for the divestiture of the National Park system to private organizations and/or individuals.

    The government has no business confiscating, holding or barring use of land which properly belongs to individuals.

    The method of this divestiture could be hammered out as a separate issue - maybe a new Homestead Act, Land Rush, land auction, whatever - with the proceeds going toward defraying government debt. Just so the land is no longer under the "ownership" or control of government at any level, directly or indirectly. Land that is unclaimed by private entities should be left as unclaimed wilderness, open to the future claims of whatever individuals may eventually want to homestead it.
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Then the whole basis of the lawsuit and the fact it is even a question seems suspect at this point?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Michael... You've restated, amongst other things, my http://www.plusaf.com/falklaws.htm#31st 31st Law.

    Blame MS for putting out crappy products? No, blame consumers for buying them. Blame Apple for charging 'too much more' for their offerings....

    Remember, if there are 'thousands or tens of thousands of Apps available,' you can bet that virtually all of them are shit.

    If there were any Really Good ones, they'd own the market. Recall the number of automobile manufacturers about a century ago... tons of them. Today: quite a few, but just a few "majors." All the rest are niches. Ford/GM/Toyota versus what? Bugatti?

    :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How about, 'no congressmonkey may vote on any bill unless they can demonstrate education and prowess in the fields that the bill is related to...'

    THAT would cut down a lot of 'em!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No 'omnibus' bills. One Issue Per Bill; no more.
    Sunset provisions for all bills, based on review and milestones. No criteria for success?? => No bill.
    All bills must include hyperlinks to the EXACT references they change or refer to.

    For starters.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Right.
    No amendments or alterations, period. If alterations or amendments are needed they must take the form of a new bill. Tacking on or squirreling in is as shameful as baseline budgeting.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'd like to hear the Dunce of the West Comrade Pelosillynni when she tries to change the sentence you have to vote for if you want to read it. Maybe something about legislators must sign an affidavit they have read the entire bill - personally is called for. to easy these days for some paid off staffer to slip something in or the apportionments committees to rewrite the bill. Any change like that should automatically send it back to the hopper as a new bill requiring a new read and new vote. No deeming something passed without an actual vote another one of their nasty little tricks.

    The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese IF the rats are in the trap.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Three points! I fully agree But remember 5th grade level in Arkansas today and Oregon or Vermont in the nineteen fifties or pre WWII are three different versions of 5th grade. I say that in support and would add what you said.or refer to a specific dictionaryand edition. Rats and cheese.i wouldn't put it past some sharpie shyster to arrange for publication of a new dictionary entry. Which says a lot as to trust in Government generally and lawyers specifically.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That goes back to the beginning and the orignal words of the Constitution including one begat which was the three fifths law demanded by the North.

    Article one section two (1) refers to selection of Representatives every two years by the people of the State. Section (3) refers to persons.14th amendment continues to use the word persons er or people for purposes of setting the number of districts in the House of Representatives.

    In each of the foregoing it called for a ten year enumeration to determine the number of districts e.g the census. That is it's only legally stated purpose. Counting toilet seats or deciding how to divvy up the pork is not mentioned.

    Article II refering to eligibility of President refers to citizens.

    South Central Los Angeles a gerrmandered district is perhaps the most famous for representing non-citizens and coincidentally ensure the bank accounts of Representative Maxine Waters.

    It would take a Consitutional Amendment to make the change something ignored by the citizens for 230 years.

    It is already used to enumerate citizens versus non-citizens by the information contained in the first few lines. Even that is not required and is not used to apportion Representative Districts but the whole number of people or persons regardless of citizenship, illegal or legal alien status or visiting Disneyland.

    The court would have to declare one of the first paragraphs of the Constitution as unconstitutional on their own OR demand an amendment procedure. I am a bit suspect of the purpose given ACLU and Huffington are involved... When you smell rats there are usually rats to be found and the cheese is missing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'd limit it to 50 pages. Anything more than that and you are being over-regulated and your freedom is restricted to that degree.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by VetteGuy 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Excellent! I've often thought that a similar requirement should be applied. I'd like to see an additional requirement that all laws combined for a single government (Fed, State, City) cannot add up to more than, say 1,000 pages. If you need to pass a law after that, you first have to get rid of one you no longer need.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    My reason for selecting a 5th grade level is to keep the legislator from using words to obfuscate meanings as was done in Obamacare. At that level they cannot use obscure words with double and triple definitions. The wording will be forthright and clear.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo