If we were going to propose a new amendment to the constitution, what would be the most needed amendment and what are the pros and cons of it?

Comments

• Oh yeah good idea it goes along with my answer. +6

  • Report
  

  by Ron C on September 14th, 2009

• Soooo true. The College of Electorates is a completely pointless and outdated idea.

  • Report
  

  by wjomlex on October 6th, 2009

• As it was originally under the Constitution, the Vice President was the first runner up in the Presidential elections. This proved to be problematic when VP's didn't support the President's agenda. So, an Amendment was passed that linked the two positions. Personally, I think that the President should have a VP that he can count on to support him. If you separate the positions again, then this will no longer be the case.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on October 27th, 2009

• I understand your argument, Glenn. Perhaps then we should have separate elections for VP's with the highest vote getter for the party that wins the POTUS becoming VP.
  
  I just think we need a higher quality of veep than history has provided.

  • Report
  

  by Tater on October 27th, 2009

• none of these are practical in terms of passing. getting rid of the electoral college takes away power from the states with less of a population. the majority of the country may live on the coasts, but to pass an amendment you need something that's going to pass all the states
  
  states don't want power taken away from them. they like that they have X number of votes whether or not people show up to vote, that they have two senators, even if their state population is beat out by large cities

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009

• voting separately for VP wouldn't work for a lot of reasons--it's a party system now, and no one will go for it. the presidental candidate is going to want a VP that he can trust, and who's been vetted properly etc, not whoever wins. at that point in the campaign, the parties need to get behind whoever the candidate is and show solidarity. the VP is often picked to combat perceived weaknesses and help get the P into office. biggest prob? the party comes together. you can't still have people running within the party for a position when they are all trying to get their nominated guy the win. it wouldn't work, and frankly, who would want to run for VP? to run when you could lose? it's one thing to lose the presidential nomination and be asked, and then, you were asked and are serving your country and can run for president later. or go back to the senate, whatever. but you run for VP and lose? it'd be pretty hard to get any good job in new administration or respect after that

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009

• "they like that they have X number of votes whether or not people show up to vote, that they have two senators, even if their state population is beat out by large cities"
  
  The people in the states should be voting. They don't deserve the X votes if people aren't exercising their right to vote. And you'd have two senators regardless of whether or not the college was in play.

  • Report
  

  by wjomlex on November 5th, 2009

• The whole reason for the electoral college was to insure that Presidential candidates couldn't simply ignore the small states. If Presidents were elected by a simple majority vote of the people, then the candidates could just focus on the big states. By giving them a somewhat disproportional representation in the college, it makes them more important in the election. So, it become harder to get elected if a candidate ignores them.
  -
  Personally, there is another change that I would make instead of eliminating the electoral college. Instead, I would pass an amendment to eliminate the winner take all system that most states have for their electors. In stead, I would prefer the electors awarded for the House districts be chosen according to how their districts vote. As it is, in a state like California, those who live in rural areas are pretty much disenfranchised by Los Angeles and the Bay Area because those two areas tend to dominate the elections.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on November 5th, 2009

• be chosen according to how the districts vote? a lot of states do do that or primaries. but the example you gave isn't quite right. anyone whos vote isn't with the majority of the state is disenfranchised.
   
  voters who live in rural areas may tend to vote against the majority and voters that live in la and the bay area tend to vote with it. and given the population distribution, a high percentage of rural voters may get disenfranchised. but voters aren't disenfranchised by areas. and the voters are disenfranchised not based on where they live, but how they vote
   
  and in re senators, it's based on the same system. less populated states get payed attention to, get a vote that really matters.

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 5th, 2009

• "be chosen according to how the districts vote? a lot of states do do that or primaries."
  -
  No, that is not correct. Very few states apportion electors according to how the various Congressional districts vote. In the vast majority of states, it is winner take all for electors to the Electoral College. Additionally, primaries have nothing to do with this. Primaries are for the purpose of selecting the various party's candidates for office.
  -
  As for the disenfranchisement issue, anyway you cut it, those whose candidates lose will be disappointed, but this way preserves the original intent of the Electoral College (i.e. to give those that might otherwise be ignored more of a say). By completely eliminating the electoral college as is proposed in this answer, you make so that the candidates really only have to pay attention to the big cities and that will leave a large part of the population without much influence on the policies that the President sets.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on November 5th, 2009

• it's the same system for primaries. it isn't the official electoral college, but states have a number of delegates that get to cast a vote, and the number of delegates is based on state population. the fact that it's just the primary--it's still an election, it's still important
   
  a lot of primaries, instead of using the old winner take all system are now going along district lines, or using other split systems. it's not great system, because you can still get a winner who loses the popular vote--it would just be less likely
   
  the problem with the way elections work, with the electoral college, any way you cut it, with starting in tiny states, is that the issues that matter to very large majorities of americans, are not the big issues there. and sometimes they'll be on the opposite side of the majority because of something local. to get started, politicians have to go there, please them, win on their issues.

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 5th, 2009

• is it important to listen to the minority? yes. but not at the expense of electing people who have to run to the minority just so that the majority gets a chance to hear them. we have so many problems with elections. and yes, people in the minority need to be heard. but the people robbing their voices of the minority the most are special interest groups
   
  my biggest problem? special interest groups who keep us from having great debates about policy and ethics, and instead, make us spend our time debating over who is right about facts that can be looked up. we should listen to people who opposing opinions, we should have great debates, but we don't

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 5th, 2009

• I have a problem with demonizing special interest groups. Ultimately, any group of people who get together to try to influence the politicians can be called a special interest group. Right now, you have have various groups that are pushing for healthcare reform. They are special interest groups.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on November 6th, 2009

• Then you have other groups that are fighting against the proposed reforms. They are also special interest groups. People like to demonize those groups that oppose their points of view and try to say that they have an undue influence.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on November 6th, 2009

• There are a number of groups that I would like to see cut out of the process because I think that the push for policies that I think are dangerous. However, in all honesty, I would have to say that there are also groups that I support and, if I started silencing the opposition, then someday the same tactics could be used against me and those with whom I agree.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on November 6th, 2009

• So, I think that it is better to simply keep promoting the values I support and let the chips fall where they may.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on November 6th, 2009

• With respect to primaries, I think that there needs to be some reforms there. I don't think that the various states should have open primaries. I think that only those registered in a particular party should be allowed to vote in that parties primaries.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on November 6th, 2009

• The hole purpose for primaries is for the various parties to choose their own candidates for office. Allowing people from outside of the parties to vote muddies the water and leaves in doubt whether the party has really chosen the candidate that best represents its members' wishes.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on November 6th, 2009

• BTW, please excuse the fact that I had to post these is so many separate comments. I keep encountering a problem with AB where it won't let me post longer comments all at once despite the fact that they are still under the 1000 character limit. I don't know what the problem is, but I only have it when trying to post from my Windblows laptop. I never have the problem with my Mac.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on November 6th, 2009

• "Allowing people from outside of the parties to vote muddies the water and leaves in doubt whether the party has really chosen the candidate that best represents its members' wishes."
   
  People should have the right to vote and say, "these are what I think the best options are." I'm not just speaking about presidential elections. Lets take an example where there's an incumbent in one party with no real challengers. I think the incumbent is ok, but I want better. I'd vote in the primary the incumbent is in, but there's no point. The other party has two major candidates. One I like. The other I don't. Maybe no matter what, I'll end up voting for the incumbent. But I don't want to vote for the incumbent because the other choice is terrible. And if the person I vote for loses, I'd like to have some respect and trust in the person who wins. The point is, I want a choice. I want to vote for the candidate I like, even though I'm not a "member" of the of the party.
   
  --continued--

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 7th, 2009

• And if that candidate wins, and runs a good campaign and at the end of the day, when I weigh things comes out on top, I want to vote for that candidate in the general election. Though, maybe the candidate wouldn't have gotten there if I couldn't vote in the primary. You might consider this muddying the waters, or keeping the party for choosing the right candidate. But I don't.
   
  What about states where the majority of voters haven't selected a party registration? Even though most of these voters align themselves with a party, they aren't registered. So, get rid of the independents? Tell them that it costs them a primary vote? FYI, voters can just switch their registrations based on which primary they want to vote in. They'd just have to decide a little earlier. You'd want to ban that too?
   
  --continued--

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 7th, 2009

• You seem to have this image of a party. you either belong to it, and can help make decisions, or you don't, and if you have a role in the decision making process, it doesn't REALLY reflect the view of the party-it's an outsider trying to mess it up. But republicans endorse democrats and the other way around. Candidates switch party affiliations, and sometimes even back again. It's not black and white, in the club or not. You don't just go to the ballot box, and hit a button for your party and the ballot gets filled out for you. And this isn't the men getting together in a room with cigar smoke and deciding who to run.
   
  --continued--

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 7th, 2009

• Besides, parties choose all the time to run candidates that don't represent their platform, or that do, but don't represent its members' wishes and screw it up themselves. Parties can always, always, ALWAYS screw things up for themselves better than anyone can do it for them. Look at the recent election as an example. Or look at all the time and money spent running someone against Lieberman in the primary, just lose the general to him, and alienate someone who they need to work with etc.
   
  If your big worry is "outsiders" changing the outcome of a primary, then you're looking at parties the wrong way, and voters the wrong way, and concerned about all the wrong things.

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 7th, 2009

• In re special interest groups, I'm not talking "any group of people who get together to try to influence the politicians." Technically a special interest group is just any organization that seeks to influence political decisions. Which I don't have a problem with. I think people should get involved and try and influence political decisions. I think it's great when they organize. But there's a difference between explaining the benefits of a policy to the politicians and making financial contributions, financial incentives. It shouldn't be just people with lobbyists who are heard.
   
  --continued--

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 7th, 2009

• My problem with special interest groups, with lobbyists, the whole nine yards, isn't the theoretical purpose behind it. That I support. I have a problem with a small group of people getting a large voice because they have lots of money. I have a problem with a few hundred standing up and convincing people that they stand for tens of thousands, who really are in the minority, who really should be heard. But they aren't. Groups like these, the ones I'm talking about, they're loud, both metaphorically and sometimes literally. They drown out everything else. And that isn't ok.
   
  On a side note, if the think the push in Washington on health care reform is coming from special interest groups, you're crazy. They'd have to line up behind most of the country first. Including the President. Remember him sorta running on it? Well that and the whole, CHANGE thing.

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 7th, 2009

• Let's look at that last point. The AARP bills itself as a group that protects the rights of senior citizens. Do you know how they make most a significant amount of their money? By selling insurance. They stand to make a ton of money from this legislation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603392.html http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_11/b3924050_mz011.htm). There are other examples of this. These groups are trying to force this reform down our throats despite what the people actually want (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Poll-Huge-majority-doesnt-want-Democrats-health-care-bill-69399612.html). The only thing that is stopping them from actually getting the legislation passed is the other groups that are willing to speak up against it.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on November 7th, 2009

• Ok, first off, health care reform of various sorts has been an issue not just of the Obama administration, but of the Clinton, and at least as far back as the Carter administration. You're going to argue that all of those administrations, that everyone has just been catering to AARP? Wow. That's hysterical. That's freaking hysterical.
   
  second, if you want to show that AARP and other special interest groups are trying to force legislation, because, they'd make money from it, and that the American people are against it, you're going to have to do better

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 7th, 2009

• "The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted October 30-November 1, with 1,018 adult Americans questioned by telephone."
   
  people were asked:
  Which of the following do you think Congress should do
  *Continue working on those bills this fall and make relatively minor changes before passing final legislation
  *Continue working on those bills this fall but pass final legislation only if major changes are made
  *Start work on entirely new bills that would not be ready until some time next year
  *Stop working on any bills that would change the country's health care system
   
  "That means 72 percent of those surveyed either want Congress to make major changes, start over, or stop work on health care reform, versus 26 percent who want the bills passed with minor changes."
   
  Using people who want the bills entirely remade, or major changes to say that people don't want health care reform is ridiculous.

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 7th, 2009

• Polls like this are really misleading. It's a small group of people asked, and the question is a bad question--it doesn't really tell you anything about their views on health care reform.
   
  People who want single-payer health care, or universal health care aren't likely to want any of the current bills passed with only minor changes. They'll likely say either major changes, or scrap it and start over.
   
  So basically, the first three options are people saying that they want the government to work on healthcare reform. The only differences you get are how supportive they are of the current version of the bill, but without any additional questions, you don't know what they're problems with the bill are.
   
  It's a bad poll, on any number of counts. But even so, you cited a poll that has 72% of people for health care reform. That's a majority. You cited a poll that doesn't support your point of view, "people don't want health care reform." You got to argue better than that.

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 7th, 2009

• I never said that the majority don't want a reform of the healthcare system. (I have many times proposed reforms that I think would go a long way to reducing costs and making healthcare more accessible.) However, a majority don't want THIS reform and the numbers of people who don't want it are growing.
  -
  You and I are probably never going to agree. So, I would say that it is time to agree to disagree and let it go at that.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on November 8th, 2009

• OK. But I'd bet the farm that a majority don't know what this reform contains. Tell me, do you read the bills that Congress is looking at? Proposed amendments? Do you even read the full text of propositions that you vote on?
   
  And even if we suddenly got a well informed public, I doubt we'd get a majority. There are so many ways of reform, and the spectrum is so large, that there are going to be people who like most of the bill but want A, or B. Or want C removed. To get a majority on a specific bill, things would have to be dire enough for enough people, that they stop sticking on points that are only sticking points in theory. If they really understood that no reform would happen if they didn't let IT go, IT wouldn't be a sticking point. But we're not there yet, things aren't that bad. Not yet.
   
  Congress's job is to pass a bill that is mostly ok to most people. If every person got a hand at amending bills, we'd never pass anything. As it is, Congress moves slowly enough.

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 8th, 2009

• And you're right, we probably won't agree on much of anything. And I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. But we agree on a lot too. We just pick out what we disagree with to argue about and don't mention the things we do agree on. Because what's the fun in that?

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 8th, 2009

Comments

• Good idea. Congress is supposed to declare war but can obviously be talked into it by a devious president.

  • Report
  

  by Ron C on September 14th, 2009

• investment?
  .
  "hey, let's go kill thousands of people, including our own kids, there's money in it"
  .
  "naw, let's not, there's not enough money in that war ... but how about this one?"

  • Report
  

  by purplecows on October 6th, 2009

• Sarcastic but it is a pretty good word picture of the process.

  • Report
  

  by Ron C on October 6th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• doesn't belong in the constitution

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

• interesting!!!!

  • Report
  

  by Bob on October 16th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• Any glimmers of truth in that paper were completely overpowered by glaring generalizations and personal bias. It may make you feel warm and fuzzy to blame all the world's woes on women but that's just not realistic.

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on October 31st, 2006

• Only time, alas, will tell whether I'm right, and that voters without male hormones can't summon the resolve to protect societies from invaders with lots of them--as we are seeing all over Western Europe.

  • Report
  

  by Roger Kovaciny on November 3rd, 2006

• Stereotyping all 150 million female US citizens as cowardly because they lack testosterone is nonsense. Furthermore, the USA is a democracy. Where is the democracy when only half the population is allowed to vote, regardless of the issue?

  • Report
  

  by Jodie44 on November 3rd, 2006

• The article rails against the damaging effects of radical feminism on western societies, among other things. Let me get this straight - you believe that women should no longer be allowed to vote, based on that article? Wow.

  • Report
  

  by Jodie44 on November 3rd, 2006

• Uh, Jodie--what were we before the 19th Amendment? Actually, we were a constitutional republic, but that's another subject. Ann Coulter isn't the only woman who suggested repealing the 19th, just the best known.

  • Report
  

  by Roger Kovaciny on November 3rd, 2006

• Roger, do you believe the USA would have become a great and powerful nation if the right to vote had always been denied to women? Men completely in charge of all government, all laws, everything? Women have no place in government, no value?

  • Report
  

  by Jodie44 on November 3rd, 2006

• I can see why Ms. Coulter wants the 19th repealed, LOL. If she CAN'T vote, maybe she can stay out of trouble. Kinda like a "please protect me from myself, since I can't" thing. I know that feeling, but not about voting.

  • Report
  

  by Jodie44 on November 3rd, 2006

• Roger Would it help with length if you added comments via the answer text box instead of the comment box? BTW, I did not rate this answer. I may not agree w/ you, but I won't discount your opinion. If nothing else, you state your thoughts clearly.

  • Report
  

  by Jodie44 on November 3rd, 2006

• We are the creators of most of our problems anyway. The dictators that ail us the most were ones our government propped up in the first place. People with food, electricity, clean water, Internet, and TV stay home. They don't invade.

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on November 3rd, 2006

• Regarding men yea, women nay: You imply that it takes balls to protect and defend our country and its borders. So, what about aggressive women who can and will do just that? Can they vote under the terms of the the hypothetical repeal?

  • Report
  

  by Jodie44 on November 3rd, 2006

• Problem with women voting is that they expand government far beyond its proper functions of preventing invasion, controling crime and upholding the currency--so that it doesn't have the resources to do its proper functions.

  • Report
  

  by Roger Kovaciny on November 3rd, 2006

• Actually, passing the Liberty Amendment would solve all the problems women voting has caused, and still leave them the vote. (Google it.)

  • Report
  

  by Roger Kovaciny on November 3rd, 2006

• Where do you get the statistics on how women are voting?

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on November 6th, 2006

• Darkling: just look at the link above. Which doesn't talk about American women voting, but just the influence of feminism.

  • Report
  

  by Roger Kovaciny on November 7th, 2006

• When I first read your answer, I assumed you were joking. Apparently, I was mistaken.

  • Report
  

  by go_to_hellas on November 7th, 2006

• When Ann Coulter proposed it, she wasn't joking, and she would lose the vote if it happened. Apparently other things, like protecting national security, identity and prosperity are more important to some women.

  • Report
  

  by Roger Kovaciny on November 7th, 2006

• Yeah, Ann Coulter is a nutjob, and she makes up citations and misrepresents articles in her books. Did you mean to link to an anti-Muslim rant? I think Islam is an abhorrent religion, but I think the same of Christianity. The Old Testament isn't nice to women, nor is Paul. Why not disenfranchise men?

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on October 27th, 2009

• I was going to deduct points but I saw no point in it. You've already been punished enough in life with such a narrow view of half of the worlds population. I'm sure your popular with the women.

  • Report
  

  by pandora on October 31st, 2009

• Look, a wee little misogynist!

  • Report
  

  by Indigo- in the library with the revolver on October 31st, 2009

• Indigo, this guy is as wee little misogynistic as octomom was a wee pregnant. LOL

  • Report
  

  by pandora on November 1st, 2009

• Heheheh. Too bad he can't give birth to his misogyny and give it up for adoption.

  • Report
  

  by Indigo- in the library with the revolver on November 1st, 2009

• Actually, I read some of the comments in his past. I think for the most part he hates Obama and probably blame women for getting him into the presidency. He sounds like a republican all the way.

  • Report
  

  by pandora on November 2nd, 2009

• Seems like he has some mommy issues.

  • Report
  

  by Indigo- in the library with the revolver on November 2nd, 2009

• I think most republicans do. LOL

  • Report
  

  by pandora on November 2nd, 2009

• Roger hasn't been out here in quite some time, but he's a clear-cut misogynist. He's also a Biblical literalist and supply-side economist.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on November 4th, 2009

• And to think, a year or two ago I couldn't imagine people like him existing -- I thought nobody would be that ridiculous. I wonder if he supports the idea of stoning people...

  • Report
  

  by Indigo- in the library with the revolver on November 4th, 2009

Comments

• Did you intend this as a comment on another answer?

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on October 6th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• You stated it better than I could have.

  • Report
  

  by Indigo- in the library with the revolver on October 31st, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Sorry, I can't agree with this one. Everyone has a stake in what government does, not just property owners. So, every legal citizen deserves the right to vote.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on October 6th, 2009

• Voting restrictions would be ok as long as the range of government powers (and thus the range of things that voters can vote on) is sufficiently narrow - in this example, so that it only affects property owners.
  :)

  • Report
  

  by purplecows on October 6th, 2009

• "Everyone has a stake in what government does" but everyone is not equally qualified to vote. In particular people on government assistance will simply vote for more and more government assistance at the expense of the working. The people paying the charity should decide how much they would like to give instead of the lazy thieves deciding how much they would like to steal.

  • Report
  

  by malevolentbutticklis on October 6th, 2009

• I am not sure I could go as far as free and clear property owners, but I do think we should restrict voting rights to those who receive more than 50% of their income from the government. I have always been taught that you have to contribute to have a say in anything.

  • Report
  

  by Tater on October 6th, 2009

• Founding father John Adams said that "[t]he moment that idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist."
  .
  Ways the government has been destroying the right to private property:
  .
  . . * Asset Forfeiture for alleged crimes
  . . * Zoning Regulations
  . . * Environmental/Wetlands Regulations
  . . * "Historic" property confiscations
  . . * Eminent Domain takings ("Urban Renewals", etc.)
  . . * Conversion of land to National Parks and National Forests

  • Report
  

  by malevolentbutticklis on October 7th, 2009

• ..* Misapplication of the income tax on Federally-related transactions

  • Report
  

  by purplecows on October 7th, 2009

• I disagree with limiting voting rights to property owners. All thaqt will do is give the rich more power over the poor. I'm a big fan of "all men are created equal."

  • Report
  

  by MrJosh on October 16th, 2009

• if i live in a rental tent but i own microsoft, does that mean i can't vote?

  • Report
  

  by Bob on October 16th, 2009

• Bob: If you own Microsoft then simply buy some property. It will probably cost you less than the value of the time it takes you to register to vote.

  • Report
  

  by malevolentbutticklis on October 16th, 2009

• if we're going to restrict voting to only property owners, then, i suggest that it be limited to those who own real estate property worth more than $20 million

  • Report
  

  by Bob on October 17th, 2009

• $20 million?

  • Report
  

  by malevolentbutticklis on October 17th, 2009

• Ok, let's restrict the vote to the wealthy. That's what this answer says. Vehemently disagree. Perhaps you should just limit the vote to those with a bachelor's degree or higher, huh?

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on October 27th, 2009

• only ph.d.'s. those pesky m.d.'s are "mere technicians" who don't know a thing unless a ph.d. teaches them!!! i suggested $20 million because everybody who'se anybody knows that you're a nobody if you are only worth $19 million.

  • Report
  

  by Bob on October 27th, 2009

• That's true. Same of JDs. They aren't "real" doctorates. Million is the new hundred thousand. You aren't really worth anything until you can count your net worth in the hundred millions.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on October 28th, 2009

• i'm still waiting for the jd who is half as brilliant as any one of our founding fathers. yea, i guess my estimate of $20 million was based on what my granddaddy told me. if i want to be something, i've gotta have at least the same amount of money as oprah, huh?

  • Report
  

  by Bob on October 28th, 2009

• "Ok, let's restrict the vote to the wealthy. That's what this answer says." <-- Did you read the answer? It says 1x per capita GDP. You are making things up.

  • Report
  

  by malevolentbutticklis on October 31st, 2009

• fine with me, as long as it goes along with the other principle: no taxation without representation

  • Report
  

  by purplecows on October 31st, 2009

• We currently have taxation without representation. If I pay 50% in taxes and another American pays only 10% in taxes isn't the 40% difference taxation without representation? If you don't like that argument then how about taxes on those less than 18?

  • Report
  

  by malevolentbutticklis on October 31st, 2009

• america is not an aristocracy and so it shouldn't be designed as such unless the people pass an appropriate constitutional amendment. while most folks i know have income well over 1x per capita gdp, the only way that i'll vote for only allowing the rich to vote in our representative, democratic republic is if god only allows good folks with incomes less than 1x per capital gdp into heaven after they die. the rich had chances during life so the poor will have their chances the rest of eternity. everybody knows that we can tax folks under 18. people who pay 50% taxes don't enjoy the same proportion of votes as one paying only 10%. corporations can't vote, yet they pay, often, a lot more than you or me - ought they be able to vote? what about the 10s of millions of americans who have be convicted of felonies for not paying all of their taxes or for possessing 1/2 ounce of marijuana whose voting rights are taken forever?

  • Report
  

  by Bob on November 1st, 2009

• Bob, I assume this is directed at purplecows.

  • Report
  

  by malevolentbutticklis on November 1st, 2009

• I'm making nothing up. "You must actually own the property outright (unmortaged and lien-free)." Translation: The wealthy. "If I pay 50% in taxes and another American pays only 10% in taxes isn't the 40% difference taxation without representation?" Oh for crying out loud. No. You are still represented. You are equating an idea that your representation is not proportional to your tax contribution with not being represented. Straw man argument. *yawn*

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on November 4th, 2009

• I would also point out that one does not have to be rich in order to own property outright. My mother owns her house without any leins or debts. She and my dad paid off their mortgage years ago and they could hardly have been called rich.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on November 4th, 2009

• I can't imagine a worse idea for changing the constitution than to limit the voting pool to the upper classes. Talk about "sowing the seeds of revolution".

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on November 4th, 2009

• Glenn Blaylock, who you might respect if you don't respect me, says "I would also point out that one does not have to be rich in order to own property outright." I believe the reason many more people don't own property outright is lack of fiscal responsibility, not immense wealth.
  Check out these monthly payments on a 100K house:
  $770.45 <== 30 year loan, poor credit, nothing down, lender pays closing
  $809.96 <== 10 year loan, 20% down, good credit
  A couple earning $7.35/hr (federal minimum wage) could own their home outright in 10 years with a 25% income to mortgage ratio if they worked 50 hours per week.

  • Report
  

  by malevolentbutticklis on November 4th, 2009

• One more that might blow your mind. The responsible couple with the $8000 credit paying 40% of their income in mortgage (as is common in many cities) would own their own 100K house OUTRIGHT IN LESS THAN 5 YEARS! This is minimum wage folks. Plus you would enjoy the even lower interest rate of a 5 year arm without the risk.

  • Report
  

  by malevolentbutticklis on November 4th, 2009

• I think that's wonderful, I'm all for people being able to buy their homes. It's just irrelevant to the point -- making home ownership a criteria for suffrage would disenfranchise a whole large percentage of the population. Remember "taxation without representation"? It turned out to be problematic for the crown. It's also unjust, but that's another matter.
   
  As for your math -- have you ever tried raising a family while spending 40% of your income on housing? There's a reason lenders set the bar at 28%... it makes family finances shaky above that. And where can I buy a house for $100k in an area that has a decent job market? I'm sure there's pockets of the country... but gosh.
   
  Anyway, it's irrelevant. The idea itself is bad.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on November 4th, 2009

• a) "Dallas-Fort Worth has strongest job market in U.S." http://www.shookrealtygroup.com/dallas-fort-worth-has-strongest-job-market-in-us/
  b) 1932 Green Willow Drive Fort Worth, TX 76134 3 Bed, 2 Bath, 1,663 Sq Ft, $80,000 http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1932-Green-Willow-Drive_Fort-Worth_TX_76134_1113273714
  .
  HasntBeen - is your comment incorrect or is there something wrong with my counterexample?
  .
  Also, in case it isn't obvious to people how crazy and bunk your 28% comment is 28% is the minimum monthly payment and someone paying off the house in 5 years would be paying 40% by choice to pay it down quickly and thus still qualify for the house.

  • Report
  

  by malevolentbutticklis on November 4th, 2009

• I'll ignore the excluded-middle fallacy in your challenge.
   
  You're trying to distract from the point. Yes, there are pockets of the market that meet your criteria, that's fine... but that has nothing to do with the fact that it's a bad idea to disenfranchise all non-home-owners. Freedom and equal rights are the key values on which our democracy is built -- if you take those away, you no longer have America, you have some new social experiment that is unstable. Those who don't own homes are not going to want to pay taxes, they are not going to want to serve in the military, they are not going to want the government having any say in their lives: they've been disenfranchised. History suggests that it's a short walk from that to social instability.
   
  Also, your comment about 28% is misleading: the lender won't give you a loan if you're spending 40% on housing. How are you supposed to buy this house?

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on November 4th, 2009

• "Also, your comment about 28% is misleading: the lender won't give you a loan if you're spending 40% on housing. How are you supposed to buy this house?" <== I think you are smarter than to make this comment. The 28% requirement has nothing to do with how fast you pay off the house. The requirement only has to do with the minimum payment of the loan. This 80K house would have a minimum payment of about 10% of the couple's income. They would pay 40% of their income so that they own the home outright in 5 years instead of 30. (or in this case 4 years!)

  • Report
  

  by malevolentbutticklis on November 4th, 2009

• While I agree that one does not have to be rich in order to own property, just want to make it clear that I don't think that that should be a requirement for voting. Now I am going to unsubscribe because I don't think that this argument is really going anywhere.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on November 4th, 2009

• oh my goodness. so, let's say there's some lucky couple who both get greeter jobs at wal-mart and begin making $8 an hour, $16,640 x 2 = $33,280. fica, medicare, federal taxes, state taxes, sales taxes, real estate taxes are about $5,000. wal-mart offers health insurance, but this couple would have to pay $12,000 a year toward health premiums, childcare that revolves constantly around their flexible assignments at wal-mart and summers ($5,000), clothes ($2,000), utilities ($2,000 +), furnishings and equipment ($1,000 +), health care co-payments (for my patients, they still have to pay $50 a session)($500). do I want my imaginary family of 4 to eat? does it have to be food? ($6,000 +) even public schools now-a-days cost parents additional money ($500). that leaves
  $1,280 a year with which to purchase or rent. where can they cut? maybe not buy health insurance and pray? eat beans daily?

  • Report
  

  by Bob on November 4th, 2009

• lol. Nice job on the math. I was too bored to try it, but it smelled pretty fishy.
   
  I agree with Glenn, this is going nowhere. But I haven't suffered as much as he, so I have to reach my threshold first.
   
  @malev: you have a very simplistic view of how complex dynamic systems like the economy and politics work. You think that if you made this rule change, it would not have an effect on the economics you're using to justify it? The low end houses get snapped up by these poor folks, and that drives up home prices, and suddenly your math doesn't add up anymore.
   
  Economists have huge computer models for calculating the likely effects of such changes, and even they can't get it right that often. You're one little sample, based on strained criteria, will absolutely not scale to a whole population. Besides, it's unjust -- this is not what America is about. You should drop it before embarrassing yourself further.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on November 4th, 2009

• pooh-hah to suffrage based on wealth. we tried that when we had lords, knights and SURFS. there's a reason it was called THE DARK AGES!!! now, we have education, SURFS would revolt in 5 yrs and guillotine the wealthy. is that what you want, another revolution? let's use our constitution wisely.
  
  i could be talked into basic educational standards. i had the distinction of living in THE county in fl. in 2000 with the highest rate of errors that resulted in the inability to determine what voters wanted - 25%ish -1 in 4 voters couldn't fill out the form so others could ascertain intentions. pointing to the name of specific candidates ought to be required. more than that and we push up against the multiple rulings by the u.s. supreme court that ruled against the jim crow laws.
  
  4 family x $48k = $192k for family of 4. with $450k student loans from college & med school & $500k practice start-up = $950k. it'll be 15 yrs b4 $192k might be realized in best of circumstances!!!

  • Report
  

  by Bob on November 4th, 2009

• suffrage based upon real estate ownership would be based upon what logic? you're saying that a parcel of land is worth more to our nation than the life of a citizen. the declaration of independence, the articles of confederation, the constitution, bill of rights, and the amendments nowhere mention land ownership. this would have the effect of boosting low-end housing prices, for the lucky ones able and motivated to achieve your threshold. this would help the unfortunate real estate brokers unemployed in this economic DEPRESSION, but there are better policies to achieve that goal.

  • Report
  

  by Bob on November 4th, 2009

• Well said. Free education + an education standard for voting is a possible refinement of our system to reduce the ignorance level. Property ownership as a criteria just unbalances the electorate.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on November 4th, 2009

• yes! i'd specify that we ought to provide a QUALITY education for all. we don't want anything to unbalance our electorate. in years past, they've done some pretty amazing things ...

  • Report
  

  by Bob on November 4th, 2009

• Lol. Well balance is hard.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on November 4th, 2009

• Bob, your math is wrong for two people working 50 hours per week at a base pay of $8/hr.
  .
  $45760 = "(8*40+8*1.5*10)*52*2"
  .
  Also, you completely verified my point by stating that health-care was $1000/mo in your calculations. If they can afford to pay $1000/mo for health insurance then they could instead put that $1000/mo into equity in the house. Most people are still very healthy during their 20's (the years in which they should pay off the house) but even if something went wrong before the house was paid for they could make a payment arrangement with the hospital and pay off the house more slowly or access equity. Health insurance is typically a poor investment for 20-somethings. I don't know why we are encouraging people to make such poor investments.

  • Report
  

  by malevolentbutticklis on November 4th, 2009

• Have you ever attempted to live on minimum wage? I have, and it does not appear that you have. A $700 a month mortgage? Pay it off in ten years? I could rent my own apartment at $325 a month, have a 10 year old car at $153 a month, insure the car at $133 a month, pay my electricity at $45 a month, pay my insurance at $20 a week, pay my phone bill at $40 a month, buy groceries, gas, etc... You compare to pre-tax earnings, btw. Instead of comparing to the gross, perhaps you might want to compare to the net (take-home pay). By your reasoning, I would not even be able to vote now, let alone then. For the people who make the very laws I live under. I think you shouldn't be able to vote. How about that? You should have no say in the laws under which you are expected to live. After all, you don't support the idea of a representative democracy for the people by the people. If you don't support our system of government and Constitution (amended for universal suffrage past the age of majority), you shouldn't have any say in it. Great theory, huh?

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on November 5th, 2009

• many states required property ownership as a condition of voting, at the time of the Constitution

  • Report
  

  by purplecows on November 5th, 2009

• Yes. The Constitution has since been amended...quite a long time ago, in fact. To say you don't support universal suffrage for American citizens that have reached an age of majority is to say that you don't support our Constitution itself. Period.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on November 5th, 2009

• I don't support universal suffrage for American citizens that have reached an age of majority. I do support the constitution.

  • Report
  

  by malevolentbutticklis on November 6th, 2009

• @purple cow - i calculated it based on 40 hour work week. of course, if you want them to work longer hours so they're away from their kids more so you pay for the kids' jail time, fine.
  
  remember during nixon years, we had a constitutional amendment to reduce the voting age BECAUSE we thought that boys were old enough to fight and die for YOUR luxury but they hadn't been seen as old enough to vote! the majority of our nation's warriors don't make enough to own a home.
  
  you can not both support our constitution and harbor such animosity regarding suffrage.
  
  what other conditions do you harbor? grandfather voted? graduated? citizen since birth? felons (1/6th of wall st execs wouldn't qualify)? why do we not give children voting rights? is GDP divided equally if wife stays home - if income = gdp * 1, which votes - husband or wife? if we go with wealth as determinant of voting, shouldn't bill gates get 1,200,000 votes and you, presumably, 4?

  • Report
  

  by Bob on November 7th, 2009

• "the majority of our nation's warriors don't make enough to own a home." <== we're too busy paying for the health-care of illegal aliens. We have our priorities.

  • Report
  

  by malevolentbutticklis on November 7th, 2009

• bob: "the declaration of independence, the articles of confederation, the constitution, bill of rights, and the amendments nowhere mention land ownership"
  .
  me: "many states required property ownership as a condition of voting, at the time of the Constitution"
  .
  bob: "what other conditions do you harbor?"
  .
  no, see mr. bob, it's not a condition that *I* harbor, it's a condition that *the Constitution* harbored - see the difference? Please don't jump to conclusions or try to put words into my mouth that i never said.
  .
  my point was that it was the STATES that controlled voting -- so there is no reason to expect voting qualifications to appear in any of those federal documents that you mention. all voting qualifications would have been matters of state law.

  • Report
  

  by purplecows on November 7th, 2009

• Thank you purplecows. I also had people put into my mouth above that I am only for the rich voting. 1x GDP <> rich!

  • Report
  

  by malevolentbutticklis on November 8th, 2009

• "Voting should be restricted to US property owners."
  .
  So voting should be restricted to anyone who owns US property?

  • Report
  

  by Brian on November 9th, 2009

• Brian, yes. However, I took it a step further in an attempt to prevent "cheating". If you value function over form it would be more accurate to view mortgage holders as having an option to buy the property from the lender which they are slowly exercising.

  • Report
  

  by malevolentbutticklis on November 14th, 2009

• you're looking at state voting regulations from b4 the uSA was the uSA. if you've gotta use outdated government procedures, why don't we resume the financial standards of the time and re-introduce slavery and lordships and indentured servitude OR BETTER YET, let's re-introduce feudalism. since they didn't have public hygiene or antibiotics or biological drugs, let's do away with them, too, unless, that is, you personally benefit from advances in medicine. we can't go back in time.

  • Report
  

  by Bob on November 14th, 2009

• Bob. Are you trying to say that some ideas of the past are bad therefore they all are? Are you trying to say that this idea is "old" therefore it is bad and we should get some "fresh" ones?

  • Report
  

  by malevolentbutticklis on November 15th, 2009

• I'm not even talking about "old" vs. "new", I'm talking about State vs. Federal.
  .
  IN AMERICA, VOTING QUALIFICATIONS WERE AND ARE A MATTER OF STATE LAW
  .
  and the adoption of the Federal Constitution did not change that principle. got it yet?

  • Report
  

  by purplecows on November 15th, 2009

• "VOTING QUALIFICATIONS ARE A MATTER OF STATE LAW" <== Agreed ... but I wonder if Sonia Sotomayor would simply "reinterprete" if it ever came down to it. I breaks my heart to see what is happening to the judiciary branch.

  • Report
  

  by malevolentbutticklis on November 16th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

• OK, I guess that this means that YOU get to personally pay for the Healthcare reforms and the Cap and Trade for those of us that don't want them.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on October 6th, 2009

• And what pray tell do THOSE have to do with Constitution Amendments?
  
  Or are we getting huffy?

  • Report
  

  by Moongrim on October 6th, 2009

• Have you or have you not supported those initiatives? If I remember correctly, you have supported them. So, in light of your proposed amendment, you should have to pay for them.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on October 7th, 2009

• A-A-A-A-A-A-MEN!!!!!! you're on to something moongrim!

  • Report
  

  by Bob on October 16th, 2009

Comments

• I could go with those. I'll ring up my congressman, no doubt he'll get right on it.

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on October 8th, 2009

• The problem is that I doubt that we could get the needed two thirds of both houses in Congress to get the ball rolling on either of these amendments because they would mean a reduction in power for them. Additionally, I don't like the idea of throwing the whole think open to a constitutional convention because that would open things up for whatever crazy amendments various people can come up with.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on October 8th, 2009

• I have always maintained that Presidents should have as many terms as they can be elected to while Congressmen and Senators should be shown the door.
  .
  The way the do business with committees that kill bills long before they can ever be voted on is a disgrace.

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on October 8th, 2009

• No, I like the idea of term limits for all of them. Otherwise they come to think that they own the office to which they are elected and become unresponsive to the people who elect them. What is going on in Congress is a very good case in point. The Democrats are pushing ahead with their agenda despite the fact that the people are more and more telling them that they don't want it.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on October 9th, 2009

• Aye. There is the possibility, though, that term limits might accidentally make politicians more efficient. I personally fear a lawmaking factory that works double shifts.

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on October 9th, 2009

• Glenn: The past eight years have seen a tremedous increase in presidential power, do you really want to increase that power even more by giving presidents the line-item veto?

  • Report
  

  by ExactlyTwentyLetters on October 16th, 2009

• States where the Governors have the line item veto tend to be much better about managing the people's money than those that don't. One of the things that allows legislators to pass a lot of pork spending is that they add this spending to important bills giving the executive the choice of either accepting all of the spending or vetoing the important provisions along with the pork. This can be an especially big deal when it is the actual budget that is loaded down with pork and the result of an outright veto would shut down the government. So, giving the president the ability to veto specific parts of a bill without having veto the whole thing places a very valuable check on the spending of the legislature.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on October 17th, 2009

• Yeah. Especially bills that the president needs.
  .
  So, for example, Congress lards up defense spending bills to an obscene degree.

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on October 17th, 2009

• why were there no term limits in the original Constitution?
  .
  why was there no line item veto in the original Constitution?

  • Report
  

  by purplecows on October 31st, 2009

• I put it to you, Cow, that the term limits in the Constitution were the expected mortality rates of citizens at the time and that the line-item veto was based on the idea that Congress didn't have rules for secret votes and was made up of men who, if not more moral than us at least didn't collude in manufacturing pork. Remember they didn't have a federal income tax. The simply didn't have obscene amounts of tax money to misuse. Their job was to protect the interests of their particular states as balanced against the interests of the country as a whole, not to 'bring home the bacon'.

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on November 1st, 2009

• there are term limits in the Constitution. they are called elections.
  
  I think that some of the people who have "made a career out of it", who have dedicated their lives to congress, have done the most for the people, and some of them are very in touch. you don't get in touch or out of touch by how long you work in washington. it's part of who you are, what kind of politician you are, what kind of person. and there's no law or limit that can help with that. john q. adams went from the presidency back to congress, being a voice for the people. and he did a lot of good too. was he out of touch from spending so much time in washington? from having been president? or did he dedicate his life to his country?
  
  we have elections, why are they not good enough?

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009

• Why are they not good enough? Because we have a lazy electorate that mostly doesn't take the time to study the issues and actually vote. You can look at what is happening right now in Congress. The polls are turning more and more against the policies that they are pushing, but the leadership there is ignoring the will of the people. They seem to think that they know better than we do what is good for us and are bound and determined to shove their changes down our throats despite the increasing opposition among the people. That is being out of touch with what people want.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on November 1st, 2009

• I take your point, Anon and it's a good one. But as long as committee positions can be used to bring home pork we will have the kind of behavior we see now.
  .
  It's kind of telling that no other presidents have returned to serve in Congress.

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on November 1st, 2009

• yes, they have. a list of the other presidents who have returned to serve the federal government after leaving presidential office
   
  john tyler (who served out william henry harrison's one term after his death), didn't run for a term of his own. he served as president from 1841-1845. In february of 1861, he was elected chairmen of the peace convention in D.C. (trying to stave off the civil war). he did however at the end of the month suggest that virginia secede...and so he joined the Virginia Convention on Policy. In May he was elected to the Provisional Congress of the Confederacy, and later that year, elected to the permanent Congress of the Confederacy...but he died before he could take his seat, so technically, he gave his life to serving his country, sorta.
   
  continued..

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009

• andrew johnson served in the senate after his presidency. actually, he ran for the house of reps, lost, the senate, lost, but in 1874, the tennessee legislature appointed him to the senate, and he served in the senate from March 4, 1875 until he died from a stroke on July 31 that year. In his first speech since returning to the Senate (he's served before his presidency), which was also unfortunately his last, Johnson spoke about political turmoil in Louisiana. His passion aroused a standing ovation from many of his fellow senators who had once voted to remove him from the presidency
   
  Ulysses S Grant, spent two years traveling with his wife after leaving the presidency. He then came back and attempted to run again for a third term but lost the nomination to Grant, whom he then campaigned for. In March 1885, now President Grant returned him to the generals list (he was a general before a president) with full pay. He died in June.
   
  continued...

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009

• William Howard Taft had a great legal and judicial career before becoming president. In 1890, President Benjamin Harrison appointed him Solicitor General of the United States. He served on the newly created United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 1891. He was on track to serve on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice, that's what he wanted.
   
  But, in 1900, President McKinley appointed Taft chairman of a commission to organize a civilian government in the Philippines. He accepted the appoint reluctantly, serving as the first civilian Governor-General of the Philippines.
   
  In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt offered Taft the seat on the Supreme Court he wanted, but he reluctantly declined since he viewed the Filipinos as not yet being capable of governing themselves and because of his popularity among them.
   
  continuing...

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009

• He later served as President Roosevelt's Secretary of War, then as President himself. When he finally left the white house--job after job he didn't want, including president, he had served his country over and over again, never getting the job. Serving three presidents, serving as president, and never getting the chance to do what he wanted to. He appointed 6 justices, including Chief Justice during his term. He gave 6 people the job he'd aspired to all his life.
  
  After his presidency, he returned to the law. He taught, he wrote, he advocated. Even before WWI broke out he promoted the idea of a League of Nations. When war did break out, he founded the League to Enforce Peace, and was co-chairmen of the National War Labor Board between 1917 and 1918. Finally, June 30, 1921, following the death of Chief Justice Edward Douglass White, President Harding nominated Taft to take his place. He served until 1930. He retired due to ill health and died five weeks later.

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009

• You got me. Two more presidents, so three out of 44.

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on November 1st, 2009

• Dwight D. Eisenhower, had his military rank restored after leaving office. On March 22, 1961, his commission on the retired list was was commissioned a five-star general in the United States Army, by President Kennedy.

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009

• fine then, let's start at the beginning:
   
  George Washington:
  commander of the Continental Army: 1775–1783
  President: 1789–1797
  oh, and in between, in case you were worried he had time off, he was busy, you know, creating the country
   
  "On July 4, 1798, Washington was commissioned by President John Adams to be Lieutenant General and Commander-in-chief of the armies raised or to be raised for service in a prospective war with France. He served as the senior officer of the United States Army between July 13, 1798, and December 14, 1799. He participated in the planning for a Provisional Army to meet any emergency that might arise, but did not take the field."
   
  Why did his duties end on December 14, 1799? Because he died!

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009

• I could seriously go through just about every President. You'll find out they either died in office, or shortly after or served their country in some way afterwards. Maybe it wasn't the senate. Maybe the current President asked them to go on a peacekeeping mission. Or meet with world leaders that they couldn't, that no one "official official" could, but they wanted someone of similar standing to. You think President Clinton just drops by foreign countries for fun? Sometimes, you get a call. And the call says, I can't do this, I can't be seen as being a part of this, but you have the right amount of legitimacy and not. I need you to.
   
  And, frankly, I think our leaders should get to retire. Washington deserved the joy he got from farming. He didn't want to serve a second term. He did so reluctantly. Some of our best leaders have been reluctant ones. But we don't notice that so much.

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009

• One last thing, because I'm not going to waste my time going through every president--you want to learn from history you can learn how to read yourself.
   
   
  Elections work. You don't like our leaders? You don't like our voting system? Or how uninformed people are? Or some other part of the system? Then do something about it. Start by saying something about it. Do I see problems? Damn straight I do. But I don't see any problems that term limits are the solution to. And the things you've been complaining about-I don't see how term limits help. So complain. Tell me what the problems are. Tell me why term limits are the solution. Do SOMETHING. Don't just repeat term limits over and over again. Then you sound like a duck. And we have more than enough of those to go around.
   
  History is great. Learn from it. I get being jaded and assuming life doesn't change. But assuming you know what happened when it's at your fingertips? When you can look? The point of history is to learn

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009

• What do you have to say about the Congressional fiefdoms and the uneven distribution of power that comes from the seniority system? Does the fact that certain Congressmen wield special bill-crushing power not fly in the face of the whole idea of representation by state and by populace?

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on November 2nd, 2009

• Ok...I feel like a teacher pulling teeth trying to get a student to make an argument. Pretend you're writing a paper, or trying talking to someone who knows nothing about this. You can't just make a statement and assume that from that, everything, including your position is obvious and falls into place.
   
  But, you've started. You've finally made a complaint. I'm not going to argue over the validity of it or whether or not I agree. Pretend it's true, absolutely factual--it IS a problem. Now, how will term limits help? How will they stop this from happening? Make your case. Go for it. Give me the complaint. In detail. Tell me what's wrong, tell me why, and tell me why and how term limits will fix this problem. Tell me why they are the best fix for the problem. Then, then I'll respond. But until you do that, you're just spastically throwing out complaints and half arguments. There's nothing to argue against, no one to debate with until you do this. Go ahead. Make your case.

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 2nd, 2009

Comments

Comments

• and this would be a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment why? do you know the difference between the constitution and other laws?
  
  in response to your suggestions, they're idiotic
  
  so, if there's a house fire or an apartment fire and the original birth certificate goes up in flames, the person isn't eligible to be president? we trust the state to issue the certificate in the first place, but not to reissue it properly? and Obama's birth certificate was seen by just about everyone in authority----what do you want, it to be put in a museum for everyone to go look at?
  
  
  max on terms. why? that's just stupid. we already have term limits, they are called elections. either you don't trust the public to vote, or you do. limiting terms just limits what good people can do in the system. when they are new, they have to learn their way around the system, it takes time to get on committees, etc. and they have to run for re-election. and why 4 yr terms?

  • Report
  

  by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009

Comments

Comments

• If you actually look at the actions of those that wrote the First Amendment, then you will see that THEY never intended for it to be taken as creating a wall of separation between church and state. After all, they also created to offices of Chaplain for both houses of Congress with the intent that these men would open each session with a prayer. If they wanted a complete separation between church and state, then why did they create such overtly religious positions within their own houses? So, the intent of the First Amendment was not a complete separation. Its intent is that there should not be favoritism shown by the Government towards any one religion nor that one religion should exert undue influence on the government.
  -
  As for the Second Amendment, I completely agree with you on this one.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on October 6th, 2009

• That sounds reasonable enough, I suppose. I just don't want anyone saying "You will be a (christian, muslim, jew, etc.) or you will die/be deported/etc."
  
  I'm pretty wary of a slippery slope.
  
  
  And me and you both know good and well why the Founders wanted everyone to have the most serious weapons available.

  • Report
  

  by Fiddle Playing Creole Bastard on October 6th, 2009

• I would not favor the government imposing religion on me either. However, I would contend that the idea of a complete separation between Church and state actually enshrines atheism as the state religion. That is no more valid than enshrining any other religion as the state religion.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on October 6th, 2009

• A common attitude back then was "You will be a christian, but you can be any kind of christian you want"

  • Report
  

  by purplecows on October 6th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• right! this is a free country, dammit! vote or go to jail!

  • Report
  

  by purplecows on September 28th, 2009

• A lot of people don't vote because they're uninformed. If you force them to vote, they won't vote intelligently.

  • Report
  

  by wjomlex on October 6th, 2009

• well, put them into a re-education camp full of educational propaganda about the candidates and force them to read it!

  • Report
  

  by purplecows on October 6th, 2009

• These comments sound pretty elitist. Voting is mandatory in most democratic countries because they recognize that it is a citizen's duty to be involved in the process. In the U.S., campaigns are geared to the lowest common denominator because campaign managers know the electorate and work to make their message appeal to the least of us. We also discourage people from voting by attacking organizations like ACORN, imposing poll taxes, gerrymandering, and undeserving areas with high population but low income. Now corporations have more control of the voting process than the people. That is how a fascist government works. The commenter, here seem quite happy with their fascist government.

  • Report
  

  by Ron C on October 6th, 2009

• elitist?
  i just said what you said.
  1. force people to vote. (it worked for USSR, they had highest voter participation rates ever)
  2. to avoid that lowest common denominator thing - force them to read.

  • Report
  

  by purplecows on October 6th, 2009

• "In the U.S., campaigns are geared to the lowest common denominator because campaign managers know the electorate and work to make their message appeal to the least of us."
  .
  so, if we force people to vote, then the campaign managers won't have to appeal to the least of us? instead they can appeal to higher and better people ... like, for example, you.
  .
  you're right, it does sound pretty elitist.

  • Report
  

  by purplecows on October 6th, 2009

• Maybe I am elitist. I believe that the constitution enumerates our rights but with rights come responsibilities.
  
  I think it was Jefferson that said (to paraphrase)that a democracy can only stand with an educated electorate. People have to start living up to their responsibilities to maintain this democracy. You see the results for what happens when citizens stop paying attention. We are finishing eight disastrous years and this year isn't shaping up to be a good one either. We let corporations take over government and contracted out government's responsibilities. Everything that is happening now is OUR fault because WE let this happen, sometimes even cheered it on. Shame on you and me, shame on all of us.

  • Report
  

  by Ron C on October 6th, 2009

• I very much don't want the indolent and the clueless, the feckless and the selfish, the illiterate and the stoned frog-marched into voting booths to pencil whip a ballot. No doubt they could be given some idea of how to vote based on thirty-second spots beamed onto their TVs by caring politicians that only want the best for them but frankly we are better off with voters who actually pay attention to the issues than we are with people who just don't care.

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on October 8th, 2009

• No doubt Jefferson was right. But we don't HAVE an educated electorate and it won't be any more educated if we mail everyone their ballots and fine them if they don't get turned in.

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on October 8th, 2009

• Of course you're right, you can't "frog march" an ignorant electorate into the voting booth. Maybe combining the ban on corporate campaign finance and a C-Span type information programming will be an incentive for a greater number of people to educate themselves on the candidate and issues. I can't help it, I'm an optimist.

  • Report
  

  by Ron C on October 8th, 2009

• I used to be an optimist but I've never been quite the same since I found out about that whole Santa Clause deal. :)

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on October 8th, 2009

• What Santa Claus deal? Don't tell me he doesn't vote either!

  • Report
  

  by Ron C on October 9th, 2009

• Of course he does Ron. But his vote gets canceled out every year by the staunchly Republican Grinch. ;)

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on October 9th, 2009

• Wow, you had me worried.

  • Report
  

  by Ron C on October 9th, 2009

• The motor-voter bill is aimed at getting the maximum possible number of apathetic, etc. non-voters marched into the voting booth.
  .
  When these apathetic non-voters do vote, they tend to vote Democrat. Therefore Democrats push motor-voter bills and similar nudge-everybody-to-vote schemes - and Republicans oppose them.

  • Report
  

  by purplecows on October 10th, 2009

• purplecows-I would tend to agree but the motor-voter laws have been in effect for a number of years and the Republicans kept the majority. The real change happened when people got tired of the wars, lies, and non-issues that Republicans supported. Maybe that's what we need, a government that is so patently illegitimate that even the uninvolved take interest.

  • Report
  

  by Ron C on October 11th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments