If I made this topic before, I apologize. I was sure I had, but I searched for it and didn't come up with anything.
What amendments would you make to the American constitution? Why would you make them?
Note: One cannot abolish the senate or amend it to representative by population, as Article V specifies that equal representation in the Senate can not be amended.
My amendments
#1 - Outlaw Gerrymanding. Electoral districts must be as contigious as possible.
#2 - House Representatives must be reapportioned after each census, so that constituencies are as close in possible to size as the population of the smallest state. This will be accomplished by dividing the populations of individual states by the population of the smallest one, and then rounding those numbers to the nearest whole number.
#3 - Extend House terms to four years so that they're not continously campaigning and have time to actually sit down and govern. Half will be elected in presidenital years, the other half during off years.
#4 - The electoral college will be abolished and the President will be elected by popular vote.
#5 - Members of the House will have a five term limit, the senate and the President three.
#6 - The War Powers Resolution will be incorporated into the Constitution.
#7 - Supreme Court Justices will have a mandatory date of retirement upon reaching 70 years of age.
#8 - Abolish the silent filibuster. If they want to delay something Senators have to get out on the floor and speak.
Remove the right to bear arms clause.
I am not sure how the constitution can outlaw gerrymandering. I imagine what it can do is to specify that the electoral boundaries be set by a neutral expert commission, having regard to factors such as population size.
I'd make amendments that specifically give the government the powers to do all the stuff it's currently doing. Just to shut up a lot of people.
Insert a clause about no Tims.
The right to smother Timmay with a pillow full of bricks until dead shall not be infringed.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 10:13:44 PM
If I made this topic before, I apologize. I was sure I had, but I searched for it and didn't come up with anything.
What amendments would you make to the American constitution? Why would you make them?
Note: One cannot abolish the senate or amend it to representative by population, as Article V specifies that equal representation in the Senate can not be amended.
My amendments
#1 - Outlaw Gerrymanding. Electoral districts must be as contigious as possible.
Agree in principle, but it would be a bitch to spell out and enforce without states/politcos trying to game the wording and find loopholes.
#2 - House Representatives must be reapportioned after each census, so that constituencies are as close in possible to size as the population of the smallest state. This will be accomplished by dividing the populations of individual states by the population of the smallest one, and then rounding those numbers to the nearest whole number.
I thought this was done already. In a related point, should we ease the cap on the total number of reps?
#3 - Extend House terms to four years so that they're not continously campaigning and have time to actually sit down and govern. Half will be elected in presidenital years, the other half during off years.
I dunno, I would think in general, shorter terms would have been far more limiting back in the early 19th century just because of the technology level in communication and travel. It should be far more manageable today. I think your point is more of a symptom of a bigger problem that increasing the term doesn't really solve.
#4 - The electoral college will be abolished and the President will be elected by popular vote.
Strongly disagree, the EC is the equivalent of the Senate idea for the executive branch, and should be maintained. Though perhaps how the College works can and should likely be tweaked.
#5 - Members of the House will have a five term limit, the senate and the President three.
I am simply against term limits in principal. I think they are an insult to the intelligence of the electorate (even if that insult is justified :P ) and are an admittance of failure in the electoral system.
#6 - The War Powers Resolution will be incorporated into the Constitution.
Meh. We've gotten along without it, though it does make the current Constitutional rules on the subject seem very hollow.
#7 - Supreme Court Justices will have a mandatory date of retirement upon reaching 70 years of age.
I think I could agree on an age limit, but 80 would more reasonable. Better than a simple age limit might be a mechanism for removing a "senile" justice (maybe something like a large congressional majority plus Presidential approval)
#8 - Abolish the silent filibuster. If they want to delay something Senators have to get out on the floor and speak.
Agree, but it might be dangerous to put micro-management of day-to-day congressional rules into the Constitution.
Quote from: garbon on December 03, 2014, 10:29:41 PM
Insert a clause about no Tims.
These United States constitute a 'No Tims Club'. Agreed.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 03, 2014, 10:31:34 PM
The right to smother Timmay with a pillow full of bricks until dead shall not be infringed.
New York...doesn't abstain.
Isn't senility is a good enough reason for an impeachment if it comes down to it?
8 doesn't require a constitutional amendment, just a Senate rule change.
The XXI Amendment is repealed. :mad:
[otto] None of the Amendments to the Constitution, including those known as the Bill of Rights, shall any longer be considered as incorporated against the individual States. [/otto]
one six year term as prez
no more than two terms in senate
no more than two terms for house
no more than 12 years total time in house/senate
Quote from: 11B4V on December 03, 2014, 10:54:54 PM
no more than two terms in senate
no more than two terms for house
no more than 12 years total time in house/senate
Why would anyone run? "I just wanted to take several years away from my money making career in the private sector to sure that my skills deteriorated and that younger, hungrier folks could take my job." :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on December 03, 2014, 11:00:39 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 03, 2014, 10:54:54 PM
no more than two terms in senate
no more than two terms for house
no more than 12 years total time in house/senate
Why would anyone run? "I just wanted to take several years away from my money making career in the private sector to sure that my skills deteriorated and that younger, hungrier folks could take my job." :unsure:
It shouldn't be a career. It should be treated like a activation in the reserves/NG
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 03, 2014, 10:32:00 PM
#1 - Outlaw Gerrymanding. Electoral districts must be as contigious as possible.
Agree in principle, but it would be a bitch to spell out and enforce without states/politcos trying to game the wording and find loopholes.
#2 - House Representatives must be reapportioned after each census, so that constituencies are as close in possible to size as the population of the smallest state. This will be accomplished by dividing the populations of individual states by the population of the smallest one, and then rounding those numbers to the nearest whole number.
I thought this was done already. In a related point, should we ease the cap on the total number of reps?
#1 Most countries seem to be able to do this, so it's doable.
#2 It's reapportioned after every census, but it is not related to the population of the smallest state, but instead it is simply divided against the 435 seats required by law.
According to wikipedia if the Wyoming rule was in effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule
Quote
568 House seats would be required to implement the Wyoming Rule, based on the 2000 Census results.[1] However, the decade leading up to the 2010 United States Census saw Wyoming's population increase at a greater rate than that of the U.S. as a whole; as a result, the required House size to implement the Wyoming Rule was reduced to 542.
The wide disparity in population among the states combines with the cap on House membership to lessen the effective representation for people who live in more populated states. The most glaring example is California, which, according to the 2010 Census, had a population (37,253,956) approximately 66.1 times that of Wyoming (563,626). Yet, because of the cap on House membership, California has only 53 representatives to Wyoming's one. Therefore, under the Wyoming Rule, California would have 13 more House members than it currently has. Another example of the dilution of voting power can be seen by comparing the most populous state with only one Representative, Montana, to Wyoming. A vote by one of the 989.415 residents of Montana is worth only 0.5697 of the vote of a resident of neighboring Wyoming.
Burn the whole thing, you guys should try the next couple of hundred years with an 'unwritten constitution'. :bowler:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 10:13:44 PM
#7 - Supreme Court Justices will have a mandatory date of retirement upon reaching 70 years of age.
So Louis Brandeis would only have served 5 years instead of 23 years, Felix Frankfurter 12 years instead of 23, Thurgood Marshall 11 years instead of 24, and Oliver Wendell Holmes 9 years instead of 30.
You're an idiot.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 03, 2014, 11:03:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 03, 2014, 11:00:39 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 03, 2014, 10:54:54 PM
no more than two terms in senate
no more than two terms for house
no more than 12 years total time in house/senate
Why would anyone run? "I just wanted to take several years away from my money making career in the private sector to sure that my skills deteriorated and that younger, hungrier folks could take my job." :unsure:
It shouldn't be a career. It should be treated like a activation in the reserves/NG
That doesn't really answer my question though. At least you can use the reserves/NG to pay for college. :D
Quote from: mongers on December 03, 2014, 11:04:53 PM
Burn the whole thing, you guys should try the next couple of hundred years with an 'unwritten constitution'. :bowler:
I don't know that we want to take advice from a country that itself on the edge of dissolution this year. :hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 03, 2014, 11:05:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 10:13:44 PM
#7 - Supreme Court Justices will have a mandatory date of retirement upon reaching 70 years of age.
So Louis Brandeis would only have served 5 years instead of 23 years, Felix Frankfurter 12 years instead of 23, Thurgood Marshall 11 years instead of 24, and Oliver Wendell Holmes 9 years instead of 30.
You're an idiot.
I didn't realize that constitutional amendments acted retroactively through time and space!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 11:07:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 03, 2014, 11:05:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 10:13:44 PM
#7 - Supreme Court Justices will have a mandatory date of retirement upon reaching 70 years of age.
So Louis Brandeis would only have served 5 years instead of 23 years, Felix Frankfurter 12 years instead of 23, Thurgood Marshall 11 years instead of 24, and Oliver Wendell Holmes 9 years instead of 30.
You're an idiot.
I didn't realize that constitutional amendments acted retroactively through time and space!
Why squash the potential judicial giants of the future?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 11:07:36 PM
I didn't realize that constitutional amendments acted retroactively through time and space!
It's a conceptualized example designed to illustrate your stoopid thinking.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 03, 2014, 11:08:48 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 11:07:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 03, 2014, 11:05:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 10:13:44 PM
#7 - Supreme Court Justices will have a mandatory date of retirement upon reaching 70 years of age.
So Louis Brandeis would only have served 5 years instead of 23 years, Felix Frankfurter 12 years instead of 23, Thurgood Marshall 11 years instead of 24, and Oliver Wendell Holmes 9 years instead of 30.
You're an idiot.
I didn't realize that constitutional amendments acted retroactively through time and space!
Why squash the potential judicial giants of the future?
Judges will simply end up being nominated at earlier ages when they're just coming into the prime instead of when they're in their sixties and already on a downward slope.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 11:15:46 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 03, 2014, 11:08:48 PM
Why squash the potential judicial giants of the future?
Judges will simply end up being nominated at earlier ages when they're just coming into the prime instead of when they're in their sixties and already on a downward slope.
Some judges don't reach the pinnacle of their judicial careers until much later in life. They're not running backs, you fucking moron.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 11:15:46 PM
Judges will simply end up being nominated at earlier ages when they're just coming into the prime instead of when they're in their sixties and already on a downward slope.
So you want less experience on the bench? And no that is not necessarily the inevitable outcome.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 11:15:46 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 03, 2014, 11:08:48 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 11:07:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 03, 2014, 11:05:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 10:13:44 PM
#7 - Supreme Court Justices will have a mandatory date of retirement upon reaching 70 years of age.
So Louis Brandeis would only have served 5 years instead of 23 years, Felix Frankfurter 12 years instead of 23, Thurgood Marshall 11 years instead of 24, and Oliver Wendell Holmes 9 years instead of 30.
You're an idiot.
I didn't realize that constitutional amendments acted retroactively through time and space!
Why squash the potential judicial giants of the future?
Judges will simply end up being nominated at earlier ages when they're just coming into the prime instead of when they're in their sixties and already on a downward slope.
Ide for Supreme Court!
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2014, 11:18:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 11:15:46 PM
Judges will simply end up being nominated at earlier ages when they're just coming into the prime instead of when they're in their sixties and already on a downward slope.
So you want less experience on the bench? And no that is not necessarily the inevitable outcome.
Then again, it worked for Clarence Thomas. Look how that turned out.
Do we have enough languish lawyers to form a US supreme court? Martinus, BB, Ide, Crazy Canuck, JR, American Scipio, Rasputin, Gups, Sheibh. I wonder how this court will vote on things like abortion.
Oh man I would love to read the decisions of the Martinus court.
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2014, 11:18:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 11:15:46 PM
Judges will simply end up being nominated at earlier ages when they're just coming into the prime instead of when they're in their sixties and already on a downward slope.
So you want less experience on the bench? And no that is not necessarily the inevitable outcome.
There comes a point when the benefits of experience are outweighed by one's degenerating mental state. This will differ from person to person, but I think 70 is a reasonable average.
We're already seeing judges being nominated at younger ages so that people can stack the court as long as possible.
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2014, 11:23:09 PM
Oh man I would love to read the decisions of the Martinus court.
I think you mean the Minsky court. Who else would be chief justice?
When was the last time senility played a part in the Supreme Court?
And if they are already being nominated younger what is the point of the amendment?
Quote from: Monoriu on December 03, 2014, 11:21:54 PM
Do we have enough languish lawyers to form a US supreme court? Martinus, BB, Ide, Crazy Canuck, JR, American Scipio, Rasputin, Gups, Sheibh. I wonder how this court will vote on things like abortion.
Ide? :huh:
Do you have to take the bar exam to become a judge? :hmm:
"The Constitution clearly says everything should be nationalized"
Quote from: garbon on December 03, 2014, 11:26:11 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 03, 2014, 11:21:54 PM
Do we have enough languish lawyers to form a US supreme court? Martinus, BB, Ide, Crazy Canuck, JR, American Scipio, Rasputin, Gups, Sheibh. I wonder how this court will vote on things like abortion.
Ide? :huh:
I he worked at Block Buster Video. :huh:
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2014, 11:25:40 PM
When was the last time senility played a part in the Supreme Court?
And if they are already being nominated younger what is the point of the amendment?
The point is to get more turnover on the court. It's packed with dinosaurs who aren't in step with the nation.
I thought of amending it so that they would have ten or twelve year terms after which the President would have an option to renominate them, but I decided on mandatory retirement as a compromise.
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2014, 11:27:27 PM
Do you have to take the bar exam to become a judge? :hmm:
If wikihow is not leading me astray, then yes.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 03, 2014, 10:37:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 03, 2014, 10:31:34 PM
The right to smother Timmay with a pillow full of bricks until dead shall not be infringed.
New York...doesn't abstain.
Last time I waste a 1776 joke in this place.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 11:24:11 PMThere comes a point when the benefits of experience are outweighed by one's degenerating mental state. This will differ from person to person, but I think 70 is a reasonable average.
70's ridiculously young. I mean it's not long till most ordinary people have to work beyond then.
Quote from: Monoriu on December 03, 2014, 11:21:54 PM
Do we have enough languish lawyers to form a US supreme court? Martinus, BB, Ide, Crazy Canuck, JR, American Scipio, Rasputin, Gups, Sheibh. I wonder how this court will vote on things like abortion.
:weep:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 11:28:11 PMThe point is to get more turnover on the court. It's packed with dinosaurs who aren't in step with the nation.
They're judges :blink:
They're not meant to be in step with the nation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 03, 2014, 11:29:15 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 11:24:11 PMThere comes a point when the benefits of experience are outweighed by one's degenerating mental state. This will differ from person to person, but I think 70 is a reasonable average.
70's ridiculously young. I mean it's not long till most ordinary people have to work beyond then.
That's hardly optimal though, it's being forced upon us by economic and societal forces over which we have little control.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 03, 2014, 11:28:42 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 03, 2014, 10:37:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 03, 2014, 10:31:34 PM
The right to smother Timmay with a pillow full of bricks until dead shall not be infringed.
New York...doesn't abstain.
Last time I waste a 1776 joke in this place.
Courteously.
Quote from: Monoriu on December 03, 2014, 10:25:05 PM
Remove the right to bear arms clause.
I am not sure how the constitution can outlaw gerrymandering. I imagine what it can do is to specify that the electoral boundaries be set by a neutral expert commission, having regard to factors such as population size.
Are you out of your mind?
The right to bear arms is what have kept America free and safe.
You ban weapons, and only criminals will have weapons.
The 2nd Amendment is what make America great.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 03, 2014, 11:30:10 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 11:28:11 PMThe point is to get more turnover on the court. It's packed with dinosaurs who aren't in step with the nation.
They're judges :blink:
They're not meant to be in step with the nation.
This. (sorry Ed)
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 03, 2014, 11:29:40 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 03, 2014, 11:21:54 PM
Do we have enough languish lawyers to form a US supreme court? Martinus, BB, Ide, Crazy Canuck, JR, American Scipio, Rasputin, Gups, Sheibh. I wonder how this court will vote on things like abortion.
:weep:
Ide doesn't qualify, so you get his spot. :contract:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 03, 2014, 11:29:40 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 03, 2014, 11:21:54 PM
Do we have enough languish lawyers to form a US supreme court? Martinus, BB, Ide, Crazy Canuck, JR, American Scipio, Rasputin, Gups, Sheibh. I wonder how this court will vote on things like abortion.
:weep:
Apparently only those who get to sit on the right side of the room qualify, buddy. :console:
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 03, 2014, 11:28:42 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 03, 2014, 10:37:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 03, 2014, 10:31:34 PM
The right to smother Timmay with a pillow full of bricks until dead shall not be infringed.
New York...doesn't abstain.
Last time I waste a 1776 joke in this place.
Mr Anger. Damn you Mr Anger. You are Obnoxious and disliked, that cannot be denied
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 11:30:57 PMThat's hardly optimal though, it's being forced upon us by economic and societal forces over which we have little control.
And the fact we're living longer - which is relatively optimal.
Quote from: Siege on December 03, 2014, 11:31:14 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 03, 2014, 10:25:05 PM
Remove the right to bear arms clause.
I am not sure how the constitution can outlaw gerrymandering. I imagine what it can do is to specify that the electoral boundaries be set by a neutral expert commission, having regard to factors such as population size.
Are you out of your mind?
The right to bear arms is what have kept America free and safe.
You ban weapons, and only criminals will have weapons.
The 2nd Amendment is what make America great.
When has the right to bear arms ever kept America free and safe? The only time we used the Amendment for its intended purposes and called out the militias for national defense they did a pretty poor job.
The Bar is just an evil tool of that evil monopolistic lawyer-cabal. Nothing in the Constitution says you have to pass it.
Take out the parts of the 4th Amendment I don't like. Abolish the ability of states to pass laws on any subject less specifically local in nature than traffic control and zoning. Single term for presidents, of 10 years. Single terms for Representatives, of 10 years. Abolish the Senate. (Which also abolish Senate approval of executive appointees.)
I think those are the only real constitutional barrier to setting up the rational state. There might be others I'm forgetting about.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 03, 2014, 11:30:10 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 11:28:11 PMThe point is to get more turnover on the court. It's packed with dinosaurs who aren't in step with the nation.
They're judges :blink:
They're not meant to be in step with the nation.
They should not be subject to political pressure with regards to having to worry about their job security like a congressman. But they should be in step with the nation and have an intuitive everyday understanding of the economic, technological and political forces driving society.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 11:31:41 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 03, 2014, 11:29:40 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 03, 2014, 11:21:54 PM
Do we have enough languish lawyers to form a US supreme court? Martinus, BB, Ide, Crazy Canuck, JR, American Scipio, Rasputin, Gups, Sheibh. I wonder how this court will vote on things like abortion.
:weep:
Ide doesn't qualify, so you get his spot. :contract:
You don't need to be the member of any state bar to be a member of the SCOTUS.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 03, 2014, 11:34:09 PM
Take out the parts of the 4th Amendment I don't like. Abolish the ability of states to pass laws on any subject less specifically local in nature than traffic control and zoning. Single term for presidents, of 10 years. Single terms for Representatives, of 10 years. Abolish the Senate. (Which also abolish Senate approval of executive appointees.)
I think those are the only real constitutional barrier to setting up the rational state. There might be others I'm forgetting about.
You have violated the rules in the opening post!
To the Sarlacc with you! :mad:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 11:36:24 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 03, 2014, 11:34:09 PM
Take out the parts of the 4th Amendment I don't like. Abolish the ability of states to pass laws on any subject less specifically local in nature than traffic control and zoning. Single term for presidents, of 10 years. Single terms for Representatives, of 10 years. Abolish the Senate. (Which also abolish Senate approval of executive appointees.)
I think those are the only real constitutional barrier to setting up the rational state. There might be others I'm forgetting about.
You have violated the rules in the opening post!
To the Sarlacc with you! :mad:
I can abolish anything I want. You gave me dictatorial powers, and I am using them to reshape society as I see fit.
Fine, Tim, I'll play it your way.
Abolish states.
CAN'T HAVE A SENATE WITHOUT STATES BUDDY.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 11:36:24 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 03, 2014, 11:34:09 PM
Take out the parts of the 4th Amendment I don't like. Abolish the ability of states to pass laws on any subject less specifically local in nature than traffic control and zoning. Single term for presidents, of 10 years. Single terms for Representatives, of 10 years. Abolish the Senate. (Which also abolish Senate approval of executive appointees.)
I think those are the only real constitutional barrier to setting up the rational state. There might be others I'm forgetting about.
You have violated the rules in the opening post!
To the Sarlacc with you! :mad:
Read Article V it again. A State could consent to reduce their representation. :P
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 11:35:17 PMThey should not be subject to political pressure with regards to having to worry about their job security like a congressman. But they should be in step with the nation and have an intuitive everyday understanding of the economic, technological and political forces driving society.
Why?
Also I think it's impossible. No one can understand the economic, technological and political forces of contemporary society any more than a fish can understand water. We need perspective to even begin to understand them. What's an 'intuitive everyday' understanding of those things?
I'd overthrow Ide. But in a gesture of Mercy worthy of a Caesar, he would be allowed to retire to an estate with an annual stipend. Of VHS movies.
Tim would be executed. Horribly.
...Actually, if I were given dictatorial powers, I would abolish the Constitution. What good would it be, when the Philosopher King has arrived?
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 03, 2014, 11:41:21 PM
I'd overthrow Ide. But in a gesture of Mercy worthy of a Caesar, he would be allowed to retire to an estate with an annual stipend. Of VHS movies.
I'd go like Seneca. <_<
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 03, 2014, 11:41:21 PM
I'd overthrow Ide. But in a gesture of Mercy worthy of a Caesar, he would be allowed to retire to an estate with an annual stipend. Of VHS movies.
He still wouldn't get round to 1941.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 03, 2014, 11:42:23 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 03, 2014, 11:41:21 PM
I'd overthrow Ide. But in a gesture of Mercy worthy of a Caesar, he would be allowed to retire to an estate with an annual stipend. Of VHS movies.
I'd go like Seneca. <_<
Death by Betamax.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 03, 2014, 11:41:21 PM
I'd overthrow Ide. But in a gesture of Mercy worthy of a Caesar, he would be allowed to retire to an estate with an annual stipend. Of VHS movies.
Tim would be executed. Horribly.
That's Ide, out in the hall...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.moddb.com%2Fimages%2Fgroups%2F1%2F4%2F3106%2Fbwolf2nx9.jpg&hash=067fc51582a754bb03519006a71e0f4a52c78667)
These are the changes needed:
1- Term limits for Congress. Two terms for Senators (12 years max), 6 terms for the House (12 years max as well). This is the only way to control corruption and special interests, eliminating the permanent political class we have now. The fouding fathers never had in mind people in Congress for 30 years and more.
2- Senators elected by internal vote at the State Houses, so now winning at State level becomes relevant at national level.
3- Term limits for Justices. Maybe 20 years? IDK.
4- Regulatory power back to Congress, not with the gazillion agencies and departments the executive branch now has.
5- Mandatory yearly budgets for the goverment. Goverment shutdown if they go over budget.
6- Power back to the States. No more departments of agriculture or education. Federal goverments is foreign policy and military.
7- Tax reform. Simple tax code that everyone can understand. No capital gains tax or foreign investment tax. No inherency tax.
8- Safety net as low as possible, to help only the disabilited, the elderly, etc., but not the fit in working age people.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 03, 2014, 11:46:05 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 03, 2014, 11:41:21 PM
I'd overthrow Ide. But in a gesture of Mercy worthy of a Caesar, he would be allowed to retire to an estate with an annual stipend. Of VHS movies.
Tim would be executed. Horribly.
That's Ide, out in the hall...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.moddb.com%2Fimages%2Fgroups%2F1%2F4%2F3106%2Fbwolf2nx9.jpg&hash=067fc51582a754bb03519006a71e0f4a52c78667)
:lmfao:
I don't understand why everyone is in love with strangling free elections with term limits. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Siege on December 03, 2014, 11:47:21 PM
These are the changes needed:
1- Term limits for Congress. Two terms for Senators (12 years max), 6 terms for the House (12 years max as well). This is the only way to control corruption and special interests, eliminating the permanent political class we have now. The fouding fathers never had in mind people in Congress for 30 years and more.
2- Senators elected by internal vote at the State Houses, so now winning at State level becomes relevant at national level.
3- Term limits for Justices. Maybe 20 years? IDK.
4- Regulatory power back to Congress, not with the gazillion agencies and departments the executive branch now has.
5- Mandatory yearly budgets for the goverment. Goverment shutdown if they go over budget.
6- Power back to the States. No more departments of agriculture or education. Federal goverments is foreign policy and military.
7- Tax reform. Simple tax code that everyone can understand. No capital gains tax or foreign investment tax. No inherency tax.
8- Safety net as low as possible, to help only the disabilited, the elderly, etc., but not the fit in working age people.
Wow this sounds...dreadful!
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 03, 2014, 11:49:27 PM
I don't understand why everyone is in love with strangling free elections with term limits. :rolleyes:
You can't let people have what they want.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 03, 2014, 11:49:27 PM
I don't understand why everyone is in love with strangling free elections with term limits. :rolleyes:
I don't get that, either. But I think it's aimed more at politicians they don't like, rather than ones they do. ;)
I'm not sure "regulatory power back to Congress" is necessary. I think they have that power now. You know, um, the one where they have the power to pass laws? :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 03, 2014, 11:50:57 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 03, 2014, 11:49:27 PM
I don't understand why everyone is in love with strangling free elections with term limits. :rolleyes:
I don't get that, either. But I think it's aimed more at politicians they don't like, rather than ones they do. ;)
Politicians I like....hmmmm....that's a tough one.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 03, 2014, 11:49:27 PM
I don't understand why everyone is in love with strangling free elections with term limits. :rolleyes:
To limit democracy, which is bad, in favor of technocracy, which is good.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 03, 2014, 11:51:32 PM
I'm not sure "regulatory power back to Congress" is necessary. I think they have that power now. You know, um, the one where they have the power to pass laws? :lol:
The executive branch regulates. Congress legislates.
Congress needs to do both.
Quote from: Siege on December 03, 2014, 11:52:53 PM
The executive branch regulates. Congress legislates.
Congress needs to do both.
How exactly would Congress do that?
Quote from: Siege on December 03, 2014, 11:52:53 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 03, 2014, 11:51:32 PM
I'm not sure "regulatory power back to Congress" is necessary. I think they have that power now. You know, um, the one where they have the power to pass laws? :lol:
The executive branch regulates. Congress legislates.
Congress needs to do both.
You realize that all regulations are subordinate to laws, right? If Congress doesn't like a reg, they already have the power to abolish it.
Also, I guess Congress needs a staff of about 2 million personnel?
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2014, 11:53:47 PM
Quote from: Siege on December 03, 2014, 11:52:53 PM
The executive branch regulates. Congress legislates.
Congress needs to do both.
How exactly would Congress do that?
Thinking about it, I think that idea would make Congress-critters even far more corrupt than ever.
Rep. Bob Moneyinmypants has to go and inspect the local chicken plant for health violations? Cuts out the bribery middleman, I suppose.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 03, 2014, 11:56:24 PM
Thinking about it, I think that idea would make Congress-critters even far more corrupt than ever.
Rep. Bob Moneyinmypants has to go and inspect the local chicken plant for health violations? Cuts out the bribery middleman, I suppose.
So, more like state governments like Texas, Nevada and West Virginia.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 04, 2014, 12:00:52 AM
So, more like state governments like Texas, Nevada and West Virginia.
We provide shareholder value!
So what changes would I suggest?
Delete Amendments 1-10.
Yes, I'm serious, and stop calling me Shirley. :mad:
Beyond that - get rid of current government structure and replace with Westminster parliamentary democracy.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 03, 2014, 11:03:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 03, 2014, 11:00:39 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 03, 2014, 10:54:54 PM
no more than two terms in senate
no more than two terms for house
no more than 12 years total time in house/senate
Why would anyone run? "I just wanted to take several years away from my money making career in the private sector to sure that my skills deteriorated and that younger, hungrier folks could take my job." :unsure:
It shouldn't be a career. It should be treated like a activation in the reserves/NG
That would result in only rich and old becoming lawmakers which is not good.
I would prefer elections by sortition to that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 04, 2014, 12:00:52 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 03, 2014, 11:56:24 PM
Thinking about it, I think that idea would make Congress-critters even far more corrupt than ever.
Rep. Bob Moneyinmypants has to go and inspect the local chicken plant for health violations? Cuts out the bribery middleman, I suppose.
So, more like state governments like Texas, Nevada and West Virginia.
You know, the guy in the cowboy hat in the movie Casino was modeled after Harry Reid, who was the gaming commissioner at the time? We can't win. Vote for a mormon or a douche. Or a mormon douche.
My ideal legislative system:
- the first parliament is selected, entirely, by sortition, from all citizens; no circuits, states etc. - the entire nation is the pool to select from;
- after that, each year a national election is held, where all current members of the parliament are on the ballot (again, at the national level - no circuits etc.); each voter has one positive and one negative vote, which can be given to any of the current parliament members;
- the top one third who get the most positive votes (a negative vote cancels a positive vote) stay for another year; the remaining two thirds are replaced by sortition from the entire populace, with the bottom one third not being eligible to be selected for another X (10?) years (my initial, blood thirsty thought was that they are executed but that would be too much :P);
- the parliamentary service is like a jury duty or conscription (so you cannot get out of it unless you have a very good reason; but your job is protected at your original work place); each member of parliament is paid a salary by the government.
This idea ensures adequate representation (that is why you no longer need elections at the circuit level - since sortition ensures that all parts of the country and all social groups, minorities etc. should be statistically represented) and deals with the millennia-old problem that those who desire the power the most should not wield it. At the same time, keeping the top one third each year ensures some continuity and grandfathering by more experienced MPs.
Edit: The negative vote is there to punish extremists and in fact, on second thought, there is a corollary that only those with more positive than negative votes can stay for another term - and if there isn't enough MPs like that in the top one third, you select the rest by sortition as well.
Get rid of the gun shit and the electoral college.
Add AV.
So did we just decide to put all the bad ideas into one thread?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2014, 03:05:14 AM
So did we just decide to put all the bad ideas into one thread?
Which of my ideas do you think are bad?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 03, 2014, 11:29:40 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 03, 2014, 11:21:54 PM
Do we have enough languish lawyers to form a US supreme court? Martinus, BB, Ide, Crazy Canuck, JR, American Scipio, Rasputin, Gups, Sheibh. I wonder how this court will vote on things like abortion.
:weep:
:hug:
Is Sheilbh a lawyer now? Did I miss something? :o
I suppose the court would find a compromise by:
1) banning depictions of vaginal sex as offensive to women;
2) ordering mandatory abortions for certain groups of people; and
3) banning abortions otherwise.
Is there any K-Pop girl band that is kind of metallish?
http://store.steampowered.com/sub/52408/?snr=1_7_7_204_150_4
Quote from: Siege on December 03, 2014, 11:47:21 PM
These are the changes needed:
1- Term limits for Congress. Two terms for Senators (12 years max), 6 terms for the House (12 years max as well). This is the only way to control corruption and special interests, eliminating the permanent political class we have now. The fouding fathers never had in mind people in Congress for 30 years and more.
Wouldn't that just increase corruption, as Congressmen would have to quickly curry favour with special interests so that they could gain lucrative post-Congressional employment? Exactly like it is now?
Quote4- Regulatory power back to Congress, not with the gazillion agencies and departments the executive branch now has.
Wouldn't Congress just spin it right back out again, since they really don't want to spend time legislating on that micro a level.
Quote5- Mandatory yearly budgets for the goverment. Goverment shutdown if they go over budget.
That's just stupid, and if you think about it you see why. What happens if Iran nukes American soil? The war wasn't budgeted for, so right as the US is about to strike back, instead they just collapse and do nothing. Annual budgets aren't a bad idea, but being tied to them is.
Quote6- Power back to the States. No more departments of agriculture or education. Federal goverments is foreign policy and military.
7- Tax reform. Simple tax code that everyone can understand. No capital gains tax or foreign investment tax. No inherency tax.
8- Safety net as low as possible, to help only the disabilited, the elderly, etc., but not the fit in working age people.
And this is just typical plutocrat nonsense, no doubt courtesy of your friends in the Republican Party. Well, they're not really your friends. These days, a Republican isn't anybody's friend. I think the Latin term is 'Hostis humani generis'. A sad end for the party of Nixon, Roosevelt and Lincoln.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 03, 2014, 11:54:59 PM
Quote from: Siege on December 03, 2014, 11:52:53 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 03, 2014, 11:51:32 PM
I'm not sure "regulatory power back to Congress" is necessary. I think they have that power now. You know, um, the one where they have the power to pass laws? :lol:
The executive branch regulates. Congress legislates.
Congress needs to do both.
You realize that all regulations are subordinate to laws, right? If Congress doesn't like a reg, they already have the power to abolish it.
Also, I guess Congress needs a staff of about 2 million personnel?
I think his real objection is that a Democrat can get elected president and do all sorts of non-evil things with regulations. If the Republicans can keep at least half of Congress, his plan will allow them to prevent non-evil from being done. Efficiency and good sense be damned, it's far more important to prevent Obama from making American lives better.
Quote from: Neil on December 04, 2014, 08:56:36 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 03, 2014, 11:54:59 PM
Quote from: Siege on December 03, 2014, 11:52:53 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 03, 2014, 11:51:32 PM
I'm not sure "regulatory power back to Congress" is necessary. I think they have that power now. You know, um, the one where they have the power to pass laws? :lol:
The executive branch regulates. Congress legislates.
Congress needs to do both.
You realize that all regulations are subordinate to laws, right? If Congress doesn't like a reg, they already have the power to abolish it.
Also, I guess Congress needs a staff of about 2 million personnel?
I think his real objection is that a Democrat can get elected president and do all sorts of non-evil things with regulations. If the Republicans can keep at least half of Congress, his plan will allow them to prevent non-evil from being done. Efficiency and good sense be damned, it's far more important to prevent Obama from making American lives better.
:lol:
But really. :lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 04, 2014, 03:11:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2014, 03:05:14 AM
So did we just decide to put all the bad ideas into one thread?
Which of my ideas do you think are bad?
1 and 2 are already laws. 5 and 7 are bad.
Quote from: Norgy on December 04, 2014, 08:02:49 AM
http://store.steampowered.com/sub/52408/?snr=1_7_7_204_150_4
:w00t:
I'd do like Purple Tentacle: humans now slaves.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 10:13:44 PM
Note: One cannot abolish the senate or amend it to representative by population, as Article V specifies that equal representation in the Senate can not be amended.
...so you amend Article V first, if you're just handwaving. This isn't rocket science.
Quote from: garbon on December 03, 2014, 11:26:11 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 03, 2014, 11:21:54 PM
Do we have enough languish lawyers to form a US supreme court? Martinus, BB, Ide, Crazy Canuck, JR, American Scipio, Rasputin, Gups, Sheibh. I wonder how this court will vote on things like abortion.
Ide? :huh:
At least he's an American, unlike the majority of the court.
Quote from: Siege on December 04, 2014, 04:32:40 AM
Is there any K-Pop girl band that is kind of metallish?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeARpcDimx4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeARpcDimx4)
Quote from: Siege on December 03, 2014, 11:47:21 PM
1- Term limits for Congress. Two terms for Senators (12 years max), 6 terms for the House (12 years max as well). This is the only way to control corruption and special interests, eliminating the permanent political class we have now. The fouding fathers never had in mind people in Congress for 30 years and more.
If I had a dime for every time someone said: "The founding fathers believed X" without a shred of evidence to support it, I'd be a millionaire.
Term restrictions were actually debated and considered by the founders. There were limits in the Articles of Confederation. The decision to keep them out of the Constitution was deliberate, to provide greater stability and continuity. Madison in the Federalist papers specifically mentions that the more talented legislators will likely be continuously re-elected and serve for long periods of time. And of course that was common in the early republic, with men like Clay and Webster spending nearly all their lives in Congress (when not serving in the cabinet).
Quote4- Regulatory power back to Congress, not with the gazillion agencies and departments the executive branch now has.
To reiterate what others had said, Congress already has this power. The reason why the executive does so much rule making is that typically when Congress passes a law, they explicitly delegate rule making to the President or a Department.
Quote5- Mandatory yearly budgets for the goverment. Goverment shutdown if they go over budget.
Congress already has this power too, and has exercised it in recent memory.
Quote6- Power back to the States. No more departments of agriculture or education. Federal goverments is foreign policy and military.
7- Tax reform. Simple tax code that everyone can understand. No capital gains tax or foreign investment tax. No inherency tax.
8- Safety net as low as possible, to help only the disabilited, the elderly, etc., but not the fit in working age people.
Also all within the power of Congress.
I'd give way more powers to the President so he could get things done without being held up by a do-nothing Congress.
Quote from: Siege on December 03, 2014, 11:52:53 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 03, 2014, 11:51:32 PM
I'm not sure "regulatory power back to Congress" is necessary. I think they have that power now. You know, um, the one where they have the power to pass laws? :lol:
The executive branch regulates. Congress legislates.
Congress needs to do both.
Would you still have that opinion if the Democrats held Congress, and Republicans had the Presidency?
Quote from: Siege on December 04, 2014, 04:32:40 AM
Is there any K-Pop girl band that is kind of metallish?
There's a Japanese one Babymetal - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSMqTjhIBhQ
QuoteThe executive branch regulates.
Pretty sure that's Nate Dogg and Warren G's job.
Quote from: Jacob on December 04, 2014, 02:10:47 PM
Quote from: Siege on December 04, 2014, 04:32:40 AM
Is there any K-Pop girl band that is kind of metallish?
There's a Japanese one Babymetal - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSMqTjhIBhQ
Well there went an hour of my life.
I regret that I cannot unsee that.
Quote from: Jacob on December 04, 2014, 02:10:47 PM
Quote from: Siege on December 04, 2014, 04:32:40 AM
Is there any K-Pop girl band that is kind of metallish?
There's a Japanese one Babymetal - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSMqTjhIBhQ
So much better than all growl metal.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 04, 2014, 03:55:36 PM
I regret that I cannot unsee that.
You want something Japanese you'd wish you could unsee, try Dir En Grey's Obscure :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH2ejVLuJG4
WARNING: nudity, gore/innards, cannibalism, body horror, eating of baby heads and implied fucking to death with demon penis. Very NSFW.
Or, as they call it in Japan: Tuesday. :P
Quote from: Jacob on December 04, 2014, 02:10:47 PM
Quote from: Siege on December 04, 2014, 04:32:40 AM
Is there any K-Pop girl band that is kind of metallish?
There's a Japanese one Babymetal - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSMqTjhIBhQ
I know them...
I can just imagine the focus group behind them
"So...looking at this list we've made of things that nerds like....the two musical styles are metal and idol pop....Could we....?"
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2014, 11:05:31 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 04, 2014, 03:11:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2014, 03:05:14 AM
So did we just decide to put all the bad ideas into one thread?
Which of my ideas do you think are bad?
1 and 2 are already laws. 5 and 7 are bad.
Gerrymanding is legal and the House certainly does not use that method of appropriating seats.
They are bad because?
Minsky takes the time to shoot down Siege's amendments, obviously that indicates approval of mine! :w00t:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 04, 2014, 06:50:26 PM
Minsky takes the time to shoot down Siege's amendments, obviously that indicates approval of mine! :w00t:
Alternately, he rates Siegy's ideas as not being so ludicrous as to bear no mention.
Quote from: Jacob on December 04, 2014, 06:52:48 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 04, 2014, 06:50:26 PM
Minsky takes the time to shoot down Siege's amendments, obviously that indicates approval of mine! :w00t:
Alternately, he rates Siegy's ideas as not being so ludicrous as to bear no mention.
I don't think a reasonable person could possibly argue that Siege's are better. The government would at least continue to function if all my amendments passed, while it would collapse if Siege's did.
Some of Timmy's are OK.
But they fail to include the most obvious - getting rid of the "natural born" requirement for President.
I do like Siege's Senate thing. In general I think screwing the state governments out of their representation with the 17th amendment was a bad idea.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 04, 2014, 06:48:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2014, 11:05:31 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 04, 2014, 03:11:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2014, 03:05:14 AM
So did we just decide to put all the bad ideas into one thread?
Which of my ideas do you think are bad?
1 and 2 are already laws. 5 and 7 are bad.
Gerrymanding is legal and the House certainly does not use that method of appropriating seats.
They are bad because?
No, Gerrymandering is illegal, but because the terms are vague it's hard to stamp out. 5 and 7 are bad because they restrict people's right to vote.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 04, 2014, 03:55:36 PM
I regret that I cannot unsee that.
Yes, you can. Use this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfgteoZLx80
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 04, 2014, 07:00:00 PM
Some of Timmy's are OK.
But they fail to include the most obvious - getting rid of the "natural born" requirement for President.
We can revisit that one when Ahnold is pushing up daisies.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 04, 2014, 07:00:00 PM
Some of Timmy's are OK.
But they fail to include the most obvious - getting rid of the "natural born" requirement for President.
Which ones? Which ones aren't?
What residency requirement should we replace it with? 20 years? Half of his/her life?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 04, 2014, 07:00:00 PM
Some of Timmy's are OK.
But they fail to include the most obvious - getting rid of the "natural born" requirement for President.
No to Russian sleeper agents for President.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 04, 2014, 07:24:25 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 04, 2014, 07:00:00 PM
Some of Timmy's are OK.
But they fail to include the most obvious - getting rid of the "natural born" requirement for President.
Which ones? Which ones aren't?
What residency requirement should we replace it with? 20 years? Half of his/her life?
absolutely not
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 04, 2014, 10:02:26 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 04, 2014, 07:00:00 PM
Some of Timmy's are OK.
But they fail to include the most obvious - getting rid of the "natural born" requirement for President.
No to Russian sleeper agents for President.
Yeah, fuck that. No furriner blood, ever.
Hear hear. No 'Ricans either.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2014, 01:54:05 PM
I'd give way more powers to the President so he could get things done without being held up by a do-nothing Congress.
Fortunately for you the Presidents just do this anyway.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 04, 2014, 07:00:00 PM
Some of Timmy's are OK.
But they fail to include the most obvious - getting rid of the "natural born" requirement for President.
What if the King of England became President eh? What would we do then?
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 04, 2014, 10:12:30 PM
Hear hear. No 'Ricans either.
:mad: Hey, what's wrong with a PR presidente? ¡BORICUA!
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 04, 2014, 10:30:21 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 04, 2014, 10:12:30 PM
Hear hear. No 'Ricans either.
:mad: Hey, what's wrong with a PR presidente? ¡BORICUA!
The taint of Tim must be removed from the Republic. With fire.
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2014, 10:28:27 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 04, 2014, 07:00:00 PM
Some of Timmy's are OK.
But they fail to include the most obvious - getting rid of the "natural born" requirement for President.
What if the King of England became President eh? What would we do then?
Rejoice. Just rejoice.
Edit: It is sad that so few of you would like to see a Huckabee-Sheilbh ticket :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 04, 2014, 03:55:36 PM
I regret that I cannot unsee that.
I'll be that 1up-er...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxzgwJ8tSE0
I'd vote for Mongers before that. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 04, 2014, 10:32:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2014, 10:28:27 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 04, 2014, 07:00:00 PM
Some of Timmy's are OK.
But they fail to include the most obvious - getting rid of the "natural born" requirement for President.
What if the King of England became President eh? What would we do then?
Rejoice. Just rejoice.
Edit: It is sad that so few of you would like to see a Huckabee-Sheilbh ticket :P
King-President William? :hmm:
I'd like to shoot redcoats.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 04, 2014, 10:31:55 PM
The taint of Tim must be removed from the Republic. With fire.
He's a sell-out :glare: Repping his landed English gentry great-grandmother or whatever rather than his cousins down on La Isla Encantada..
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 04, 2014, 07:24:25 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 04, 2014, 07:00:00 PM
Some of Timmy's are OK.
But they fail to include the most obvious - getting rid of the "natural born" requirement for President.
Which ones? Which ones aren't?
It's possible to draft a workable anti-gerrymandering procedure, that one is OK. The electoral college is vestigial and has weird distorting effects on campaigns. And it would be a good idea to have clear constitutional rules on war powers, although the current kludge solution seems to be working OK.
QuoteWhat residency requirement should we replace it with? 20 years? Half of his/her life?
Any US citizen should be eligible.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 04, 2014, 10:35:13 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 04, 2014, 03:55:36 PM
I regret that I cannot unsee that.
I'll be that 1up-er...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxzgwJ8tSE0
:cry:
Why are you doing this to me?
Quote from: Jacob on December 04, 2014, 02:10:47 PM
Quote from: Siege on December 04, 2014, 04:32:40 AM
Is there any K-Pop girl band that is kind of metallish?
There's a Japanese one Babymetal - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSMqTjhIBhQ
:lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 05, 2014, 03:04:34 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 04, 2014, 07:24:25 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 04, 2014, 07:00:00 PM
Some of Timmy's are OK.
But they fail to include the most obvious - getting rid of the "natural born" requirement for President.
Which ones? Which ones aren't?
It's possible to draft a workable anti-gerrymandering procedure, that one is OK. The electoral college is vestigial and has weird distorting effects on campaigns. And it would be a good idea to have clear constitutional rules on war powers, although the current kludge solution seems to be working OK.
QuoteWhat residency requirement should we replace it with? 20 years? Half of his/her life?
Any US citizen should be eligible.
I'm not fond of immigration into a country that needs two hundred million fewer people already, but I agree with this. If you're in, you're in.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2014, 10:58:59 PM
I'm not fond of immigration into a country that needs two hundred million fewer people already, but I agree with this. If you're in, you're in.
:yes: Let's look at it this way: financial and political feasibility aside, we tell people "you've gone through the whole process! You're a full citizen" but that role of being able to lead the country is dangled and never made available. Some US citizens really are more equal than others.
It's why Frank Costanza was never interested in politics.
The 1st amendment I suggested becomes ever more necessary. :(
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/the-pernicious-effects-of-gerrymandering/383418/?single_page=true.
Quote
One of the Few Tools Left to Stop Gerrymandering Is in Peril
If the Supreme Court decides to stop letting voters take control of the redistricting process away from partisan legislators, polarization can only get worse.
Norm Ornstein Dec 5 2014, 12:00 PM ET
Whenever I speak about our polarized politics, the first or second question I get is almost invariably about redistricting. Most Americans who know that our political system is not working the way it is supposed to don't know what specifically is wrong. But gerrymandering is something that clearly stands out for many. That is true even for Bill Clinton, who spoke about polarization and dysfunction at the 2013 Clinton Global Initiative and singled out gerrymandering as a prime cause.
The reality, as research has shown, is that the problem is more complicated than that. The "big sort," in journalist Bill Bishop's term, where Americans increasingly concentrate in areas where they are surrounded by like-minded people, is a major factor in the skewing, and the homogeneity, of districts. Other partisan residential patterns, including the fact that Democrats tend to live in more high-density urban areas, while Republicans tend to cluster in suburban and rural enclaves, matter. And the Senate, which represents states, not districts, is almost as polarized as the House. (Indeed, according to the National Journal voting records for the last Congress, it is more polarized—there was no overlap between the parties, meaning that the most conservative Democratic senator was to the left of the most liberal Republican senator.) Senate primaries, just like House ones, skew heavily toward each party's base, and senators respond. And the permanent campaign pushes lawmakers to stick with their team, even if some of the team's votes go against an individual member's more moderate or bipartisan grain.
But acknowledging all of that is not to say that gerrymandered districts don't have a significant impact on the sorry state of American politics. Gerrymandering has leached much of the broader heterogeneity out of congressional districts, contributing to the echo-chamber effect, where members' ideological predilections are reinforced, and not challenged, back home. A corollary is the racial segregation of districts—the fact that so many Republican districts now have barely more than trace elements of minorities, giving GOP lawmakers little incentive to reach out or be sensitive to issues that resonate with those groups. Partisan gerrymandering skews results away from the broader sentiments of voters in a state, as much research, including a new study by Duke University's Jonathan Mattingly and Christy Vaughn, demonstrates powerfully.
And, of course, gerrymandering has helped create a huge number of districts that are fundamentally safe for one party. This is sometimes done by a dominant party in a state "packing" the other party's districts to limit its chances in other districts. Other times it is done by an unholy alliance of both parties to keep all incumbents safe. Gerrymandering adds both to the homogeneity of districts and to making low-turnout primaries dominated by ideological activists the only meaningful elections.
More broadly, gerrymandering moves House and state-legislative elections away from any meaningful responsiveness to the will of the people. And the pattern of lawmakers choosing their voters instead of voters choosing their lawmakers creates more disaffection and cynicism among the public.
Almost every other democracy of significance avoids such problems by creating nonpartisan bodies to draw district boundaries.
How do we reform the redistricting process in this country? Through independent commissions that can use multiple criteria—not just equal population in districts, but factors such as competitiveness, compactness, and communities of interest—to create districts that more closely reflect broader public views. But creating independent commissions is no easy task; doing so through legislative action requires buy-in from the same lawmakers who draw the district lines—and who have the least incentive to give up their power via reform.
With the exception of Iowa, where the state legislature turned the drawing of lines over to a nonpartisan agency in 1981 after disputes and deadlocks handed the power to the Iowa Supreme Court, the one outlet for change has been using the initiative process to implement such commissions. That process worked in Arizona in 2000 and in California in 2008, and while the results are no panacea, the reforms have brought more competitiveness and more fairness to the process.
Guess what? The ability of voters to take control of the redistricting process away from partisan legislators and create a nonpartisan and independent process may disappear next year. The Supreme Court has taken up a case, Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, challenging the constitutionality of the commission. If the Court strikes down the Arizona commission, it will also mean the end of the California commission, and of any future efforts to bypass self-interested legislatures to reform the redistricting process.
The main issue here is the meaning of the elections clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." In previous litigation involving Electoral College reform, as legal scholar Rick Hasen has analyzed in an article for the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, courts have defined "legislature" to include lawmaking actions taken by state voters via initiative—in a fashion that Hasen saw as settled law. But it is no longer settled. The fact that the Supreme Court decided to take this case—instead of leaving in place a federal district court decision that the Arizona state constitution allows voters, by initiative, to exercise legislative powers—opens up the issue again.
The Arizona case is not just a dry question of the meaning of a clause in the Constitution. It was brought under partisan auspices. The commission's post-2010 redistricting effort ticked off Republicans, who say it was biased in favor of Democrats. The commission has five members; two each are chosen by Republican and Democratic lawmakers, with the fifth member chosen by the other four. On the most recent map, one Republican member abstained, and one voted no. The lawsuit was not the first attempt by Republicans to tilt the commission in its favor. In 2011, the Legislature voted to remove the commission's chair and tried to remove the two Democrats; the effort to oust the chair was rebuffed by the Arizona Supreme Court. This lawsuit followed.
There is a second issue in the lawsuit: whether the Arizona Legislature has standing to bring such a suit. Of course, the case could be rendered moot if the Supreme Court denies standing. But the greater likelihood is that the Court will grant standing and move on to the broader issue.
If the Supreme Court throws out these redistricting commissions, we can kiss good-bye any efforts to effectively change the redistricting process, to reduce the pernicious effects of gerrymandering. It would take away one of the few weapons available to those who want to find ways to create more-representative and less-polarized representation in our democracy, and to reduce the cynicism about a system now tilted against the American electorate, broadly defined. We are struggling to find avenues to ameliorate the worst effects of our tribalized politics. What a shame if the Supreme Court shuts off one of the major avenues.
QuoteThe main issue here is the meaning of the elections clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." In previous litigation involving Electoral College reform, as legal scholar Rick Hasen has analyzed in an article for the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, courts have defined "legislature" to include lawmaking actions taken by state voters via initiative—in a fashion that Hasen saw as settled law. But it is no longer settled. The fact that the Supreme Court decided to take this case—instead of leaving in place a federal district court decision that the Arizona state constitution allows voters, by initiative, to exercise legislative powers—opens up the issue again.
It'll just give Scalia an excuse to make shit up as he goes along.