Proposed Constitutional amendments?


PDA






MeekandMild
February 7, 2004, 03:26 PM
I was listening to my favorite radio shock jock, Michael Savage and was surprised to hear him suggest a rational Constitutional amendment.

He suggested that anyone who receives a government check be removed from the voter rolls.

With this in mind I thought of a few more good amendments, considering that we have better electronic communication from coast to coast than the people of Boston had in 1776 from one street to another:

1: Legislative salary increases must be approved by voter referendum.
2: Federal judges must retire at age 70 and must be approved by referendum.
3: Taxes must be approved by voter referendum.
4: Public schools must teach rifle marksmanship as part of a Civics course.

Any other suggestions?

If you enjoyed reading about "Proposed Constitutional amendments?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mark Tyson
February 7, 2004, 03:31 PM
anyone who receives a governement check be removed from the voter rolls.

Well there's a real compassionate man.

Anyone who gets a tax return, is a government employee or who is on the GI Bill can be struck from the voter rolls as well. After all, they're all getting government checks. This will leave the political system entirely in the hands of the very affluent, where of course it belongs.

FPrice
February 7, 2004, 03:34 PM
"He suggested that anyone who receives a government check be removed from the voter rolls."

Kinda places him at odds with Robert Heinlein who wrote an outstanding novel in which government (military) service is REQUIRED in order to be placed on the voting rolls.

HunterGatherer
February 7, 2004, 03:51 PM
I guess you guys are trying to make believe that you don't know what is meant by "government check". Here is a little clue:

Check for being a soldier = OK

Check for being a couch tater = NO VOTE FOR YOU! [/soupnazi]Kinda places him at odds with Robert Heinlein who wrote an outstanding novel in which government (military) service is REQUIRED in order to be placed on the voting rolls.Starship Troopers

Delmar
February 7, 2004, 03:54 PM
anyone who receives a governement check be removed from the voter rolls.

The idea is so bad on its face that I can't believe Savage even suggested it.

The congress would shoot that idea down in committee faster than an eye-blink-they draw a federal check.

I don't think this idea would fly with the millions of service connected disabled veterans in this country, let alone the people currently on active or reserve duty.

Even ex felons are getting their voting rights back-some obsure notion mentioned in a minor document squawking about no taxation without representation.

Not having heard the show, would he be talking about people on welfare for a generation or two?

HunterGatherer
February 7, 2004, 03:58 PM
Not having heard the show, would he be talking about people on welfare for a generation or two?BINGO!

Delmar
February 7, 2004, 04:10 PM
Okay-if Savage is talking about the welfare generation, I certainly understand his anger.

However, I am very reluctant to give the government any more power than it has already, and to deny the right to vote turns a citizen into a subject.

I don't see where that is going to solve the problem-whats needed is REAL welfare reform, not because its popular with the tax payers, but because its the right thing to do.

Come to think of it-whats called for here is politician reform:cuss:

From what I see, you could take the vast majority of the dems and repubs and form a new party. We could call it the no-guts party, or the latest poll party.

The right to vote is one of the last rights the government has yet to screw up, and I don't want to give them an opening.

ctdonath
February 7, 2004, 04:48 PM
The "receiving a check" presumably excludes overpayment refunds (returning $5 after confiscating $10,005 does not count as benifiting from the gov't).

Money exchanges between taxpayers & gov't. Better cutoff point may be when the net exchange benefits the taxpayer, i.e. the point where the gov't is arguably buying votes.

HOWEVER, methinks this line of reasoning is improper. Every citizen gets a vote, period. Instead of an amendment, insist that the gov't actually follow the Constitution, which does NOT allow for rob-Peter-pay-Paul-for-votes.

The Constitution is fine as-is. So long as legislators/executives/judges ignore it, adding more verbage to it won't help.

HunterGatherer
February 7, 2004, 04:55 PM
Instead of an amendment, insist that the gov't actually follow the Constitution, which does NOT allow for rob-Peter-pay-Paul-for-votes.Example # 1,087,596,943 that the simplest solution is often best.

MeekandMild
February 7, 2004, 04:57 PM
Thankyou HunterGatherer. I was out doing some yard work during the first flurry of replies.

Obviously, he was talking about welfare checks people. Duh.

Bruce H
February 7, 2004, 05:32 PM
Representatives and Senators have one term only. They may run again after eighteen years. This would clear out professionals. Staffs would be cut to three maximum. Pay would be fourty thousand.


Michael Savage and rocks have a lot in common.

Bob Locke
February 7, 2004, 06:29 PM
1: Legislative salary increases must be approved by voter referendum.
2: Federal judges must retire at age 70 and must be approved by referendum.
3: Taxes must be approved by voter referendum.
I guess Savage is getting tired of living in a republic and wants us to move more towards a pure democracy. :rolleyes:

That said, I do believe that people who receive money from the government (that's us, by the way) without providing a past or present service in exchange SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE. They will only ever vote for politicians who promise them more money for less effort, and it amounts to nothing more than glorified theft on their part. Yes, it's stealing, plain and simple. The fact that the government is acting as the middle man doesn't make it less so.

FPrice
February 7, 2004, 09:14 PM
"I guess you guys are trying to make believe that you don't know what is meant by "government check". Here is a little clue:"

No make believe, just a case of a bad descriptive term. If he meant welfare check, someone should have said welfare check.

BTW I have known people who were self-employed who looked down on others who worked for a company OR the government. They truly believed that self-employed people were better than others.

Now that we have THAT straightened out, it's still not a real good idea. How about those people who through no fault of their own need the help? Do we discriminate against them?

For the record, my mom needed welfare for a few years to take care of me and my sister. She was able to get off welfare eventually but I would sure have hated for her to be considered a second-class citizen during that time.

Delmar
February 7, 2004, 09:59 PM
just a case of a bad descriptive term

Easy way around that-say what you mean.

spartacus2002
February 8, 2004, 09:22 AM
How about making US citizenship contingent upon having one or both of your parents US citizens, and removing the "if you're born inside our borders, regardless of your parents nationality, you're a citizen" amendment?

Would stop the anchor-baby syndrome.

El Tejon
February 8, 2004, 10:56 AM
How about an amendment requiring the federal government to actually follow the Constitution?:D

Wildalaska
February 8, 2004, 01:08 PM
How bout an amendment to shut Savage up

WildaddhowardsterntothatruletooAlaska

geekWithA.45
February 8, 2004, 02:52 PM
Public Horsewhipping for any elected official who violates the Bill of Rights.

4v50 Gary
February 8, 2004, 03:09 PM
Only one. Fix the # of Supreme Court justices to the present #. That way the court can't be threatened by the Executive branch like it was by Roosevelt.

MeekandMild
February 8, 2004, 04:08 PM
For the record, my mom needed welfare for a few years to take care of me and my sister. She was able to get off welfare eventually but I would sure have hated for her to be considered a second-class citizen during that time. I'd gladly have MY elderly mother and disabled sister lose their voting rights, since both are rabidly liberal and always vote for the biggest pie-in-the-sky candidates which I have to pay for.

But this gives me a better idea than Savage's. I'd be more than happy to pay their living expenses instead of them having government support...in return for full tax credits for their care. If I could pay for their care instead of paying a government which skims 30% off the top for administrative charges they would be better off.

Considering the original intent was to have only heads of household allowed to vote I think this is an elegent solution. :cool:


BTW, there are already many countries which do not allow children of transients to become citizens. This sounds like a great idea.

TimRB
February 8, 2004, 05:29 PM
I have always thought that a nice constitutional provision would be something along the lines that no new law could be enacted when it can be shown that an existing law already does the job.

Tim

LawDog
February 8, 2004, 06:35 PM
President LawDog's Amendments to the US Constitution:

Amendment XXVIII:

Amendment II shall henceforth read in whole: The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Amendment XXIX:

Each law passed by Congress shall expire at the tenth year anniversary of the ratification of that law.

Amendment XXX:

If one-half plus one of voting citizenry sign a petition demanding such, any member of the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branch of the Federal Government shall immediately place his name on a ballot in the month following such petition. Should 2/3's of the voters cast a vote of 'No Confidence' on that ballot, then said offical shall be immediately removed from office.

Amendment XXXI:

If one-half plus one of voting citizenry sign a petition demanding such, any Federal Law shall be immediately placed on a ballot in the month following such petition. Should 2/3 of the voters cast a vote of 'No Confidence' on that ballot, then said law shall be immediately rendered null and stricken from Federal rolls.

That should about do it.

LawDog

El Tejon
February 8, 2004, 06:42 PM
President Lawdog, how about, a la Heinlein, adding a House of Repeal to the U.S. Congress. If 1/3 or more of the chamber votes to repeal the law, it is stricken from the U.S.C.

That should give Congress paws.

LawDog
February 8, 2004, 06:50 PM
Hell, I forgot:

Amendment XXXII:

The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Attorney General El Tejon, your idea has merit, alas its implementation would result in another set of Congresscritters leeching about sucking down tax money.

Vetoed.

I would however, appreciate a legal ruling please.

Bearing that Senators and Congresscritters may not be arrested while Congress is in session, can I legally challenge Ted Kennedy to a duel while Congress is in session?

If not, does the 'no arrest' clause also extend to the President while Congress is in session? In other words, can I shoot the next SOB who sends me a blatantly unConstitutional bill?

Thank you,

President LawDog

morganm01
February 8, 2004, 07:01 PM
If your a citizen, you vote.

How about getting a drug test if you are on the govt. dole instead.

Samurai Penguin
February 8, 2004, 07:39 PM
...And if you call for the repeal of the 16th Amendment, you have my vote for President! :cool: :cool: :cool:

Andrew Rothman
February 9, 2004, 02:17 AM
people who receive money from the government (that's us, by the way) without providing a past or present service in exchange SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE.

Read Heinlein for his comments on "Bread and circuses."

Here's the deal: If you make less than, say, a quarter million dollars a year, you may already be getting more out of the federal guv than you put in.

Yup.

The rich pay the lion's share of the taxes. The poor-to-middle-class folks (most everybody) pay less than their "fair share," even if they don't get a welfare check.

FHA loans? VA loans? SBA loans? Roads? Schools? (School lunches?) The National Weather Service? FEMA?

Thank the rich. they bought their share of these programs and a good part of yours, too.

Of course, the rich get different payouts, but it doesn't swing the scales.

Unless we had a truly flat tax rate (like "every citizen must pay $10,000 in taxes"), this is the way it will always be. and that ain't gonna happen.

The problem arises, then, that those that benefit from government programs vote for people who support more of them.

The people will always vote themselves bread and circuses.

I don't know the answer, other than "If you don't like it, go buy yourself a tropical island."

Voters are swayed by electioneering, not by principle. So why are we surprised by the morons we elect?

Dangitall, now I'm depressed. I'mm goin' to bed. :(

El Tejon
February 9, 2004, 08:30 AM
Mmmm, LawDog, no we generally frown on Murder.:uhoh:

As an alternative, how about we prosecute the Congresscritters for civil rights violations?:D

Greg L
February 9, 2004, 09:37 AM
Kinda places him at odds with Robert Heinlein who wrote an outstanding novel in which government (military) service is REQUIRED in order to be placed on the voting rolls.

However in Heinlein's world (Starship Troopers) you couldn't vote until you left govt. service. Once you served your time (in one form or another) then you could have a say in running the govt., not while you were still working for them.

Greg

clubsoda22
February 9, 2004, 09:46 AM
Kinda places him at odds with Robert Heinlein who wrote an outstanding novel in which government (military) service is REQUIRED in order to be placed on the voting rolls.

Actually, it wouldn't place him at odd with heinlein. Heinlein obviously didn't believe that military service should be neccecary to vote. That was more his view of where freedom was likely going...down the tubes.

MrAcheson
February 9, 2004, 10:15 AM
Amendment XXIX:

Each law passed by Congress shall expire at the tenth year anniversary of the ratification of that law.


That was my thought too. I think making laws automatically deregulate is a brilliant idea. Maybe allow laws to become permanent on the third passing since some are just a good idea and don't go out of style, but do get used rarely (like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act).

Smoke
February 9, 2004, 10:28 AM
Mmmm, LawDog, no we generally frown on Murder

May I interject here?

Lawdog said:In other words, can I shoot the next SOB who sends me a blatantly unConstitutional bill?

DOes it say anywhere in that statement that he wants to kill anyone? He merely wants to shoot someone.

I have no problem with that.

Smoke:D :) :D

Lawdog and ElT in '08

El Tejon
February 9, 2004, 11:07 AM
Smoke, wow, tough room. Got to keep your prospective AG on his toes, huh?

O.K., we generally frown on Attempted Murder, Assault with Intent to Kill or Battery with a Deadly Weapon or Aggravated Battery.:D

ElDee and EeTee in '08: Four more beers! A .308 in every gun safe! Ask not what your rifle can do for you, but what you can do for a rifle! El Tejon, he cares.

We could campaign at gun shows and training schools. "Today, while on the campaign trail, Mr. Tejon began his press conference by asking reporters to help load magazines."

morganm01
February 10, 2004, 12:08 AM
The bonus about having each law expire after 10 years is that it will also keep them too busy to pass new ones. Hopefully really make them whittle it down to what is necessary.

M1911Owner
February 10, 2004, 01:49 AM
Instead of an amendment, insist that the gov't actually follow the Constitution, which does NOT allow for rob-Peter-pay-Paul-for-votes. Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United StatesFor almost the first 150 years of the Constitution, the "general Welfare of the United States" was understood and recognized to be a limitation on the Congress, that all outlays had to be for the general welfare of the United States, and not for the welfare of any specific person or group. Then, sometime around 1936, in a case that, as I recall, is referred to as "The Butler Decision," the Depression-era Supreme Court reversed itself, and held that benefiting a limited group contributed to the "general Welfare of the United States," and opened the floodgates for rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul-for-votes schemes. As ctdonath said, we don't need an amendment, we just need for the government to follow what's already in the Constitution.

If you enjoyed reading about "Proposed Constitutional amendments?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!