1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Proposed Constitutional amendments?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by MeekandMild, Feb 7, 2004.

  1. MeekandMild

    MeekandMild Well-Known Member

    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?
  2. Mark Tyson

    Mark Tyson Well-Known Member

    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.
  3. FPrice

    FPrice Well-Known Member

    "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.
  4. 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]
    Starship Troopers
  5. Delmar

    Delmar Well-Known Member

    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?
  6. BINGO!
  7. Delmar

    Delmar Well-Known Member

    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.
  8. ctdonath

    ctdonath Well-Known Member

    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.
  9. Example # 1,087,596,943 that the simplest solution is often best.
  10. MeekandMild

    MeekandMild Well-Known Member

    Thankyou HunterGatherer. I was out doing some yard work during the first flurry of replies.

    Obviously, he was talking about welfare checks people. Duh.
  11. Bruce H

    Bruce H Well-Known Member

    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.
  12. Bob Locke

    Bob Locke Well-Known Member

    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.
  13. FPrice

    FPrice Well-Known Member

    "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.
  14. Delmar

    Delmar Well-Known Member

    Easy way around that-say what you mean.
  15. spartacus2002

    spartacus2002 Well-Known Member

    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.
  16. El Tejon

    El Tejon Well-Known Member

    How about an amendment requiring the federal government to actually follow the Constitution?:D
  17. Wildalaska

    Wildalaska member

    How bout an amendment to shut Savage up

  18. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Public Horsewhipping for any elected official who violates the Bill of Rights.
  19. 4v50 Gary

    4v50 Gary Moderator Staff Member

    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.
  20. MeekandMild

    MeekandMild Well-Known Member

    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.

Share This Page