An American's Role

[DraconisRex]

What about an American's Role???

quote:

---

The case could also be made that, politics is for those who are too lazy to exercise their individual Constitutional rights. It's a hell of a lot easier to be a Democrat or a Republican, than it is to be an American: All one need do is, memorize and regurgitate the appropriate propaganda on cue to be a party robot - it requires no thought whatsoever. Being an American means holding the politicians and their voter blocks accountable for their transgressions against the Constitution, and thereby maintaining a functioning republic... - E. Truth

---

WIthout term-limits, accountability, anti-nepotism, and fair taxes for all, we still aren't a free society. The United Imperial States of America runs the show. And Presidentual C'Zar Bush is preparing to invade Iraq.

To me, this place feels like the Roman Empire, and it is up to those remaining who care to "deal with," once again, King George.

This time, I have a special request: When our Electives sit down to revamp the Constitution, can we all pray they do it right this time, and make it THE foundation of the United States, and make the original document unchangable without 75% of the American Adult Public (Public, not voters) petitioning its change, and 2/3rds of Congress agreeing.

Most of the Constitution is perfect. It is the Amendments which I question, past the first ten....

[Guest]

You know, if we had a chance to completely start over. I would first of all leave the constitution EXACTLY as it was written and the first 10 amendments in place.

Other then that, they could throw it all in the trash as far as I am concerned. EXCEPT, that I would make it impossible for the states to make a law that regulated or hurt ANY of the first 10 amendments, they could not regulate them, license them, NOTHING!! If it's in the federal constitution and the bill of rights, the states just have to deal with it.

[Raven]

I donÔÇÖt know, I think the constitution is long overdue for a revamp. IÔÇÖm not saying that the meaning needs to be changed, for the most part its just fine, but some parts need to be brought up to date. Part of the problem in interpreting the constitution is that the wording is so archaic that it becomes vague and successively easier to interpret however you like. Furthermore, there are a number of modern issues (electronic surveillance and wire tapping, for example) that were simply never thought of back then, and there will be more and more such issues in the decades to come. IÔÇÖm not saying the constitution should be materially changed, simply that it needs to be updated with minimal change in its meaning.

quote:

---

This time, I have a special request: When our Electives sit down to revamp the Constitution, can we all pray they do it right this time, and make it THE foundation of the United States, and make the original document unchangable without 75% of the American Adult Public (Public, not voters) petitioning its change, and 2/3rds of Congress agreeing.

---

If you could get 75% of the adult population to petition anything for change you could give lectures on mind control. While a noble idea, it would immobilize congress for the purpose of altering the constitution. It would be impossible; I doubt tat 75% of the population even interests themselves enough in politics to petition anything. Even requiring a 75% agreement by those who vote is ridiculous, it would simply never happen. With this system, slavery would never have been abolished, women would never have gained suffrage, and we would have the constitution and its 10 amendments just like they were when they were first written down.

[ 09-18-2002, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

I donÔÇÖt know, I think the constitution is long overdue for a revamp. IÔÇÖm not saying that the meaning needs to be changed, for the most part its just fine, but some parts need to be brought up to date. Part of the problem in interpreting the constitution is that the wording is so archaic that it becomes vague and successively easier to interpret however you like. Furthermore, there are a number of modern issues (electronic surveillance and wire tapping, for example) that were simply never thought of back then, and there will be more and more such issues in the decades to come. IÔÇÖm not saying the constitution should be materially changed, simply that it needs to be updated with minimal change in its meaning.

---

If you get too specific, it isn't a will of the people of the country anymore, it's the will of those who draft it.

It's fine the way it is, because the Supreme Court is in place to challenge anything that isn't specifically mentioned.

As times change, people change - so we need to stay within a certain boundary, but still allow flexibility.

All general ideas, privacy, freedom of speech, etc. are general so that they encompass all these new things (i.e. the Internet, CNN, etc.)

quote:

---

If you could get 75% of the adult population to petition anything for change you could give lectures on mind control. While a noble idea, it would immobilize congress for the purpose of altering the constitution. It would be impossible; I doubt tat 75% of the population even interests themselves enough in politics to petition anything. Even requiring a 75% agreement by those who vote is ridiculous, it would simply never happen. With this system, slavery would never have been abolished, women would never have gained suffrage, and we would have the constitution and its 10 amendments just like they were when they were first written down.

---

If Congress was immobilized I would have a party. As long as they aren't in session, they aren't making stupid laws that are NOT necessary.

Bravo, except make it 100%

[DraconisRex]

Okay, boys and girls... I finally found the legal information I was looking for....

From the Constitutional Rights foundation:

quote:

---

Article V of the Constitution provides two methods for adding Amendments. Congress introduces amendments by one method; the states initiate them under the other.

The only method ever used is the congressional method. It lets Congress pass constitutional amendments by a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Such amendments must then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or special state conventions, as Congress determines. Over 10,000 amendments have been introduced into Congress since 1789. Only 33 have been approved. Of these, 27 have been ratified and added to the Constitution.

The other way of amending the Constitution has never been successfully used. Under this procedure, the states initiate the amending process by petitioning Congress for a constitutional convention. When two-thirds of the states have submitted petitions, Congress must call a convention. Any amendments approved by such a convention must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Congress decides whether state legislatures or state conventions will ratify these amendments.

Since the Constitution went into effect, there have been about 400 petitions from state legislatures calling for a convention to consider one thing or another. None of these efforts ever succeeded, but some came close. For years Congress ignored requests to pass an amendment allowing for the direct election of U.S. senators. Finally, in 1912, Congress passed the 17th Amendment, but only after supporters of the amendment were just one state short of triggering a

constitutional convention.

---

Article V reads:

quote:

---

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

---

What this means is incredible. First, Congress doesn't actually own everything, as the several states can say "no" to more taxes. ("Read my lips - No New Taxes...") Of course, they get kick-backs, and would be hard-pressed to give up their lucrative lifestyles, but that isn't the point of this conversation.

A Constitutional Convention could be forced upon Congress to rewrite archaic sections into plain 'ol English, and effectively VETO anything the people didn't like. However, 2/3rds of the states effectively means 2/3rds of the people. However, that may not be as hard as it sounds, from a different perspective.

In this case, apathy can be used as a sword to sever the bonds that have tied free peoples' hands. The States will only be hearing from the voting public. You can more or less ignore those that don't vote in this case, since Senators and Representatives from both States and Congress tend to more or less ignore non-voters. So, our "market share" for this campaign is simplified, because only the voters count.

Be that as it may, we're selling freedom in the form of Ginsu knives, to a public that mostly have no idea what rights they never had.

The main problem is taxes on income. If you tax the producer and the wage earner directly, you reduce the money they can spend on products, which, in turn, reduces the amount of money spent, and lowers the Gross National Product considerably. However, if you put a sales tax on EVERYTHING sold, from the wholesale to retail levels, you have a lot more effective revenue in the national treasury.

You might think that this will increase how much you're paying for a given product, but the truth is, at 8.25% sales tax, the average product tax would be around $16.00 per 100 dollars, based on normal mark-ups. Before you say "ouch," remember what you're paying right now: $36 per 100 dollars. Lower taxes mean lower prices, and that stimulates sales and income levels, which means more production, which will raise the GNP to new heights.

With this action, you would also want to remove from the states to charge sales tax, as most of the monies received would actually go to the states, directly. The IRS would be abolished, since it's barely legal as it is.

I'm for limited government, that's smaller, OF THE PEOPLE, with term-limits and anti-nepotism laws in-force. I also think we should make all representatives of the people, and judges, police, etc., totally responsible for their actions. We need a Vote of No-Confidence for the people to remove corrupt politicians from their lofty positions by their votes.

I also believe that, with effective changes to the Constitution, that there should be a tangible difference between citizen and civilian. Just because you were born here shouldn't make you a citizen -- that right must be earned. Serving military or public service for two-years should be required of any applicant to be a citizen for this great nation. Had that policy existed on September 11th, 2001, and airports had to have citizen-employees, there is NO WAY that security would have missed the box-cutters in the first place.

Freedom isn't free -- many have died to keep it for the rest of us. Citizenship should not allow the right to vote -- it should enforce it. There is no reason why, when you go online, you couldn't go to a secured site and place your ballot. This could be done in any company with a computer and a phone line -- Vote when you pick up your check. (Abstain is an option on most voting ballots.)

As the world continues to shrink as populations soar, we should be pouring money in programs that promote space exploration, instead of spending it on social programs that only reduce the effective income of the middle class -- and thusly reduce the GNP.

The Colonial Federation Challege:

quote:

---

The Colonial Federation, invites you, to accept, without reservation or prejudice, the Colonial Federation Challenge.

YOUR MISSION, Should You Choose To Accept It.

HELP restore, our Constitutional, Republic:

QUIT ASKING GOVERNMENT, FOR FAVORS, HANDOUTS, & SPECIAL PRIVILEGES, and refuse it's bribes!

DO THE MATH, & take every tax deduction you can.

GET BEHIND, any movement that, PROVES WITH ACTION, it advocates, limited government, & push with a relentless drive!

ENCOURAGE, those you know, to do likewise.

GET OUT OF PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT, into private sector work, or start a business.

DISCOURAGE others' dependence, on socialistic programs, & public "benefits".

EDUCATE YOURSELF, in American history, and culture, from the Bible, Harvard Classics, and the public library.

REFUSE TO BE INTIMIDATED, by "political correctness", "multiculturalism", and other divisive socialist lies, because truth is seldom popular, but what's popular is seldom true, since logic is supposed to govern emotion, not the other way around.

---