struggle4progress
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-20-05 10:42 PM
Original message |
Poll question: What Amendments Does the Constitution Really Need? |
|
After Cheney's entirely bogus last minute "change of residency" for the 00 election, perhaps we should strengthen the "at least one of whom shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves" language in Article II Section 1 .
The Presidential pardon wasn't intended to prevent all prosecution of criminals. Clarify Article II Section 2 to make it clear that the power to pardon and reprieve is limited to cases where conviction has already been obtained in a court of law.
Quack quack. If the Supreme Court won't establish rules requiring judges to recuse themselves in cases involving the appearance of a conflict of interest, an amendment should specify some rules.
Yes, Virginia, there IS a right to privacy, and darn tootin! we're gonna protect it. Ganja; sodomy, fellatio and cunnilingus; whatever you think I'm doing, why not just mind your own frickin business? My home, my castle, ya know ..
Alright already! It's really time to scrap the Electoral College.
Nothing could possibly be more important than preventing flag burning, so flags must be made of nonflammable material.
Stop war profiteering & limit war debt amendment: 100% tax on all business profits in time of war
Real equal rights amendment - no discrimination / no denial of equal protection on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, ...
Christian property law amendment: The earth is the Lord's, so absolute ownership of land is abolished.
|
napi21
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-20-05 10:51 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I don't disagree with the elimination of the electoral college, but |
|
what would you replace it with? Do you remember when Clinton won in 92, he didn't get 50%+ of the votes. Would you suggest a simple majority? There are those who would demand a runoff. Do you really want to go through that????
I disagree with the electoral college too. I think it had a good purpose a long time ago, but TV and the internet has made the "candidates not able to get to rural areas" a mute point.
I just think we need to think about the unintended consequesces before making any demands.
|
struggle4progress
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-20-05 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
5. Actually, I think it would be politically impossible to abolish ... |
|
... the disproportionate representation (# of Senators + # of Representatives) that favors the small states in Presidential Elections: the only thing that might be done is to specify how these are allocated.
I'd be happy with something like the following: each state's Electoral Votes are divided among the candidates in that state, in proportion to the total fraction of the popular vote each candidates receives; I would allow some fractional allocations (Mr X 3.5 votes etc); and I would incorporate a provision for successively eliminating candidates who got small numbers of votes until one candidate actually received a majority of the votes. The primary feature of this is that it abolishes the current "winner take all" schemes while keeping the problem of tallying votes in a state down at the state level. With proportionate distribution of electoral votes (rather than "winner take all" schemes), Gore would have won 00.
|
Massacure
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-20-05 10:55 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I agree with the electoral college and pardons. |
|
Edited on Mon Jun-20-05 10:57 PM by Massacure
I would also extend free speech to privacy of speech and expand it to the Internet. I would expand the Fourth Amendment so that all search warrants would have to be public record; no going to a secret judge that is in government's pocket kind of bullshit. I would specify the death penalty as cruel punishment in the Eight Amendment.
I would add another amendment saying that people cannot sign away their rights. This way they can not be forced to give up their ability to sue in favor of one of those unofficial type judge thingys (I forgot what the actual term is).
Edit: Oh, I would also add an amendment so that house districts do not have to be confined to be inside one state.
|
relaf
(75 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-20-05 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
An arbitration. If both parties are informed, then arbitration can be an efficient way to resolve disputes. The problem is most arb clauses in consumer contracts are in fine print on the back. Sometimes they are upheld, sometimes not. I don't think this is within the scope of a constitutional amendment though.
|
struggle4progress
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-20-05 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
8. No secret judges/warrants sounds important to me. Thanks! eom |
TahitiNut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-20-05 10:57 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Mon Jun-20-05 10:58 PM by TahitiNut
No person elected or appointed to a federal office shall engage in any fund-raising activity or employment of any kind while holding public office.
I regard this as an exclusive "personal service" contract (no conflict of interest or time), and it includes campaign appearances for self or others. Period.
|
struggle4progress
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-20-05 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. Hey! I LIKE that! Thanks, TN! eom |
rasputin1952
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-20-05 11:06 PM
Response to Original message |
7. There are tons of laws already on the books...the biggest problem is the |
|
selectivity they are imposed with.
For instance, if I stole $10 from my employer, I would be prosecuted, and possibly face jail time, (not to mention losing my job and being branded as a thief). But if a corporate executive steals millions, he/she goes free, often unprosecuted and barely despised.
The reality of the situation, is that so many who are in power can afford lawyers to get them off hook...poor people suffer the wrath of the 'law'.
Constitutional Amendments are not necessary...just an equality under the law, and an understanding that the Constitution IS a living document, and changes as we evolve, (or devolve) as a society.
|
struggle4progress
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-20-05 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. "Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are .. |
|
.. spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government." Pierre Joseph Proudhon
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu May 09th 2024, 02:10 AM
Response to Original message |