how many of you know that we dont have the right to vote in federal elections, nor equal rights? do you think the constitution needs to be fixed or leave alone as is? whats the best part and whats the worst part of the constitution?
The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoPLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
the constitution needs some fixing
- Thread starter stevexxx
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2008
- Posts
- 1,800
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I would like a balance budget amendment and a line item veto amendment.
I would add to the Bill of Rights a right to know. Despite our right to freedom of press and speech, there is nothing that even implies we have a right to know anything... literally anything. The past few administrations have preyed on this.
BostonPirate
Ijubbinatti
and when Obama line Item Veto's republican innitiatives, what will the thread be for that one?
Another line item vetor from crooked republican?
the thing about line item vetoes is that it places too much power in the hands of one man. IF the congress sends the president the bill, he should either sign or veto.
If the Congress can't make a bill that is fiscally responsible then they need to be replaced during an election.
I like the idea of a pay as you go law, that covers tax breaks and projects that cost money.
You cant raise a lower a tax without finding new revenue or you make the deficit bigger. Functionally, it is not really different than spending without attaching a tax to cover the raising of revenue.
Loss of revenue AND spending borrowed money are the two issues that are driving the HUGE monster deficit and debt.
BostonPirate
Ijubbinatti
Hmm.... the entire house of reps ought to just get elected every year, banning all who are in there from running consecutive terms. But no consecutive terms, not term limits. someone can come back after a one term sit out and try again.
I think the supremes need to stay the way they are.
JayHawk
Rambunctiously Pugnacious
As i read the title I was reminded of the Beatles "revolution"
That always implied violence to me but the beatles were peacniks so it was weird......
That said reading the threads... i couldn't agree more that at most Politicans should be allowed to serve two terms so that they run for public service not simply to keep running and promoting themselves. I think you would see a different character of person in office.
That always implied violence to me but the beatles were peacniks so it was weird......
That said reading the threads... i couldn't agree more that at most Politicans should be allowed to serve two terms so that they run for public service not simply to keep running and promoting themselves. I think you would see a different character of person in office.
BostonPirate
Ijubbinatti
I agree, for the senate a two term limit, and get rid of the damned lifelong high paying retirement package they get. It is ridiculous. If you run for office or not, you should get the same retirement program that everyone else gets.
Social security. Nothing more.
I don't have a problem with an extra retirement package for the presidents, though.
JayHawk
Rambunctiously Pugnacious
Actually I can see a retirement package similar to our VETS if they have served for 20 years minimum and then they get 50% of their base pay... just like VETS. The key is making the term limits so that they have to dig hard to serve in different capacities that doesnt allow for the same amount of power. In that way they can be kept in check.
BostonPirate
Ijubbinatti
makes sense. They would have to diversify and serve in different ways to get the retirement.
I'd like to see all elections for federal office (House, Senate, President) all are paid for using public money. No fund raising allowed, nor special interest monies plowed into campaigns, that basically come with quid pro quo expectations.
BostonPirate
Ijubbinatti
Even money even when they are not evenly represented? alot of kinks in that idea. It's a noble idea, but the guys in the majority would scream that the feds are helping the minority gain power through public funds. IF they based it on how many people in their district are registered with their party, it would make people howl like banshees.
No way to fix the idea so that it would work.
I have to say, though, that they can get matching funds from the gov't so the money is already there.
Donating money to a political cause is protected as a freedom of speech think, I believe, and so it can't be tampered with without major tinkering that gets scary.
interesting ideas though.
Hmmm, I wonder how many Americans would support a change from the current strict constructionist view to a "living tree" model?
(PS- would be appreciated by us non-USAians if these country-specific threads would be labeled as such.)
(PS- would be appreciated by us non-USAians if these country-specific threads would be labeled as such.)
That's why you make it an amendment to the Constitution. The SCOTUS is bound by that.
But, even if it's not done as an amendment there is at least a solid attempt going on right now in Washington to fix it via Congress passing a law.
The 2010 Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752 and H.R. 1826) seek to do just that. The highlights of the bill are:
Participating candidates seek support from their communities, not Washington, D.C. Candidates would raise a large number of small contributions from their communities in order to qualify for Fair Elections funding. Contributions are limited to $100.
To qualify, a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives would have to:
Collect 1,500 contributions from people in their state and raise a total of $50,000. Since states vary widely in population, a U.S. Senate candidate would have to raise a set amount of small contributions amounting a total of 10% of the primary Fair Elections funding. The number of qualifying contributions is equal to 2,000 plus 500 times the number of congressional districts in their state. For example: A candidate running for U.S. Senate in Maine, which has two districts, would raise 3,000 qualifying contributions – the base of 2,000 donations plus an additional 500 for each of the two congressional districts.
A candidate running for U.S. Senate in Ohio, with 18 districts, would require 11,000 qualifying contributions before receiving Fair Elections funding. Qualified candidates would receive Fair Elections funding in the primary, and if they win, in their general election at a level to run a competitive campaign. Qualified House candidates receive $900,000 in Fair Elections funding split 40% for the primary and 60% for the general.
The formula to determine the amount of Fair Elections funding for qualified Senate candidates is as follows:
Qualified candidates receive $1.25 million plus another $250,000 per congressional district in their state. The funding is split 40% for the primary and 60% for the general election. Qualified candidates would be also eligible to receive additional matching Fair Elections funds if they continued to raise small donations from their home state. Donations of $100 or less from in-state contributors would be matched by four dollars from the Fair Elections Fund for every dollar raised.
If a participating candidate is facing a well-financed or self-financed opponent, or is the target of an independent expenditure, they will be able to respond by utilizing this matching fund provision. Joint fundraising committees between candidates and parties would be prohibited.
Fair Elections helps offset fundraising for, and the excessive cost of, media.
Participating candidates receive a 20% reduction from the lowest broadcast rates
Participating Senate candidates who win their primaries are eligible to receive $100,000 in media vouchers per congressional district in their state. House candidates receive one $100,000 media voucher.
Participating candidates may also exchange their media vouchers for cash with their national political party committee.
Participating candidates could set up leadership political action committees but would be limited to a $100 contribution limit per individual per year.
http://www.publicampaign.org/fair-elections-now-summary
It's supposed to be "support and defend the constitution", not "alter and amend the constitution". Republicans always talk about changing and adding amendments to the constitution but thankfully never do. It's right wing hot air.
BostonPirate
Ijubbinatti
fantasy wish list is how I viewed this thread.
The political atmosphere precludes the large agreement it would take to alter or amend the constitution.
The political atmosphere precludes the large agreement it would take to alter or amend the constitution.
And, if my subjective observations are correct, Americans view their constitution as too sacred to be changed, much less replaced. While there are disadvantages to having a constitution dating only to 1982, it does tend to make Canadians less invested in what is, really, just a legal document.
BostonPirate
Ijubbinatti
The constitution is considered acred, and quite frankly when the republicans are in a mind to be uber christian, xenophobic, obstructionists, this kind of process should NOT happen.
Perhaps when the electorate gets back to a reasonable state of mind, i.e., when the older white people get over having a young black guy as president, things may settle down, but the majority of americans would never go for a new constitutional congress. They may go for a new amendment, but not getting rid of what is already there.
Perhaps when the electorate gets back to a reasonable state of mind, i.e., when the older white people get over having a young black guy as president, things may settle down, but the majority of americans would never go for a new constitutional congress. They may go for a new amendment, but not getting rid of what is already there.
to the extent that irony and hypocrisy allow a secular atheist can believe in a sacred document, I do believe that our constitution is the closest thing we have to it. that being said, I have no problem with amendments in principle. In fact my whole point in the "living document" vs "strict constructionist" view of the constitution is that the authors included an amendment process so that it could be a living document and that is the proper way to affect change, not through the courts as has become more popular.
I think you're confused about definitions of "living tree" vs. "strict constructionist" models of law. The type (or presence) of an amending formula is not at issue.
In a living tree system, the courts are not seen an enacting change, but rather as (a) interpreting the constitution within the full legal "tree" of current and previous legislation and case law, and (b) interpreting the constitution within the context of current "living" society.
I find the living tree system more realistic and effective, though neither system is perfect. Of course I can't be fully objective, as I have gained many civil rights over the past few decades thanks to our living tree system.
bankside
JUB 10k Club
Justice Souter deals with the "strict constrictionist" arguments here: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/05/text-of-justice-david-souters-speech/