Interesting Constitutional Amendments

[banyon]

Are there any that you wish had passed?

The 1916 one seems pretty interesting. All of these Amendments were posed and defeated at the Congressional level.

1876: an attempt to abolish the United States Senate

1876: the forbidding of religious leaders from occupying a governmental office or receiving federal funding

1878: an Executive Council of Three should replace the office of President

1893: renaming this nation the “United States of the Earth”

1893: abolishing the United States Army and Navy

1894: acknowledging that the Constitution recognizes God and Jesus Christ as the supreme authorities in human affairs.

1912: making marriage between races illegal

1914: finding divorce to be illegal

1916: all acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army

1933: an attempt to limit the personal wealth to $1 million

1936: an attempt to allow the American people to vote on whether or not the United States should go to war

1938: the forbidding of drunkenness in the United States and all of its territories

1947: the income tax maximum for an individual should not exceed 25%

1948: the right of citizens to segregate themselves from others

1971: American citizens should have the alienable right to an environment free of pollution.

http://www.constitutionfacts.com/constitution/proposed.htm

[HolmeZz]

Good ol' US of E.

[Taco John]

1916: all acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army


That would be awesome. No matter what age, you have to volunteer for some sort of National service if you vote yes and the war resolution passes.

[BucEyedPea]

None

Voting for war, sounds good on paper but may not play out as intended.
Particularly, if propaganda is used to influence. Didn't s/g like 70% of Americans originally support going into Iraq?
Main problem with that for me is that it's too much a direct participatory democracy'ish.

[banyon]

None

Voting for war, sounds good on paper but may not play out as intended.
Particularly, if propaganda is used to influence. Didn't s/g like 70% of Americans originally support going into Iraq?
Main problem with that for me is that it's too much a direct participatory democracy'ish.

Yeah, that's the idea. If they had to sign up for service, they might've let the inspections go a little longer before voting that way.

[redbrian]

1878: an Executive Council of Three should replace the office of President

ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,...
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,...
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: ...but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh? Who does he think he is? Heh.
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, how did you become King, then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,...

[patteeu]

I think most of those are as bad as the amendment that gave women the vote.

[banyon]

I think most of those are as bad as the amendment that gave women the vote.

Where's your smilie? :)

[patteeu]

Where's your smilie? :)

Do you think I'm joking? :p LMAO

[pikesome]

1916: all acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army

If we're going to do this we aught to just follow Heinlein's rough outline in Starship Troopers for a government.

[patteeu]

1916: all acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army

Maybe we could have a similar amendment that puts any tax increase proposal to a national vote with only those voting in favor having their taxes increased.

[pikesome]

Maybe we could have a similar amendment that puts any tax increase proposal to a national vote with only those voting in favor having their taxes increased.

Patteeu For President!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd vote for that amendment.

[jAZ]

1916: all acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army

[patteeu]

Patteeu For President!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd vote for that amendment.

ROFL

[BucEyedPea]

Maybe we could have a similar amendment that puts any tax increase proposal to a national vote with only those voting in favor having their taxes increased.
Yup! We gotta winnah!

[banyon]

Maybe we could have a similar amendment that puts any tax increase proposal to a national vote with only those voting in favor having their taxes increased.

I would add a rider that only those who paid those taxes could use those services funded through those additional funds. You guys can drive on the back roads and stay off our interstates and see if your neighbor has a strong garden hose when your house is on fire.

[BucEyedPea]

How 'bout an amendment that repeals the 20th century in one fell swoop?
:drool:

[patteeu]

I would add a rider that only those who paid those taxes could use those services funded through those additional funds. You guys can drive on the back roads and stay off our interstates and see if your neighbor has a strong garden hose when your house is on fire.

Nice try, but that's easier said than done after all the cash is collected in one pot.

It sounds like a typical tax and spend concept though. Here in Kansas City, a former regime decided to spend a bunch of the city's money on fountains and a beautification project for the Troost corridor while the city's sewage and road systems were allowed to degrade. Not too long after this decision was made, the mayor announced that he'd be going to the taxpayers asking for an increase to fund urgent improvements to some of this vital infrastructure.

When you agree to whittle government spending down to such fundamental services as roads and firefighting, I'll agree that your rider makes sense.

[patteeu]

How 'bout an amendment that repeals the 20th century in one fell swoop?
:drool:

You mean an amendment that says the commerce clause isn't a grant of unlimited power? Sounds like a good one to me.

[pikesome]

You mean an amendment that says the commerce clause isn't a grant of unlimited power? Sounds like a good one to me.

You ought to ask BEP to be your running mate. Patteeu/BEP 2008!


Yes, that's a joke. :p

[banyon]

How 'bout an amendment that repeals the 20th century in one fell swoop?
:drool:

Maybe you should have your friend who's an attorney post. Hopefully she would have posts that actually understood and addressed the subject matters at hand.

[banyon]

Nice try, but that's easier said than done after all the cash is collected in one pot.

It sounds like a typical tax and spend concept though. Here in Kansas City, a former regime decided to spend a bunch of the city's money on fountains and a beautification project for the Troost corridor while the city's sewage and road systems were allowed to degrade. Not too long after this decision was made, the mayor announced that he'd be going to the taxpayers asking for an increase to fund urgent improvements to some of this vital infrastructure.

When you agree to whittle government spending down to such fundamental services as roads and firefighting, I'll agree that your rider makes sense.

And, you'd vote to pay those taxes? :)

[StcChief]

Maybe we could have a similar amendment that puts any tax increase proposal to a national vote with only those voting in favor having their taxes increased.

Absolutely. Super. Don't be Surprised when they never increase.

[BucEyedPea]

:hmmm: Believe it or not banyon, I was introduced to this pov by her as well as her husband as staunch conservatives. I credit her and him with a complete change in direction regarding such issues. And I have consulted her various times regarding some debates too.

Just because someone doesn't agree with your expansive statist pov on this subject doesn't mean they do not understand it. Afterall, why would there be lawyers like Tribe who are on your end of the spectrum, versus the Scalias, Thomases and Rhenquists of the legal world in America.

LMFAO, you just can't deal with a different opinion or pov and try to paint it as fact. Perhaps, it is you, that doesn't understand that I am arguing from a different philosophical and legal basis or pov, that results in a different interpretation—one that I feel prevents accumulation of the very power you claim should not be concentrated.

Deal with it.
There ARE educated people in this area that disagree with your pov.
And it is a pov. Simply put it is just your opinion.

[BucEyedPea]

Oh and guess what banyon, she has her own cable program in the Boston area. :)

[patteeu]

And, you'd vote to pay those taxes? :)

Probably most of them. :)

[pikesome]

Don't be Surprised when they never increase.

I'm guessing that's the point.


It may not be possible to do away with government -sometimes I think that government is an inescapable disease of human beings. But it may be possible to keep it small and starved and inoffensive -and can you think of a better way than by requiring the governors themselves to pay the costs of their antisocial hobby? Professor La Paz, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress

[penchief]

Do you think I'm joking? :p LMAO

I think you're joking but if you're not that would explain a lot.

[Adept Havelock]

How 'bout an amendment that repeals the 20th century in one fell swoop?
:drool:


OK, you can start by tossing out the majority of modern medicine, your computer, televison, radio, your car, and pretty much any electrical appliances in your house. We will be reinstating American Aparthied as well, sorry.

Have fun. We'll miss your posts. :p

[BucEyedPea]

OK, you can start by tossing out the majority of modern medicine, your computer, televison, radio, your car, and pretty much any electrical appliances in your house. We will be reinstating American Aparthied as well, sorry.

Have fun. We'll miss your posts. :p

Don't forget it was also the bloodiest century too.

I'm not talking about technology or even fashion...but amendments/legal mainly.

Good will have to go with the bad I'm afraid, but we would be freer overall.
We can always put back some things in a new unit of time, with what we know now that we didn't know then. Hindsight is always 20/20 they say.

I can't see me in a bustle or a corset either.

[StcChief]

Don't forget it was also the bloodiest century too.

I'm not talking about technology or even fashion...but amendments/legal mainly.

Good will have to go with the bad I'm afraid, but we would be freer overall.
We can always put back some things in a new unit of time, with what we know now that we didn't know then. Hindsight is always 20/20 they say.

I can't see me in a bustle or a corset either.
Harder times is what America's youth need to make them really appreciate what they have.

[BucEyedPea]

Don't disagree with that StcChief

20th Century Amendments

XVI: Establishment of an income tax (1913)[[Definitely worth repealing, imo. Replaced with something else. ]
XVII: Direct election of Senators (1913) [Definitely worth repealing. States have lost their protections. ]
XVIII: Prohibition (1919)
XIX: Women's right to vote (1920) [ :( Oh my! I thought this was just before the 20th. Well at least I'd be a kept woman. :) ]
XX: Defines presidential and congressional terms and presidential succession (1933)
XXI: Repeal of Prohibition (1933)
XXII: Presidential term limit (1951)
XXIII: District of Columbia residents right to vote (1961)
XXIV: Abolishes poll taxes (1964)
XXV: Presidential incapacitation; vice-presidential vacancy (1967)
XXVI: Voting age lowered to 18 (1971)
XXVII: Prohibits midterm pay raises for Congress (1992) [Never knew about this...but wtf? They need an Amendment for that?]

Seems like there's only three I'd repeal...so for me it's mostly SC decisions regarding the Constitution and as regards certain Amendments such as the 14th, concentration/centralization of power which violate federalism, some treaties and war issues.

[penchief]

Harder times is what America's youth need to make them really appreciate what they have.

But do we have to break them in on such a serious matter as preserving our constitutional rights? That's not a fair fight, IMO. Especially when kids don't even learn civics in school anymore, which is a travesty if you believe in the things this country was founded on.

First, civics classes, then art and music, then equal access, and then our constitutional rights? All the while bombarding us with fear, prescription drugs, and popular culture. I just hope it isn't part of a bigger plan to dumb down the population.

Screw it. I think they've already won.

[Direckshun]

Remember 2004, when we had that amendment to prohibit gay marriage?

OMG those were the good days.

[banyon]

Good will have to go with the bad I'm afraid, but we would be freer overall.

You know what? If you want to see how "free" people were before the advent of all of the programs you despise so much, you could maybe read a book about the great free days of working in a cannery, a company town, or as a sharecropper. Those people sure had it swell.

And without the "Big Brother" FDA around, people were free to roam the countryside, peddling their various elixirs and tonics, which may or may not contain cocaine, and may or may not kill the individual whose system cannot take it. And if you find a finger in your chili? Meh, laugh it off, we're free!!!111

Once again you have hijacked a perfectly interesting thread and made it into a petty ideological trumpet for your extreme anti-government views. Tell, me how many people have you convinced to join the Austrian school of clownery..er economics with these posts?

[pikesome]

You know what? If you want to see how "free" people were before the advent of all of the programs you despise so much, you could maybe read a book about the great free days of working in a cannery, a company town, or as a sharecropper. Those people sure had it swell.

And without the "Big Brother" FDA around, people were free to roam the countryside, peddling their various elixirs and tonics, which may or may not contain cocaine, and may or may not kill the individual whose system cannot take it. And if you find a finger in your chili? Meh, laugh it off, we're free!!!111

Once again you have hijacked a perfectly interesting thread and made it into a petty ideological trumpet for your extreme anti-government views. Tell, me how many people have you convinced to join the Austrian school of clownery..er economics with these posts?

I think you're mistaking "protected" for "free". "Free" means you have choices unhindered by government restrictions, good or bad. I'm not on-board with all of BEP's ideas but we were much, much, much more free in 1900 than we are today. You can argue that losing the freedom is worth it based on what we have received but it all depends on how highly you rate your freedoms. I think it's fair to say BEP rates them a bit higher than you.

[banyon]

I think you're mistaking "protected" for "free". "Free" means you have choices unhindered by government restrictions, good or bad. I'm not on-board with all of BEP's ideas but we were much, much, much more free in 1900 than we are today. You can argue that losing the freedom is worth it based on what we have received but it all depends on how highly you rate your freedoms. I think it's fair to say BEP rates them a bit higher than you.

I think it's more that my view is that any large organizations that go unchecked, whether they are the federal government or large corporations are capable of limiting the ability of people to live productive, fruitful lives. BEP believes most of the time that corporations are somehow immune from the axiom "power corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely" and doesn't seem to see that there is more than one way to get to a dictatorial society.

[pikesome]

I think it's more that my view is that any large organizations that go unchecked, whether they are the federal government or large corporations are capable of limiting the ability of people to live productive, fruitful lives. BEP believes most of the time that corporations are somehow immune from the axiom "power corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely" and that there is more than one way to get to a dictatorial society.

Are we taking about the same person? Half the time she seems to be convinced that the Federal Government and Big Business have given birth to a new age of Fascism that will doom us all. That still doesn't change the fact she's right about the average citizen's freedoms since 1900.

[ck_IN]

<i>How 'bout an amendment that repeals the 20th century in one fell swoop?</i>

I'd settle for a repeal of the 16th and 19th Amendments.

[banyon]

Are we taking about the same person? Half the time she seems to be convinced that the Federal Government and Big Business have given birth to a new age of Fascism that will doom us all. That still doesn't change the fact she's right about the average citizen's freedoms since 1900.

No, as far as I know, she is in favor of virtually little to no regulation of U.S. Businesses abroad or overseas. She doesn't like it when they are subsidized though, ostensibly because that's a government act and it involves paying tax dollars.

[BucEyedPea]

I fail to see how my first post is a hijack—at all.

As for the latter post, in question, I fail to see how favoring an amendment that does away with excessive govt growth of the 20th century is also a hijack. It may not be narrowly limited to the choices of the first post but...How many posts can be made using the listed choice in the first post?

Others have offered their own additional amendment, why can't I?

Oh I know because because only ideas acceptable to those who like control ideologies can matter. So much for the free speech of a self-proclaimed progressive.

[banyon]

I fail to see how my first post is a hijack—at all.

As for the latter post, in question, I fail to see how favoring an amendment that does away with excessive govt growth of the 20th century is also a hijack. It may not be narrowly limited to the choices of the first post but...How many posts can be made using the listed choice in the first post?

Others have offered their own additional amendment, why can't I?

Oh I know because because only ideas acceptable to those who like control ideologies can matter. So much for the free speech of a self-proclaimed progressive.

Please indicate where I said that you did not have the right to espouse your views. Oh, you can't because I of course said no such thing.

I think I finally figured out what bothers me most about your posting style. It's intellectually lazy. You have a decent vocabulary and obviously some amount of schooling, but it seems to me in every discussion you enter into, you rarely address other people's views on the merits of their view without having to go into some laborious explanation of your entire ideology. You also don't really bother to stop and actually consider and weigh the value of what anyone else posits if it doesn't coincide with your tightly regimented preconceptions.

Sometimes ideas and arguments are bad just because they are bad and not because of who is making them or because of any ideologies involved. But for you, whenever anyone criticizes an argument you make, or makes a point you don't agree with, to simply throw up your hands and then denigrate them for not being open to agreeing with your view which would essentially involve commiting themselves to your entire ideology has really, at least for me, become an uninteresting activity. It's especially useless when you reply with something like "well you don't have the same educational experiences as I do, so you'd have to go to my school for 4 years and then you'd understand." Really, no s***? All of us have different educational experiences, some of us fairly impressive and broad, some learned through life lessons, others through books. If your school did such a terrible job of educating you that you cannot address simple, logical questions from people who are offering criticism of your view, then why should anyone even attempt it? It would be a futile excercise.

I don't care or usually mind when threads are hijacked. It's just that every thread you're in seems to wind up that way, no matter what the subject matter is.