Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Be it so resolved that pursuant to the heretofore mentioned right to bear arms, all proprietors of said munitions must test such regularly, by inserting rounds, placing the end of the barrel against their temples and pulling the trigger. Only then will the rights of law-abiding Americans be safeguarded.
How do you account for the problems of major key state populations then being the dictation of such over the rural states with less population? Should the states with the higher populace then be able to dictate to the rest of the states who should be elected and whose voice the elected speaks for?
The Electoral College system makes it much easier for populous states to dominate. That's why most candidates engineer their campaigns to appeal to only a few "key" states.
My preference is for election via a democratic national vote: the candidate who receives the most votes wins!
Please elaborate. And also provide your credentials.
So let's examine your desires.
1. "Balanced budget amendment." Out of all of them, this is probably the most reasonable, but it would still have significant consequences. Balanced budgets look great on paper and the certainly resonate in the current economic climate. The positives is that government would be forced to work out their issues and keep budgets in check. The obvious negatives are that balanced budgets leave no room for the unknown. How do you propose we pay for the next Katrina where there is no more money? Just let whole cities like New Orleans die? Balanced budgets tend to be bare bones and would force massive layoffs nationwide as just about all services would have to be cut. Education, police, fire, and basic services quality would plummet. Infrastructure would fare no better. Defense would have to be slashed (which is not a bad idea to begin with) above and beyond the needs of all our foreign commitments. The only way to avoid this is with an increase in revenue, and that comes in the form of taxes. So while we may help our credit rating and deficits, it's not exactly going to maintain our quality of life.
2. "Outlaw any restriction of domestic mineral extraction." I assume this means any and all natural resources. What you are proposing here is a free-for-all for corporations to rape not only any piece of land or waterway anywhere, but any unfortunate people who may be in the way. This is 100% corporatist and completely removes any and all concerns about safety, health, environment, personal and property rights and the legal precedent of the appeals process. You really want to open that door?
3. "Outlaw commies, hippies, Sean Penn, lattes, emo music, and bicycle paths." This one is probably the most ignorant when it comes to the Constitution itself. You are basically trying to toss out free speech and expression. Not to mention that being that specific with constitutional amendments opens up the floodgates to completely rewriting our entire basis of law on the personal, subjective whims of those in the majority. In essence, you want to write fascism into the Constitution.
4. "Outlaw flag burning." This is a retread of #3.
5. "Outlaw outlaws." I'm not even sure what you mean by this one. Outlawing criminals? I'm pretty sure they already are. Or perhaps you mean outlawing rebellion or dissent? You need to elaborate.
6. "Outlaw baby killing." This one is intellectually dishonest. The murder of babies after birth is already illegal. I suspect you mean abortion, which is never going to be agreed upon. What constitutes a human life and when that life begins will forever be up for debate. There are restrictions on late-term abortions, which I also agree with, but beyond that, you're asking the State to define what makes a life. On whose definition do we use? Also, this doesn't really jive with your next statement....
7. "Provide for televised public executions of overwhelmingly convicted murderers within 24 hours of the verdict." So many issues with this one. First, how can you reconcile a respect for life on one hand with #6 when you clearly don't respect it for #7? There is no logical reconciliation between the two viewpoints. Second, how can you guarantee with 100% certainty of a person's guilt each and every time so that there is no doubt that the crime deserves the death penalty? Our justice system is hardly without flaws, nor are juries. How many cases have there been with people convicted multiple times of crimes only to have new evidence exonerate them? Are you fully comfortable putting people to death based on an already flawed system? Third, our appeals process does not allow for a 24 hour window from sentencing to death. Are you proposing that the appeals system be abolished, or just selectively outlawed for death penalty cases? Fourth, do you honestly believe that a civilized, just nation, makes the death of another person, no matter what the crime, a form of entertainment? Do you think we should be going back to the days of Rome? Or Salem? Or the French Revolution? How can we maintain this idea of a civilization built upon justice when we are willing to make a spectacle of execution based on flawed justice and an obvious disrespect for the concept of life itself? You would have us devolved into bloodthirsty animals bent on revenge. Great idea.
And I'm not sure why you would need credentials for what should be obvious to anyone who values logic and common sense and who has even the most basic understanding of government, law, and humanity.
3. "Outlaw commies, hippies, Sean Penn, lattes, emo music, and bicycle paths." This one is probably the most ignorant when it comes to the Constitution itself. You are basically trying to toss out free speech and expression. Not to mention that being that specific with constitutional amendments opens up the floodgates to completely rewriting our entire basis of law on the personal, subjective whims of those in the majority. In essence, you want to write fascism into the Constitution..
Nope, that sounds more a lot like a communism to me, except that he wants to outlaw communism too.
The Electoral College system makes it much easier for populous states to dominate. That's why most candidates engineer their campaigns to appeal to only a few "key" states.
My preference is for election via a democratic national vote: the candidate who receives the most votes wins!
It allows key populaces to dominate. This is a problem for rural states which are then given no power within the process. While you make the claim of "key states", those states with the higher populace would receive far more power than is allotted to them with the electoral college.
This process protects from massively dense urban populations dictating to the rest of the country. They have a vote, and it is significant, but it does not outweigh the power of the lesser populated states. (that is, you can not win elections on those states alone)
If we abolished such, only extremely large cities would be attended to, the rest can go pound sand.
Correct, Nomander. California's Democratic margin would most likely offset many states with twice the CA electoral votes combined. EC helps little states, as the ratio of their EC to nations exceeds their ratio of votes/US votes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
