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.
There is a movement underway to hold a Convention of the States (see progress map on this link....https://conventionofstates.com) to modify the constitution. The founders were wise enough to provide a means but given that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, it’s a long slow process and takes quite a deliberate effort.
Regarding if it’s necessary, I have become convinced over the last decade or so that we must have term limits on both the House and the Senate. These “ticks” that embed themselves into the government for the power and personal advancement need to go. So, for at least that subject, I would support it. It’s certainly not a thing to be taken lightly though.
I agree, term limits would be a great idea. I don’t see any of the senators and representatives voting on it though. I remember it was part of the GOP’s Contract With America back in ‘94, and they reneged on that promise as soon as they became the majority party. It’s too bad because that was probably our last chance. These days there is too much partisanship to vote on anything, but I think they would find that the average voter on both sides of the aisle would be for it. Too bad the politicians won’t give up their power.
Last edited by katygirl68; 08-12-2018 at 11:30 AM..
In today’s political climate, I dread the thought of rewriting the Constitution. We can’t even get liberals to condemn such obvious things as illegal immigration, militant Islam, resisting police, drug abuse, etc.
i picked the constitution needs amendment, only because it was the closest to what i feel. the constitution is fine as is, it COULD use an amendment or two, but it needs to be done through the amendment process.
There has been some interesting discussion on the board lately about the relevance of the Constitution in its current form. I wanted to see the general feeling overall:
Your poll choices are horrid and demonstrates a lack of understanding, which means the Constitution was poorly taught to you by the education system.
Contrary to your belief, Congress does not interpret the Constitution. That is the job of the Judicial Branch.
Apparently, you've never read or don't understand the Constitution, because that's plainly made clear in Article III Section 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...
Also contrary to your beliefs, the Constitution cannot be amended outside of the four methods stated in the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesLucid
Regarding if it’s necessary, I have become convinced over the last decade or so that we must have term limits on both the House and the Senate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW
Term limits on Congress.
Term limits will not resolve the underlying problem, which is campaign financing.
This is all you need:
AMENDMENT XXVIII
Section 1
No person shall contribute money, or goods or services in kind, or tangible property to the campaign or a candidate for political office, or to a ballot issue or ballot measure who shall not be legally eligible to vote for the candidate for political office or to vote for the ballot issue or ballot measure.
Section 2
Any person who knowingly or willfully commits a violation of this Amendment shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years and fined not less than 300 percent of the amount involved in the violation.
Section 3
The Congress, the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
That bars publicly-traded corporations, private companies, think-tanks, policy groups, unions and political action committees from contributing monies.
It also levels the playing field. Any person who meets the qualifications can run for mayor or city council, without needing more than $1 Million to run a campaign.
Anyone who meets the qualifications for the House of Representatives can run, without needing $1 Million to run a campaign, because only the people who live in your congressional district can contribute campaign monies. No monies from outside the district, and no monies from outside the State.
Senators can only receive campaign monies from people who live in the State they represent, instead of wealthy backers from other States contributing to their campaigns.
Once you level the playing field, you'll have 5-6 people in a primary for House seat, instead of no primary at all, or just two people.
It opens up the field to 3rd Party candidates, including Independents.
Once again, people in California are trying to ram through an amendment on the people of Ohio that is harmful to them. This amendment will bar other States from influencing elections and ballot issues in a State not their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA
One person, one vote.
You live in a federal republic, not a unitary State.
50 separate countries have agreed to forego certain rights of sovereignty to speak as one voice regarding the coining and printing of currency, diplomacy, and waging war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
In today’s political climate, I dread the thought of rewriting the Constitution. We can’t even get liberals to condemn such obvious things as illegal immigration, militant Islam, resisting police, drug abuse, etc.
Your poll choices are horrid and demonstrates a lack of understanding, which means the Constitution was poorly taught to you by the education system.
Contrary to your belief, Congress does not interpret the Constitution. That is the job of the Judicial Branch.
Apparently, you've never read or don't understand the Constitution, because that's plainly made clear in Article III Section 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...
Also contrary to your beliefs, the Constitution cannot be amended outside of the four methods stated in the Constitution.
Term limits will not resolve the underlying problem, which is campaign financing.
This is all you need:
AMENDMENT XXVIII
Section 1
No person shall contribute money, or goods or services in kind, or tangible property to the campaign or a candidate for political office, or to a ballot issue or ballot measure who shall not be legally eligible to vote for the candidate for political office or to vote for the ballot issue or ballot measure.
Section 2
Any person who knowingly or willfully commits a violation of this Amendment shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years and fined not less than 300 percent of the amount involved in the violation.
Section 3
The Congress, the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
That bars publicly-traded corporations, private companies, think-tanks, policy groups, unions and political action committees from contributing monies.
It also levels the playing field. Any person who meets the qualifications can run for mayor or city council, without needing more than $1 Million to run a campaign.
Anyone who meets the qualifications for the House of Representatives can run, without needing $1 Million to run a campaign, because only the people who live in your congressional district can contribute campaign monies. No monies from outside the district, and no monies from outside the State.
Senators can only receive campaign monies from people who live in the State they represent, instead of wealthy backers from other States contributing to their campaigns.
Once you level the playing field, you'll have 5-6 people in a primary for House seat, instead of no primary at all, or just two people.
It opens up the field to 3rd Party candidates, including Independents.
Once again, people in California are trying to ram through an amendment on the people of Ohio that is harmful to them. This amendment will bar other States from influencing elections and ballot issues in a State not their own.
You live in a federal republic, not a unitary State.
50 separate countries have agreed to forego certain rights of sovereignty to speak as one voice regarding the coining and printing of currency, diplomacy, and waging war.
That would pretty much lead to all out civil war.
Post your own poll, then. I was attempting to find out peoples opinion in general.
I am completely aware the choices are not correct. Perhaps you should read a couple of the other threads on this very board where every one of these options are discussed-which means someone, but not necessarily me, think they are an option. Notice what I voted for?
Your poll choices are horrid and demonstrates a lack of understanding, which means the Constitution was poorly taught to you by the education system.
Contrary to your belief, Congress does not interpret the Constitution. That is the job of the Judicial Branch.
Apparently, you've never read or don't understand the Constitution, because that's plainly made clear in Article III Section 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...
Also contrary to your beliefs, the Constitution cannot be amended outside of the four methods stated in the Constitution.
Term limits will not resolve the underlying problem, which is campaign financing.
This is all you need:
AMENDMENT XXVIII
Section 1
No person shall contribute money, or goods or services in kind, or tangible property to the campaign or a candidate for political office, or to a ballot issue or ballot measure who shall not be legally eligible to vote for the candidate for political office or to vote for the ballot issue or ballot measure.
Section 2
Any person who knowingly or willfully commits a violation of this Amendment shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years and fined not less than 300 percent of the amount involved in the violation.
Section 3
The Congress, the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
That bars publicly-traded corporations, private companies, think-tanks, policy groups, unions and political action committees from contributing monies.
It also levels the playing field. Any person who meets the qualifications can run for mayor or city council, without needing more than $1 Million to run a campaign.
Anyone who meets the qualifications for the House of Representatives can run, without needing $1 Million to run a campaign, because only the people who live in your congressional district can contribute campaign monies. No monies from outside the district, and no monies from outside the State.
Senators can only receive campaign monies from people who live in the State they represent, instead of wealthy backers from other States contributing to their campaigns.
Once you level the playing field, you'll have 5-6 people in a primary for House seat, instead of no primary at all, or just two people.
It opens up the field to 3rd Party candidates, including Independents.
Once again, people in California are trying to ram through an amendment on the people of Ohio that is harmful to them. This amendment will bar other States from influencing elections and ballot issues in a State not their own.
You live in a federal republic, not a unitary State.
50 separate countries have agreed to forego certain rights of sovereignty to speak as one voice regarding the coining and printing of currency, diplomacy, and waging war.
Yes. There should be an amendment to abolish the Electoral College.
It's old, antiquated and is no longer relevant to today's world. The Electoral College was an awkward compromise created to accommodate the slave states. When slavery was abolished the need for the Electoral College went away. It should have been abolished then.
One person, one vote.
It’s not antiquated, there was a very good reason for which still holds true today.
There is a movement underway to hold a Convention of the States (see progress map on this link....https://conventionofstates.com) to modify the constitution. The founders were wise enough to provide a means but given that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, it’s a long slow process and takes quite a deliberate effort.
Regarding if it’s necessary, I have become convinced over the last decade or so that we must have term limits on both the House and the Senate. These “ticks” that embed themselves into the government for the power and personal advancement need to go. So, for at least that subject, I would support it. It’s certainly not a thing to be taken lightly though.
Man... Can you imagine how chaotic that event may be?
... Nominating Albuquerque as the host city.... Now.
Term limits on Congress.
Term or age limits on Supreme Court.
Spending limits on campaigns.
Get rid of the "militia" part of the 2nd.
Requirement for any office holder to have a non-political college degree.
Edit: and no public funds for private ventures (sports stadiums) unless there is a direct public benefit (upgrading private freight railroads for passenger service).
I agree ,except for the college degree part .That doesn't seem to matter on the intelligence of politicians.
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.
