Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by T'Girl, Sep 8, 2013.
You don't need a constitutional amendment for that.
CNN: The rich pay majority of U.S. income taxes
Eh, I have about 200,000, so 70 seems nice
I'm going to suggest one of two things to further democracy.
One would maximize the ability to vote. This would include bans on laws by states that impair the right to vote unless narrowly tailored and strictly necessary (both ensuring the ability to vote and access to polls). It would guarantee citizens could continue to vote, even if they're felons. Finally, it would give Congress the power to set national standards for any voting restrictions, such as voter IDs (provided at no cost) rather than have this done by local politics, which can more easily disenfranchise the minority.
The other proposal would be a DC home rule and voting rights act or, alternatively, a statehood proposal for DC (which I think can be done legislatively, but would require a repeal of the 23rd Amendment). I think efforts should be made to incorporate all non-voting territories into our democracy, but to have 600,000 people in the core of our country unable to have their local interests represented nationally is ridiculous. The home rule amendment would codify the ability of DC to control their local affairs (particularly their budget) without the federal government meddling into whatever pet project their concerned about. It would guarantee at least representation in either the House of Representatives or both houses. Statehood would obviously guarantee representation in both as well as give them full protections from federal meddling that other states get as quasi-sovereign entities.
Ah yes, DC statehood as well. Create a completely new state out of most of DC and shrink the actual district down to the actual apparatus of government, such as the White House, Capitol Building, National Mall, etc.
Sure, I could defer it. I could even defer them now if I wanted. Then owe an additional 70k after all my grad classes are complete lol.
Switch from an income tax to consumption tax. Tax what people buy, no loopholes.
This is generally considered a regressive idea, putting a disproportionate burden on the poor since they spend a large portion of their income on necessities.
House districts to be drawn by non-partisan commissions and term limits for congress: two terms for senators, four for representatives.
There are ways to make it work. Make it not apply to food and other such necessities. Still regressive, but not as bad as a flat tax.
Yes on the first part, not convinced on the second. Simply putting limits on consecutive terms might be a better way to do it. Having people around who know how everything works and can mentor the newer members isn't a bad thing though.
Depending on the type of student load you have, your interest may not accrue while in deferment. Also, have you looked into Income Based Repayment?
I could get behind limits on consecutive terms for congresscritters. At least it would force the government to shake things up regularly, and also give districts a chance to consider change now and then without forcing it on them long-term if they like who they've got.
Urgh. I feel for you guys. I really do.
Actually defining what a "well regulated militia" is, regulate the sucker and by default make weapons only available to them.. and watch the US explode as laser gun nuts go on the barricade
Why? Did you co-sign for your mother?
Yeah, you shouldn't have to pay the student loan debts of another party - certainly not if they were government loans.
To hell with the 2nd Amendment. We don't need a well-regulated militia - we have the military. We did not have it when the amendment was written, but we have it now.
I think the National Guard is probably the closest equivalent to what the FF had in mind.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Lose the first line and just keep the second, which is more likely what the Founding Fathers actually wanted (maybe add the words "and amunition" following the word "arms").
If that's what they actually wanted, they would have written it that way.
The Founding Fathers intended it to ensure the right of the states to provide for their own security. It didn't become an individual right until the 14th Amendment Incorporation Doctrine.
It is now an individual right to keep and bear arms that are reasonably necessary to provide for the security of oneself and one's family. It certainly doesn't cover assault weapons.
Unfortunately, the conventional wisdom among conservatives is that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the ability of people to rise up and overthrow the government by military force if they don't like the outcome of an election. I think it plainly obvious that this was not the purpose of the Amendment, but good luck trying to explain that to anyone on the political right.
We're talking about Constitutional Amendments. Why does original intent matter? Isn't the whole point of an amendment to do something not originally intended?
Separate names with a comma.