J
Jetfire
Guest
Maybe..."In God We Trust" needs to be changed to..."Live Long And Prosper" 
Do we need to hold another Constitutional Convention?
- Thread starter Nowhere Man
- Start date
It establishes that "we" "trust" in "God".
Try to change it to "Allah be praised" or "We don't really give a shit about any so-called God" and see how well it goes.
Nowhere Man
Commodore
Congress in the past has usurped the Presidency and used the Military to do it's biding by enforcing laws or legislature. Section 5 was written that way because they wanted that control. It wasen't written in there prior to the 14th amendment. If they would do it then, they could do it agian. That's why it's important.
You must not have read my entire post, I concede the due process clause should be retained. The amendment should be repealed and replaced. If you read my entire post in response to Alpha, you will see the updated version.
The pupose of a Constitional Convention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_convention_(political_meeting)
To revise or replace the old. We have been under this current one since Reconstruction. Don't you think it's time to revise it, update it or replace it. Return it the country to it's original intent with the proper revisions. Stop the Imperialism before we lose the Country all together.
Last edited:
Here's how the congress can enforce this through legislation thing works:
Amendment says "bill of rights applies to black people too"
Congress passes a law prohibiting discrimination against black people (in 1964, but close enough, I guess).
The President can then use the arm of the executive branch (FBI maybe, although really just the court system. I think Ike used the National Guard once).
Congress has no ability to enforce its own laws even if it wanted to. Best it can do is summon you before a committee and hold you in contempt of congress if you refuse to show up.
Once again, how have we had this current one since Reconstruction. There have been 12 amendments since then. I'd argue that the 16 and 17th amendments had almost as big an impact (14th has been the most significant, though, I can't argue there). But those two populist amendments dramatically changed our government as well and they were well past Rutherford B. Hayes abandoning civil rights and rule of law in the south in exchange for the ability to pass out political jobs as favors (which was the main peacetime role of the President until Teddy Roosevelt).
Amendment says "bill of rights applies to black people too"
Congress passes a law prohibiting discrimination against black people (in 1964, but close enough, I guess).
The President can then use the arm of the executive branch (FBI maybe, although really just the court system. I think Ike used the National Guard once).
Congress has no ability to enforce its own laws even if it wanted to. Best it can do is summon you before a committee and hold you in contempt of congress if you refuse to show up.
Once again, how have we had this current one since Reconstruction. There have been 12 amendments since then. I'd argue that the 16 and 17th amendments had almost as big an impact (14th has been the most significant, though, I can't argue there). But those two populist amendments dramatically changed our government as well and they were well past Rutherford B. Hayes abandoning civil rights and rule of law in the south in exchange for the ability to pass out political jobs as favors (which was the main peacetime role of the President until Teddy Roosevelt).
You have missed my point. The bill of rights is a federal issue. The 14th amendment selectively incorporates certain aspects of it to the states.
I'm starting to wonder what exactly is going on in his history class.
How can you say that? It establishes the God of Abraham as the trusted god of the people of the United States and their government. Which is great if you're a Jew, Christian, or Muslim, but not so much for folks who believe otherwise or don't believe at all.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a huge pressing issue or anything, but I think it should be removed eventually as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Which will make the Culture War numbnuts freak out about how we're trying to outlaw Christianity or some such nonsense, but is only adhering to the principles of the Constitution they claim to hold so dear yet cherry pick to see what they want to see.
Last edited:
Term limits should be mandatory on all elected offices, from municipal through national offices. Being without them just begs for corruption, and regardless of political party, I think we can agree that we see the results of that every day.
As to the 14th Amendment, I do agree that unfortunately, it is abused. I think that a proper rewording would state that children of all natural-born and all naturalized citizens are themselves citizens (no worries about Jim Crow laws here, obviously...no one could argue that African-Americans don't fit the "natural-born citizen" category in any way that could ever hold up in court)--but if you entered the country illegally, that your child is a citizen of the country the parents came from.
As to the 14th Amendment, I do agree that unfortunately, it is abused. I think that a proper rewording would state that children of all natural-born and all naturalized citizens are themselves citizens (no worries about Jim Crow laws here, obviously...no one could argue that African-Americans don't fit the "natural-born citizen" category in any way that could ever hold up in court)--but if you entered the country illegally, that your child is a citizen of the country the parents came from.
Actually, they've shown problems with term limits in the State legislature in Florida. Basically, nobody runs against each other anymore. They just wait for their term limit to kick in and then run against somebody else. Seats are actually more secure without term limits for legislatures.
As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_immigration#cite_note-0
Over a million people became US citizen in 2008, up from 700,000 the previous year. No pathway to legal status should begin with an illegal act.
Where's the abolition of the Electoral College, for direct popular election of the president? Where's the abolition of the Senate, so that rural and small states aren't overrrepresented? Where's the clarification of the rules of impeachment so the subhumans can't pretend war crimes aren't "high crimes" or "misdemeanors?" Etc. Etc.
God damn.
Where's the sense that makes? Smaller states aren't "over-represented", as we have the proportional representation in the House. The entire purpose of the Senate was to give all states equal footing.
The Connecticut Compromise. Look it up.
Nowhere Man
Commodore
Did you read the original post? I am for getting rid of the Eletoral College. I am not for disolving the Senate, If the Founders put it in there or intended it, then it should stay. The Impeachment rules are fine, IMO. If the President breaks a law, any law, then he/she can be Impeached. If they are found guilty, then they got to go. If you are talking about the Bush admin., Obama instructed the Attorney General not to prosecute. Nothing we can do about that. The Attourney General is suposed to be independent, but he is not.
Unless you want something to change...like term limits...then it should go away.
This.
Wrong sir. What it says is this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There is absolutely nothing in the constitution forbidding the US Federal government from promoting religion, but also nothing requiring them to so.
What potion of the First Amendment are you referring? Congress certainly wasn't establishing a religion. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism were all establish centuries or millenniums before.
So what religion was established by placing In God We Trust on the money?
Or for that matter using the phrase as our national motto?
The Christian religion is three quarters of the US population, and if you count together all religious affiliated,
religious non-affiliated, people of faith, that's about ninety percent of the population.
How isn't ninety percent of anything (in the usual meaning of the word) the norm?
To be accurate, people are trying to return prayer to the public schools.
By the way, to add a bit of intelligent debate to this thread, for those advocating proportionate representation in the Senate. It is actually, perhaps, the one thing that is not amendable. The last line of Article V says "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." The intent was literally to prevent constitutional amendments that would deprive states of equal voting power that would allow the large states to dominate at the expense of the small ones.
You don't know what you're talking about.
It really is just that simple. I suggest you do some reading on the subject before you post anything further.
Yeah, respecting means establishing a state religion - aka, what existed in England. Such a requirement would be meaningless if they were allowed to promote a specific religion. That's why a wall of separation is so important.
Similar threads
