Do we need to hold another Constitutional Convention?

[Nowhere Man]

I see this country failing, why? Because we are not a Republic and haven't been for over 100 years. Yet we say,"and to the Republic for which it stands." We are an Empire and Empires fail. The Roman Republic, the Greek Republics all failed for the same reasons we are failing.

Citizens haven't voted for candidates to represent them in Congress and the Executive for over 100 years?

We have an Emperor, and he's about to be deposed by foederati?

Paragraphs have gone out of fashion?

I guess I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

Emperors can be voted in also. Republics have limited government and ours is suposed to have checks and balances, but they don't exist anymore. We over reach militarily, The President can decree whatever he/she wants to be true and nobody can do shit about it. We elect new Presidents, but are there any real changes in policies. Historically, for the last 30-40 years we pretty much have been on the same course. Maybe one President makes some smaller decisions different; but over all, the path is still the same. We can vote all we want; but Congress does what it wants, they are currupt. They just give us the illusion that our vote counts. There is a bigger agenda at hand. We have teritory all over the world, this is Imperialism. If we are not an Empire, we sure do act like one. Paragraphs are not out of style.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

the "In God We Trust" motto is already illegal

Come again?

 

[T'Girl]

the "In God We Trust" motto is already illegal

Come again?

These are from two seperate news articles:

"In God We Trust," the United States National Motto and phrase which appears on U.S. money, has once again been protected as not violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has unanimously found for the defendants in the case of Carlos Kidd vs President Barack Obama and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, the case in which an atheist filed suit against the phrase "In God We Trust."
-----
In October 2009, Paul L. Friedman, U.S. district judge for the District of Columbia, dismissed Kidd's lawsuit for failing to state a claim. "Courts have consistently held that the phrase 'In God we trust' does not violate the Establishment Clause.

Kidd appealed the decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 21, 2010 a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit affirmed the lower court in Kidd v. Obama in a per curiam ("for the court") opinion.
---
RJDemonicus, you may not as a personal opinion like In God We Trust as the national motto, but that opinion doesn't make it illegal.

In God We Trust is very much legal, and is protected by law.

.

 

[sojourner]

It depends on which party controls Congress. We do have elections at different times. It really depends. Besides, we really need to get away from the President setting policies and following party lines. He/ She should be doing other stuff, like diplomatic stuff, treaties. Taking care of domestic policy. We need to roll back our foreign policy big time. The President should be a president for everyone, not just their political party. Also, we should eliminate parties al together. Washington warned against them saying they were the bane of Republics.

There is no way to "eliminate parties". The minute 2 people disagree you have parties.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Emperors can be voted in also. Republics have limited government and ours is suposed to have checks and balances, but they don't exist anymore. We over reach militarily, The President can decree whatever he/she wants to be true and nobody can do shit about it. We elect new Presidents, but are there any real changes in policies. Historically, for the last 30-40 years we pretty much have been on the same course. Maybe one President makes some smaller decisions different; but over all, the path is still the same. We can vote all we want; but Congress does what it wants, they are currupt. They just give us the illusion that our vote counts. There is a bigger agenda at hand. We have teritory all over the world, this is Imperialism. If we are not an Empire, we sure do act like one. Paragraphs are not out of style.

Ok, but how would a Constitutional Convention solve any of these problems? You can't write a new constitution without the overwhelming support of the people behind you, unless you first become a despot yourself.

 

[bigdaddy]

We need term limits for sure, more so with the supreme court, I say 15 years. I agree with the 6 year presidency, just look at Obama, did jack shit that he promised to do because he cares more about reelection than his promises.

I would also give citizenship to anyone who fought for our country after X amount of time. I think it's stupid we have 18,000 non-citizens fighting for this country who can't vote. If you are brave enough to want to fight for us then we can give you something back in exchange.

 

[sidious618]

In God We Trust is very much legal, and is protected by law.

.

LOL at you putting your Halloween name in your location field.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

Without even reading your list, I can't agree because you scrapped the 14th Amendment. Without it, a good chunk of the bill of rights would NOT apply to any of the states.

 

[scotpens]

. . . The reason I sugest a Constitution Convention is because I believe that's what it would take to reboot the country without another Civil War. I don't see the amendment process hapening. I understand getting 50 or I would argue 52 delegates together to agree to do that would be hard, but it's not imposible.

First you'd have get two-thirds of the state legislatures to petition Congress for a new Constitutional Convention, as per Article 5 of the Constitution. Then you can start choosing delegates.

That's why I would expand the Bill of Rights to include Worker rights, Health Care rights, Environmental rights.

Whether or not the environment is worthy of express Constitutional protection is a matter of opinion, I suppose. But there are no “environmental rights.” Human beings have rights. Inanimate objects don't.

. . . The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has unanimously found for the defendants in the case of Carlos Kidd vs President Barack Obama and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, the case in which an atheist filed suit against the phrase “In God We Trust.”

It's idiotic chickenshit like that that gives us atheists a bad name.

There is no way to “eliminate parties”. The minute 2 people disagree you have parties.

In Soviet Russia, party eliminates YOU!

 

[Nowhere Man]

Without even reading your list, I can't agree because you scrapped the 14th Amendment. Without it, a good chunk of the bill of rights would NOT apply to any of the states.

Someone else already argued this with me and I posted what I would do about that. I will rtepeat myself though. The 14th created a National Citizenship, which was reserved to the States before. I say give Citizenship back to the States. It only aplied to ex-slaves, it has been distorted since. Now before I go any further, I don't think we should kick out all illegal imigrants. We should go ahead and give them a path to a legal status. All that bieng said, after that is done, move foward with giving citizenship to the States.

Section 2 deals with Ex-Confederates, this was the Radical Republican's way of enfranchising African Americans(but only in the South) and disenfranchising Ex-Confederates. This was continued in sections 3 and 4. Obviously things have changed since then, but it still stands that anyone who is considered a "Rebel" is not allowed to vote.

Section 5 gives Congress the power to enforce, this is completely Unconstitutional. The Executive branch has police powers, not Congress. That means Congress has the power to do anything. That destroys checks and balances. The reason I would scrap the 14 is because I would replace it.

As I said, give Citizenship back to the States. Combine the 15th,19th,24th and the 26th. Which ensures the right to vote to anyone who is 18. It also eliminate poll taxes. Take away the part that gives enforcement power and give it back to the the Executive where it belongs.Keep the due process part. In order to do this, you first have to repeal it, then replkace it with something else. Hopefully that clarifies everything. Everyone has the right to vote, everyone is protected. I have no problem with this.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I've re-written your so-called Equal Rights Amendment in plain, non-euphemistic language:

1) A Reproductive Slavery Amendment that protects all human beings from conception to death--with the exception of women, who can be impregnated and forced to bear children without their consent.

No, no exceptions.

RJDemonicus, you may not as a personal opinion like In God We Trust as the national motto, but that opinion doesn't make it illegal.

In God We Trust is very much legal, and is protected by law.

It's a violation of the First Amendment (easily the most blatant violation), lower court rulings notwithstanding. It's never been decided by the Supreme Court. And, of course, if it were, the decision would be based on the political makeup of the Court at that time.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Without even reading your list, I can't agree because you scrapped the 14th Amendment. Without it, a good chunk of the bill of rights would NOT apply to any of the states.

Someone else already argued this with me and I posted what I would do about that. I will rtepeat myself though. The 14th created a National Citizenship, which was reserved to the States before. I say give Citizenship back to the States. It only aplied to ex-slaves, it has been distorted since. Now before I go any further, I don't think we should kick out all illegal imigrants. We should go ahead and give them a path to a legal status. All that bieng said, after that is done, move foward with giving citizenship to the States.

The key part is this part:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

The point was to make sure that the Bill of Rights protected people from state government actions as well. Otherwise, the Bill of Rights is nearly meaningless. That's why we brought up racial discrimination and Jim Crow laws. Hell, even later Amendments prohibiting poll taxes would be useless without the 14th amendment (or it'll only protect against federal poll taxes).

Section 5 gives Congress the power to enforce, this is completely Unconstitutional. The Executive branch has police powers, not Congress. That means Congress has the power to do anything. That destroys checks and balances. The reason I would scrap the 14 is because I would replace it.

For starters, it can't be unconstitutional if it's in the constitution (with maybe one exception I really don't feel like getting into that's not relevant).

Second, it isn't enforcing laws, it's authorizing congress to make a law to enforce the constitution. The executive would still be the one to enforce the newly enacted Congressional law. I don't think you understand that about the provision or how the government works.

By the way, if you look at the provisions for Constitutional Conventions, it seems pretty clear that the intent was to use it if Congress refused to vote for an amendment they knew the states would pass. It doesn't necessarily have to be for an overhaul of the government.

 

[scotpens]

RJDemonicus, you may not as a personal opinion like In God We Trust as the national motto, but that opinion doesn't make it illegal.

In God We Trust is very much legal, and is protected by law.

It's a violation of the First Amendment (easily the most blatant violation), lower court rulings notwithstanding. It's never been decided by the Supreme Court.

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a church supported by public revenues. It also guarantees the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about eliminating all expression of religion from public life.

Really, there are far bigger fish to fry when it comes to church/state issues.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

In God We Trust is very much legal, and is protected by law.

I don't see the big deal anyway. That phrase does not constitute a law establishing a religion (or prohibiting the free exercise thereof), so therefore it is not a violation of the First Amendment.

 

[sidious618]

I've re-written your so-called Equal Rights Amendment in plain, non-euphemistic language:

1) A Reproductive Slavery Amendment that protects all human beings from conception to death--with the exception of women, who can be impregnated and forced to bear children without their consent.

No, no exceptions.

You're anti-abortion?!

 

[RJDiogenes]

In God We Trust is very much legal, and is protected by law.

I don't see the big deal anyway. That phrase does not constitute a law establishing a religion (or prohibiting the free exercise thereof), so therefore it is not a violation of the First Amendment.

See below.

RJDemonicus, you may not as a personal opinion like In God We Trust as the national motto, but that opinion doesn't make it illegal.

In God We Trust is very much legal, and is protected by law.

It's a violation of the First Amendment (easily the most blatant violation), lower court rulings notwithstanding. It's never been decided by the Supreme Court.

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a church supported by public revenues. It also guarantees the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about eliminating all expression of religion from public life.

Really, there are far bigger fish to fry when it comes to church/state issues.

What it says is that "Congress shall make no law promoting an establishment of religion." In changing the US Motto and requiring that it appear on all currency, Congress (under the control then of the McCarthyists) violated the First Amendment (this is also true of their re-writing of the Pledge of Allegiance.

I disagree that there are bigger fish to fry. In using the national currency for advertising and including the Christian god in the Pledge of Allegiance, the McCarthyists created the illusion that not only is the Christian religion the normal condition from which everyone else deviates, but that the United States is a Christian nation. These are precedents that have been cited innumerable times in cases of people trying to bring prayer or Creationism into the public schools, into using religious tests for elected officials and even defining citizenship-- it was Bush the First who said that Atheists can't be real Americans because this is "one nation under god."

These things may seem subtle, but they are a very big deal.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I've re-written your so-called Equal Rights Amendment in plain, non-euphemistic language:

No, no exceptions.

You're anti-abortion?!

Yes, I'm definitely anti-abortion.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

What it says is that "Congress shall make no law promoting an establishment of religion." In changing the US Motto and requiring that it appear on all currency, Congress (under the control then of the McCarthyists) violated the First Amendment

All the motto is, is a phrase on currency. It does not, in and of itself, establish anything. Most people don't even look at it.

 

[Squiggy]

Senete used to be Voted by House.

No. This never happened.

 

[RJDiogenes]

What it says is that "Congress shall make no law promoting an establishment of religion." In changing the US Motto and requiring that it appear on all currency, Congress (under the control then of the McCarthyists) violated the First Amendment

All the motto is, is a phrase on currency. It does not, in and of itself, establish anything. Most people don't even look at it.

First of all, it's not just a phrase on currency, it's the official, legislated motto of the United States. Secondly, it is most definitely promoting an establishment of religion-- how can you advertise something on the national currency and not be promoting it?