Do we need to hold another Constitutional Convention?

[Nowhere Man]

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.

Finally, something we can agree on. You know it's not just the Constition where the separation comes from. The Founders wrote about this stuff all the time. I think people forget that.

 

[T'Girl]

respecting means establishing a state religion

And exactly which of the religions is the United States of America's official government-state religion, oh yeah we don't have one.

In God We Trust didn't establish a state religion, didn't create a state church, it doesn't bring a new christian denomination into existence.

The majority of the America people are monotheistic, In God We Trust is just a recognition of that fact. It's not something that the state is imposing upon the society.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Maybe..."In God We Trust" needs to be changed to..."Live Long And Prosper"

No, it just needs to be changed back to "E Pluribus Unum," like it was before the McCarthyists came along.

Wrong sir. What it says is this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

True. Same result, though.

What potion of the First Amendment are you referring?

The part that says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

So what religion was established by placing In God We Trust on the money?

By making "In God We Trust" the national motto, it was established that Christianity is the US religion. This was the intent of the McCarthyists, in opposition to the intent of the Founding Fathers.

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.

The US is a secular nation where freedom from religion is just as important as freedom of religion.

 

[stj]

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.

If there is no Senate, no state is deprived of its equal suffrage: Each and every state would have zero votes.

The Connecticut compromise did not work to resolve differences of interests between the large and small states, as witness the repeated crises that culminated in the Civil War. The general notion the Framers were Giants Upon the Earth is easily refuted by the emergence of a constitutional crisis as early as the election of 1800. Frankly to ever say that original intent should apply is perilously close to outright idiocy, so close as to immediately raise suspicion of mendacity.

Andrew Johnson encouraged the murders of ex-slaves, yet this did not rise to the level of a "crime." An effort by Congress, the Tenure of Office Act, to limit his successes in practically undoing emancipation was viewed as constitutionally uncertain, therefore defiance not a criminal act. The President is not legally enjoined to carry out the will of the majority of the people, not as expressed in his own election or as expressed as by the majority of the representatives in House and Senate. The escape clause is "High Crimes." In my view, inserting a meaningless phrase in an enforce clause is tantamount to covertly emasculating the whole provision.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

respecting means establishing a state religion

And exactly which of the religions is the United States of America's official government-state religion, oh yeah we don't have one.

In God We Trust didn't establish a state religion, didn't create a state church, it doesn't bring a new christian denomination into existence.

And you ignored the rest of my post. I'll address your comments when you address mine.

 

[TheBrew]

respecting means establishing a state religion

And exactly which of the religions is the United States of America's official government-state religion, oh yeah we don't have one.

In God We Trust didn't establish a state religion, didn't create a state church, it doesn't bring a new christian denomination into existence.

And you ignored the rest of my post. I'll address your comments when you address mine.

The best way to win an argument is to ignore all of the points of your opponent's argument.

So Horror Club thinks he's winning.

 

[Squiggy]

And exactly which of the religions is the United States of America's official government-state religion, oh yeah we don't have one.

In God We Trust didn't establish a state religion, didn't create a state church, it doesn't bring a new christian denomination into existence.

And you ignored the rest of my post. I'll address your comments when you address mine.

The best way to win an argument is to ignore all of the points of your opponent's argument.

So Horror Club thinks he's winning.

But what is the best way to win an argument?

 

[TheBrew]

And you ignored the rest of my post. I'll address your comments when you address mine.

The best way to win an argument is to ignore all of the points of your opponent's argument.

So Horror Club thinks he's winning.

But what is the best way to win an argument?

Sorry, I am ignoring you in my act of argumental winningitude.

 

[Squiggy]

I'm not even looking at the screwwn when I tupe. I'M TEH WINNAr!!

 

[iguana_tonante]

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.

I very much agree. I have similar qualms with my own country on a similar issue, the presence of the crucifix in public schools and tribunals. For all our bending over the desk for the Vatican, Italy is defined in our Constitution as secular country, not a theocratic one. When challenged, our government ruled that the crucifix is a "cultural" symbol of the Italian people, not a religious one. Which is of course bullshit. Especially since Italy as a country was built by anticlerical freemasons and revolutionaries, and the Republic was established by liberal, actionist and communist partisans. It's not really a big issue (in the same topic, I'm more concerned about the state contributions to the Vatican), but it pisses me off for the blatant disregard of the rule of law.

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.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of term limits. They strike me as unnecessarily draconian. I understand your point, but I don't think they are the solution against corruption and inefficiency.

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.

I dunno. I can't disagree with your position because this is how it's made in most countries all over the world, mine included. But the US has always made a point about his peculiar policy of welcoming the children of immigrants as citizens, that changing it will strike me as definitively un-American. But I'm hardly in the position to judge.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

This thread is highly entertaining. Rarely do I see such a hodgepodge of both libertarian and progressive proposals.

Let's roll.

Here is what I propose: Adopt original Constitution as it was with origanal 10 Bill of Rights

OK.

1.One Six year term for President, 4 is too short, 8 can be too long at times.

Eh, the "instant lame duck" argument is a pretty compelling one. I don't like this idea. In fact, I could go for no Presidential term limits at all.

2. Repeal the 14th amendment, gives Citizenship back to the States. The Executive Branch has power to enforce laws not Legislative

I don't like this idea, either. Also, the Executive has always held enforcement power. Congress passes laws, the President enforces them, the Judiciary rules on Constitutionality. That's how it works. The 14th Amendment does too much good for me to be willing to part with it.

3. Adopt 13th, Slavery is bad m'kay

What a shocking and non-mainstream position.

4.Adopt 15th, Everyone deserves right to vote. Allow for property requirements only. This eliminates non tax payers from voting with agenda's

Mmm, how about "no"? People without property are still human beings and deserve the right to vote. It's also a lie to say poor people don't pay taxes. They do.

5. Repeal 16th, let people retain their entire income.

So we'll operate the federal government on a budget of exactly $0?

6.Repeal 17th, Senete used to be Voted by House. This allowed Senate to focus on legislation and not constantly running for office. Also if House members would be elected with more caution by the people. Gets rid of the "mobocracy"

This was thoroughly shredded by others. I think it's fine to leave it how it is--let the Senators be elected by populate vote of their States.

7. Do not adopt 18th, I like my Alchohol, probation never works

Well, yeah, it would be kind of pointless to adopt Prohibition and then the Amendment that repeals it.

8. Adopt 19th, see #4

Another radical proposal!

9.With # 1 there is no need, one 6 year term.

Nah, let's just get rid of the term limits altogether.

10. Adopt 21st. See #7 also add a section legalizing possesion and personal/private use of all drugs in small quantities up to one ounce. Make sale and distribution taxable to Marijuana, Alchohol and Tobacco . Sale of hard drugs not mentioned illegal. Allow growth of any dru of organic nature legal in small quantities of a maximum of 10 plants per household or private property.

All drugs "of an organic nature"? I guess that means opiates are cool! Sweet! Imma go shoot up now.

Drugs shouldn't be brought up at all in the Constitution. Let Congress decide what should be legal/illegal across state lines, the President decide to what extent to enforce drug laws, and each State to decide the fate of drugs within their own borders.

11.22nd would not aply, one 6 year term.

Uh huh.

12. Adopt 23rd Amendment, agian, everyone should have the right to vote. Get rid of section 2,agian Executive branch enforces law.

Yeah, this is fine, as long as there's no property requirement.

13. Adopt 24th,get rid of section 2 same reason.No Jim Crow laws.

OK.

14.Adopt 25th, VP. become President if something bad happens.

Fair enough.

15.Adopt 26th, If your old enough to go to war, your old enough to vote.

Good call.

16.Adopt 27th, no raises while in term.

Eh, I would rather we just did away with letting them vote on raises altogether. Index their salaries to something sensible and do a market adjustment, say, every 10 years based on economic indicators. No arbitrary "we wanna be paid this much" crap.

17. Add amendment for right to a full educatioin with trade for two years of public service. By full I mean Kindergarden-College Graduate. Any further education is not on the house.

This is not a bad idea as far as I'm concerned.

18. Establish a single-payer Health Care system. Allow States to decide what is needed for each State.

I like the first part but not the second. Also, how is this going to be paid for without an income tax?

A single-payer system should work the same in all 50 states.

19. Eliminate the Federal reserve, replace with Consumer Protection Agency that has police powers.

What the hell for?

20. Eliminate Federal Reserve Notes, allow States and Banks to print own Money, eliminate "Greenbacks".

See above. Exactly what does this accomplish?

21. Establish a permanent Gold Standard, allow for Bonds to be sold in war time. Allow for temperary disbanding of gold standard during war time only.

Yeah, economic stagnation sounds just awesome.

22. Establish5 % tax on all goods.establish non protective tariffs(tax imports)

I am on the fence. As others said, tariffs lead to retaliation. It would be better to work out sensible trade agreements rather than levy a flat tariff on everything.

23. Establish a line item veto.

Fuck no. That's about as unconstitutional as it gets. The President can sign or veto--that's it.

24. Balanced Budget Amedment

I would prefer a "Deficit Management Amendment." The budget doesn't need to be 100% balanced but we should definitely have some controls in place regarding the size of our deficit and the expansion of our debt.

25. Right of Abortion.

Good.

26. Right of Mariage to anyone, allow for gay mariage.

Also good.

27. Right of gay person to serve in Military.

28. Right of People to have a clean environment

Remarkably vague.

29. VP. would be voted for in seperate election from President, but elected at same time

Why?

30. Abolish Electorial College.

I'd rather get rid of the spoils system than eliminate the EC entirely.

31. Representation in the House would be based on pop.

It's not already?

32. Establish a clear seperation of church and state.

Sounds good.

33. Public financing of campaignes only.

I'm fine with this.

34. Corperations do not have same rights as people.

Eliminating the rights of "fictive persons" is something I agree with in principle but it should be part of an overall overhaul of how companies are treated. Any company that operates across state lines should be subject to a federal charter revocation--a "corporate death penalty," including the seizure of all company assets (so the same people can't just start a new company and act like nothing happened.) Mandatory receivership would also be OK in lieu of dissolving the company.

35. Establish worker rights.

Such as? I'm a big proponent of workers' rights but it would be nice if you were more specific.

36.Clarify 2nd amendment to allow for gun regulation. ie. no automatics

Eh, I think we go too far with gun control.

37. Make any and all secret documents avaliable to the public after 10 years of it's original print date.

This is another one I'd favor if it had the right circumstances. Maybe place all documents in a sealed form in escrow with an independent third party to be unsealed on a specific date. There should be an "out" for particularly sensitive documents to remain sealed but it must also have a check--such as requiring the approval of both the President and Congress.

38. Dismantle the CIA., also requre Congress to re-declare war for each year that a war continues. President allowed to raise military for up to 6 months.

The CIA is good at what it does. What would we replace it with? Given that we already wage war without ever declaring it your second sentence seems to be redundant. I would just require that all war spending be kept on-budget, no putting it off the books to make the numbers look better.

39. Re-establish rules of war.

Like?

40. Replace "in god we trust" with "in the people we trust" also abolish the use of the word god or gods or the names of any religous figure on and federal document or coins or anything.

It would be nice to get rid of that but it's pretty low on the totem pole of national priorities.

Ok I think that's it, let me know what you think. By the way I'm a registered Independent.

I think a lot of these ideas are just ideas and no substance--things a politician would spout off in a sound byte without anything to back it up. Please do better.

 

[Snaploud]

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.

That really doesn't make any sense. We have plenty of precedent for constitutional amendments going against the language of the original document. An amendment over-rides the original text. That's what makes it an amendment.

 

[Squiggy]

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.

That really doesn't make any sense. We have plenty of precedent for constitutional amendments going against the language of the original document. An amendment over-rides the original text. That's what makes it an amendment.

The way it's written causes a loophole. A state would have to give it's consent to remove it's equal representation, yet not all states would be required to ratify an amendment. So, you could have an amendment getting passed and have states not give their consent, making a somewhat unconstitutional amendment.

It would be an interesting predicament.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

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.

That really doesn't make any sense. We have plenty of precedent for constitutional amendments going against the language of the original document. An amendment over-rides the original text. That's what makes it an amendment.

The constitution specifically provides for those amendments. The document can be changed because it says the document can be changed. The thing with the Senate is the document specifically says no amendment can alter this provision of the constitution. There's one other part that wasn't amendable (banning the slave trade before 1808), but that's obviously not relevant anymore. It would be an interesting case if people tried to alter it. Honestly, it would be easier just to dissolve the Senate itself or give the House some kind of override (like the House of Commons has over the Lords). Both of those would most likely be legal changes.

 

[scotpens]

Maybe..."In God We Trust" needs to be changed to..."Live Long And Prosper"

No, it just needs to be changed back to "E Pluribus Unum," like it was before the McCarthyists came along.

Who, exactly, are these "McCarthyists" you keep referring to? Joseph McCarthy was an obscure Senator who had his moment of fame (or infamy, depending on your POV) when he accused the Army and the State Department of being riddled with Communists and Commie sympathizers. (Contrary to popular belief, he had nothing whatsoever to do with the HUAC hearings on Communist influence in the media, or the ensuing blacklist of Hollywood writers, actors and directors.) It's not as if he founded a political party or movement.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

The Red Scare (or Second Red Scare to be more precise) was a political movement fueled by fear of communist infiltration. McCarthy was most famous for his "list" that he didn't have. He wasn't the leader, but has become the symbol. He didn't run the House Un-American Activities Committee because he was a Senator. That's about it. Same ideological goals, same overarching result, whether you want to call it McCarthyism or some other name is irrelevant.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

This is my first time in Miscellanious so I don't know if it has been brought up or not. So here it is, should we(U.S.) have a new Constitutional Convention or not. I realize it would be hard since it requires all States to get involved and 3/4 of States to ratify an ammendment, but just for shitz and gigles what do you think? I also realize it would be hard because it would require Congress to actually do something and it would require a ton of compromise. I also wish to ask what changes would you make if a new Constitution was bieng written. I personally think it's time. Here are some proposed changes from other people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proposed_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Here is what I propose: Adopt original Constitution as it was with origanal 10 Bill of Rights
1.One Six year term for President, 4 is too short, 8 can be too long at times.

You know what, i agree with this.

2. Repeal the 14th amendment, gives Citizenship back to the States. The Executive Branch has power to enforce laws not Legislative

Not this though. There's too many things in the 14th Amendment, like the Equal Protection Clause.

3. Adopt 13th, Slavery is bad m'kay

Um, well, yeah ...

4.Adopt 15th, Everyone deserves right to vote. Allow for property requirements only. This eliminates non tax payers from voting with agenda's

So in order to vote, you must have property?

5. Repeal 16th, let people retain their entire income.

Income taxes form an important part of the Government. It's a necessary evil.

6.Repeal 17th, Senete used to be Voted by House. This allowed Senate to focus on legislation and not constantly running for office. Also if House members would be elected with more caution by the people. Gets rid of the "mobocracy"

Senators are elected every 6 years. How is that constantly running for office?

7. Do not adopt 18th, I like my Alchohol, probation never works

You're right, it clearly didn't work.

8. Adopt 19th, see #4
9.With # 1 there is no need, one 6 year term.
10. Adopt 21st. See #7 also add a section legalizing possesion and personal/private use of all drugs in small quantities up to one ounce. Make sale and distribution taxable to Marijuana, Alchohol and Tobacco . Sale of hard drugs not mentioned illegal. Allow growth of any dru of organic nature legal in small quantities of a maximum of 10 plants per household or private property.

I agree with you in theory there, but i'm not too sure.

11.22nd would not aply, one 6 year term.
12. Adopt 23rd Amendment, agian, everyone should have the right to vote. Get rid of section 2,agian Executive branch enforces law.
13. Adopt 24th,get rid of section 2 same reason.No Jim Crow laws.
14.Adopt 25th, VP. become President if something bad happens.
15.Adopt 26th, If your old enough to go to war, your old enough to vote.
16.Adopt 27th, no raises while in term.
17. Add amendment for right to a full educatioin with trade for two years of public service. By full I mean Kindergarden-College Graduate. Any further education is not on the house.

And how is the government to pay for this without income tax?

18. Establish a single-payer Health Care system. Allow States to decide what is needed for each State.[/quote[ See above.

19. Eliminate the Federal reserve, replace with Consumer Protection Agency that has police powers.

What? A consumer police?

20. Eliminate Federal Reserve Notes, allow States and Banks to print own Money, eliminate "Greenbacks".

So then there would be how many different currencies? That doesn't make sense.

21. Establish a permanent Gold Standard, allow for Bonds to be sold in war time. Allow for temperary disbanding of gold standard during war time only.
22. Establish5 % tax on all goods.establish non protective tariffs(tax imports)
23. Establish a line item veto.

I do agree with this.

24. Balanced Budget Amedment

Pipe dream.

25. Right of Abortion.

Upvote on that.

26. Right of Mariage to anyone, allow for gay mariage.
27. Right of gay person to serve in Military.

And all these too.

28. Right of People to have a clean environment
29. VP. would be voted for in seperate election from President, but elected at same time

That's almost like how it was done before.

30. Abolish Electorial College.

This would be good.

31. Representation in the House would be based on pop.

It is ...

32. Establish a clear seperation of church and state.
33. Public financing of campaignes only.
34. Corperations do not have same rights as people.
35. Establish worker rights.
36.Clarify 2nd amendment to allow for gun regulation. ie. no automatics

I think the 2nd amendment is quite clear.

37. Make any and all secret documents avaliable to the public after 10 years of it's original print date.

While this could work in theory, i do believe that there are some things the public shouldn't know about.

38. Dismantle the CIA., also requre Congress to re-declare war for each year that a war continues. President allowed to raise military for up to 6 months.

No, we do need the CIA. And if we're at war, why re-declare it?

39. Re-establish rules of war.

That's what the Geneva Conventions are for.

40. Replace "in god we trust" with "in the people we trust" also abolish the use of the word god or gods or the names of any religous figure on and federal document or coins or anything.

That one's good.

Ok I think that's it, let me know what you think. By the way I'm a registered Independent.

Done. I'm a Democrat, btw.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Maybe..."In God We Trust" needs to be changed to..."Live Long And Prosper"

No, it just needs to be changed back to "E Pluribus Unum," like it was before the McCarthyists came along.

Who, exactly, are these "McCarthyists" you keep referring to? Joseph McCarthy was an obscure Senator who had his moment of fame (or infamy, depending on your POV) when he accused the Army and the State Department of being riddled with Communists and Commie sympathizers. (Contrary to popular belief, he had nothing whatsoever to do with the HUAC hearings on Communist influence in the media, or the ensuing blacklist of Hollywood writers, actors and directors.) It's not as if he founded a political party or movement.

What AJ said.

 

[sidious618]

Maybe..."In God We Trust" needs to be changed to..."Live Long And Prosper"

No, it just needs to be changed back to "E Pluribus Unum," like it was before the McCarthyists came along.

Who, exactly, are these "McCarthyists" you keep referring to? Joseph McCarthy was an obscure Senator who had his moment of fame (or infamy, depending on your POV) when he accused the Army and the State Department of being riddled with Communists and Commie sympathizers. (Contrary to popular belief, he had nothing whatsoever to do with the HUAC hearings on Communist influence in the media, or the ensuing blacklist of Hollywood writers, actors and directors.) It's not as if he founded a political party or movement.

That's pretty incorrect. McCarthy was quite heavily involved in the Red Scare and became a symbol and house hold name because of it. To downplay Joseph McCarthy's influence would be a massive mistake.

 

[Nowhere Man]

This is my first time in Miscellanious so I don't know if it has been brought up or not. So here it is, should we(U.S.) have a new Constitutional Convention or not. I realize it would be hard since it requires all States to get involved and 3/4 of States to ratify an ammendment, but just for shitz and gigles what do you think? I also realize it would be hard because it would require Congress to actually do something and it would require a ton of compromise. I also wish to ask what changes would you make if a new Constitution was bieng written. I personally think it's time. Here are some proposed changes from other people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proposed_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Here is what I propose: Adopt original Constitution as it was with origanal 10 Bill of Rights
1.One Six year term for President, 4 is too short, 8 can be too long at times.

You know what, i agree with this.

2. Repeal the 14th amendment, gives Citizenship back to the States. The Executive Branch has power to enforce laws not Legislative

Not this though. There's too many things in the 14th Amendment, like the Equal Protection Clause.
Um, well, yeah ...
So in order to vote, you must have property?
Income taxes form an important part of the Government. It's a necessary evil.
Senators are elected every 6 years. How is that constantly running for office?
You're right, it clearly didn't work.
I agree with you in theory there, but i'm not too sure.
And how is the government to pay for this without income tax?

18. Establish a single-payer Health Care system. Allow States to decide what is needed for each State.[/quote[ See above.
What? A consumer police?
So then there would be how many different currencies? That doesn't make sense.
I do agree with this.
Pipe dream.
Upvote on that.
And all these too.
That's almost like how it was done before.
This would be good.
It is ...
I think the 2nd amendment is quite clear.
While this could work in theory, i do believe that there are some things the public shouldn't know about.
No, we do need the CIA. And if we're at war, why re-declare it?
That's what the Geneva Conventions are for.
That one's good.

Ok I think that's it, let me know what you think. By the way I'm a registered Independent.

Done. I'm a Democrat, btw.

First of all, thank you for reading my list in full and going through it one by one. It's fine if you don't agree, your about the only one who has took the time to realy try and understand what I am saying. Now I will adress your concerns.

Ok, the repealing of the 14th has been the big non starter on this thread. Nobody can get past it. I suggest repeal and replace it. Keep the paragraph about protection and due process. Sections 2, 3, and 4 are no longer necessary and refer to Ex-Confederates. The 14th created a National citizenship, give the Citizenship back to the States as it was before. Take out section 5, The Executive enforces the law. I'm not going to argue this. Combine the 15th, 19th, 24th, and the 26th amendments into one amendment. Everyone gets the right to vote if they are 18 and have full protection under the law.

I concede we need Income Taxes, but if we are going to do this, then get rid of sales tax.

Allow the states decide if they want to include property requirements, but that is all. If you don't own property, you don't pay a whole lot of taxes and you have no problem with taxing and spending, internal improvements and the like. If you own property, you have a vested interest in keeping taxes low. Don't worry, most of us own property. If you own a car, you own property. If you are a felon, you can't vote. That I would change.

Senators are elected every 6 years, but in that time they have to argue back and forth with pundits and what not about every little thing they do. This is esentially running for office, because voters are constantly paying attention to what these guys are saying. You could argue that for 4 years they actually do work, but political campaigns start imeadiately after electioin day, everything they do is for the next election. The last two years of their term is devoted to the election. One year for primary and one for the actual election. Same thing for President, yet the President only works for 2 years and runs for two years. Christ, the House doesn't stand a chance.

A consumer Police? Not exactly, but something like that. Instead of having the Fed. have an FBI type Bureau that investigates things like insider trading,or that crap that Wallstreet pulled and if it is illegal, then they can get a warrant and arrest those fuckers. Obama has already set up a Consumer Commission or something like that, I would make it an Agency. The Fed answers to no one, these guys would answer to us.

Each state would print their own money and various banks could too. It was like that before the Civil War, but we also were on the gold standard too. Each States' money would be valid and since the price of gold would remain the same world wide, there's no need for an exchange rate. It just give the States their soveriegnty back.

I don't think the 2nd amenment is clear otherwise we would have to argue it all the frackin time. Here's an argument. I have the right to bear arms, so I have a right to build a nuclear missle in my back yard. This is flawed, there has to be a cuttoff. You have a right to small arms such as mines and grenades. You have a right to shotguns, rifles, handguns, semi-automatics, but that's it.

The CIA. was created during WW2, we are not fighting that war technacaly. The CIA. is conducting our wars for us and using our soldiers to do so. Most of which have been illegal. They conduct a lot, and I mean a lot of illegal actions. They should be dismantled. Kennedy believed this and so do I.This goes along with the rules of war. You may be shocked to hear this,but WE DO NOT FOLLOW THe GENEVA CONVENTIONS.(megaphone) or any other rule of war. I'm tired of total war. There have been a ton of rules of war set up in the early-mid 19th century and even before that there were other rules. We don't follow any rules, but our own. We aparently don't torture either, but waterboarding is a form of torture. We do do this, but we don't torture.

As far as Declorations of war goes, The President should be allowed 6 months initial military action. After that a decloration of war should be made. For every year that the war goes on the President should have to go to Congress and re-Declare war. This forces Congress each time to have to think about what they are doing and could prevent wars that have no end. It also forced the President to justify the continuation of the war. We have been at a constant state of war for almost a century, that is not right. Ask yourself why that is?

That's almost like how it was done before

Exactly how it was done before, maybe I worded it wrong.

Agian, thanks for your input.