Amending the Constitution

[THoward]

I don't care what side you are on, this is wrong. We need term limits.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hjres15/text

[Ezzzzy1]

Yeah, so we can tear this country apart every 4 years

Elections have never been "nice" but im guessing they will only get worse. Id be happy going to an 8yr term. The only stipulation that I would suggest is that you have to be a property owner to vote like it was when this country was founded.

"given that poorer citizens always outnumber the rich, political philosophers have long worried that government based on majority rule could lead to organized theft from the wealthy by the democratic masses." Quote, "If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city," unquote. That's from Aristotle.

"The Founders of the United States shared Aristotle's worry. Up through their time, history had shown that all democracies" -- all democracies -- "as James Madison put it, are 'incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.' " That's why we have a republic and not a democracy. "Madison and others therefore made it a 'first' " -- 'cause this is a quote -- "first object of government," unquote, "to protect personal property from unjust confiscation."

Now, you see what happened with Kelo versus New London, and the confiscation of one American's property to give it to another private American based on the notion that the government making that decision will get more tax money from the second American than from the first.

This is one of the reasons why, in the original Constitution of the United States, it was only people who were landowners -- property owners were the ones who were allowed to vote. You couldn't vote unless you owned property. Now -- I mean, I can hear the appeal to the masses: "It's not fair, it's not the American way that you don't get to vote," but let me ask you a question: If I don't own anything, what kind of a problem do I have with voting for a measure -- a tax, a law -- that takes somebody else's property and gives it to me? I have no stake in personal property ownership 'cause I don't have any.

Now, back in the day, when this was the law of the land, anybody who wanted to vote needed to step up to the plate, achieve, get a stake in America, and then vote. I know you think this is anti-democratic. Well, actually it is anti-democratic because you don't want a democracy. Democracy is mob rule. You want a republic. Originally, if you didn't own land, you didn't vote, and there was a good reason for it: because those without property will always vote away the property of other people unto themselves, and that's the beginning of the end. But, oh no, that was -- that was just too mean-spirited.

.

[Tipys]

The only stipulation that I would suggest is that you have to be a property owner to vote like it was when this country was founded.



.

So should women not be aloud to vote either? Cause they couldn't vote when this country was founded.

As for just the simple fact between property owner and non property owner. Just because you are a property owner doesn't mean you have any more invested in this country then the non property owners.

[Ezzzzy1]

So should women not be aloud to vote either? Cause they couldn't vote when this country was founded.

Yes women cant vote, neither can black people. Everyone must use muskets and wear feathers in their hats too.

As for just the simple fact between property owner and non property owner. Just because you are a property owner doesn't mean you have any more invested in this country then the non property owners.

If you want to argue with the philosophy of Aristotle then go ahead.

[#1Townie]

No. Not only no but hell fucking no. Maybe if the government actually did a good job i would think about it.

Here is a few simple ideas.

1. Term limitations in all memebers of congress. Same as presidency. No more lifetime benefits just because you made congress. After your time in congress your approval rating will matter. Anything over 80% gets them their lifetime benefits. If not too bad. This will make sure our government works for the people and not the corporations.

2. Cut government in half.



3. End the political parties. The UNITED states should not be divided into red/blue teams.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

No. Not only no but hell fucking no. Maybe if the government actually did a good job i would think about it.

Here is a few simple ideas.

1. Term limitations in all memebers of congress. Same as presidency. No more lifetime benefits just because you made congress. After your time in congress your approval rating will matter. Anything over 80% gets them their lifetime benefits. If not too bad. This will make sure our government works for the people and not the corporations.

2. Cut government in half.



3. End the political parties. The UNITED states should not be divided into red/blue teams.

Wow, common sense AND punctuation in the same post from Townie???

[Zanatos]

Republicans only need one Senator and one Representative since they always vote as a unanimous block anyway.

[TinkerinWstuff]

I once thought of term limits as a good thing.

the more i researched it, I realized it sucks.

If someone has no incentive to attempt to win another election, then they have no accountability to the voters. Thus, they can vote for their own special interest. Blame the idiots who keep putting the idiots back in office.

[THoward]

I agree with Townie.....we are in the mess we are in because Senators and Congressional people stay in office until they die. The President is the only check and balance in place right now. And the sheeple keep voting the idiots back in...wonder how they will feel after their first paycheck with more taxes being taken out? I voted for everyone NOT in office this last election....we just need to clean house.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Have you watched the news recently? Every pundit on every channel comments endlessly how Obama can do anything he wants as he doesn't have to worry about reelection. Even Obama commented himself to Russian President Putin about how he would have much more freedom after his reelection.

The founders looked at term limits during the founding of our country and decided it was a bad idea.

[Clovis]

I agree with the original law that required land ownership to vote. I wold settle for a requirement of being a federal tax payer as a requirement to vote In Federal elections.

Everyone who votes should have some skin in the game.

[Zanatos]

I agree. Screw the poor. If they can't even buy land, then they don't deserve representation.

We should also bring back debtors prisons.

[Clovis]

I agree. Screw the poor. If they can't even buy land, then they don't deserve representation.

We should also bring back debtors prisons.

Whats wrong with requiring skin in the game in order to vote how the game is played?

The whole point of requiring land ownership to vote was the preserve private property by limiting one group from voting themselves the private property of others. Theft through democracy.

Wealth redistribution is legalized theft of private party. Exactly what our founders wanted to prevent.

[laspariahs]

Whats wrong with requiring skin in the game in order to vote how the game is played?

Well you can dream all you want, but it'll never happen.

[TinkerinWstuff]

sarcasm is a fantastic way to have an adult conversation about growd up issues.

[asp_125]

I say we go back to having a dictatorship where the person at the top can .............. oh wait.

[Zanatos]

I think all American citizens have skin in the game by virtue of living in the United States, paying taxes, and participating in the political process.

I can't support the idea that someone who makes a six-figure salary shouldn't be allowed to vote just because he or she has chosen to not buy real estate.

[Clovis]

I think all American citizens have skin in the game by virtue of living in the United States, paying taxes, and participating in the political process.

I can't support the idea that someone who makes a six-figure salary shouldn't be allowed to vote just because he or she has chosen to not buy real estate.

I heard that some 47% of Americans don't pay taxes.

Paying taxes is the modern version of land ownership. It's all about having skin in the game.

[Hoot]

Paying taxes is the new way of requiring skin in the game.

Taxation without representation anyone?

When land ownership was required to vote, there was no income taxation.

[Wrider]

You want the real way to get rid of the red vs blue bullshit?

Get rid of the electoral college. As it stands, even if you don't like either, most vote for the least disliked versus who they really want to vote for. Get rid of the electoral college and people can vote in someone they actually like...

[#1Townie]

You want the real way to get rid of the red vs blue bullshit?

Get rid of the electoral college. As it stands, even if you don't like either, most vote for the least disliked versus who they really want to vote for. Get rid of the electoral college and people can vote in someone they actually like...

That there is the cycle we are stuck in. We will never do away with the college until we get enough of congress back on our side. If we want these things the only way it will happen is if the people come together as one. If we can do that we do away with the teams. We do away with that we can create a real change. Until then we are stuck.

[dirkterrell]

You want the real way to get rid of the red vs blue bullshit?

Get rid of the electoral college. As it stands, even if you don't like either, most vote for the least disliked versus who they really want to vote for. Get rid of the electoral college and people can vote in someone they actually like...

Do you understand why the electoral college was implemented? The Founders had studied previous instances of democratic governments and understood the weaknesses, and eventual failures, of democracies. That is why we have a republic of individual states.

[Wrider]

Do you understand why the electoral college was implemented? The Founders had studied previous instances of democratic governments and understood the weaknesses, and eventual failures, of democracies. That is why we have a republic of individual states.

I understand why, but it's also the main problem with today's election system IMO. It sticks us with choosing dumb or dumber, and the worst part is that you don't know who's who.

[dirkterrell]

I understand why, but it's also the main problem with today's election system IMO. It sticks us with choosing dumb or dumber, and the worst part is that you don't know who's who.

I'd be curious to see an explanation of why you think that.