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.

.

[#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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Wrider]

I see it this way...
Say there's main party A, main party B, and the non-main party candidate that I actually like is candidate C.

Under the current system, if I really didn't like A, disliked B, and wanted to vote C, it wouldn't make sense to vote C. You could vote C, but all that would do is take a "cancelling vote" away from B, which, in effect, adds to A's votes. It's pretty much useless because if A wins more than B or C, A gets all of your state's electoral college votes. Now say A won 51% in a state, that's all of that state's electoral votes going for him.

In a popular vote, you wouldn't feel the need to "cancel out" someone else's vote for A by voting for B, you could simply vote for C, which would not only take away votes from both A and B main parties, but allow people to vote for who they really wanted to vote for; allowing a truer cross-section of the vote to be represented. It might even be enough to actually get a third party elected, one that won't vote strictly party lines, and will actually have the people's best interest in mind.

Not sure if I'm explaining this properly. If it doesn't make sense, I'll come back and try again after I sleep for the day.

Like I said I do understand why the electoral college system came into place, but like is mentioned in several pages about the history of it I found, it was intended for a system in which candidates don't run national campaigns, to keep people from "voting for the home-field advantage", with every state voting only for their candidate.

[#1Townie]

Yeah youre saying either i vote for a or b or else im wasting my vote. If we as a people could get away from that mindset and actually vote for c c should win. Again if true change is wanted we have to start with ourselves. Sure the votes dont have to go for who we vote but then we fire the assholes who went against our wishes. If you really think about it our government is only screwed up because we allowed it to happen.

[dirkterrell]

I see it this way...
Now say A won 51% in a state, that's all of that state's electoral votes going for him.

But that isn't mandated constitutionally. How a state's electoral votes are decided is left up to the individual states. In fact, two states don't have the winner-take-all approach.

Like I said I do understand why the electoral college system came into place, but like is mentioned in several pages about the history of it I found, it was intended for a system in which candidates don't run national campaigns, to keep people from "voting for the home-field advantage", with every state voting only for their candidate.

There were two main reasons why the Founders went with the electoral system: concern that the population could be too easily manipulated by a potential tyrant and giving smaller states a bigger voice in national affairs (another example of the concern about the tyranny of a majority). For the former, for example, Hamilton wrote in Federalist #68:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.