Time to amend the wording in the Consitution?

[Gods_Mercenary]

I kid you not, quite literally nothing would ever get done. When's the last time more than 70% of americans agreed on anything real? Good ideas are not dictated by how many people agre with them anyway.

[Domino]

I guess it depends on how much you think should be done. I think we could get a pretty big majority to agree on the obvious stuff, like murder or rape.

Really though, I'd have to combine that with greatly increased local autonomy. I'd allow each municipality/county determine its own requirements for its local legislation, and allow them to take care of many more of their own problems, whether through taxation, or perhaps by forming a coop with neighboring localities.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Domino I guess it depends on how much you think should be done. I think we could get a pretty big majority to agree on the obvious stuff, like murder or rape. Really though, I'd have to combine that with greatly increased local autonomy. I'd allow each municipality/county determine its own requirements for its local legislation, and allow them to take care of many more of their own problems, whether through taxation, or perhaps by forming a coop with neighboring localities.

Before you make up you mind try attending some city hall meetings and in particular try to fight city hall about rent raises and so forth. I did. And I no longer have much respect for city governments, who seemed controlled by those who own businesses and support some shady ventures. The Landlords locally are the lawyers, doctors, judges, and the Walmart type CEOs. I attempted to fight this slum landlord in Norwalk California who was rasing rent twice a year and allowing the place to fall apart, the Landlord who owned the property was a local doctor, who allowed the kids swimming pools to turn green without cleaning them, and where fruit rats attack a baby with jelly on it's face while it lay in it's bedroom. The Landlord won and city hall said he had the right to raise the rent because he spent money to put new blacktop on the parking lot. Window dressing to get more renters.

Have a rent dispute with a landlord, forget going to court because the judges all own property for rent. Local politics are the most corupt ones in the spectrum.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: GHook93 I said max 22% meaning they can go under but not over. Elimination of Corporate taxation which shift the trade war in our favor of China

But why 22 percent? I'd like to see a return to taxation as it was written into the Constitution before the 16th Amendment.

Take the vote even more out of the hands of the people? I strongly disagree! That has was too much openness for corruption.

Since the people register in their states with specific political parties (I would not allow outsiders to vote in a party's primary), the people do get a say. Then again, the founding fathers never intended the people to have all that much of a say in electing the President anyway. Originally, the states were supposed to appoint electors (through whatever process they chose) and the electors were supposed to elect the President. Let's get rid of the political parties entirely and return to that system.

Be realistic. Sometimes the budget becomes unbalance and there are no quick fixes!

The budget would only become unbalanced due to unforeseen emergencies like natural disasters or because of war. Otherwise, I expect the government to balance its budget.

States are not individual countries they are part of a Union. They have automony, but it can't infringe on the sovereignty of the whole nation.

They wouldn't be infringing on the sovereignty of the United States but they were intended to have more power than they have today.

You simplify it too much to call it merely a medical procedure. Either way the courts shouldn't be the one creating laws. I want it decided, so its no longer an issue of which party will select the President who will select the pro or anti-abortion judge. Its needs to be answered by Federal Law and not the courts.

To me, it is a mere medical procedure and I don't want the federal government legislating medical procedures (whether through Congress or through the courts).

Full Faith and Credit Clause has to do with sister juridiction courts respecting the previous decision of their sister jurisdiction. FFCC prevents, if I sue you for a specific tort in IL lose, then bringing the exact same tort IN that might have also have subject matter and personal jurisdication.

The full faith and credit clause has been applied to much more than that.

In family law every state has to recognize a marriage if it was valid in the jurisdiction (including foreign) it took place in, unless its considered against public policy! Every State that doesn't make gay marriage legal, has it against public policy and views it void ab initio.

Well, since I don't want the government involved in marriage at all, this is pretty much meaningless. The government shouldn't be conferring rights, privileges or anything else on people just because they choose to mate.

That is the privilege and immunity clause. Very different.

I included it because it's not entirely different. It is closely related to the full faith and credit clause. Together, the two can be used to require that states recognize things like marriage in other states. This is how gay marriage will eventually become recognized across the nation.

[Domino]

Have a rent dispute with a landlord, forget going to court because the judges all own property for rent. Local politics are the most corupt ones in the spectrum.

This could be addressed through federal laws, say, demanding transparency and accountability. We could probably get >80% of the population to agree that their local politicians have to disclose finances.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Chancellor But why 22 percent? I'd like to see a return to taxation as it was written into the Constitution before the 16th Amendment.

There was nothing in the constitution besides that 16th A that states how taxes are to be laid or collected, just that Congress has the power to lay or collect taxes. I like 22% max, because I don't want to see the total tax (Federal, State and Local) exceed 28%. If will also force the Government to cut wasteful spending.

Since the people register in their states with specific political parties (I would not allow outsiders to vote in a party's primary), the people do get a say.

True, but many have open primaries. I believe most states should require party registry to vote in the primary.

Then again, the founding fathers never intended the people to have all that much of a say in electing the President anyway. Originally, the states were supposed to appoint electors (through whatever process they chose) and the electors were supposed to elect the President. Let's get rid of the political parties entirely and return to that system.

You have proof of that. Originally they wanted to exclude people, but they still believed in the basic concept of Democracy.

The budget would only become unbalanced due to unforeseen emergencies like natural disasters or because of war. Otherwise, I expect the government to balance its budget.

Downturns in the economy also can have a very similar effect.

They wouldn't be infringing on the sovereignty of the United States but they were intended to have more power than they have today.

By the 10th amendment, true. But the commerce, due process, supremacy and equal protection clause limit their power!

The full faith and credit clause has been applied to much more than that.

It is pretty much to the jurisdiction of other state court decisions!

Well, since I don't want the government involved in marriage at all, this is pretty much meaningless. The government shouldn't be conferring rights, privileges or anything else on people just because they choose to mate.

Too late they already are as they should be. What happens when people get divorced? You don't think its a spouse's responsibility to take care of his children. Like it or not the government is involved in marriage!

I included it because it's not entirely different. It is closely related to the full faith and credit clause. Together, the two can be used to require that states recognize things like marriage in other states. This is how gay marriage will eventually become recognized across the nation.

WRONG, even if a State doesn't see a marriage ceremony as valid, if its valid in the jurisdiction (including foreign jurisdictions) then the State must recognize that marriage as valid, UNLESS they consider it against public policy.

In every jurisdiction that doesn't legalize gay marriage, then they consider it against public policy and voided ab initio. If there was a Federal Law or Amendment the ball game would change.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: GHook93 There was nothing in the constitution besides that 16th A that states how taxes are to be laid or collected, just that Congress has the power to lay or collect taxes. I like 22% max, because I don't want to see the total tax (Federal, State and Local) exceed 28%. If will also force the Government to cut wasteful spending.

I refer you to what the 16th Amendment replaced: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons...No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." This makes it clear that any tax Congress imposed had to be in proportion to the census.

True, but many have open primaries. I believe most states should require party registry to vote in the primary.

If there must be political parties, yes; let's get rid of the open primaries. However, I would still want these primaries to be done privately within the party and not run by the State.

You have proof of that. Originally they wanted to exclude people, but they still believed in the basic concept of Democracy.

What they gave us was not Democracy. They gave us a constitutional republic. Are you aware, for example, that in the beginning only land-owning whites could vote? (I'm not suggesting that only land-owning whites should be allowed to vote by the way). Also, consider how the Electoral College was set up. "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector." Also, in the beginning it was the state legislatures that chose Senators. There's also a large paragraph in the Constitution (subsequently replaced by the 12th Amendment) that states how the electors were to do their job:

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

Downturns in the economy also can have a very similar effect.

Only if the federal budget is tied to the performance of the economy.

By the 10th amendment, true. But the commerce, due process, supremacy and equal protection clause limit their power!

Not by much.

It is pretty much to the jurisdiction of other state court decisions!

Even if that is the intent, it has been applied much more broadly.

Too late they already are as they should be.

That can be changed.

What happens when people get divorced? You don't think its a spouse's responsibility to take care of his children. Like it or not the government is involved in marriage!

I think that's between the parties involved and not the government. That's what contracts are for.

WRONG, even if a State doesn't see a marriage ceremony as valid, if its valid in the jurisdiction (including foreign jurisdictions) then the State must recognize that marriage as valid, UNLESS they consider it against public policy.

You know as well as I do that the federal courts can override any so-called "public policy" (as they did with miscegenation laws).

In every jurisdiction that doesn't legalize gay marriage, then they consider it against public policy and voided ab initio. If there was a Federal Law or Amendment the ball game would change.

Since laws against blacks and whites marrying each other (miscegenation) were overturned by the federal courts, don't be so quick to think that a state's so-called "public policy" is safe. All the more reason to get the government out of the marriage business.