(Re)Writing a New Constitution

[MiloMinderbinder]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
18) Attempts by politicians or judges to manipulate the system by circumventing or exploiting laws is also considered treason if convicted by a jury and punishable by death. Treason can occur on the federal, state, or local levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm joining the insurgency if this gets ratified.

[/ QUOTE ]

There, I fixed it for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Murder based on a group of twelve's p4ersonal definition of "manipulation"? Not for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The risk would be a voluntary one undertaken by those who choose to enter politics.

[/ QUOTE ]




[/ QUOTE ]

A fine example of someone who would be executed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also a fine example of a man who could convince 12 people to execute you.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
Many of your point are wrong or ineffectual:

1) I would keep the current Constitution in its present form for the most part except that I would add to it additional protections.
The current constitution is very likely a cause of political corruption. Parliamentary systems are inherently less corrupt that presidential ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Parliamentary of otherwise, my idea is to keep a small group from ruling the masses at the expense of the masses. If a parliamentary system is better, then I'd be all for it if I could see why it was superior in this respect.

[ QUOTE ]

3) I would end the income tax in favor of strictly business-related taxes. The payroll tax would also be gone.
So you give money to the buyer of non capital goods and take it away from the buyer of capital goods and innovators. Doesn't seem like good policy to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, a lot of the money will be spent on pleasure but you forget that "said" money will go back into the arms of businesses and will get taxed through those businesses anyway. Businesses will still benefit. There are very few "hoarders" compared to spenders. The spenders' funds will get taxed almost immediately anyway. Meanwhile, the hoarders are generally smarter and those are the exact people that you want to have hoarding money because they will eventually invest that money or use it to fund a new idea/business which will either fail (due to inferiority) or it will succeed and deliver either a superior product to the marketplace or it will deliver an existing product more efficiently. This benefits other businesses and/or the "spenders."

[ QUOTE ]


4) No Social Security, Medicare, or entitlements
So people either live on the street, or are entirely reliant on charity? What does the state do with the millions of mentally ill? What about older people who've worked and paid large amounts of taxes all their lives under the assumption that social security will be around? Do you just cut off their benefits? Some states just don't have the money to pay these kinds of schemes.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people have a lot of extra money because they aren't taxed. We'll see if they're generous to their own families and to private charities. Yes, there will be some people who die in the streets. That's unfortunated and, cold-hearted as it might sound, it's a necessary evil. I'd argue that you'll actually be surprised by how little this happens when you add human kindness and subtract out the losses that occur through government waste.

[ QUOTE ]

5) The only departments in the federal government would be those that relate to the military (and intelligence) (defense), diplomacy (state), taxation (treasury), law enforcement (only those crimes which are interstate), elections, and other oversight entities made necessary by this list. That’s it.
Other government departments apart for the ones you list take up a very tiny fraction of government resources, and many do very good work.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Department of Education and the Department of Transportation take up massive resources and that's just two off the top of my head. The military is a huge expenditure but if you wipe out entitlements, the DOE, DOT, Department of Homeland Security, etc., etc., etc., your government budget will be about half of what it is currently. That's with absolutely no concessions on defense, intelligence, law enforcement, too (and there will certainly be some cutbacks on waste in those areas, as well).

[ QUOTE ]


8) Believing that a non-transparent government is a larger threat to democracy than any external threat, the need for transparency would win out over intelligence gathering in cases where the two conflicted
Who decides, and how is that system of decision making different from now? Are you saying that all intelligence data should be publicly published? If not, who decides?

[/ QUOTE ]

First, there has to be a conflict which excludes intelligence on external threats. If there is a conflict, let the SC jurors decide. If it gets out, then that's the price you pay for a true representative democracy. We will get attacked, no question about it. Even if we had a 9/11 scale attack every year, it wouldn't be worth losing our republic for. What's the liklihood of getting killed in a terrorist attack?

[ QUOTE ]

9) I would write in explicit protections for the electoral system
Great idea

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad we agree!

[ QUOTE ]
10) Money would largely be removed from politics. Business entities could not contribute at all to campaigns. Only people could contribute and only to an inflation-adjusted amount of say, $5,000. There would be no loopholes allowed at all. No $10K-a-plate fundraisers, no PACs, no organizations like the Sierra Club, the NRA, or unions.
So you'd do away with freedom of association? lol @ no loopholes. Businesses would just get employees to donate on their behalf - this happens already to some extent.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as businesses can't coerce/blackmail people into doing this, it's fine. People will still be able to make their own choice. If they believe in their company and they believe in the choices of it's leadership, then, by all means, let them put their money to the "company's candidate."

[ QUOTE ]

12) Business practices that favor larger businesses over smaller ones would be explicitly illegal. Volume discounts, for instance, in business would be completely illegal.
Good luck policing that. Add another government bureau to your list.

[/ QUOTE ]

In order to remain concealed, the lid would have to be kept pretty tight. There would be no "Wal-Mart"-ing where a big store comes into town and undercuts the small business's wholesale cost, at least. Like I said, it's not perfect in practice....but it's better at keeping some semblence of free market competition.

[ QUOTE ]

13) Antitrust legislation would remain intact and be more strictly enforced.
Again, good luck enforcing that. +1 for another government bureau

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't need another government bureau. I just need to take the DOJ, take 1/8 of it, and retool it.


[ QUOTE ]

15) Supreme Court decisions would be made by randomly-selected jurors and not by justices.
Worst idea ever. You destabilize the authority and precedence of Supreme Court decisions and let the popular opinions of 12 randomly selected individuals, with no knowledge of law and the broader issues at play, decide extremely important issues. How are 12 layman going to rule on the constitutionality of abortion? Decisions will lack expert reasoning, the creation of tests and rules, and some issues where popular opinion is split (i.e. abortion) will come down to the luck of the draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's the way it works. The bad part is that there would be more legal instability. The good part is that it makes it difficult for precedant that harms the masses to prevail for long lengths of time or for orchestrated manipulation to otherwise prevail. I'll take the former.

[ QUOTE ]

17) Bribery or extortion of a public official for the means of manipulating the system is akin to treason, punishable by death if convicted.
There are already hefty prison terms for this stuff.

18) Attempts to manipulate the system by circumventing or exploiting laws is also considered treason if convicted by a jury and punishable by death. Treason can occur on the federal, state, or local levels.
Why not cut off their hands instead? The reality is that no one wants to live in such a country as you describe. People generally only support the death penalty for the taking of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm fine without the death penalty. It was a very quick first draft.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The risk would be a voluntary one undertaken by those who choose to enter politics.

[/ QUOTE ]




[/ QUOTE ]

A fine example of someone who would be executed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think 12 random people in Germany during any time of his reign, would have sent him to death? He was extremely popular.

Who do you think would have brought the charges against someone that popular and politically powerful?

[/ QUOTE ]

*sigh*

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
18) Attempts by politicians or judges to manipulate the system by circumventing or exploiting laws is also considered treason if convicted by a jury and punishable by death. Treason can occur on the federal, state, or local levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm joining the insurgency if this gets ratified.

[/ QUOTE ]

There, I fixed it for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Murder based on a group of twelve's p4ersonal definition of "manipulation"? Not for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The risk would be a voluntary one undertaken by those who choose to enter politics.

[/ QUOTE ]




[/ QUOTE ]

A fine example of someone who would be executed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dear God, yes. Let the Hitler facists go to the guillotine.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The risk would be a voluntary one undertaken by those who choose to enter politics.

[/ QUOTE ]




[/ QUOTE ]

A fine example of someone who would be executed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think 12 random people in Germany during any time of his reign, would have sent him to death? He was extremely popular.

Who do you think would have brought the charges against someone that popular and politically powerful?

[/ QUOTE ]

Consolidated media. That was why he was popular. I already fixed that.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. I agree that the government has no say so, however, if I run a television or radio station, I want total control over what is broadcast. If I want to broadcast bigoted racial scat snuff films, I should be able to, but if I want to tell someone they can't broadcast bigoted racial scat snuff films on my airwaves, I believe I should have that right also.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that you couldn't choose which programming went on your channel. You get to choose that as the operator. You can create your own shows, purchase syndicated shows, mix them up, whatever. Doesn't matter.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. I agree that the government has no say so, however, if I run a television or radio station, I want total control over what is broadcast. If I want to broadcast bigoted racial scat snuff films, I should be able to, but if I want to tell someone they can't broadcast bigoted racial scat snuff films on my airwaves, I believe I should have that right also.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that you couldn't choose which programming went on your channel. You get to choose that as the operator. You can create your own shows, purchase syndicated shows, mix them up, whatever. Doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, I see now, all cable providers provide all channels, the household decides what channels show up and what doesn't, and the station owner has full control.

I got it now. It seemed as though you were forcing me as a hypothetical radio station owner to accept programming I didn't want, much like the "Fairness" doctrine.

[One Outer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*sigh*

Yes, they're constitutional. There are only two possible legal challenges to the constitutionality of SS. One is the reserve clause which was struck down because the constitution allows the federal govt. to tax in the interest of the general public good.

[/ QUOTE ]

With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison, the man who freakin wrote the Constitution.

Yes, the Supreme Court has "struck that down" by completely ignoring the obvious and very clearly stated original intent. The Justices who made this "ruling" were blatantly legislating from the bench and are traitors to this country and everything it stands for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like always, you have completely missed the point. The point is that in that particular case were the court to have approved of the definition of taxes purported by the plaintiff, it would have narrowed the scope of the federal governments taxing ability strictly to the taxes specifically mentioned in the Constitution. It is clear that the founders did not believe the taxes listed in the constitution were the be all end all of federal tax power, as is inferred your own freaking quote.

Of course, it's not like I care. Federal government is going to tax whatever they want anyway and this isn't a problem for me. We've essentially created a legal system where precedent has become more important than the strict letter of the constitution. For a rapidly evolving and changing society, precedent, and how we interpret that juxtaposed with the present circumstance, is a better way to make legal decisions than a constructionist perspective.

[One Outer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*sigh*

Yes, they're constitutional. There are only two possible legal challenges to the constitutionality of SS. One is the reserve clause which was struck down because the constitution allows the federal govt. to tax in the interest of the general public good. The other is that a payroll tax for social spending isn't actually mentioned in the Constitution. This was rejected because the definition of taxes used by the opponents of social security would be so narrow that if the court found in favor of it that it would rule out the ability of the federal government to tax "providing for the general welfare", which is a right given the feds specifically in the constitution.

So the OP is right in that if you want to do away with entitlement programs you need a new constitution.



http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/court.html

[/ QUOTE ]

why did fdr have to change the supreme court (stack court) then to get his programs?

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't. He tried and failed. The court handing down those decisions was appointed by Hoover and Coolidge, both Republican. It was the greatest failure of his presidency. He spent so much good will on that he couldn't get the rest of his program through congress. This is why the new deal is largely considered only half completed.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. I agree that the government has no say so, however, if I run a television or radio station, I want total control over what is broadcast. If I want to broadcast bigoted racial scat snuff films, I should be able to, but if I want to tell someone they can't broadcast bigoted racial scat snuff films on my airwaves, I believe I should have that right also.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that you couldn't choose which programming went on your channel. You get to choose that as the operator. You can create your own shows, purchase syndicated shows, mix them up, whatever. Doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, I see now, all cable providers provide all channels, the household decides what channels show up and what doesn't, and the station owner has full control.

I got it now. It seemed as though you were forcing me as a hypothetical radio station owner to accept programming I didn't want, much like the "Fairness" doctrine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeh, some of your a-la-carte choices might look like this:

CBS
NBC
FOX
ABC
Generic Local Broadcast Station
UPN (all of which are available in most areas at a "reduced quality" for free)

Then, say (with one-third or 50% or 50 cents or whatever going to the networks themselves (as long as the markup between channel tiers (basic and premium) is the same so no preference can be shown by the cable providor) and the rest being gross profit to the cable company)....


ESPN $1
TBS $1
CNN $1
HBO $6
Bigot Channel $1
Socialist News Channel $1
Weather Channel $1
Faces of Death $6
WorldNetDailyTV $1
Trinity Broadcasting Network $1
MuslimTV $1
SatanTV $1
Discovery Channel $1



Anyway, you get the picture.