# My Proposed Amendment To The US Constitution



## Viktor (Dec 2, 2021)

We are saddled with a large number of incompetent and corrupt Federal judges who don't enforce the Constitution they way they vowed to do. I want all District Federal Judges to have their appointments and behavior reviewed every 10 years by a Senate Committee and the bad ones removed from the bench.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Dec 2, 2021)

We can open up the Constitutions for changes.

But only I get to decide on which changes.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 2, 2021)

Outlaw the manufacture and sale of all yoga pants and leotards any larger than size 12.


----------



## JoeMoma (Dec 2, 2021)

Viktor said:


> We are saddled with a large number of incompetent and corrupt Federal judges who don't enforce the Constitution they way they vowed to do. I want all District Federal Judges to have their appointments and behavior reviewed every 10 years by a Senate Committee and the bad ones removed from the bench.


The problem with that is the Senate is full of corrupt and incompetent politicians.  Fat chance at having a senate committee qualified to do that.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Dec 2, 2021)

Viktor said:


> We are saddled with a large number of incompetent and corrupt Federal judges who don't enforce the Constitution they way they vowed to do.








Viktor said:


> I want all District Federal Judges to have their appointments and behavior reviewed every 10 years by a Senate Committee and the bad ones removed from the bench.


Bah, ha, ha, ha. Haven't you noticed, the judiciary is controlled by partisan favoritism?








You have an abstract idea for an amendment, but you should try writing the actual directive to be considered. Others have suggested term-limits, anyway.

Anyway, none of that is going to correctly adjust the problem you are alluding to. The problem is the inadequacy of the three-part separation. Not enough separation.


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 2, 2021)

So you want to stop unconstitutional rulings by enforcing this with corrupt politicians? 
Here is my proposed amendment: READ THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION ASSHOLE <said in my best liar liar jim carey voice>


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Dec 2, 2021)

JoeMoma said:


> The problem with that is the Senate is full of corrupt and incompetent politicians.  Fat chance at having a senate committee qualified to do that.


But you still love the Constitution - don't you?


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Dec 2, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> So you want to stop unconstitutional rulings by enforcing this with corrupt politicians?
> Here is my proposed amendment: READ THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION ASSHOLE <said in my best liar liar jim carey voice>


----------



## Confederate Soldier (Dec 2, 2021)

Viktor said:


> We are saddled with a large number of incompetent and corrupt Federal judges who don't enforce the Constitution they way they vowed to do. I want all District Federal Judges to have their appointments and behavior reviewed every 10 years by a Senate Committee and the bad ones removed from the bench.




That is an AWFUL idea. What if the senate is democrat held? All republican justices would be given a bad report.


----------



## Viktor (Dec 2, 2021)

Confederate Soldier said:


> That is an AWFUL idea. What if the senate is democrat held? All republican justices would be given a bad report.


No. There has to be good reasons to remove them.


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 2, 2021)

Viktor said:


> We are saddled with a large number of incompetent and corrupt Federal judges who don't enforce the Constitution they way they vowed to do. I want all District Federal Judges to have their appointments and behavior reviewed every 10 years by a Senate Committee and the bad ones removed from the bench.


I would add that lower court judges that are later overturned by the supreme court 3 times be removed from the bench


----------



## Votto (Dec 2, 2021)

Viktor said:


> We are saddled with a large number of incompetent and corrupt Federal judges who don't enforce the Constitution they way they vowed to do. I want all District Federal Judges to have their appointments and behavior reviewed every 10 years by a Senate Committee and the bad ones removed from the bench.


The US Congress is utterly corrupt and dysfunctional, so you want them to have even more power?

The issue is that the US federal government has far too much power, more than what was given it by the Constitution.  The only way back is for states to rise up and regain their Constitutional powers by amending the Constitution themselves.

It has never been done but the provision was put there in case the US Federal government became too corrupt and powerful.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 2, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> We can open up the Constitutions for changes.
> 
> But only I get to decide on which changes.


*Weewee on the People*

The state legislatures vote on any Amendments; we don't.  So quit pretending the Constitution is anything more than a ping-pong table for the political class.


----------



## Confederate Soldier (Dec 2, 2021)

Viktor said:


> No. There has to be good reasons to remove them.




Yeah. Any reason is a GREAT reason for a democrat.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 2, 2021)

Viktor said:


> We are saddled with a large number of incompetent and corrupt Federal judges who don't enforce the Constitution they way they vowed to do. I want all District Federal Judges to have their appointments and behavior reviewed every 10 years by a Senate Committee and the bad ones removed from the bench.


Our Judges are supposed to be nonpartisan
The Judicial Branch is a check n the power of Congress and the Presidency
Our Senate is blatantly partisan, especially when it comes to appointing judges


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 2, 2021)

Mac-7 said:


> I would add that lower court judges that are later overturned by the supreme court 3 times be removed from the bench


*The American People Are the Court's Punching Bag*

What if SCROTUS is one of its Left Punch moods and overturns Conservative lower-courters?


----------



## Votto (Dec 2, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Our Judges are supposed to be nonpartisan
> Our Senate is blatantly partisan, especially when it comes to appointing judges


If they are nonpartisan then why do the judges strike down Trump's travel ban as racist when they did not do it to Obama and are not doing it to Trump?

The notion that anyone is not partisan is insane.

The name of the game is win office and then appoint your stooges and the one with the most stooges wins.

But democrats want to change the rules when they don't win office enough to appoint those stooges by packing the courts like FDR had wet dreams about.

That is the laughable and criminal.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 2, 2021)

Votto said:


> If they are nonpartisan then why do the judges strike down Trump's travel ban as racist when they did not do it to Obama and are not doing it to Trump?


The Courts did not strike down Trumps travel ban as racist
Before it went to court, Trump rewrote it to apply to countries not to religions


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 2, 2021)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> What if SCROTUS is one of its Left Punch moods and overturns Conservative lower-courters?


I’ll that chance

Because currently it is activist lib judges that are abusing the system


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 2, 2021)

Mac-7 said:


> I’ll that chance
> 
> Because currently it is activist lib judges that are abusing the system


Seems our courts are stacked with Conservatives


----------



## Winston (Dec 2, 2021)

Viktor said:


> We are saddled with a large number of incompetent and corrupt Federal judges who don't enforce the Constitution they way they vowed to do. I want all District Federal Judges to have their appointments and behavior reviewed every 10 years by a Senate Committee and the bad ones removed from the bench.


Great, just throw the separation of powers concept out the damn window.  I mean hell, why even bother with a democracy or representative government.  Monarchy worked so damn well in the past, why did we ever abandon it.


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 2, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Seems our courts are stacked with Conservatives


I dont know

But its biased activist lib judges who het most of the attention


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 2, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> View attachment 570876


READ it. Not use your own interpretations. People can "read" the general welfare clause, ignore everything else, and think that means its constitutional for the fed gov to do whatever they want. Of course, when you actually READ the Constitution, you know that isnt the case.


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 2, 2021)

Winston said:


> Great, just throw the separation of powers concept out the damn window.  I mean hell, why even bother with a democracy or representative government.  Monarchy worked so damn well in the past, why did we ever abandon it.


Awww dumbass doesnt know what a monarchy is.


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 2, 2021)

Viktor said:


> We are saddled with a large number of incompetent and corrupt Federal judges who don't enforce the Constitution they way they vowed to do. I want all District Federal Judges to have their appointments and behavior reviewed every 10 years by a Senate Committee and the bad ones removed from the bench.


The only hope for this country is universal school choice.  Divorced from the sociopolitical philosophy of America's founding, namely, Lockean natural law, the Constitution can be subverted to mean virtually anything.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 2, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> View attachment 570876


You think that they're going to follow the "new and improved" constitution any better than they've followed the current one?

You really are a special kind of stupid.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 2, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> The Courts did not strike down Trumps travel ban as racist
> Before it went to court, Trump rewrote it to apply to countries not to religions


It always applied to countries, you lying sack of shit.


----------



## Winston (Dec 2, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> Awww dumbass doesnt know what a monarchy is.


Nope, you dumbasses have never read Federalist 51





__





						Separation of Powers: James Madison, Federalist, no. 51, 347--53
					





					press-pubs.uchicago.edu


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 2, 2021)

Oddball said:


> It always applied to countries, you lying sack of shit.


At first, Trump proposed a Muslim travel ban

He was slapped down and had to revise his policy to only apply to his “shithole countries” and not his good friends the Saudis


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 2, 2021)

Winston said:


> Nope, you dumbasses have never read Federalist 51
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey genius, how is having elected representatives overlooking judges rulings a monarchy, you retarded dumbfuck?


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Dec 2, 2021)

Winston said:


> Nope, you dumbasses have never read Federalist 51
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You never read #51


> But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified. An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between this weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights of its own depar, and we are tment?


They did not know how to construct further precautions, and we are enduring the adverse effects, thereof, and further adversely effected by the 17 Amendment and limited seats in the House.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 2, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> Hey genius, how is having elected representatives overlooking judges rulings a monarchy, you retarded dumbfuck?


Elected representatives create the laws, the Executive Branch enforces them and the courts interpret them


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Dec 2, 2021)

Oddball said:


> You think that they're going to follow the "new and improved" constitution any better than they've followed the current one?
> 
> You really are a special kind of stupid



You are not comprehending the fact that the checks and balances do not work, because of the inadequate deployment of the separation of entities.
 A better separation of entities will provide the better checks and balances.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Dec 2, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Elected representatives create the laws, the Executive Branch enforces them and the courts interpret them


And that is all the three-part separation theory defines. It does not describe a bicameral legislature. It does not define the two hundred executive security agencies. And it does not define the hierarchy court system. Which have all been "discovered" over the past two hundred and forty years. And that does not mean that they put the jigsaw puzzle together correctly. It was all ad hoc adjustments for the necessity at the time. It is all jumbled up.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 2, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> And that is all the three-part separation theory defines. It does not describe a bicameral legislature. It does not define the two hundred executive security agencies. And it does not define the hierarchy court system. Which have all been "discovered" over the past two hundred and forty years. And that does not mean that they put the jigsaw puzzle together correctly. It was all ad hoc adjustments for the necessity at the time. It is all jumbled up.
> View attachment 570906



Been working for 240 years
I will take it


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Dec 2, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> READ it. Not use your own interpretations. People can "read" the general welfare clause, ignore everything else, and think that means its constitutional for the fed gov to do whatever they want. Of course, when you actually READ the Constitution, you know that isnt the case.


Nope. That just means that the people do not agree to the terms.
What about the "domestic tranquility" clause - what does that mean, anything???


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Dec 2, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Been working for 240 years
> I will take it


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 2, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Elected representatives create the laws, the Executive Branch enforces them and the courts interpret them


And AGAIN, my question isnt answered.


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 2, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Nope. That just means that the people do not agree to the terms.
> What about the "domestic tranquility" clause - what does that mean, anything???
> 
> View attachment 570907


Its basic English. There is nothing to agree to. 
 Its not the Constitutions fault, we the people, allowed the fed gov to pervert it.
Do you mean the preamble? Yeah, that means nothing, legally.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Dec 2, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> Its basic English. There is nothing to agree to.
> Its not the Constitutions fault, we the people, allowed the fed gov to pervert it.
> Do you mean the preamble? Yeah, that means nothing, legally.


The Preamble is a six-categories diagnostic tool for evaluating the government. It is law - the Preamble is of sovereignty law. The Preamble is the description of the sovereignty of the United States. The Preamble is Our solemn greeting to the rest of the world. The Preamble is the essence and identity of the United States of America and cannot be separated.



> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 2, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> The Preamble is a six-categories diagnostic tool for evaluating the government. It is law - the Preamble is of sovereignty law. The Preamble is the description of the sovereignty of the United States. The Preamble is Our solemn greeting to the rest of the world. The Preamble is the essence and identity of the United States of America and cannot be separated.


It simply exaplins what to expect in the constitution.








						Preamble - FindLaw
					

Find law and legal articles including lawyers for legal advice, legal rights or legal help to your legal issues




					constitution.findlaw.com


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Dec 2, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> It simply exaplins what to expect in the constitution.


Yeah, no kidding???

What to "expect." 

Is it possible that those expectations are not being met (in the operations of the government)?


TNHarley said:


> Preamble - FindLaw
> 
> 
> Find law and legal articles including lawyers for legal advice, legal rights or legal help to your legal issues
> ...


It is not my fault that the writers and editors at FindLaw, and you, cannot recognize the relativity of "expectation," and "diagnostic tool."

How else are people to recognize that the government is not working as promised, if there is no diagnostic tool???


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 2, 2021)

Oddball said:


> You think that they're going to follow the "new and improved" constitution any better than they've followed the current one?
> 
> You really are a special kind of stupid.


IMO?

I have always viewed folks that lobby for the reconstruction of a new Constitution as some representative of a powerful interest group that has an agenda to slip into a new constitution, a provision for their interest to make them untouchable.

Given our government, and Constitution, are now the oldest on the planet, it really is a special kind of stupid to want to throw the whole thing out and lobby for a new one.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 2, 2021)

Every once in a while a new nutcase comes along declaring "I shall FIX the Constitution!" then never even tries to make his hairbrained notion a reality.


----------



## Winston (Dec 2, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> Hey genius, how is having elected representatives overlooking judges rulings a monarchy, you retarded dumbfuck?


But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same departmhttps://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch10s16.htmlent, consists in giving to those who administer each department, the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives,* to resist encroachments of the others.* The provision for defence must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to controul the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controuls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to controul the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to controul itself. A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary controul on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.





__





						Separation of Powers: James Madison, Federalist, no. 51, 347--53
					





					press-pubs.uchicago.edu


----------



## Pellinore (Dec 3, 2021)

I cannot imagine the bedlam that would be wrapped up in another Constitutional Convention at this point.  

I mean, it's like pulling teeth just to get an infrastructure bill through.  We just came hours from another government shutdown.  And someone is considering opening the door to a page-one rewrite of the entire founding document?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2021)

Viktor said:


> We are saddled with a large number of incompetent and corrupt Federal judges who don't enforce the Constitution they way they vowed to do. I want all District Federal Judges to have their appointments and behavior reviewed every 10 years by a Senate Committee and the bad ones removed from the bench.


You would definitely need an Amendment for that.   Good luck.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> View attachment 570876


We know the kkk kaucus hasn't.


----------



## surada (Dec 3, 2021)

Votto said:


> The US Congress is utterly corrupt and dysfunctional, so you want them to have even more power?
> 
> The issue is that the US federal government has far too much power, more than what was given it by the Constitution.  The only way back is for states to rise up and regain their Constitutional powers by amending the Constitution themselves.
> 
> It has never been done but the provision was put there in case the US Federal government became too corrupt and powerful.



Rise up? So you must be one of those Trumpies who advocates for civil war.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Dec 3, 2021)

Viktor said:


> We are saddled with a large number of incompetent and corrupt Federal judges who don't enforce the Constitution they way they vowed to do. I want all District Federal Judges to have their appointments and behavior reviewed every 10 years by a Senate Committee and the bad ones removed from the bench.


Is it not called impeachment  🤔


----------



## Viktor (Dec 3, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Is it not called impeachment  🤔


Impeachment is used only when someone complains about a judge. I am proposing a regular review of their performances.


----------



## Viktor (Dec 3, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> The only hope for this country is universal school choice.  Divorced from the sociopolitical philosophy of America's founding, namely, Lockean natural law, the Constitution can be subverted to mean virtually anything.


Not true. Numerous court decisions tell us what the Constitution means.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 3, 2021)

Viktor said:


> Impeachment is used only when someone complains about a judge. I am proposing a regular review of their performances.



By a partisan body with partisan agenda and partisan goals. which negates the whole serve in good faith


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2021)

Viktor said:


> Impeachment is used only when someone complains about a judge. I am proposing a regular review of their performances.


A partisan review?
Based on what?


----------



## Viktor (Dec 3, 2021)

Mac-7 said:


> I’ll that chance
> 
> Because currently it is activist lib judges that are abusing the system


Agree 100%. What happens is that liberal judges lie to the Senate when they are being confirmed. They say what the Senate wants to hear. Once they get appointed, they screw up the justice system and ruin people's lives. Our spiraling crime rate today can be blamed mostly on liberal judges and prosecutors who don't incarcerate violent criminals when they are caught.


----------



## Viktor (Dec 3, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> By a partisan body with partisan agenda and partisan goals. which negates the whole serve in good faith


There are bad senators but there are also good ones and the voters can refuse to reelect the bad ones.We have had several senators who were racist and antisemitic and they were retired by the voters.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Dec 3, 2021)

Viktor why not become a senator and correct this injustice?


----------



## Viktor (Dec 3, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Viktor why not become a senator and correct this injustice?


I am 75 years old and retired. Besides, I would make a lousy politician.


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 3, 2021)

Viktor said:


> Not true. Numerous court decisions tell us what the Constitution means.


Really?  Well, currently four members of the Court either don't have the first clue about the sociopolitical philosophy on which this nation was founded or are rank subversives.  Choose.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2021)

Viktor said:


> No. There has to be good reasons to remove them.


If the Democrats controlled the Senate, they would simply make up shit to have them removed and their Democrat President appoint liberal judges in their place.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> The only hope for this country is universal school choice.  Divorced from the sociopolitical philosophy of America's founding, namely, Lockean natural law, the Constitution can be subverted to mean virtually anything.


Universal school choice?  Show me a universal school, please.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2021)

Viktor said:


> Impeachment is used only when someone complains about a judge. I am proposing a regular review of their performances.


Why?  That's what appeals courts do.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 3, 2021)

A review conducted by a partisan body is ludicrous.


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 3, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Universal school choice?  Show me a universal school, please.


Universal school choice would be the end of the government's monopoly over education.  Liberty's a good thing.  You might want to try it sometime.


----------



## Viktor (Dec 3, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Really?  Well, currently four members of the Court either don't have the first clue about the sociopolitical philosophy on which this nation was founded or are rank subversives.  Choose.


The President nominated them and the Senate confirmed them and they are all lawyers. You really are arrogant.


----------



## Viktor (Dec 3, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> A review conducted by a partisan body is ludicrous.


Your solution is a petition drive to not reelect them.


----------



## Ringtone (Dec 3, 2021)

Viktor said:


> The President nominated them and the Senate confirmed them and they are all lawyers. You really are arrogant.


And you really are naive, and your proposal is a horrible idea.  So nanernanernaner.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Universal school choice would be the end of the government's monopoly over education.  Liberty's a good thing.  You might want to try it sometime.


Government has no monopoly over education.  You are free to have your kids attend charter schools (which are public schools BTW), private schools or create another generation of morons by home schooling them.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2021)

Viktor said:


> Your solution is a petition drive to not reelect them.


No, petitions carry exactly zero weight in our federal systems.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Dec 3, 2021)

Viktor said:


> I am 75 years old and retired. Besides, I would make a lousy politician.


Like Biden?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Like Biden?


Viktor is a youngster compared to Biden.


----------



## Golfing Gator (Dec 3, 2021)

JoeMoma said:


> The problem with that is the Senate is full of corrupt and incompetent politicians.  Fat chance at having a senate committee qualified to do that.



I agree, all this would do is get rid of judges from the side that was not in the majority of the Senate at that time


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 3, 2021)

Pellinore said:


> I cannot imagine the bedlam that would be wrapped up in another Constitutional Convention at this point.
> 
> I mean, it's like pulling teeth just to get an infrastructure bill through.  We just came hours from another government shutdown.  And someone is considering opening the door to a page-one rewrite of the entire founding document?


*A Successful Attempt by the Colonial Plutocracy to Create a House of Lords*

It should have been a temporary start-up document, to be superseded by all subsequent legislation.  

Because of the Constitution's stranglehold on the people's will, the debate about a bill can't be only about whether the proposed legislation is good for the country.  Overriding that discussion, it first has to be settled whether the bill is Constitutional.  Therefore, having a Constitution is not good for the country.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 3, 2021)

bodecea said:


> We know the kkk kaucus hasn't.


That's not a very nice way to talk about the Congressional Progressive Caucus - Wikipedia


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Dec 4, 2021)

MisterBeale said:


> IMO?
> 
> I have always viewed folks that lobby for the reconstruction of a new Constitution as some representative of a powerful interest group that has an agenda to slip into a new constitution, a provision for their interest to make them untouchable.



You have never encountered anyone campaigning for a complete reordering of the federal constitution. At best, you have heard media pundits false claims that there are people who want a new Constitution. If there were a "powerful interest group" involved, then there would be a tangible record of an advertising campaign you could present as evidence for your claim, which otherwise, is a delusion. 




MisterBeale said:


> Given our government, and Constitution, are now the oldest on the planet, it really is a special kind of stupid to want to throw the whole thing out and lobby for a new one.



You have never encountered the arguments that I am presenting as reason for a reordering of the entire three levels of government charters. I am not just campaigning for a new federal constitution.

1) The three-part separation theory is incomplete. It does not define the proper subdivision of the three parts, and the (erroneous) deployment there of is the source of our partisan problems compouded by some of the incorrect adjustments deployed in the evolution of the government and society. 







a) The game theory of the "Constitution" is very different than what the founders' designed. The founders themselves changed it. The Twelfth Amendment directly changes a check and balance on the presidency, so that the vice-president is a lackey of the president.






b) The 17th Amendment eliminated a check and balance on the condition of the state governments, and elevated the partisan problems of the states to the federal legislature.





c) And the limiting of the House of Representative seats to 435 fails to meet the expectations of the tremendous diversity that the society has evolved to. Not to forgive the original scheme fails to meet the expectations of the "interest groups." How is a representative supposed to represent all of the different people in the constituent district?






2) The State Department cannot provide a reliable government charter for the developing societies, because our system only works, because it is the product of its evolution of ad hoc adjustments. This problem leads to the immigration problem we endure.





3) The only way to effectually contest the claims of "systemic biases" is by having a constitutional convention that gathers the diversity of delegates to guard against "systemic biases."





You have never heard those arguments before - never. This is new stuff.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Dec 4, 2021)

Pellinore said:


> I cannot imagine the bedlam that would be wrapped up in another Constitutional Convention at this point.
> 
> I mean, it's like pulling teeth just to get an infrastructure bill through.  We just came hours from another government shutdown.  And someone is considering opening the door to a page-one rewrite of the entire founding document?


That is a reason why we need to have one. We need to figure out how to fix that problem. How do we organize a constitutional convention to handle the diversity and solve the problems that the subsisting system seems to fail.

If you weren't so dull, then you would have recognized the problem.

I am proposing a three-level constitutional convention series; although, each state will probably be the seemingly starting point to organize multiple municipal conventions.

Get it??? Municipalities will be the starting point for trying to figure out how to compose the ultimate reliable government chartering system for all levels of government. The best ideas will be elevated to compete at the state level.

How else would it be done? Why couldn't you figure that out?

Just cannot image much beyond what you third grade teacher taught you about government, can you?


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Dec 4, 2021)

bodecea said:


> You would definitely need an Amendment for that.   Good luck.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Dec 4, 2021)

Unkotare said:


> Every once in a while a new nutcase comes along declaring "I shall FIX the Constitution!" then never even tries to make his hairbrained notion a reality.



I am not a nutcase. I am the sane person in the insane world. I am the only person able to describe the incompleteness of the three-part separation theory. No political science or law scholar has been able to recognize that the three-part separation theory does not formulate how to subdivide the three parts, which are obviously, subdivided.

I have composed the formula for subdividing the three parts and the generational outline for a reliable government chartering system for all levels of government and for at least three population sizes for municipalities: small, standard, and large.

I am doing what it is you should expect a person to do to campaign the device - I am appealing to the general public on the internet discussion forum that gathers the brilliant people like you. How else would you expect a person to do so?

Write a book, and get some publisher to campaign it???

Get some famous person to campaign it???

You are the hairbrained.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 4, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> You have never encountered anyone campaigning for a complete reordering of the federal constitution. At best, you have heard media pundits false claims that there are people who want a new Constitution. If there were a "powerful interest group" involved, then there would be a tangible record of an advertising campaign you could present as evidence for your claim, which otherwise, is a delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


. . . and how exactly do you intend to keep corporate interests, oligarchs, international covert entities, and the Deep State out of the whole scheme of creating a new constitution?


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Dec 4, 2021)

MisterBeale said:


> . . . and how exactly do you intend to keep corporate interests, oligarchs, international covert entities, and the Deep State out of the whole scheme of creating a new constitution?


I am not forbidding them from participating. As far as I am concerned, everyone is invited. I am not afraid that the nefarious people are so sneaky that their schemes will be unchallenged by the smart and honest litigation lawyers that will be participating and competing for the honor of being a signatory to the document that succeeds the almighty United States Constitution of 1787.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 4, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> You have never heard those arguments before - never. This is new stuff.



Honestly Prof.?

I don't think you had any government classes at University, if you even went to University.  And I'm not sure you paid much attention in high school.

I looks like you haven't paid much attention through the years, either.

The fact of the matter is. . . the current system we have?  They don't follow the Constitution, or stick with it very closely as it is.  And in this political climate, with the deep state and the bureaucracy are wielding more power than the public state. The partisans are subverting the rule of law for their respective stake holders.

 Opening all that up to a total rework of the system would never, ever work.

Hell, these opposing interests can't even get a budget passed most of the time. . . so this is a fantasy that will never, ever happen.  You should be more focused on joining with the rest of America to help us prevent an international oligarchical collectivist technocratic take over of the nation. . . which is currently happening, RIGHT NOW!


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 4, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> I am not forbidding them from participating. As far as I am concerned, everyone is invited. I am not afraid that the nefarious people are so sneaky that their schemes will be unchallenged by the smart and honest litigation lawyers that will be participating and competing for the honor of being a signatory to the document that succeeds the almighty United States Constitution of 1787.



Lawyers, are, for the most part, part of the establishment, like members of the guilds.  They are beholden to the interests of the establishment.  When it comes to government, there really isn't such a thing as a lawyer which is, "an honest litigator," or a judge which remains, above the political fray.  As they owe their careers to the party.

You live in a fantasy world, or you are a conscious and active saboteur.

Who sent you. .  the Chinese?  The Russians?  Microsoft?  Soros?


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Dec 4, 2021)

MisterBeale said:


> You should be more focused on joining with the rest of America to help us prevent an international oligarchical collectivist technocratic take over of the nation. . . which is currently happening, RIGHT NOW!


It is not my fault that you do not see my ambition as ultimately challenging the idea that you describe in paranoic terms.



MisterBeale said:


> You live in a fantasy world, or you are a conscious and active saboteur.
> 
> Who sent you. .  the Chinese?  The Russians?  Microsoft?  Soros?



You are not trying to find a solution to the problems.

You are the one living in a paranoic state of delusion.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 4, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> It is not my fault that you do not see my ambition as ultimately challenging the idea that you describe in paranoic terms.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good lord.  You aren't even paying attention to what is going on in the world, and now you are calling me "paranoid," for calling you out on that?


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 4, 2021)




----------



## task0778 (Dec 4, 2021)

There has never been nor ever will be a form of gov't that will be better than the one we've already got, not as long as human nature exists.  It isn't the Constitution that is the problem, it is the people who are charged with executing the functions therein.  And if I might say so, the problem lies also with the people who are governed, by not holding elected and unelected officeholders accountable for their mistakes and misdeeds.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Dec 4, 2021)

task0778 said:


> There has never been nor ever will be a form of gov't that will be better than the one we've already got, not as long as human nature exists.  It isn't the Constitution that is the problem, it is the people who are charged with executing the functions therein.  And if I might say so, the problem lies also with the people who are governed, by not holding elected and unelected officeholders accountable for their mistakes and misdeeds.


The checks and balances do not work as your third-grade teacher taught you they work. You are making excuse for not devising a better system of separation that provides for a more sophisticated system of checks and balances.

You cannot figure out a better way, and so, anybody who does appears to you to be of a nefarious origin.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Dec 4, 2021)

MisterBeale said:


>


And that would be you.



MisterBeale said:


> You live in a fantasy world, or you are a conscious and active saboteur.
> 
> Who sent you. .  the Chinese?  The Russians?  Microsoft?  Soros?



Show me where I resorted to ad hominem to you first - you stupid piece of shit bitch.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 4, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> I am not a nutcase. I am the sane person in the insane world. ......


Oh yeah, nutcases never say that.....


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 4, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> ... I am the only person able to ....



Anything following that statement is pure nutcase.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 4, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> I have composed the formula for...



More nutcase material.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 4, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> ...- I am appealing to the general public on the internet discussion forum ....



100% nutcase.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 4, 2021)

Viktor said:


> We are saddled with a large number of incompetent and corrupt Federal judges who don't enforce the Constitution they way they vowed to do. I want all District Federal Judges to have their appointments and behavior reviewed every 10 years by a Senate Committee and the bad ones removed from the bench.


Ignorant nonsense.

Just because you don’t agree with how a Federal judge might rule doesn’t mean he’s ‘incompetent’ or ‘corrupt.’

And the Constitution already provides for impeachment and removal from the bench.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 4, 2021)

Viktor said:


> No. There has to be good reasons to remove them.


What constitutes ‘good reasons’ are partisan and subjective.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 4, 2021)

Votto said:


> The US Congress is utterly corrupt and dysfunctional, so you want them to have even more power?
> 
> The issue is that the US federal government has far too much power, more than what was given it by the Constitution.  The only way back is for states to rise up and regain their Constitutional powers by amending the Constitution themselves.
> 
> It has never been done but the provision was put there in case the US Federal government became too corrupt and powerful.


Wrong.

The supremacy of the Federal government is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute – as originally intended by the Framers.

Federal laws, the Federal courts, and the rulings of Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, the states and local jurisdictions subordinate to Federal laws and courts.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Dec 5, 2021)

Votto said:


> The US Congress is utterly corrupt and dysfunctional, so you want them to have even more power?
> 
> The issue is that the US federal government has far too much power, more than what was given it by the Constitution.  The only way back is for states to rise up and regain their Constitutional powers by amending the Constitution themselves.
> 
> It has never been done but the provision was put there in case the US Federal government became too corrupt and powerful.


Sounds like a great idea - what can I do to help?

I have reviewed Article V and the Convention of States campaign. I believe that the leaders of the CoS are insincere and only seek to threaten a convention in an effort to compel the federal legislature to do the actual litigation of any amendments, because that is what has happened in the past.

It is extremely difficult to organize people to do anything, much less, the concept described in Article V. The ability to actually form the Article V convention and validate amendments (legislation) for state ratification would be the successor to the subsisting federal government, and the composers of Article V were well aware of this.

Again, what can I do to help with your proposal?

Where are you at in your effort - just kicking it around in your head hoping someone else has the leadership skills to move it forward???


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 16, 2021)

Viktor said:


> We are saddled with a large number of incompetent and corrupt Federal judges who don't enforce the Constitution they way they vowed to do. I want all District Federal Judges to have their appointments and behavior reviewed every 10 years by a Senate Committee and the bad ones removed from the bench.


This doesn't take an amendment.
The inferior courts are created and regulated by Congress.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 16, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> The supremacy of the Federal government is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute – as originally intended by the Framers.
> Federal laws, the Federal courts, and the rulings of Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, the states and local jurisdictions subordinate to Federal laws and courts.


This is why it is still illegal to sell marijuana in all of the states that legalized it.


----------



## Viktor (Dec 16, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> This doesn't take an amendment.
> The inferior courts are created and regulated by Congress.


No. The Constitution says Federal judges serve life terms. They are appointed by the Pres and confirmed by the Senate.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 16, 2021)

Viktor said:


> No. The Constitution says Federal judges serve life terms.


US Constitution:

_The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,_

In the establishment of inferior courts, Congress can specify a "good behaviour" rule of review.


----------



## Viktor (Dec 16, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> US Constitution:
> 
> _The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,_
> 
> In the establishment of inferior courts, Congress can specify a "good behaviour" rule of review.


Good behavior means life since no term of years is mentioned.


----------



## Viktor (Dec 16, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> US Constitution:
> 
> _The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,_
> 
> In the establishment of inferior courts, Congress can specify a "good behaviour" rule of review.


These judges, often referred to as “Article III judges,” are nominated by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Article III states that these judges “*hold their office during good behavior*,” which means they have a lifetime appointment, except under very limited circumstances.

About Federal Judges | United States Courts​https://www.uscourts.gov › judges-judgeships › about-fed.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 16, 2021)

Viktor said:


> Good behavior means life since no term of years is mentioned.


And yet, the Constitution gives Congress plenary power to create the lower courts.
That said, there's no reason Congress, under the elastic clause, cannot define "good behavior".


----------



## task0778 (Dec 16, 2021)

Possibly "Good Behavior" could be interpreted by Congress as a requirement to review a federal judge's record after say 10 years or so and determine whether his/her is good enough to continue serving on the bench or not.


----------



## JoeMoma (Dec 16, 2021)

task0778 said:


> Possibly "Good Behavior" could be interpreted by Congress as a requirement to review a federal judge's record after say 10 years or so and determine whether his/her is good enough to continue serving on the bench or not.


And who exactly would be qualified to do such a review.  Members of Congress?  Not a  good idea.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 16, 2021)

JoeMoma said:


> And who exactly would be qualified to do such a review.  Members of Congress?  Not a  good idea.


Whoever Congress specifies
Its a bad idea, but there's no need for an amendment to create the process.

I'm sure the 9th circuit - the most overturned federal court in history - would declare it unconstitutional , in self-defense.


----------



## task0778 (Dec 16, 2021)

JoeMoma said:


> And who exactly would be qualified to do such a review.  Members of Congress?  Not a  good idea.



Well, Congress, specifically the Senate, did confirm those judges in the 1st place and I don't know who else would be in a better position to do that.  They already have the power to impeach a judge I think, so maybe this is redundant.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 19, 2021)

Viktor said:


> We are saddled with a large number of incompetent and corrupt Federal judges who don't enforce the Constitution they way they vowed to do. I want all District Federal Judges to have their appointments and behavior reviewed every 10 years by a Senate Committee and the bad ones removed from the bench.




A senate committee stacked with democrats?  No thanks.....they would purge normal judges.....


----------



## Colin norris (Dec 20, 2021)

JoeMoma said:


> The problem with that is the Senate is full of corrupt and incompetent politicians.  Fat chance at having a senate committee qualified to do that.


No it's not.  Its you hating the democratic process you enjoyed before but not happen with Biden. 

You guys voted for them. Why the change of mind now?


----------



## LuckyDuck (Jan 6, 2022)

Viktor said:


> We are saddled with a large number of incompetent and corrupt Federal judges who don't enforce the Constitution they way they vowed to do. I want all District Federal Judges to have their appointments and behavior reviewed every 10 years by a Senate Committee and the bad ones removed from the bench.


I would like to see the following Amendments added to the Constitution:
1.  No presidential candidate may have passed the age of 70 years at the time of their inauguration.
2.  As presidents are the Commanders-in-chief of our armed forces, all presidential candidates must have served at least one honorable term of military service in their life, regardless of the highest rank achieved, so that such candidates would have a working familiarity with the requirements of the military.
3.  Political appointees who take an oath of office to protect and serve the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, found to be attempting to undermine and/or usurp said Constitution and its Bill of Rights must be removed from office for the violation of such oath.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jan 6, 2022)

task0778 said:


> There has never been nor ever will be a form of gov't that will be better than the one we've already got, not as long as human nature exists.  It isn't the Constitution that is the problem, it is the people who are charged with executing the functions therein.  And if I might say so, the problem lies also with the people who are governed, by not holding elected and unelected officeholders accountable for their mistakes and misdeeds.


*Wags Wearing Wigs*

If that's true, you should want to change the Constitution so that it won't be so easy to abuse.  But it's not true, and you know it.  Your contempt for the American people, when they are so restricted by this elitist document that they have little choice but to submit to the Donkephant, is treason. 

 Free people do not need such an obstruction to the laws they want passed.  This anti-democratic manifesto was written at a time when thinking that the King was not appointed by God was considered radically revolutionary.  We don't need to be saddled with primitive ideas and snobbish attitudes from the horse-and-buggy era.


----------



## task0778 (Jan 6, 2022)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *Wags Wearing Wigs*
> 
> If that's true, you should want to change the Constitution so that it won't be so easy to abuse.  But it's not true, and you know it.  Your contempt for the American people, when they are so restricted by this elitist document that they have little choice but to submit to the Donkephant, is treason.
> 
> Free people do not need such an obstruction to the laws they want passed.  This anti-democratic manifesto was written at a time when thinking that the King was not appointed by God was considered radically revolutionary.  We don't need to be saddled with primitive ideas and snobbish attitudes from the horse-and-buggy era.



You got a better idea?  Like oh, I dunno, maybe socialism?  Listen up, dumb-fuck.  There cannot and will not be any form of gov't that is impervious to fraud, waste, and abuse.  And the founders knew that, which is why the gov't have is filled with checks and balances to prevent a totalitarian state.  If you have a better solution then let's hear it.


----------

