If the Constitution were yours to change...

[Wonky Pundit]

It IS a contradiction, and I just proved it with my reference to Congress exempting themselves from sexual harassment laws, as well as the others I mentioned. You just can't admit you're wrong. Typical.

You just can't stop putting two and two together and getting 17. (Or whatever you think the answer should be today.)

Nobody is above the law. Nevertheless, some people break laws and get away with it on occasion. That fact does not put them above the law. That's both logic and life: it is what it is, and no wild accusations on your part can change it.

You stupid shit, when Congress passes a law making something illegal, then exempts it's own members from that law, that's putting themselves above the law. You're about as dumb as they come, aren't you?

Lapsing into making shit up as you go, I see. I'd ask you to link to the full text of the bill, but of course you can't.

And even if it were reality, it still wouldn't put members of Congress above the entire law, just that one law. Even you can see the difference between the two, I'm sure.

 

[S.J.]

You just can't stop putting two and two together and getting 17. (Or whatever you think the answer should be today.)

Nobody is above the law. Nevertheless, some people break laws and get away with it on occasion. That fact does not put them above the law. That's both logic and life: it is what it is, and no wild accusations on your part can change it.

You stupid shit, when Congress passes a law making something illegal, then exempts it's own members from that law, that's putting themselves above the law. You're about as dumb as they come, aren't you?

Lapsing into making shit up as you go, I see. I'd ask you to link to the full text of the bill, but of course you can't.

And even if it were reality, it still wouldn't put members of Congress above the entire law, just that one law. Even you can see the difference between the two, I'm sure.

Oh, now it's changed to "they have to exempt themselves from EVERY single law they pass". Funny how you keep raising that bar so you don't have to admit you're wrong.

 

[deaddogseye]

id go with -- abolish recess appointments- they are no longer necessary

change the line pf presidential succession -- really it should not go through the house or the senate since that could totally offset a presidential election - for example if bush and cheney had been killed makes no sense for pelosi to be pres. same deal with clinton and gingrich

term limits for sure - say 6 for house 2 for senate

no right to citiczenship just because you manage to be born here

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

id go with -- abolish recess appointments- they are no longer necessary

change the line pf presidential succession -- really it should not go through the house or the senate since that could totally offset a presidential election - for example if bush and cheney had been killed makes no sense for pelosi to be pres. same deal with clinton and gingrich

term limits for sure - say 6 for house 2 for senate

no right to citiczenship just because you manage to be born here

A change to Constitution: Constitution would end with:

In sum, the above document is obviously designed to to keep the Democrat Party from forming. If it does form you must kill it as if it were a cancer.

 

[crussmith2]

One man, one vote in the senate - meaning a large expansion of the number of senators.

 

[candycorn]

What changes, if any, would you make to it?

Much more specifics.
It was written when the "common good" was the most important thing. Now party empowerment is.

When the common good was the most important thing, you didn't need rules because everyone was pulling in the same direction; you had different courses on how to get there but the goal was the same.

Now you have people in office who have no interest in government or what we laughably call government I suppose. And as a result, they take advantage of the vagueries (sp?) in the rules.

Example: Regardless of party in power, the House and Senate are out of session for almost 1/2 the year if I recall. It's the highest paying part-time job in the world and requires almost no effort

Many more things I'd do but for starters, we need to spell out what is required of our elected officials since basically, they could change the rules at their discretion. Did you know there is no constitutional provision that a bill must pass by a majority vote? Theorhetically, if they wanted to pass a rule that a bill could pass if it got 20% of the votes, they could do that....

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What changes, if any, would you make to it?

Much more specifics.
It was written when the "common good" was the most important thing. Now party empowerment is.

When the common good was the most important thing, you didn't need rules because everyone was pulling in the same direction; you had different courses on how to get there but the goal was the same.

Now you have people in office who have no interest in government or what we laughably call government I suppose. And as a result, they take advantage of the vagueries (sp?) in the rules.

Example: Regardless of party in power, the House and Senate are out of session for almost 1/2 the year if I recall. It's the highest paying part-time job in the world and requires almost no effort

Many more things I'd do but for starters, we need to spell out what is required of our elected officials since basically, they could change the rules at their discretion. Did you know there is no constitutional provision that a bill must pass by a majority vote? Theorhetically, if they wanted to pass a rule that a bill could pass if it got 20% of the votes, they could do that....

gee, we're in middle of huge recession with 22 million unemployed, we're may be about to attack Iran and N Korea and you're worried about something that could happen, no one expects to happen, and has never happened in 200 years????

Are you a liberal?? How could your thinking be so irrelevent and disorganized??

 

[Wonky Pundit]

You stupid shit, when Congress passes a law making something illegal, then exempts it's own members from that law, that's putting themselves above the law. You're about as dumb as they come, aren't you?

Lapsing into making shit up as you go, I see. I'd ask you to link to the full text of the bill, but of course you can't.

And even if it were reality, it still wouldn't put members of Congress above the entire law, just that one law. Even you can see the difference between the two, I'm sure.

Oh, now it's changed to "they have to exempt themselves from EVERY single law they pass". Funny how you keep raising that bar so you don't have to admit you're wrong.

Which in fact is what "above the law" means, dumbass.

 

[FA_Q2]

Lapsing into making shit up as you go, I see. I'd ask you to link to the full text of the bill, but of course you can't.

And even if it were reality, it still wouldn't put members of Congress above the entire law, just that one law. Even you can see the difference between the two, I'm sure.

Oh, now it's changed to "they have to exempt themselves from EVERY single law they pass". Funny how you keep raising that bar so you don't have to admit you're wrong.

Which in fact is what "above the law" means, dumbass.

Actually, above the law would mean that they could break the law and continually get away with it as well as be exempted from laws and no, that does not require you to be exempt/get away with ALL laws. Just regularly. You are essentially making the false claim that because one person somewhere somehow gets caught and held to standard that means they are not above the law even if the other 99 times they are not held to standard.

That is asinine.

I don’t see how you continually fail to see the fact that this is true. Congressmen do exempt themselves all the time when it benefits them most, like insider trading laws. Congress is entirely protected from using the information that they gain in closed door meetings to directly profit off of the effects of coming laws and regulations. Such actions would land a normal person in jail. Congressmen also get off when they are found to be tax cheats etc. usually getting away with nothing more than a ‘don’t do it again.’

You are blind not to see the outright corruption that is present within the government and its top leaders, the justice system included.

 

[PaulS1950]

It is up to the people to hold the reigns tightly on their government. If they perform unlawful acts what are you doing about it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You just can't stop putting two and two together and getting 17. (Or whatever you think the answer should be today.)

Nobody is above the law. Nevertheless, some people break laws and get away with it on occasion. That fact does not put them above the law. That's both logic and life: it is what it is, and no wild accusations on your part can change it.

You stupid shit, when Congress passes a law making something illegal, then exempts it's own members from that law, that's putting themselves above the law. You're about as dumb as they come, aren't you?

Lapsing into making shit up as you go, I see. I'd ask you to link to the full text of the bill, but of course you can't.

And even if it were reality, it still wouldn't put members of Congress above the entire law, just that one law. Even you can see the difference between the two, I'm sure.

https://www.truthdig.com/report/item/do_as_we_say_congress_says_before_doing_what_it_wants_20130131/

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lapsing into making shit up as you go, I see. I'd ask you to link to the full text of the bill, but of course you can't.

And even if it were reality, it still wouldn't put members of Congress above the entire law, just that one law. Even you can see the difference between the two, I'm sure.

Oh, now it's changed to "they have to exempt themselves from EVERY single law they pass". Funny how you keep raising that bar so you don't have to admit you're wrong.

Which in fact is what "above the law" means, dumbass.

Not in the real world.

 

[candycorn]

What changes, if any, would you make to it?

Much more specifics.
It was written when the "common good" was the most important thing. Now party empowerment is.

When the common good was the most important thing, you didn't need rules because everyone was pulling in the same direction; you had different courses on how to get there but the goal was the same.

Now you have people in office who have no interest in government or what we laughably call government I suppose. And as a result, they take advantage of the vagueries (sp?) in the rules.

Example: Regardless of party in power, the House and Senate are out of session for almost 1/2 the year if I recall. It's the highest paying part-time job in the world and requires almost no effort

Many more things I'd do but for starters, we need to spell out what is required of our elected officials since basically, they could change the rules at their discretion. Did you know there is no constitutional provision that a bill must pass by a majority vote? Theorhetically, if they wanted to pass a rule that a bill could pass if it got 20% of the votes, they could do that....

gee, we're in middle of huge recession with 22 million unemployed, we're may be about to attack Iran and N Korea and you're worried about something that could happen, no one expects to happen, and has never happened in 200 years????

Are you a liberal?? How could your thinking be so irrelevent and disorganized??

Your post is the textbook example of irrelevance relative to the OP.

 

[S.J.]

Lapsing into making shit up as you go, I see. I'd ask you to link to the full text of the bill, but of course you can't.

And even if it were reality, it still wouldn't put members of Congress above the entire law, just that one law. Even you can see the difference between the two, I'm sure.

Oh, now it's changed to "they have to exempt themselves from EVERY single law they pass". Funny how you keep raising that bar so you don't have to admit you're wrong.

Which in fact is what "above the law" means, dumbass.

Okay Mr. Shitforbrains, have it your way. Congressmen can grab women's asses and engage in insider trading to get rich, do things that everyone else goes to jail for, but they're not above the law because you say so. Man, you're full of shit.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Oh, now it's changed to "they have to exempt themselves from EVERY single law they pass". Funny how you keep raising that bar so you don't have to admit you're wrong.

Which in fact is what "above the law" means, dumbass.

Okay Mr. Shitforbrains, have it your way. Congressmen can grab women's asses and engage in insider trading to get rich, do things that everyone else goes to jail for, but they're not above the law because you say so. Man, you're full of shit.

Of course they're not. They're just good enough at doing those things not to get caught.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Much more specifics.
It was written when the "common good" was the most important thing. Now party empowerment is.

When the common good was the most important thing, you didn't need rules because everyone was pulling in the same direction; you had different courses on how to get there but the goal was the same.

Now you have people in office who have no interest in government or what we laughably call government I suppose. And as a result, they take advantage of the vagueries (sp?) in the rules.

Example: Regardless of party in power, the House and Senate are out of session for almost 1/2 the year if I recall. It's the highest paying part-time job in the world and requires almost no effort

Many more things I'd do but for starters, we need to spell out what is required of our elected officials since basically, they could change the rules at their discretion. Did you know there is no constitutional provision that a bill must pass by a majority vote? Theorhetically, if they wanted to pass a rule that a bill could pass if it got 20% of the votes, they could do that....

gee, we're in middle of huge recession with 22 million unemployed, we're may be about to attack Iran and N Korea and you're worried about something that could happen, no one expects to happen, and has never happened in 200 years????

Are you a liberal?? How could your thinking be so irrelevent and disorganized??

Your post is the textbook example of irrelevance relative to the OP.

ok, the Constitution should end with:

In conclusion: the above Constitution is obviously written to make big government liberalism illegal on these shores. You must always be vigilant, day in and day out to insure the above words are not subverted to suit the liberal's cancerous and treasonous purposes.

 

[bornright]

Everyone should have to earn the right to vote.

 

[longknife]

Everyone should have to earn the right to vote.

AMEN!

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Everyone should have to earn the right to vote.

By doing what?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Everyone should have to earn the right to vote.

I agree, the Constitution was set up to have intelligent government so obviously people who cant pass a test should not be allowed to vote. We don't want stupid people to do brain surgery any more than we want them to vote.

Common sense but opposed by liberals because they know the dumber someone is the more they will need welfare and the more they will vote for Democrats.