If the Constitution were yours to change...

[akelch]

The power of creating and establishing national currency is held solely to the Treasury department and can not be delegated to any other entity. The currency is required to be fed into circulation debt free based apon market formula only.

 

[Agit8r]

Personhood and the rights of individuals would be specifically limited to "natural born citizens".

No.

Why do you ask?

Because that is, essentially, what you just said.

No.

It isn't.

The essence of my post is

Personhood and the rights of individuals would be specifically limited to "natural born citizens".
​

A side bar comment was something like that excludes corporations and illegals from having the rights of natural born citizens. As most nations do. To take it to a more granular level, "natural born" excludes corporations from citizens' rights, while "citizen" would legally exclude illegals (see how that works?) from citizenship rights.

The concept "real" was not addressed.

So what would the point of having naturalized citizens be? Or are you against that?

 

[Billo_Really]

You think that if more than one person agrees about something they lose their right to talk about it?

I don't believe that an entity, which only exists on paper, should be allowed to participate in our political process.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Because that is, essentially, what you just said.

No.

It isn't.

The essence of my post is

Personhood and the rights of individuals would be specifically limited to "natural born citizens".
​

A side bar comment was something like that excludes corporations and illegals from having the rights of natural born citizens. As most nations do. To take it to a more granular level, "natural born" excludes corporations from citizens' rights, while "citizen" would legally exclude illegals (see how that works?) from citizenship rights.

The concept "real" was not addressed.

So what would the point of having naturalized citizens be? Or are you against that?

People come. People go. Most nations including the US accommodate the desire for citizenship. Not sure the tradition of naturalizing citizens needs a "point".

 

[Agit8r]

No.

It isn't.

The essence of my post is

Personhood and the rights of individuals would be specifically limited to "natural born citizens".
​

A side bar comment was something like that excludes corporations and illegals from having the rights of natural born citizens. As most nations do. To take it to a more granular level, "natural born" excludes corporations from citizens' rights, while "citizen" would legally exclude illegals (see how that works?) from citizenship rights.

The concept "real" was not addressed.

So what would the point of having naturalized citizens be? Or are you against that?

People come. People go. Most nations including the US accommodate the desire for citizenship. Not sure the tradition of naturalizing citizens needs a "point".

I'm saying that if naturalized citizens were not guaranteed "the rights of individuals" there would not be any point to being naturalized.

 

[thereisnospoon]

They do. It is up to the individual elected officials to remember who voted them into off and the oath they took when they were sworn in.
To remove business from the process is to abridge freedom of speech. Can't do that.
And we come back to the integrity of the politicians. There seems to be very little of that.
One other thing. There are a lot more of "we the people" than there are corporations.
It is OUR fault we sit idly by and either don't care what happens unless it crawls across our front lawn or for about 45% of us in every Presidential election year, do not even bother to vote.
This is why politicians get away with the bullshit. This is why lobbyists can roam the halls of the Capitol with brief cases full of stuff to steer a politician's vote.
Ultimately it is not the lobbyists or the people that pay them. It is the politicians themselves. It is THEY who cannot conduct themselves the correct way.

Freedom of speech should only apply to people, not corporations.

It is "we the people", not "we the people, inc."

And then we get back to the people that are employed and own the corporation. Is it not also their right to speak?
It is impossible to separate one from the the other.
Until corporations employ no human beings, this debate will rage onward. And if we err, we do so on the side of the Constitution.
What bothers me most about this entire issue is the fact that while people scream about corporate money in political campaigns, on average slightly more than half of us do not even bother to vote. So how can we rightly silence the voice of business?

 

[Billo_Really]

And then we get back to the people that are employed and own the corporation. Is it not also their right to speak?

As individuals, yes; as corporations, no.

It is impossible to separate one from the the other.

Yes you can. One can donate with their own money, but cannot use corporate resources for a donation.

Until corporations employ no human beings, this debate will rage onward. And if we err, we do so on the side of the Constitution.
What bothers me most about this entire issue is the fact that while people scream about corporate money in political campaigns, on average slightly more than half of us do not even bother to vote.

I don't like that, either, but you can't force someone to vote.

So how can we rightly silence the voice of business?

By not allowing them a voice in politics.

 

[S.J.]

What happens when a natural disaster hits?

Ever hear of community spirit? Big government has robbed us of that with their taxation and debt. We never had a problem helping one another (especially during natural disasters) until government assumed the role of big brother.

Reactionary nonsense.

Federal disaster relief merely represents all communities in America helping communities struck by disaster.

No they don't, they're supposed to but they don't. People always end up suffering more than they would have otherwise because politics enters into it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And then we get back to the people that are employed and own the corporation. Is it not also their right to speak?

As individuals, yes; as corporations, no.

It is impossible to separate one from the the other.

Yes you can. One can donate with their own money, but cannot use corporate resources for a donation.

Until corporations employ no human beings, this debate will rage onward. And if we err, we do so on the side of the Constitution.
What bothers me most about this entire issue is the fact that while people scream about corporate money in political campaigns, on average slightly more than half of us do not even bother to vote.

I don't like that, either, but you can't force someone to vote.

So how can we rightly silence the voice of business?

By not allowing them a voice in politics.

No, we cannot make laws forcing people to vote. By the same token we cannot remove the rights of others to be heard either. Since businesses employ people, they may pool their resources so that they may be heard.
Mc Cain-Feingold was ruled unConstitutional. If you feel strongly enough about this issue, perhaps it is time for you to contact your US House member or one of your US Senators and ask him or her to sponsor a bill for what it is you wish to see accomplished.

 

[Billo_Really]

No, we cannot make laws forcing people to vote. By the same token we cannot remove the rights of others to be heard either. Since businesses employ people, they may pool their resources so that they may be heard.
Mc Cain-Feingold was ruled unConstitutional. If you feel strongly enough about this issue, perhaps it is time for you to contact your US House member or one of your US Senators and ask him or her to sponsor a bill for what it is you wish to see accomplished.

I already have.

Because of corporate participation in politics, we no longer have representation in government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You think that if more than one person agrees about something they lose their right to talk about it?

I don't believe that an entity, which only exists on paper, should be allowed to participate in our political process.

Current law requires anyone who wants to participate, or comment on, elections to form a corporation in order to enable the government to track their spending.

In other words, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Billo_Really]

Current law requires anyone who wants to participate, or comment on, elections to form a corporation in order to enable the government to track their spending.

In other words, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

You need to explain that one in a little more detail.

Because right now, it doesn't make any sense.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No, we cannot make laws forcing people to vote. By the same token we cannot remove the rights of others to be heard either. Since businesses employ people, they may pool their resources so that they may be heard.
Mc Cain-Feingold was ruled unConstitutional. If you feel strongly enough about this issue, perhaps it is time for you to contact your US House member or one of your US Senators and ask him or her to sponsor a bill for what it is you wish to see accomplished.

I already have.

Because of corporate participation in politics, we no longer have representation in government.

Once statesmen became career politicians, we lost our representation in the US Capitol.
it isn't corporate money or lobbyists...
It's the perks, great pay, pension, people kissing their ass, the near royal treatment, the glad handing, people offering things they shouldn't...
The idea of serving went like this. You were elected. You served a term or two. Then you went home. Legislative sessions were very short. The idea was to make sure the House members and Senators were home answering to their constituents. There were the issues with travel obviously.
If you really want special interest money out of the process, demand term limits.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Current law requires anyone who wants to participate, or comment on, elections to form a corporation in order to enable the government to track their spending.

In other words, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

You need to explain that one in a little more detail.

Because right now, it doesn't make any sense.

What did you not understand? FECA requires anyone that wants to spend money to talk about elections to form a corporation. This is intended to make it easier to track the finances and spending of people who have political opinions. You cannot require that, and then tell them that they cannot talk about elections and/or candidates. That makes your position absurd.

 

[Billo_Really]

What did you not understand? FECA requires anyone that wants to spend money to talk about elections to form a corporation. This is intended to make it easier to track the finances and spending of people who have political opinions. You cannot require that, and then tell them that they cannot talk about elections and/or candidates. That makes your position absurd.

I don't care about corporations talking about elections, I don't want them making campaign donations.

 

[Billo_Really]

Once statesmen became career politicians, we lost our representation in the US Capitol.
it isn't corporate money or lobbyists...
It's the perks, great pay, pension, people kissing their ass, the near royal treatment, the glad handing, people offering things they shouldn't...
The idea of serving went like this. You were elected. You served a term or two. Then you went home. Legislative sessions were very short. The idea was to make sure the House members and Senators were home answering to their constituents. There were the issues with travel obviously.
If you really want special interest money out of the process, demand term limits.

What I want is for elected officials to be prevented from becoming lobbiests at least 10 years after they leave office.

 

[S.J.]

In order to vote, you should have to prove your citizenship, plus name both of your U.S. Senators, your House Representative, your Governor, the VP, what each of their roles are, and accurately state what the role is of each of the three branches of government. Anyone who doesn't know these things should not be voting.

And before going to war against a country you should be able to find it on a map.

What a ridiculous comment.

 

[ScienceRocks]

In order to vote, you should have to prove your citizenship, plus name both of your U.S. Senators, your House Representative, your Governor, the VP, what each of their roles are, and accurately state what the role is of each of the three branches of government. Anyone who doesn't know these things should not be voting.

And before going to war against a country you should be able to find it on a map.

What a ridiculous comment.

I could find it on a map...So it must now be ok to go to war against it!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In order to vote, you should have to prove your citizenship, plus name both of your U.S. Senators, your House Representative, your Governor, the VP, what each of their roles are, and accurately state what the role is of each of the three branches of government. Anyone who doesn't know these things should not be voting.

The thread topic is about changing the Constitution, not destroying it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'd define the wording of each amendment to a "lower reading level". People seem to be too stupid to get the meaning of the second amendment. Sadly, including educated people. The second amendment would state, "that the federal/state government can't touch your fucking right to own a fire arm. End of story!"

Next, I'd throttle back the power of the supreme and lower courts to 'make' law. Who are they to override the people? Thirdly, The power of the presidents executive powers would be looked at very closely, because I feel it has been taken way to far. Let's make sure that the congress makes laws and the president only enforces them.

Forthly, I'd Strengthen the power of the states with strengthening the 10th amendment and giving back the senate to the states. I'd modernize a little on who can do what being that we aren't in the 18th century anymore...Think about it all these fucking things like welfare, science, etc need to be with the states. States would of course be the ones to hand out the free shit, etc if that's what the people want.

Maybe the federal government can work with the states towards common goals in science, education ect. That are important to the entire nation.

Term limits would become a constitutional amendment.