Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In essence what the OP advocates is the destruction of the Republic and replacing it with the tyranny of unfettered democracy.
[
I suggest you look up the history of the 17th amendment, which was proposed by the legislatures of a few states.
Constitution of the United States : Article V
no State, .....without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate
The following seven States have never ratified the Seventeenth Amendment:
. Utah (explicitly rejected amendment)
. Florida
. Georgia
. Mississippi
. Rhode Island
. South Carolina
. Virginia
.
Does that change the fact that the amendment was proposed by the legislatures of 27 states?
I think QW is saying that it went through regardless...and thus a moot point, while recognizing the dissent of those States...(But that's just me my friend)....And has to be changed back to the intent.Constitution of the United States : Article V
no State, .....without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate
The following seven States have never ratified the Seventeenth Amendment:
. Utah (explicitly rejected amendment)
. Florida
. Georgia
. Mississippi
. Rhode Island
. South Carolina
. Virginia
.
Does that change the fact that the amendment was proposed by the legislatures of 27 states?
Are the following entities states?
. Utah (explicitly rejected amendment)
. Florida
. Georgia
. Mississippi
. Rhode Island
. South Carolina
. Virginia
.
[
I suggest you look up the history of the 17th amendment, which was proposed by the legislatures of a few states.
Constitution of the United States : Article V
no State, .....without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate
The following seven States have never ratified the Seventeenth Amendment:
. Utah (explicitly rejected amendment)
. Florida
. Georgia
. Mississippi
. Rhode Island
. South Carolina
. Virginia
.
Does that change the fact that the amendment was proposed by the legislatures of 27 states?
1- I'm good with that, I would also like to see their salaries capped at the average income level and no retirement at all. They should leave their government job looking for a private sector one not being retired with all the benefits we don't get. Go back home and live under the rules you made.1. Term Limits for Congress
They may serve a total of 12 years in the House, Senate, or a combination of both.
2. Restore the Senate to pre-17th amendment status.
The State Legislatures would elect the two Senate representatives.
3. Term Limits for SCOTUS
Capped at 12 years.
4. 3/5ths of States or Congress can override SCOTUS decisions
Limiting the scope and power of SCOTUS rulings.
5. Limit Federal Spending
A balanced budget amendment.
6. Limit Federal Taxation
Congress is never going to do this on their own.
7. Limit Federal Bureaucracy
Eliminating the "4th branch" of government for good.
8. Promote Free Enterprise
Self explanatory.
9. Secure private property rights
No doubt, this will deal with eminent domain as well as data mining and spying on Americans.
10. States can amend the Constitution with 2/3rd approval.
Streamlining the process.
How many of you "Constitutional Experts" in this fucking thread have served in the Reagan Administration? Oh none??? Well how many of you are NY Times best selling authors?? Again, not one of you?! Oh yes, I see how I should listen to some of you dumb-asses over reading for myself. (The Liberty Amendments)
Could you please provide a link for your ASSUMPTIONS? Considering you have no idea as the identities of contributors to this board I won't hold my breath.
Are there 'Experts on the Constitution' here in this thread? How about Best Selling authors? She is correct because NO ONE has identified themselves as such, and BTW? She was referring to Mark Levin.
Clear?
Simple reading for that poster would have clued him in...I like that guy too...sad I had to correct him.Could you please provide a link for your ASSUMPTIONS? Considering you have no idea as the identities of contributors to this board I won't hold my breath.
Are there 'Experts on the Constitution' here in this thread? How about Best Selling authors? She is correct because NO ONE has identified themselves as such, and BTW? She was referring to Mark Levin.
Clear?
<Grins> Thank you Sir Knight.. ;-) Yes, I was referring to Mark Levin
Simple reading for that poster would have clued him in...I like that guy too...sad I had to correct him.Are there 'Experts on the Constitution' here in this thread? How about Best Selling authors? She is correct because NO ONE has identified themselves as such, and BTW? She was referring to Mark Levin.
Clear?
<Grins> Thank you Sir Knight.. ;-) Yes, I was referring to Mark Levin
Doesn't change anything just a simple misunderstanding.
No harm, no foul.
Simple reading for that poster would have clued him in...I like that guy too...sad I had to correct him.<Grins> Thank you Sir Knight.. ;-) Yes, I was referring to Mark Levin
Doesn't change anything just a simple misunderstanding.
No harm, no foul.
Yes, he's a great poster.. No offense taken at all..
1. Term Limits for Congress
They may serve a total of 12 years in the House, Senate, or a combination of both.
We already have term limits, theyre called elections.
The people have the right to elect whomever they wish, for whatever reason, and for however long they wish.
2. Restore the Senate to pre-17th amendment status.
The State Legislatures would elect the two Senate representatives.
This is motivated only by partisanism, not a desire to restore liberty. Conservatives believe that because theyre likely to continue to control a majority of state governments, theyll enjoy long-term control of the Senate consequently.
Dreadful ideas.
The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy; its citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly Proposition 8 and DOMA are evidence of that. The states do not have the authority to determine who will or will not have his civil liberties, and ones civil liberties are not determined by popular vote.
Moreover, term limits for justices and subjecting decisions by the High Court to simple majority rule will destroy the independent judiciary, vital to maintaining our Republic and retaining the rule of law, as originally intended by the Framers.
This is also motivated by partisanism, by conservatives frustrated with the courts invalidating republican laws and measures designed to promote conservative hate and ignorance, at the expense of liberty for all Americans.
Another dreadful idea.
Its perfectly appropriate for a First World industrialized nation to fluctuate between surplus and deficit and back to surplus again. Such an amendment would be unworkable with its many exemptions and provisions for emergencies, and its the responsibility of the voters to hold Congress accountable with regard to its fiscal responsibilities, not leave it up to some inane, irresponsible amendment.
What constitutes limit?
And of course Congress isnt going to do it on its own, its the responsibility of voters to hold Congress accountable.
Again, what constitutes limit? What constitutes bureaucracy?
Obviously not.
What constitutes promote? And promoted by whom? This is a meaningless phrase absent context.
9. Secure private property rights
No doubt, this will deal with eminent domain as well as data mining and spying on Americans.
And yet again, what constitutes secure? By whom?
There already exists comprehensive Takings Clause jurisprudence that protects private property rights and ensures appropriate due process with regard to eminent domain.
10. States can amend the Constitution with 2/3rd approval.
Streamlining the process.
The last thing we want to do is streamline the amendment process. We do not want the Federal Constitution cluttered with junk amendments catering to special interests and rendering the Founding Document useless. There is more than ample Constitutional case law, the wisdom of over 200 years, settled and accepted jurisprudence that can successfully and efficiently address any conflict or controversy that should come before the courts.
In essence what the OP advocates is the destruction of the Republic and replacing it with the tyranny of unfettered democracy.
Simple reading for that poster would have clued him in...I like that guy too...sad I had to correct him.
Doesn't change anything just a simple misunderstanding.
No harm, no foul.
Yes, he's a great poster.. No offense taken at all..
Yep. Check your PM's.
1. Term Limits for Congress
They may serve a total of 12 years in the House, Senate, or a combination of both.
We already have term limits, theyre called elections.
The people have the right to elect whomever they wish, for whatever reason, and for however long they wish.
This is motivated only by partisanism, not a desire to ‘restore liberty.’ Conservatives believe that because they’re likely to continue to control a majority of state governments, they’ll enjoy long-term control of the Senate consequently.
Dreadful ideas.
The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy; its citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – Proposition 8 and DOMA are evidence of that. The states do not have the authority to determine who will or will not have his civil liberties, and one’s civil liberties are not determined by popular vote.
Moreover, ‘term limits’ for justices and subjecting decisions by the High Court to simple majority rule will destroy the independent judiciary, vital to maintaining our Republic and retaining the rule of law, as originally intended by the Framers.
This is also motivated by partisanism, by conservatives frustrated with the courts invalidating republican laws and measures designed to promote conservative hate and ignorance, at the expense of liberty for all Americans.
Another dreadful idea.
It’s perfectly appropriate for a First World industrialized nation to fluctuate between surplus and deficit and back to surplus again. Such an amendment would be unworkable with its many ‘exemptions’ and provisions for ‘emergencies,’ and it’s the responsibility of the voters to hold Congress accountable with regard to its fiscal responsibilities, not leave it up to some inane, irresponsible ‘amendment.’
What constitutes ‘limit’?
And of course Congress isn’t going to ‘do it on its own,’ it’s the responsibility of voters to hold Congress accountable.
Again, what constitutes ‘limit’? What constitutes ‘bureaucracy’?
Obviously not.
What constitutes ‘promote’? And ‘promoted’ by whom? This is a meaningless phrase absent context.
And yet again, what constitutes ‘secure’? By whom?
There already exists comprehensive Takings Clause jurisprudence that protects private property rights and ensures appropriate due process with regard to eminent domain.
10. States can amend the Constitution with 2/3rd approval.
Streamlining the process.
The last thing we want to do is ‘streamline’ the amendment process. We do not want the Federal Constitution cluttered with junk ‘amendments’ catering to special interests and rendering the Founding Document useless. There is more than ample Constitutional case law, the wisdom of over 200 years, settled and accepted jurisprudence that can successfully and efficiently address any conflict or controversy that should come before the courts.
In essence what the OP advocates is the destruction of the Republic and replacing it with the tyranny of unfettered democracy.
And much of that case law is bull shit, the courts have not held true to the Constitution as written. Try reading Levin's Men in Black to get just a few examples. Hell just the decision on the ACA violated the Constitution is at least 3 different ways.
No one in this thread has thoroughly read the book and yet are experts on it.. Reminds me of LIBRULS.. Sad.
No one in this thread has thoroughly read the book and yet are experts on it.. Reminds me of LIBRULS.. Sad.
Has anyone other than the OP claimed expertise on the book?
Levin is a rightwing moron.......just read the OP
such a Constitutional scholar
No one in this thread has thoroughly read the book and yet are experts on it.. Reminds me of LIBRULS.. Sad.
Has anyone other than the OP claimed expertise on the book?
Excuse me, but I have not "claimed expertise" on the book. In fact, I said quite specifically, I have yet to read the book, except for Chapter 1. There seems to be a remarkable problem at this site, with people reading things that simply aren't there. Virtually everything I have posted here, I have to correct an incorrect interpretation someone has made. I am using basic English, and I've never had a problem communicating with others, so what is the deal?
We already have term limits, theyre called elections.
The people have the right to elect whomever they wish, for whatever reason, and for however long they wish.
This is motivated only by partisanism, not a desire to restore liberty. Conservatives believe that because theyre likely to continue to control a majority of state governments, theyll enjoy long-term control of the Senate consequently.
Dreadful ideas.
The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy; its citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly Proposition 8 and DOMA are evidence of that. The states do not have the authority to determine who will or will not have his civil liberties, and ones civil liberties are not determined by popular vote.
Moreover, term limits for justices and subjecting decisions by the High Court to simple majority rule will destroy the independent judiciary, vital to maintaining our Republic and retaining the rule of law, as originally intended by the Framers.
This is also motivated by partisanism, by conservatives frustrated with the courts invalidating republican laws and measures designed to promote conservative hate and ignorance, at the expense of liberty for all Americans.
Another dreadful idea.
Its perfectly appropriate for a First World industrialized nation to fluctuate between surplus and deficit and back to surplus again. Such an amendment would be unworkable with its many exemptions and provisions for emergencies, and its the responsibility of the voters to hold Congress accountable with regard to its fiscal responsibilities, not leave it up to some inane, irresponsible amendment.
What constitutes limit?
And of course Congress isnt going to do it on its own, its the responsibility of voters to hold Congress accountable.
Again, what constitutes limit? What constitutes bureaucracy?
Obviously not.
What constitutes promote? And promoted by whom? This is a meaningless phrase absent context.
And yet again, what constitutes secure? By whom?
There already exists comprehensive Takings Clause jurisprudence that protects private property rights and ensures appropriate due process with regard to eminent domain.
The last thing we want to do is streamline the amendment process. We do not want the Federal Constitution cluttered with junk amendments catering to special interests and rendering the Founding Document useless. There is more than ample Constitutional case law, the wisdom of over 200 years, settled and accepted jurisprudence that can successfully and efficiently address any conflict or controversy that should come before the courts.
In essence what the OP advocates is the destruction of the Republic and replacing it with the tyranny of unfettered democracy.
And much of that case law is bull shit, the courts have not held true to the Constitution as written. Try reading Levin's Men in Black to get just a few examples. Hell just the decision on the ACA violated the Constitution is at least 3 different ways.
Levin is a rightwing moron.......just read the OP
such a Constitutional scholar
Constitutional scholar and expert, Mark Levin,
No one in this thread has thoroughly read the book and yet are experts on it.. Reminds me of LIBRULS.. Sad.
Has anyone other than the OP claimed expertise on the book?
