What kind of government do you want?

[OKTexas]

Oh right, evolution, the ultimate excuse not to do the hard work required by the supreme law of the land. LMAO

Its a reality that we live with and like it or not our system needs to evolve with the changing times. We do have a process of legislating and adapting laws.. some restrict and others expand the powers of the federal government. Institutions like the FAA are not covered in the constitution yet I see them as useful and even necessary elements of our modern society. I don't necessarily think we need an FAA clause amended into the constitution. Do you?

Then tell your congressional representatives to get off their asses and do the necessary work to accommodate the need instead of illegally assuming powers not granted.

For centuries we have had presidents and congressmen and Supreme Court justices that have ran our government this way and now almost 300 years later you want me to call my congressman and tell him that they've been doing it all wrong?! Ok, I'll get right on that

You snowflakes never turn to the Constitution unless it's your ox that's getting gored, then you run to it and the courts crying like scared little school girls. Then you wonder what the States are pushing for an Article 5 convention to control the feds. Guss what, the federal courts have no more power to unilaterally amend or redefine the Constitution than the congress or president does, only the States have that power and they can do it with no federal input.

Thank you for that completely idiotic breakdown about how I think and the half truth lesson about how constitutional amendments work. If you want the other half... To amend the constitution the state legislatures can call a constitutional convention and pass an amendment with a 2/3 vote OR OR OR Congress can pass a constitutional amendment with a 2/3 vote from the senate and house. Out of all 27 amendments to our constitution guess how many have been passed by the states...

Get back to me when you actually read Article 5, because you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. And to answer your question the States proposed 12 amendments as a condition to ratification of the Constitution, only the last 10 were ratified. They are known as the Bill of Rights.

 

[Slade3200]

Its a reality that we live with and like it or not our system needs to evolve with the changing times. We do have a process of legislating and adapting laws.. some restrict and others expand the powers of the federal government. Institutions like the FAA are not covered in the constitution yet I see them as useful and even necessary elements of our modern society. I don't necessarily think we need an FAA clause amended into the constitution. Do you?

Then tell your congressional representatives to get off their asses and do the necessary work to accommodate the need instead of illegally assuming powers not granted.

For centuries we have had presidents and congressmen and Supreme Court justices that have ran our government this way and now almost 300 years later you want me to call my congressman and tell him that they've been doing it all wrong?! Ok, I'll get right on that

You snowflakes never turn to the Constitution unless it's your ox that's getting gored, then you run to it and the courts crying like scared little school girls. Then you wonder what the States are pushing for an Article 5 convention to control the feds. Guss what, the federal courts have no more power to unilaterally amend or redefine the Constitution than the congress or president does, only the States have that power and they can do it with no federal input.

Thank you for that completely idiotic breakdown about how I think and the half truth lesson about how constitutional amendments work. If you want the other half... To amend the constitution the state legislatures can call a constitutional convention and pass an amendment with a 2/3 vote OR OR OR Congress can pass a constitutional amendment with a 2/3 vote from the senate and house. Out of all 27 amendments to our constitution guess how many have been passed by the states...

Get back to me when you actually read Article 5, because you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. And to answer your question the States proposed 12 amendments as a condition to ratification of the Constitution, only the last 10 were ratified. They are known as the Bill of Rights.

You're right, I read your statement to quickly and missed the "unilateral" point you were making. That is correct. My point was that congress does play a role and of the 27 amendments that have been ratified they were all proposed by congress and none by the states.

 

[OKTexas]

Then tell your congressional representatives to get off their asses and do the necessary work to accommodate the need instead of illegally assuming powers not granted.

For centuries we have had presidents and congressmen and Supreme Court justices that have ran our government this way and now almost 300 years later you want me to call my congressman and tell him that they've been doing it all wrong?! Ok, I'll get right on that

You snowflakes never turn to the Constitution unless it's your ox that's getting gored, then you run to it and the courts crying like scared little school girls. Then you wonder what the States are pushing for an Article 5 convention to control the feds. Guss what, the federal courts have no more power to unilaterally amend or redefine the Constitution than the congress or president does, only the States have that power and they can do it with no federal input.

Thank you for that completely idiotic breakdown about how I think and the half truth lesson about how constitutional amendments work. If you want the other half... To amend the constitution the state legislatures can call a constitutional convention and pass an amendment with a 2/3 vote OR OR OR Congress can pass a constitutional amendment with a 2/3 vote from the senate and house. Out of all 27 amendments to our constitution guess how many have been passed by the states...

Get back to me when you actually read Article 5, because you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. And to answer your question the States proposed 12 amendments as a condition to ratification of the Constitution, only the last 10 were ratified. They are known as the Bill of Rights.

You're right, I read your statement to quickly and missed the "unilateral" point you were making. That is correct. My point was that congress does play a role and of the 27 amendments that have been ratified they were all proposed by congress and none by the states.

Yep, they have ignored their duty to call a convention of States going on a hundred years. 49 of the 50 States have collectively made more than 600 requests for a convention and congress continues to ignore them. That's why the States are voting to establish their own conventions under Article 5.

 

[Slade3200]

For centuries we have had presidents and congressmen and Supreme Court justices that have ran our government this way and now almost 300 years later you want me to call my congressman and tell him that they've been doing it all wrong?! Ok, I'll get right on that

You snowflakes never turn to the Constitution unless it's your ox that's getting gored, then you run to it and the courts crying like scared little school girls. Then you wonder what the States are pushing for an Article 5 convention to control the feds. Guss what, the federal courts have no more power to unilaterally amend or redefine the Constitution than the congress or president does, only the States have that power and they can do it with no federal input.

Thank you for that completely idiotic breakdown about how I think and the half truth lesson about how constitutional amendments work. If you want the other half... To amend the constitution the state legislatures can call a constitutional convention and pass an amendment with a 2/3 vote OR OR OR Congress can pass a constitutional amendment with a 2/3 vote from the senate and house. Out of all 27 amendments to our constitution guess how many have been passed by the states...

Get back to me when you actually read Article 5, because you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. And to answer your question the States proposed 12 amendments as a condition to ratification of the Constitution, only the last 10 were ratified. They are known as the Bill of Rights.

You're right, I read your statement to quickly and missed the "unilateral" point you were making. That is correct. My point was that congress does play a role and of the 27 amendments that have been ratified they were all proposed by congress and none by the states.

Yep, they have ignored their duty to call a convention of States going on a hundred years. 49 of the 50 States have collectively made more than 600 requests for a convention and congress continues to ignore them. That's why the States are voting to establish their own conventions under Article 5.

I think that's a fine idea, got no problems with it. This org seems to be working in the issue

Convention of States

 

[OKTexas]

You snowflakes never turn to the Constitution unless it's your ox that's getting gored, then you run to it and the courts crying like scared little school girls. Then you wonder what the States are pushing for an Article 5 convention to control the feds. Guss what, the federal courts have no more power to unilaterally amend or redefine the Constitution than the congress or president does, only the States have that power and they can do it with no federal input.

Thank you for that completely idiotic breakdown about how I think and the half truth lesson about how constitutional amendments work. If you want the other half... To amend the constitution the state legislatures can call a constitutional convention and pass an amendment with a 2/3 vote OR OR OR Congress can pass a constitutional amendment with a 2/3 vote from the senate and house. Out of all 27 amendments to our constitution guess how many have been passed by the states...

Get back to me when you actually read Article 5, because you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. And to answer your question the States proposed 12 amendments as a condition to ratification of the Constitution, only the last 10 were ratified. They are known as the Bill of Rights.

You're right, I read your statement to quickly and missed the "unilateral" point you were making. That is correct. My point was that congress does play a role and of the 27 amendments that have been ratified they were all proposed by congress and none by the states.

Yep, they have ignored their duty to call a convention of States going on a hundred years. 49 of the 50 States have collectively made more than 600 requests for a convention and congress continues to ignore them. That's why the States are voting to establish their own conventions under Article 5.

I think that's a fine idea, got no problems with it. This org seems to be working in the issue

Convention of States

I'm aware of them, and of course you ignore the fact that congress has failed to carry out their duty under Article 5.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I've already told you the remedy, you just refuse to listen.

I've been listening, you just aren't thinking it through in practical terms and you are failing to make your argument.

You keep saying that and have yet to back up anything you've said with the text of the Constitution, I can back up everything I've said with it. BTW it's the Constitution that defines the "practical terms", not the idiots that are ignoring their oaths to it.

I don't need to back anything up using the constitution, it's your arguement that everything should be in there. It's my argument that our society has evolved since the 1700's. When I asked you about the FAA you brought up commerce. wtf?

So you saying that the founders of the constitution were conservative and seen into the future?

Check

Huh? come back when you're ready to have a real conversation. I"m not interested in engaging in grade school slander

Your saying what we already know and you can never comprehend.


.

 

[dblack]

I want a government that protects our freedom to, voluntarily and collaboratively, create the kind of society we want. I don't want my government to decide for us what kind of society we should have an push us toward their idea of where we should go.

 

[Crixus]

The past decade has brought partisanship and federal gridlock to record levels. The obstructionism from the Right during Obamas administration was childish and embarrassing. The response by Harry Reid using the "nuclear option" planted a virus, and the use of executive orders by Obama only created band aids to problems that needed legislative fixes. Now that Republicans have control they seem to be picking up the Democrats ball and running with it, how very hypocritical, after years of complaining. They have applied the nuclear option to a Supreme court nominee and Trump seems to be focusing on executive orders over legislation. I don't see any attempts by either side to work together towards solutions. So what kind of government are we left with?

Looks to me like our Congress is moving towards majority rule operations eliminating the need for bipartisan efforts. Our executive doesn't seem interested in representing the will of the people but only the half that supported him. Is this really the type of government that you want? You know this tit for tat partisanship is only going to snowball as the balance of power shifts... Are any of you interested in seeing this trend stop? Any ideas on how to fix it?

Hm, then what at the point of having a majority then? As far as obstructing go's the democrat party has always done that. It's kind of stupid to say this is a new thing. It's almost a blatant lie told in an attempt to troll or something. Whatever. Don't like the grid lock then get rid of the unconstitutional two party monopoly on the senate. Vote in term limits on senators and congressmen and maybe it will change.

 

[P@triot]

I'm picking on OKTexas who is trying to make the point that any laws/regulations imposed by the federal government that aren't specifically addressed in the constitution are unconstitutional. He doesn't seem to realize that society has evolved quite a bit since the 1700's

Then why wasn't the U.S. Constitution amended to reflect that "evolution" since the 1700's?

That's a great question. Obviously law makers governed through legislation and votes

Which makes everything they did illegal. The fact is - very few things actually required a constitutional amendment. It doesn't matter how much society has "evolved" - the premise of the U.S. Constitution (our structure of government, how it functions, and preserving liberty) remains the same.

The left wants to believe that the "evolution" of society dictates all of these changes. It's just an excuse for the communism they desire.

 

[P@triot]

To amend the constitution the state legislatures can call a constitutional convention and pass an amendment with a 2/3 vote OR OR OR Congress can pass a constitutional amendment with a 2/3 vote from the senate and house.

That's completely inaccurate Slade3200. Congress still needs 3/4 of the states to approve an amendment even if they get 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate.

Out of all 27 amendments to our constitution guess how many have been passed by the states...

27 of them (or 100%). Because a constitutional amendment requires ratification by 3/4 of the states.

 

[Iceweasel]

I want a government that protects our freedom to, voluntarily and collaboratively, create the kind of society we want. I don't want my government to decide for us what kind of society we should have an push us toward their idea of where we should go.

Exactly! If the people in a state don't want gay marriage or abortion on demand it should not be dictated from central government.

 

[P@triot]

What kind of government do you want?

The kind that understands that they answer to me. I do not answer to them.

 

[P@triot]

What kind of government do you want?

The kind that leaves me the fuck alone to live my life as I see fit...

 

[Slade3200]

The past decade has brought partisanship and federal gridlock to record levels. The obstructionism from the Right during Obamas administration was childish and embarrassing. The response by Harry Reid using the "nuclear option" planted a virus, and the use of executive orders by Obama only created band aids to problems that needed legislative fixes. Now that Republicans have control they seem to be picking up the Democrats ball and running with it, how very hypocritical, after years of complaining. They have applied the nuclear option to a Supreme court nominee and Trump seems to be focusing on executive orders over legislation. I don't see any attempts by either side to work together towards solutions. So what kind of government are we left with?

Looks to me like our Congress is moving towards majority rule operations eliminating the need for bipartisan efforts. Our executive doesn't seem interested in representing the will of the people but only the half that supported him. Is this really the type of government that you want? You know this tit for tat partisanship is only going to snowball as the balance of power shifts... Are any of you interested in seeing this trend stop? Any ideas on how to fix it?

Hm, then what at the point of having a majority then? As far as obstructing go's the democrat party has always done that. It's kind of stupid to say this is a new thing. It's almost a blatant lie told in an attempt to troll or something. Whatever. Don't like the grid lock then get rid of the unconstitutional two party monopoly on the senate. Vote in term limits on senators and congressmen and maybe it will change.

Of course both parties have factions of obstructionists but Reagan and the bushes got bipartisan support as did Clinton. Things got boosted to a whole new level during Obamas presidency and they are continuing to snowball. "Almost a blatant lie... attempt to troll" wtf are you talking about?

 

[Flopper]

I want a government that knows and understands it has limits and that there are things they can't fix and parts of people's lives they shouldn't be involved in.

AND I believe our gov't should also be limited to policies we can pay for. I was brought up to avoid debt, pretty much except for a house and a car you should live within your means. I cannot accept creating a huge debt that future generations will have to pay interest on, let alone the principle. It won't be long before interest rates rise to their historical levels near 4 - 5%, and as the debt increases the interest alone will reach and exceed a trillion dollars a year. I think that is irresponsible and inexcusable or our part today.

I agree, the fiscal irresponsibility of our government has been a tremendous problem. Creating debt isn't the problem, as that is actually beneficial to a growing economy, but the magnitude of the debt, and wasteful spending, is what has gotten out of control

When the people are not fiscal responsible, there is little reason to think the government that represents them will be. The average adult has less than $5,000 saved for their retirement. 25% of Americans have no savings at all and half the country would exhaust their savings in less than a month if they lost their job.

One measure of fiscal responsibility is a comparison of debt to assets. The United States has a debt (public and private) of 145 trillion against assets of 269 trillion, a debt to asset ratio of only .53. The average American family debt to asset ratio is just bit over 1.0.

I agree, that is just crazy. I'm sure that easy access to loans and credit cards along with the lessening risk of true hardships and consequences have fed the problem. Solutions seem to be in better education and better regulation of our financial institutions lessening their ability to take advantage of our citizens

That's an option and a good one. However, the finances of government are far different than individual finances for several reasons. First being, government can creates money. Second, government can control it's revenue. Lastly, there is no limit to the amount of money the government can borrow as long as the lenders have faith that their principal and interest is safe and congress raises the debt limit.

It can be argued that lenders will lose faith in the government if it's debt becomes too high. However, for that to happen there would have to be a safer place to invest trillions of dollars. That where a multitude of factors enter in such as US GDP growth compared to other countries, the ability to increase taxes, pay interest, and the strength of the United States, both financial and militarily compared to other nations.

 

[whitehall]

Wait a minute, does the radical left really measure political obstructionism in terms of childishness and embarrassing behavior? Barry Hussein famously told republicans "you can board the bus but you have to sit in the back". How's that for bipartisanship? It should be noted in the strongest terms that the only time the pathetic childish radical left seeks bipartisanship is when they are in the minority.

 

[percysunshine]

The past decade has brought partisanship and federal gridlock to record levels. The obstructionism from the Right during Obamas administration was childish and embarrassing. The response by Harry Reid using the "nuclear option" planted a virus, and the use of executive orders by Obama only created band aids to problems that needed legislative fixes. Now that Republicans have control they seem to be picking up the Democrats ball and running with it, how very hypocritical, after years of complaining. They have applied the nuclear option to a Supreme court nominee and Trump seems to be focusing on executive orders over legislation. I don't see any attempts by either side to work together towards solutions. So what kind of government are we left with?

Looks to me like our Congress is moving towards majority rule operations eliminating the need for bipartisan efforts. Our executive doesn't seem interested in representing the will of the people but only the half that supported him. Is this really the type of government that you want? You know this tit for tat partisanship is only going to snowball as the balance of power shifts... Are any of you interested in seeing this trend stop? Any ideas on how to fix it?

What kind of government do you want?

Well, I am tempted to say the stupidest people we can find, but that won't work.

So I would go with the average person. If the government is full of smart ambitious people, they will just fuck everything up for everyone.

 

[Slade3200]

Wait a minute, does the radical left really measure political obstructionism in terms of childishness and embarrassing behavior? Barry Hussein famously told republicans "you can board the bus but you have to sit in the back". How's that for bipartisanship? It should be noted in the strongest terms that the only time the pathetic childish radical left seeks bipartisanship is when they are in the minority.

The Left acted better to bush than Reps acted towards Obamas. Now the left is backlashing on Trump. There is no excuse. Saying "they did it so now it's my turn" doesn't fly

 

[Rustic]

The past decade has brought partisanship and federal gridlock to record levels. The obstructionism from the Right during Obamas administration was childish and embarrassing. The response by Harry Reid using the "nuclear option" planted a virus, and the use of executive orders by Obama only created band aids to problems that needed legislative fixes. Now that Republicans have control they seem to be picking up the Democrats ball and running with it, how very hypocritical, after years of complaining. They have applied the nuclear option to a Supreme court nominee and Trump seems to be focusing on executive orders over legislation. I don't see any attempts by either side to work together towards solutions. So what kind of government are we left with?

Looks to me like our Congress is moving towards majority rule operations eliminating the need for bipartisan efforts. Our executive doesn't seem interested in representing the will of the people but only the half that supported him. Is this really the type of government that you want? You know this tit for tat partisanship is only going to snowball as the balance of power shifts... Are any of you interested in seeing this trend stop? Any ideas on how to fix it?

Single term limits… The extinction of career politicians

 

[Rustic]

I like a government that's like my undershorts. I hardly want to know they're even there. I don't want them riding up my ass and grabbing me by the package.

Grok?

The federal governments very definition of their behavior is grabbing you by the shorthairs and fucking you up the ass every chance They get... The progressives like that though