Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: cosine on February 19, 2007, 03:32:42 PM

Title: If you had the opporunity to make a significant change
Post by: cosine on February 19, 2007, 03:32:42 PM

to one of the three branches of the government, (and let's say that scrapping all the barnacles of the current government and going back to the Constitution as it was written is not an option), to what branch would you make a change, what change would you make, and why?

Title: Re: If you had the opporunity to make a significant change
Post by: wmenorr67 on February 19, 2007, 03:35:27 PM

Judicial.  Make them uphold the constitution and make them stop making law.  Deem all laws that go against the true meaning of the constitution are unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Title: Re: If you had the opporunity to make a significant change
Post by: cosine on February 19, 2007, 03:39:07 PM

Let's clarify the exercise a little bit, let's say you have to do something concrete. As much as we all would like to force the judicial branch to uphold the Constitution as written, to me that seems to be kind of an abstract idea.

I'm thinking concretely along the lines of establishing term limits for representatives, or making provisions for some way to remove justices/judges from the bench if they get out of line, or ending the practice of presidential executive orders.




Maybe I'm thinking abstractly too, just in a different manner.

Title: Re: If you had the opporunity to make a significant change
Post by: Ron on February 19, 2007, 03:50:42 PM

The dysfunction of our government mirrors our society.

While there are things that need to be changed in government the problem is us.

They are for the most part doing what the folks who elected them want them to do.

I for one would insist on a balanced budget and an elimination of "earmarks".

We need to starve the beast.

Title: Re: If you had the opporunity to make a significant change
Post by: Hugh Damright on February 19, 2007, 03:53:16 PM

Executive: Maybe change the Electoral College to give the smaller States more weight.

Legislative: Maybe repeal the 17th Amendment.

Judicial: Maybe make the SCOTUS subordinate to the State Legislatures.

Title: Re: If you had the opporunity to make a significant change
Post by: cosine on February 19, 2007, 05:16:19 PM

Quote from: Ron on February 19, 2007, 02:50:42 PM

While there are things that need to be changed in government the problem is us.

They are for the most part doing what the folks who elected them want them to do.

Good point. I didn't think of that; many of the things we dislike about the government and our legislators here at APS and THR are actually things which many other groups of the voting population want. 

Title: Re: If you had the opporunity to make a significant change
Post by: mountainclmbr on February 19, 2007, 05:31:21 PM

Legislative - they should pass laws requiring life sentences for any member of government that infringes on the Bill of Rights (which ought to have been named The Bill Of Government Restrictions).

Title: Re: If you had the opporunity to make a significant change
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 19, 2007, 05:38:15 PM

First choice:  Require all laws passed by congress to cite the specific portion of the Constitution that empowers the Fed to make such a law.  The people may disobey any law that lacks this citation.

Second choice:  Imprison any legislative of executive branch employee who facilitates welfare in any form.

Title: Re: If you had the opporunity to make a significant change
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 19, 2007, 05:48:36 PM

1) Judges should be prohibited from law generation by precedent and interpretation. Making laws is the job of congress. If something is confusing, congress should modify the respective laws.

2) Candidates should have at least 5 years experience in a governor seat before becoming eligible for running for POTUS/VPOTUS.

3) Congress should not be allowed to double up the executive by messing with details of strategy in times of war. They are not qualified to do so and cannot maintain confidentiality anyway. They shoud only be able to steer very general direction and leave the details to the executive.

4) The executive should get the balls to do its job and arrest a whole bunch of people, who are obviously committing high treason every day, and then deliver them to the judiciary for trial.

5) There should be a crackdown on corruption.

Title: Re: If you had the opporunity to make a significant change
Post by: drewtam on February 19, 2007, 06:59:09 PM

Multiple part answer:
1. Every federal and state government project and department must have explicit funding in the tax outlays.
2. The general budget and taxes has to be voted/approved by the popular vote.
3. This vote is always one month before Tax day (e.g. April 15) (to allow time to count the votes)
4. Congress has only 2 chances to get the years budget passed by the popular vote.
5. The second chance vote is always the day before Tax day. If the budget fails, the Fed goes without. (Special vote can be called in times of war).


Watch the special interest money dry up, the lobbiest go home, corruption recedes, and socialist programs die on the vine. Because the crooks and thieves will no longer be watching the money bags.

Drew

Title: Re: If you had the opporunity to make a significant change
Post by: cosine on February 19, 2007, 07:03:09 PM

C'mon guys, I wanted you to pick one thing. One thing you think is very important. I know there are several things we all would like to see done, but for the purpose of this exercise let's take it one thing at a time.

Title: Re: If you had the opporunity to make a significant change
Post by: drewtam on February 19, 2007, 07:17:33 PM

Change the tax structure- simple one thing, see. I was just specific about how to do it.

Title: Re: If you had the opporunity to make a significant change
Post by: mfree on February 19, 2007, 07:40:40 PM

Change the little accidental note in case law, left by a *clerk* of all things, that grants corporations RIGHTS.

Title: Re: If you had the opporunity to make a significant change
Post by: doczinn on February 19, 2007, 07:54:09 PM

1. Give the Pesident the line-item veto.
2. Codify that it is to be used to veto any provision of any law that is contrary to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that failure to do so will result in immediate impeachment, said impeachment to be conducted by the Supreme Court rather than the legislature.

Title: Re: If you had the opporunity to make a significant change
Post by: Antibubba on February 19, 2007, 09:02:25 PM

Good one, mfree.

I'd like to see Congressional redistricting taken out of the Legislature's control.  No more gerrymandering, no more safe seats.  The least unfair place for it would be in the Judiciary.

Title: Re: If you had the opporunity to make a significant change
Post by: The Rabbi on February 19, 2007, 11:27:20 PM

I'd like to see the reinstatement of property rights as qualification for voting.  Why  should people with no stake in the system have any say as to what goes on?

Title: Re: If you had the opporunity to make a significant change
Post by: HankB on February 20, 2007, 03:31:04 AM

First choice, I would change the composition of the Supreme Court to:

1. Wayne LaPierre
2. Suzanna Hupp
3. Clarence Thomas
4. Antonin Scalia
5. Neal Boortz
6. Michael Savage
7. Ann Coulter
8. Walter Williams
9. Ron Paul

Second choice, I would impose a "Three Strikes and you're Out" rule on legislators - once three laws a legislator voted for are ruled unconstitutional in whole or in part, he is automatically removed from office and banned from all government service for life.

Third choice, I would include the explicit category "None Of The Above" on all ballots. If NOTA gets the most votes, a new election is held in 3 months, but all the candidates who lost to NOTA are banned from all government jobs for a term equal to the length of the term they were campaigning for.

Fourth choice, inspired by a science fiction story: upon assuming office, all politicians would have a collar locked around their neck. Once a week, everyone who voted in the last election would have the option of "approving" or "disapproving" of their guy's performance. If the majority approve, well and good. If the majority disapprove, a shock is administered to the politician. This would go on for four weeks - four weeks of continuous disapproval would mean increasing shocks would be delivered. At the end of the fifth week, if the voters still disapprove of the poltitican, he has an option of immediate resignation or the 2 oz. of C4 in the collar detonate.

Title: Re: If you had the opporunity to make a significant change
Post by: Jamisjockey on February 20, 2007, 03:51:09 AM

It's simple.  There would be a requirement for the executive branch to put forth a balanced budget.  Congress wouldn't be able to disapprove a balanced budget.  Failure to balance the budget would result in immediate impeachment.

Title: Re: If you had the opporunity to make a significant change
Post by: MechAg94 on February 20, 2007, 04:18:32 AM

1.  Modify the General Welfare clause to be more specific and limiting of the Federal Govt.
2.  Modify the Interstate Commerce clause to make it more specific and limiting of the Fed Govt. 
   (Make the idiot proof if possible)
    I would also get rid of all the original slavery language, but amendments already took care of that.
3.  Modify the wording of some of the Bill of Rights such as the 2nd, 4th (I think) and the 10th to make them more clear and unambiguous. 
4.  Look hard at later amendments to remove ambiguous or open ended wording. 

Title: Re: If you had the opporunity to make a significant change
Post by: griz on February 20, 2007, 08:08:47 AM

Repel the 17th to give the states a bigger voice.

And Ron is right.  The reason they can "get away with it" is because that's what the voters want.  It may be our downfall as we try to tax ourselves into prosperity.

Title: Re: If you had the opporunity to make a significant change
Post by: doczinn on February 20, 2007, 11:28:54 AM

Quote

The reason they can "get away with it" is because that's what the voters want.

As Walter Williams has said, "If the people would elect a guy like me, they wouldn't need me."