[congressman]

What amendments would you want to see added to the constitution?

Me, I would i like to repeal the 16th, 17th, and 10th. These are all very dangerous amendments. Additions would include a balanced budget amendment, a term limit amendment for congressional members, and an amendment banning the possibility of conscription in the future.

The balanced budget amendment would require the next FY budget to be balanced or in surplus, and would limit growth in year to year budgets to that of GDP. Emergency spending would have to be requested by the president, via the speaker of the house, and voted on by the House first, followed with ratifification by the states (the new Senate after the repeal of the 17th amendment), and then signed by the president. House and Senate rules would require super majorities by both houses to pass the legislation.

The term limit amendment would create a 12/12/12 year term limit for the houses, and the presidency.

The conscription amendment would ban future possibilities of conscription, and insure that those who don't want to serve in the military, would not have to serve.

[Hoot Gibson]

I would reinforce the 10th Amendment to prohibit the federal government from imposing unfunded mandates on the states or to otherwise coerce state governments to take actions against the popular will of the individual states. A balanced budget amendment sounds great but when crooked politicians control the federal purse strings as they do now, they will find away to circumvent any inconvenient amendment.

Our federal government, including the Supreme Court, has been ignoring the 10th Amendment for years. For example, Justice Scalia joined with liberals on the court in a case involving two California residents raising marijuana for their own medical use and in accordance with California state law. The court ruled that the Commerce Clause applied in justifying their ruling. The court should have declared that there can be no application of the Commerce Clause without proving that there was interstate commerce or at least intent to distribute across state lines.

Liberals ignore the amendment because respecting it would invalidate many of their favorite environmental and labor laws. Some conservatives like to ignore the amendment, as Scalia did, to justify the federalization of the war on drugs.

Another reason that the 10th Amendment is ignored in Washington is that it allows Congress to force states to raise taxes to pay for pet projects so that they do not have to raise taxes to pay for the projects. If the 10th Amendment were respected and properly enforced, the size of our federal bureaucracy would shrink dramatically.

[congressman]

I couldn't edit my first post, but I should have said the 9th amendment, instead of the 10th.

I would do as Reagan did, only much more radical. An immediate EO on Federalism. And as president, I would veto EVERY bill that took away from states rights. Regardless of how much the bill would improve the lives of people, or the well being of the nation in general.

[thecavemaster]

I couldn't edit my first post, but I should have said the 9th amendment, instead of the 10th.

I would do as Reagan did, only much more radical. An immediate EO on Federalism. And as president, I would veto EVERY bill that took away from states rights. Regardless of how much the bill would improve the lives of people, or the well being of the nation in general.

"We, the people... estabilish justice...."

Are you suggesting that Alabama has the right to segregate its schools? to deny homosexuals the right to the benefits of marriage? That Mississippi can allow "Whites Only" hotels? That each state is its own kingdom? Isn't that secession?

[congressman]

"We, the people... estabilish justice...."

Are you suggesting that Alabama has the right to segregate its schools? to deny homosexuals the right to the benefits of marriage? That Mississippi can allow "Whites Only" hotels? That each state is its own kingdom? Isn't that secession?

No. Thats not what I'm saying, and I'm absolutely puzzled has to how you could even create such stupidity out of a concept as simple as I described. If you're trying to create something out of nothing, then you failed... and miserably. If you're trying to actually understand what I wrote, I would suggest you first read the the constitution, then come back and post something intelligent. This may be somewhat of a task for you though.

If you read the constitution, you would know that I didn't mention repealing the amendment dealing with slavery, so that gets rid of the the slavery topic. Secondly, its not actually a secret, but keep it between us just in case... states ALREADY have the right to deny homosexual marriage, and most DO.

And as far as states being their own 'kingdom'... I would say for me, 'almost that'. States originally had rights and the founders beautiful vision gave them a powerful voice. Today states have no rights or representation in Washington, but by golly Canada and Mexico do.. and the nation is crumbling. And its not a coincidence. We took away the states power to influence its very own union, and gave all power 'to the people'. Bull. The people lost power when the federal government ignored the 9th amendment and started writing laws that placed mandates on states that the state couldn't deny, or would bribe them or 'highly encourage' states to accept their views and implement their vision using funding and rules/regulations. The seatball law comes to mind. The federal government can't impose it themselves, because its a 'state right'. Yet, they can withhold much needed funding for highways and other transportation if the state doesn't follow the federal government rule. Well, truth be told, the states actually created the federal government. It wasn't the other way around. So why do we allow it today? Because the government is too big, too powerful, and too arrogant. I'm sick and tired of it.

So yes, I'd veto EVERY bill that took away from states rights. If the constitution doesn't give the federal government the EXPLICIT power to do certain things, then its left up to the state. I'm a gay marriage supporter, and fight yearly in various states to see that it becomes legal, or remains legal. But I also support the state that bans it, because as of now, it is their right. And apparently the federal government backs them up strongly with the DOMA.

So don't come at me with the whole 'general welfare clause' in your next post, or some article from a professor of Constitutional Law at University of I don't give a rat's behind..... I've heard them both a million times. And they make as much sense as your fearmongering posts about 'white only toilets' if Congressman had his way...

So what do you have constructive? As bad as I'd like to stay and wait, I'm afraid I'd never have the time to see it in one of your posts.

Amendments anyone? :rockon:

Let me add another to my list while I'm at it: The states would have the power to leave the Union if its rights where violated. (I almost forgot that one.)

(on a side note, I'd also like to see all american territories recieve either statehood or full representation. the latter would require a constitutional amendment. and just to be consistent, washington d.c. should be represented fully, but also, only with a constitutional amendment. as it would be quite unconstitutional currently to give a non-state, full representation.)

[thecavemaster]

No. Thats not what I'm saying, and I'm absolutely puzzled has to how you could even create such stupidity out of a concept as simple as I described. If you're trying to create something out of nothing, then you failed... and miserably. If you're trying to actually understand what I wrote, I would suggest you first read the the constitution, then come back and post something intelligent. This may be somewhat of a task for you though.

If you read the constitution, you would know that I didn't mention repealing the amendment dealing with slavery, so that gets rid of the the slavery topic. Secondly, its not actually a secret, but keep it between us just in case... states ALREADY have the right to deny homosexual marriage, and most DO.

And as far as states being their own 'kingdom'... I would say for me, 'almost that'. States originally had rights and the founders beautiful vision gave them a powerful voice. Today states have no rights or representation in Washington, but by golly Canada and Mexico do.. and the nation is crumbling. And its not a coincidence. We took away the states power to influence its very own union, and gave all power 'to the people'. Bull. The people lost power when the federal government ignored the 9th amendment and started writing laws that placed mandates on states that the state couldn't deny, or would bribe them or 'highly encourage' states to accept their views and implement their vision using funding and rules/regulations. The seatball law comes to mind. The federal government can't impose it themselves, because its a 'state right'. Yet, they can withhold much needed funding for highways and other transportation if the state doesn't follow the federal government rule. Well, truth be told, the states actually created the federal government. It wasn't the other way around. So why do we allow it today? Because the government is too big, too powerful, and too arrogant. I'm sick and tired of it.

So yes, I'd veto EVERY bill that took away from states rights. If the constitution doesn't give the federal government the EXPLICIT power to do certain things, then its left up to the state. I'm a gay marriage supporter, and fight yearly in various states to see that it becomes legal, or remains legal. But I also support the state that bans it, because as of now, it is their right. And apparently the federal government backs them up strongly with the DOMA.

So don't come at me with the whole 'general welfare clause' in your next post, or some article from a professor of Constitutional Law at University of I don't give a rat's behind..... I've heard them both a million times. And they make as much sense as your fearmongering posts about 'white only toilets' if Congressman had his way...

So what do you have constructive? As bad as I'd like to stay and wait, I'm afraid I'd never have the time to see it in one of your posts.

Amendments anyone? :rockon:

Let me add another to my list while I'm at it: The states would have the power to leave the Union if its rights where violated. (I almost forgot that one.)

(on a side note, I'd also like to see all american territories recieve either statehood or full representation. the latter would require a constitutional amendment. and just to be consistent, washington d.c. should be represented fully, but also, only with a constitutional amendment. as it would be quite unconstitutional currently to give a non-state, full representation.)

Thank you for your long letter. If a man/man couple in Massachussetts have basic rights in that state, but are denied them in Alabama, then you have fundamentally changed "equal protection under the law." "We the people, in order to form a more perfect UNION, establish justice...." It seems to me that, basically, your philosophy, when taken to logical conclusion, leaves Jim Crow laws in tact, leaves slavery as a sovereign choice of the states. I wouldn't quibble with you on little issues; however, when basic "life, liberty, and pursuit..." questions are at hand, it's a UNION and it's citizens can be protected from George and Loralee Wallace and Bull O'Conner by the power of the federal government.

[congressman]

Thank you for your long letter. If a man/man couple in Massachussetts have basic rights in that state, but are denied them in Alabama, then you have fundamentally changed "equal protection under the law." "We the people, in order to form a more perfect UNION, establish justice...." It seems to me that, basically, your philosophy, when taken to logical conclusion, leaves Jim Crow laws in tact, leaves slavery as a sovereign choice of the states. I wouldn't quibble with you on little issues; however, when basic "life, liberty, and pursuit..." questions are at hand, it's a UNION and it's citizens can be protected from George and Loralee Wallace and Bull O'Conner by the power of the federal government.

I really don't know what you're even talking about. My main argument is over the 17th amendment, the 9th, and state rights within the Federal union.

I'm talking about federal government intervening and mandating states to do things that the constitution doesn't give them control of. But the way they do it is often 'legal' and constitutional. Its just sneaky, and dirty. States have free reign to do certain things, but are often mandated to do as the federal government wishes.. many times by way of threatening them with reduced funding or other repercussions. The education system, abuse of the Commerce Clause, mandates tied to needed funding, ect. These are the rights that are infringed upon that bother me. I'm not talking about the rights of people. I believe the rights of people are inherited from the Gods, and written into the constitution as a promise of protection from intrusion by the government. I think there was a misunderstanding between what I was saying and writing, and what you were reading and understanding. This was probably both of our faults.

I am offended greatly though that you would 'logically' come to the conclusion that I would support support racism, or anything remotely close.

Cavemaster, a great deal of people enjoy writing on this website, and I've used others for years upon years without any problems. But you and a handful of others seem obsessed with creating controversy and spreading misleading information. I actually think you're biggest problem is, you're unable to follow a particular subject, and you have a strange and almost frightening desire to reshape the topic into something that you might be able to comment on. So in the future, you're more than welcome to continue to do so. I'm just not gonna waste my time writing slower to accomidate your reading speed and ability to grasp simple concepts.

I would love to see your political beliefs as a whole. I'm guessing that whatever I am, you're not. Probably even including non-political descripitions.. such as logical, methodical, and extremely fair and open minded. Keep it up, you're forcing me to learn more about myself, my nation, and my passion for creating a better world. I feed off of people like you. And you keep me laughing. (and not with you).

[Matman]

Cavemaster, a great deal of people enjoy writing on this website, and I've used others for years upon years without any problems. But you and a handful of others seem obsessed with creating controversy and spreading misleading information. I actually think you're biggest problem is, you're unable to follow a particular subject, and you have a strange and almost frightening desire to reshape the topic into something that you might be able to comment on. So in the future, you're more than welcome to continue to do so. I'm just not gonna waste my time writing slower to accomidate your reading speed and ability to grasp simple concepts.
(and not with you).

:Thumbs:

[thecavemaster]

I really don't know what you're even talking about. My main argument is over the 17th amendment, the 9th, and state rights within the Federal union.

I'm talking about federal government intervening and mandating states to do things that the constitution doesn't give them control of. But the way they do it is often 'legal' and constitutional. Its just sneaky, and dirty. States have free reign to do certain things, but are often mandated to do as the federal government wishes.. many times by way of threatening them with reduced funding or other repercussions. The education system, abuse of the Commerce Clause, mandates tied to needed funding, ect. These are the rights that are infringed upon that bother me. I'm not talking about the rights of people. I believe the rights of people are inherited from the Gods, and written into the constitution as a promise of protection from intrusion by the government. I think there was a misunderstanding between what I was saying and writing, and what you were reading and understanding. This was probably both of our faults.

I am offended greatly though that you would 'logically' come to the conclusion that I would support support racism, or anything remotely close.

Cavemaster, a great deal of people enjoy writing on this website, and I've used others for years upon years without any problems. But you and a handful of others seem obsessed with creating controversy and spreading misleading information. I actually think you're biggest problem is, you're unable to follow a particular subject, and you have a strange and almost frightening desire to reshape the topic into something that you might be able to comment on. So in the future, you're more than welcome to continue to do so. I'm just not gonna waste my time writing slower to accomidate your reading speed and ability to grasp simple concepts.

I would love to see your political beliefs as a whole. I'm guessing that whatever
Li I am, you're not. Probably even including non-political descripitions.. such as logical, methodical, and extremely fair and open minded. Keep it up, you're forcing me to learn more about myself, my nation, and my passion for creating a better world. I feed off of people like you. And you keep me laughing. (and not with you).

Did you or did you not make an argument that extended to states an almost imperial power? If you do extend to states that extreme unction, doesn't that end up with black students staring at the gate of the University of Mississippi? I am not suggesting you are a racist. I don't know you. I was asking a question about the "end up place" of your philosophy. I'm not sure it's me who's not tracking.

[congressman]

Did you or did you not make an argument that extended to states an almost imperial power? If you do extend to states that extreme unction, doesn't that end up with black students staring at the gate of the University of Mississippi? I am not suggesting you are a racist. I don't know you. I was asking a question about the "end up place" of your philosophy. I'm not sure it's me who's not tracking.

Ok, I see where you decided to go off the deep end. If you honestly believed I meant imperial power for a state, then this is surely a topic beyond what you can comprehend. However, at the risk of doing so in vain, I'll try to explain it as simple as possible....

States have rights protected by the constitution that you mention in every post.

Where the constitution that you mention in every post speaks on federal power, states gave up that right/power.

Where the constitution that you mention in every post doesn't grant federal power, states have power.

I like this. Alot.

I wish the federal government would follow these guidelines today, and in the future.

The nation would be a better place than it is, if they did.

You don't understand this.

Its ok.

I do.

:Thumbs:

CaveMaster, I seriously don't understand you or your reasons for acting as you do. I'm assuming its an act... Eitherway, there's no excuse for intentionally twisting simple ideas into complexities far beyond the original intent. As I said, its partly my fault for not yielding to your learning curve, and for that I'm sorry. In the future, I will take this into consideration and if possible I'll gladly do my part to help you out on this board by breaking it down into a simple, easy to read/easy to understand style of writing. Is it my font? Maybe?

------------

Now back on topic! Anyone have anything to add? Surely there's some ideas about how to improve this document. I'm always looking for new suggestions on how to do so, because this nation currently needs all it can get. :Thumbs:

[thecavemaster]

Ok, I see where you decided to go off the deep end. If you honestly believed I meant imperial power for a state, then this is surely a topic beyond what you can comprehend. However, at the risk of doing so in vain, I'll try to explain it as simple as possible....

States have rights protected by the constitution that you mention in every post.

Where the constitution that you mention in every post speaks on federal power, states gave up that right/power.

Where the constitution that you mention in every post doesn't grant federal power, states have power.

I like this. Alot.

I wish the federal government would follow these guidelines today, and in the future.

The nation would be a better place than it is, if they did.

You don't understand this.

Its ok.

I do.

:Thumbs:

CaveMaster, I seriously don't understand you or your reasons for acting as you do. I'm assuming its an act... Eitherway, there's no excuse for intentionally twisting simple ideas into complexities far beyond the original intent. As I said, its partly my fault for not yielding to your learning curve, and for that I'm sorry. In the future, I will take this into consideration and if possible I'll gladly do my part to help you out on this board by breaking it down into a simple, easy to read/easy to understand style of writing. Is it my font? Maybe?

------------

Now back on topic! Anyone have anything to add? Surely there's some ideas about how to improve this document. I'm always looking for new suggestions on how to do so, because this nation currently needs all it can get. :Thumbs:

...not enumerated reserved to the states... I hear you... Your font is good: it's your running from the practical implications of your own arguments and then acting like the fault is someone else's that is interesting. I do not believe that disallowing homosexuals to marry is a power reserved to the states. I believe that same sex couples are entitled to equal protection under the law. I believe twenty years from now, the Supreme Court will concur.

[congressman]

...not enumerated reserved to the states... I hear you... Your font is good: it's your running from the practical implications of your own arguments and then acting like the fault is someone else's that is interesting. I do not believe that disallowing homosexuals to marry is a power reserved to the states. I believe that same sex couples are entitled to equal protection under the law. I believe twenty years from now, the Supreme Court will concur.

I believe you're absolutely correct, only off on the timeframe. I believe it will happen much sooner than that.

Here's the deal, a more detailed belief for ya, the government should have absolutely NO power at all, at ANY level, NOW or 2 millions years from now.. to tell two consenting adults that they can be married. There is only 1 reason, and 1 reason only that the government cares about who is and isn't married. Power. Marriage is a religious institution that may or may not have came from the almighty God. So therefore, with that out of the way, I'm a firm believer in of the closer-further arguement. The closer a government is to you, the more in tune with your beliefs it usually is. The further the government is away, the more power it needs to control you. This is why I believe in limiting the power of the federal government in accordance with the constitution and providing for smaller, closer, and less powerful entities to have the control it needs to effectively govern its citizens/inhabitants.

I believe in equal protection under the law, probably much more strongly than you do, in fact. I believe in equal protection under federal law, 110%. I believe in equal protection under state law, and even local law. 110%. But the fact is, the federal government does NOT control marriage, and it would take a constitutional amendment to BAN a form of marriage. This is obvious, because making a law against it at the federal level would have worked and passed in place of the constutituional amendment that failed numerous times in the past. States have the power to regulate marriage, and thus do not fall under the equal protections of federal law. This has been the typical view of the courts on most issues when the equal protections clause has came up. Slavery however is a federal law, backed back the constitution. Do you see where this is going? You're right. Equal protection this, and equal protection that. But these don't apply to state laws, unless they violate a federal provision in either the law or the constitution. But this entire point is quite moot with the unrestrained courts we currently have. They use commerce laws to deal with topics like racism, and with SINGLE STATE MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAWS, ect.

I dunno how to get my point across to you. I believe that the constitution is the supreme law of the land (unless because of a treaty, it isn't), and the way it is written, the way its been interpreted more often, and the way that the founders definately wanted it to be, based upon their own writings and speeches... provides for a limited federal government that forms from a union of the soveriegn states, and has a specific list of duties to perform, and a small list of god given rights it shall defend and protect. The states were to be the ultimate rulers of peoples day to day life, and surely not some regulatory agency centralized in the most crime ridden city in the United states. Having the most powerful form of government so close to the people it worked for, provided the ability to reshape how they wanted their state ran when things weren't pleasing to them... now compare that with trying to change the federal landscape, which currently is the most powerful and ineffecient body in your life. See how that makes sense?

Listen CM, I'm not out to argue with you. And definately not about to argue with you about what I believe myself. I'm putting it out there, and from your PM, it seems you know what you believe. Others may benefit from hearing those things as well. We see things completely different. I believe in the original intent, and you take a literal approach. This is what led to denominationalism and 35,000 divisions within the church of Christ. It destroyed Christianity's original intent... and it will destroy this nation. The founders had it right. The rest of man.. has almost always got it wrong.

So where does this leave us? The same place we began. I want MORE state rights, and less federal intervention. I want to repeal the 17th amendment and once again give the state itself actual representation in Washington, like nearly 200 other nations currently have. I want to get rid of every mandate that unfairly punishes a state for not doing as the federal government wants, and I want to end the practice of twisting the commerce clause to control anything it deems wrong, even those that happen within a single state.

So cavemaster, what does that make me? A bad guy? a cold hearted person? uneducated? a radical? What you see as possibly some of the preceeding things, I see as a guy who wants to give an opportunity to the people to regain control of their lives, via regaining control of their government, and resulting in regaining control of the future...

"A government big enough to give you everything you need... Is surely STRONG enough to take everything you HAVE"

STRIP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWERS!!!!! REPEAL THE 17TH AMENDMENT NOW!!! STRENGTHEN THE 10TH AMENDMENT!!!! REISSUE E.O. 12612!!

[thecavemaster]

I believe you're absolutely correct, only off on the timeframe. I believe it will happen much sooner than that.

Here's the deal, a more detailed belief for ya, the government should have absolutely NO power at all, at ANY level, NOW or 2 millions years from now.. to tell two consenting adults that they can be married. There is only 1 reason, and 1 reason only that the government cares about who is and isn't married. Power. Marriage is a religious institution that may or may not have came from the almighty God. So therefore, with that out of the way, I'm a firm believer in of the closer-further arguement. The closer a government is to you, the more in tune with your beliefs it usually is. The further the government is away, the more power it needs to control you. This is why I believe in limiting the power of the federal government in accordance with the constitution and providing for smaller, closer, and less powerful entities to have the control it needs to effectively govern its citizens/inhabitants.

I believe in equal protection under the law, probably much more strongly than you do, in fact. I believe in equal protection under federal law, 110%. I believe in equal protection under state law, and even local law. 110%. But the fact is, the federal government does NOT control marriage, and it would take a constitutional amendment to BAN a form of marriage. This is obvious, because making a law against it at the federal level would have worked and passed in place of the constutituional amendment that failed numerous times in the past. States have the power to regulate marriage, and thus do not fall under the equal protections of federal law. This has been the typical view of the courts on most issues when the equal protections clause has came up. Slavery however is a federal law, backed back the constitution. Do you see where this is going? You're right. Equal protection this, and equal protection that. But these don't apply to state laws, unless they violate a federal provision in either the law or the constitution. But this entire point is quite moot with the unrestrained courts we currently have. They use commerce laws to deal with topics like racism, and with SINGLE STATE MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAWS, ect.

I dunno how to get my point across to you. I believe that the constitution is the supreme law of the land (unless because of a treaty, it isn't), and the way it is written, the way its been interpreted more often, and the way that the founders definately wanted it to be, based upon their own writings and speeches... provides for a limited federal government that forms from a union of the soveriegn states, and has a specific list of duties to perform, and a small list of god given rights it shall defend and protect. The states were to be the ultimate rulers of peoples day to day life, and surely not some regulatory agency centralized in the most crime ridden city in the United states. Having the most powerful form of government so close to the people it worked for, provided the ability to reshape how they wanted their state ran when things weren't pleasing to them... now compare that with trying to change the federal landscape, which currently is the most powerful and ineffecient body in your life. See how that makes sense?

Listen CM, I'm not out to argue with you. And definately not about to argue with you about what I believe myself. I'm putting it out there, and from your PM, it seems you know what you believe. Others may benefit from hearing those things as well. We see things completely different. I believe in the original intent, and you take a literal approach. This is what led to denominationalism and 35,000 divisions within the church of Christ. It destroyed Christianity's original intent... and it will destroy this nation. The founders had it right. The rest of man.. has almost always got it wrong.

So where does this leave us? The same place we began. I want MORE state rights, and less federal intervention. I want to repeal the 17th amendment and once again give the state itself actual representation in Washington, like nearly 200 other nations currently have. I want to get rid of every mandate that unfairly punishes a state for not doing as the federal government wants, and I want to end the practice of twisting the commerce clause to control anything it deems wrong, even those that happen within a single state.

So cavemaster, what does that make me? A bad guy? a cold hearted person? uneducated? a radical? What you see as possibly some of the preceeding things, I see as a guy who wants to give an opportunity to the people to regain control of their lives, via regaining control of their government, and resulting in regaining control of the future...

"A government big enough to give you everything you need... Is surely STRONG enough to take everything you HAVE"

STRIP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWERS!!!!! REPEAL THE 17TH AMENDMENT NOW!!! STRENGTHEN THE 10TH AMENDMENT!!!! REISSUE E.O. 12612!!

I think Orwell had legitimate concerns about power vested in the hands of a centralized authority. However, what is it that you personally would like to do, Congressman, that mean ol' Big Brother won't let you? Governments are made up of men and women, and, therefore, share the same vices, thus, a need for "watchdog" citizenry. However, unregenerate human nature needs a strong, principled government, or else, for instance, the panting majority has its vices enthroned.