If you could cancel a part of the constitution what article/amendment would it be?

Giving people equal protection under the law, and basic privacy, is bad? lol... Yeah it would be nice if the constitution were worded a bit more clearly sometimes I suppose. I'd scrap it and start over because I don't think our system of government is the ideal one, but I would use some amendments as templates for a new bill of rights, write some more clearly, and add new "amendments". 2nd amendment I think I would reword to be about self-defense, rather than militias.

I think I'd make a senior house of experts and scientists chosen by aptitude tests and credentials as the senior legislative body (technocratic), with representatives like the house of representatives as the junior legislative body with proportional representation by state or cultural region rather than districts (California's north really should be Jefferson or part of oregon for these purposes, and portland probably should be part of washington culturally). Islands of culturally different places, like Ashland in Oregon, could apply to be part of the nearest compatible cultural region for purposes of representation. The idea of the technocrat-centered system is that traditional politicians aren't experts in the areas needed to make good policy, but if we get rid of democratic representation entirely, we don't respect the interests and desires of people. I'd still have a supreme court to make sure laws respect people's rights as outlined in the constitution. I'd have a prime minister system for the executive chosen from either of the technocratic or democratic legislative bodies by the combined bodies.

 

The interprettion of the 25th that okays "anchor babies"

 

No, no, no, Te. Once again you misunderstand what I've said.

I'll try a different tack -- there are EARNED benefits, and there are UNEARNED benefits.

Service-related injuries and/or disability in U. S. Veterans are earned. Social Security and Medicare benefits provided to retirees who paid into these systems are earned. People who have suffered injuries and diseases that have rendered them genuinely unable to support themselves are -- YES -- entitled to welfare payments (without any stigma)... same is true for those with birth defects that make it impossible for them to earn a living.

BUT... the real "parasites, bums, moochers, and slackers" should not (NOT) be permitted to vote in the same calendar year they take UN earned income/benefits from the government.

Now... that should adequately separate the 'sheep' from the 'goats' for you....

Bottom line, especially today, where there are many, many jobs that go unfilled, because the government pays people NOT to work, there should be a large-scale, fast change in welfare policies -- and, in who can vote -- before this country totally wrecks itself!

 

Define "many"?

Exactly what PERCENTAGE is that?

How does that COMPARE to Corporate WELFARE in dollar amounts that YOU support?

 

In essence YOU are CHERRY PICKING on a purely PARTISAN political basis which is the equivalent of BASHING.

Sad that you fail to recognize YOUR own BIAS.

 

I suspect that YOU would feel differently if it white males were an OPPRESSED MINORITY whose voting rights were being DENIED because of DISINFORMATION that spread lies about them being thugs, criminals and drug addicts.

 

You can't compare Israel to the US. Israel is a fake construct, a rogue state fighting Palestinian inhabitants.

 

Are you UNAWARE that there are plenty of Corporate Executives and Wealthy Shareholders who fit the definition of being the real "parasites, bums, moochers, and slackers" should not (NOT) be permitted to vote in the same calendar year they take UN earned income/benefits from the government in the form of CORPORATE WELFARE, Cy?

EVERYONE who receives a Mortgage TAX CREDIT fits YOUR definition of "parasites, bums, moochers, and slackers" because that is an UNEARNED "benefit from the government".

You are allowing your BIAS to cloud your thinking, Cy.

Denying the RIGHT to VOTE is a VIOLATION of what it means to be American.

Denying it because of a BIAS based upon PARTISAN DISINFORMATION is allowing yourself to be MANIPULATED.

 

Just because you are offended doesn’t mean I was bashing. Report me if wish

 

I want the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 cancelled.

That is all.

 

This sounds like something an anti-semite woman in Congress would say.

 

So Israel just needs to win so it can be legit like most other countries govt's that attained power by killing the previous occupants that wouldn't submit. Right?

...or is it just Israel that is bad for doing this?

 

Just repeal the second amendment, please, and let the federal and state legislatures figure out what they want to do about all this arm-bearing business.

 

Ah. Well so far the 'no one' that wants to ban guns is actually 30% of people.

*sarcastically feigns shock*

 

Voting rights and the EC system are two separate issues, having nothing to do with each other.

 

I will take that as a yes.

 

The "Commerce Clause"...there's one that been abused like a porn magazine in a prison.

 

YOU brought up voting rights and control of elections, NOT me!

 

I did not bring up voting rights. When I said “control” of the elections I was talking about the outcome, in other words, who wins and who loses.

Anywho ... I just think getting rid of the EC is a bad idea, motivated by a desire by liberal city dwellers to gain advantage over less populated areas. I just think it is better for the overall good of the country if ALL of the country matters to a president or potential president, rather than just the high population centers.

 

The EC causes the DIVISION and the UNEQUAL distribution of power and wealth in our nation.

It was formed to protect Southern racist slave owners and it still protects Southern racists.

Every other advanced nation uses the concept of EQUAL voting rights for ALL citizens.

The EC makes a MOCKERY of that concept and MUST be ABOLISHED.

 

Another non denial.

 

Tiresome waste of bandwidth response.

SAD!

 

I'm not trying to debate 'philosophy' with you, Te. I'm talking about how a viable, worthwhile, functioning citizen should conduct himself -- and the first order of business is to BE ABLE TO SUPPORT YOURSELF before you are empowered to make decisions about how an entire nation governs itself.

To put it another way, the guest at the 'dinner table' should not (NOT) be allowed to dictate what's on the menu, how big the portions are, or how often these free 'meals' are served. Am I really not getting through?

And you seem to forget that I haven't suggested that any citizen should have to be a 'property owner' or any of that 18th-century stuff. No -- what I've suggested makes sense, Te. Anyone who takes UNEARNED income or UNEARNED benefits from the government during a calendar year would not be able to vote during that ONE calendar year.

Take a look around you, Te. THIS rotten (and worsening) situation is exactly what we get when we have people WHO DO NOT EVEN SUPPORT THEMSELVES casting votes that govern the future of the entire country!

 

Cy, you are buying into the BS that your fellow HARDWORKING Americans who have to SLAVE away at 3 part time jobs just to make ends meet must be DENIED the right to vote for the SPECIOUS excuse that none of those jobs are "full time".

OTOH the lazy LEECHES who collect millions in DIVIDENDS derived from government contracts are considered to be ENTITLED to vote.

REALITY matters, Cy.

We have a rotten system that treats HARDWORKING Americans like wage slaves and YOU want to make their situation even WORSE than it is now by DENYING them their Constitutional RIGHT to vote.

WTF?

Seriously, WTF?

 

I am very open that I want the public to quit voting for president. Hands down that was one of the major errors of the voting system.