(09-25-2020, 03:19 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2020, 07:11 AM)TurndownforWatt Wrote: [ -> ]I'm against it.
Next will be electoral college where middle America will be erased.. There's a reason why our forefathers didn't give SCOTUS term limits. It's harder to corrupt someone who isn't running or facing a term limit.
Notice right after Liberals lose the court, they now want to fundamentally change it and upend it?
I agree. There is/was nothing wrong with the government as originally designed. If anything I would eliminate the people voting for Senators and give it back to the States as intended.
(09-25-2020, 02:38 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Yes. Make it like retirement. I'd say top it out at 65 for ALL political offices in the United States. 70 is too old.
I disagree. Are we going to discriminate based on age? What if we limited it to a heterosexual person?
Yes. It is a proven fact that a lot of people lose mental faculties as they get older. They also get set in their ways and refuse to listen to reason. If this is discrimination, so be it. I don't want some deteriorating, old fart making decisions for the country. That's what we have to chose from now, when it comes to the presidency, two old half wits who are set in their ways and refuse to listen to reason. As for the second part of the question, fine by me.
(09-25-2020, 04:15 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2020, 03:19 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]I agree. There is/was nothing wrong with the government as originally designed. If anything I would eliminate the people voting for Senators and give it back to the States as intended.
I disagree. Are we going to discriminate based on age? What if we limited it to a heterosexual person?
Yes. It is a proven fact that a lot of people lose mental faculties as they get older. They also get set in their ways and refuse to listen to reason. If this is discrimination, so be it. I don't want some deteriorating, old fart making decisions for the country. That's what we have to chose from now, when it comes to the presidency, two old half wits who are set in their ways and refuse to listen to reason. As for the second part of the question, fine by me.
So was RBG of sound mind over her last 15 years or so on the bench?
But without a constitutional amendment, you are not really retiring them. You are just demoting them to a lower court.
And that's if they choose to obey the law. If you're on the supreme Court, and you don't want to be demoted, who's going to tell you that you have to accept a demotion?
(09-25-2020, 05:53 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2020, 04:15 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Yes. It is a proven fact that a lot of people lose mental faculties as they get older. They also get set in their ways and refuse to listen to reason. If this is discrimination, so be it. I don't want some deteriorating, old fart making decisions for the country. That's what we have to chose from now, when it comes to the presidency, two old half wits who are set in their ways and refuse to listen to reason. As for the second part of the question, fine by me.
So was RBG of sound mind over her last 15 years or so on the bench?
I honestly couldn't tell you one way or another. I never met the woman. I'm just going off my own perceptions of meeting seniors throughout my lifetime. In my experiences, the majority are "slipping" in one way or another and I certainly wouldn't want them making decisions for other people. FYI, I also believe anyone 70 or over should be forced to re-take a driver's exam every year as a matter of public safety. Call it what you will, but I stand by it.
If I'm supreme leader, I make the age limit 72 for Social Security, and a mandatory retirement age for all public officials. Also, bumping the legal adult age up to 21 for all forms of voting, public office, military service, and drugs/alcohol. Still on the fence about driver's licenses.
Basically, adulthood should be the place between our youth and seniors, and that's who should be in office. While there are some young kids capable of doing well at those things, we make a blanket assessment. I'm cool with doing that for seniors, too.
(09-25-2020, 08:20 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]If I'm supreme leader, I make the age limit 72 for Social Security, and a mandatory retirement age for all public officials. Also, bumping the legal adult age up to 21 for all forms of voting, public office, military service, and drugs/alcohol. Still on the fence about driver's licenses.
Basically, adulthood should be the place between our youth and seniors, and that's who should be in office. While there are some young kids capable of doing well at those things, we make a blanket assessment. I'm cool with doing that for seniors, too.
While I'm not quite on board with 72 being the age for social security, I agree with all your other ideas.
As far as the driver's licenses. I'm not saying automatically take them away at 70. I'm just saying that they should have to prove that they are still capable of driving without endangering everyone on the road by submitting to a driver's test. If they can pass it, they should have no problems taking one.
(09-25-2020, 08:20 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]If I'm supreme leader, I make the age limit 72 for Social Security, and a mandatory retirement age for all public officials. Also, bumping the legal adult age up to 21 for all forms of voting, public office, military service, and drugs/alcohol. Still on the fence about driver's licenses.
Basically, adulthood should be the place between our youth and seniors, and that's who should be in office. While there are some young kids capable of doing well at those things, we make a blanket assessment. I'm cool with doing that for seniors, too.
I'm ok bumping up the SS age limit for people just entering the work force for the first time. The SS age at the time you paid your first SS tax should be the age for that individual. I'm not ok with moving the goal posts during a game already in progress.
If I was supreme leader, I don't think I would mess with retirement ages or the age where you gain certain rights.
That stuff is always going to be messy.
The late RBG was once asked, if she could amend the constitution, what amendment would she put?
She said, "I'd make it easier for you to amend the constitution."
A very wise answer.
I would do the same if you gave me a chance. Take, for instance, Roe v. Wade. Various states had decided by their own democratic processes, including more than 40 years of votes from women, that intentionally ending a pregnancy was a criminal offense. But the US supreme Court held that the US Constitution gave people the right to end a first trimester pregnancy if they wanted to. At the time, abortion was only legal in one or two states. But the supreme Court decided they had the authority to change the laws in more than 40 States overnight. I don't have a problem with that per se, but I don't think the supreme Court's decision should have been the final word.
I would amend the Constitution to put hedges around the supreme Court's power. For instance, my amendment would say that if they write a decision like Roe that cancels a state or local law, that decision should be put on hold for a few months to give the US Senate a chance to respond. Remember, the Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the state governments. If say 60 senators agree that the state law is constitutional and should stand, then it should stand, and things should go on as if the ruling never happened.
Then, maybe once every 10 years, a special committee would be appointed, including former presidents and retired judges, to consider all the times that the Senate and the supreme Court disagreed, and propose constitutional amendments to clarify things. They would send those amendments out to the states for ratification. Right now we have no regular way to start the process of amending the Constitution.
If we had a process like this from the beginning, constitutional law would probably make a lot more sense. As it stands now, the two words "due process" in the fifth amendment have three distinct meanings, last time I counted. It was just a team of nine people, mostly from the East coast, who dreamed of these meanings over decades of decisions, filling in all the vague parts of the Constitution with books full of specificity, and they did not have to consult with anybody. They should have had to consult with the legislators, and it should have happened at regular intervals.
(09-25-2020, 09:41 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]If I was supreme leader, I don't think I would mess with retirement ages or the age where you gain certain rights.
That stuff is always going to be messy.
The late RBG was once asked, if she could amend the constitution, what amendment would she put?
She said, "I'd make it easier for you to amend the constitution."
A very wise answer.
I would do the same if you gave me a chance. Take, for instance, Roe v. Wade. Various states had decided by their own democratic processes, including more than 40 years of votes from women, that intentionally ending a pregnancy was a criminal offense. But the US supreme Court held that the US Constitution gave people the right to end a first trimester pregnancy if they wanted to. At the time, abortion was only legal in one or two states. But the supreme Court decided they had the authority to change the laws in more than 40 States overnight. I don't have a problem with that per se, but I don't think the supreme Court's decision should have been the final word.
I would amend the Constitution to put hedges around the supreme Court's power. For instance, my amendment would say that if they write a decision like Roe that cancels a state or local law, that decision should be put on hold for a few months to give the US Senate a chance to respond. Remember, the Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the state governments. If say 60 senators agree that the state law is constitutional and should stand, then it should stand, and things should go on as if the ruling never happened.
Then, maybe once every 10 years, a special committee would be appointed, including former presidents and retired judges, to consider all the times that the Senate and the supreme Court disagreed, and propose constitutional amendments to clarify things. They would send those amendments out to the states for ratification. Right now we have no regular way to start the process of amending the Constitution.
If we had a process like this from the beginning, constitutional law would probably make a lot more sense. As it stands now, the two words "due process" in the fifth amendment have three distinct meanings, last time I counted. It was just a team of nine people, mostly from the East coast, who dreamed of these meanings over decades of decisions, filling in all the vague parts of the Constitution with books full of specificity, and they did not have to consult with anybody. They should have had to consult with the legislators, and it should have happened at regular intervals.
That’s qoute is one of the majors reasons I am glad RBG is gone. Her mindset is exactly what the founders of this country were trying to protect us from. She doesn’t want to live in a republic, just a simple democracy with autocrats.
Yeah like 10 year term limits
Most unbiased judges in the land
(09-25-2020, 09:20 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2020, 07:22 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I'm torn on term limits. While it can staunch possible cronyism, it also serves to undermine the will of the voters.
Yep.
And when the member of Congress is new but the lobbyist has been there for decades... Guess which of the two will know how to win arguments and get bills passed...
If you want to see how well term limits work just look at the FL legislature. Not a pretty picture.
The key is to find the right person, who actually feels a duty to serve ALL of his constituents. If you find someone like that, you should keep him. You shouldn't force him into retirement just cuz an arbitrary amount of time passed. But we're not finding people like that because our elections process ignores moderates and only listens to ideologues. That's the problem we need to solve in Congress. If you put in term limits, but don't change the voting process, you'll just end up with different wrong people every 8 years instead of the same wrong person for 30 years. You gain nothing that way.
(09-25-2020, 07:11 AM)TurndownforWatt Wrote: [ -> ]I'm against it.
Next will be electoral college where middle America will be erased.. There's a reason why our forefathers didn't give SCOTUS term limits. It's harder to corrupt someone who isn't running or facing a term limit.
Notice right after Liberals lose the court, they now want to fundamentally change it and upend it?
I agree, but the Court does need to change. It needs to yield more to the Congress and defer more to the states. States are allowed to have different ideas about morality and the role of government.
Can you name one good congressman/congresswoman that had been in DC more than 8 years?
Is it a bad idea to have a 36 year term limit?
Every presidential term gets one replacement.
I don't see why that's a bad idea.
(09-26-2020, 01:02 AM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2020, 09:41 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]If I was supreme leader, I don't think I would mess with retirement ages or the age where you gain certain rights.
That stuff is always going to be messy.
The late RBG was once asked, if she could amend the constitution, what amendment would she put?
She said, "I'd make it easier for you to amend the constitution."
A very wise answer.
I would do the same if you gave me a chance. Take, for instance, Roe v. Wade. Various states had decided by their own democratic processes, including more than 40 years of votes from women, that intentionally ending a pregnancy was a criminal offense. But the US supreme Court held that the US Constitution gave people the right to end a first trimester pregnancy if they wanted to. At the time, abortion was only legal in one or two states. But the supreme Court decided they had the authority to change the laws in more than 40 States overnight. I don't have a problem with that per se, but I don't think the supreme Court's decision should have been the final word.
I would amend the Constitution to put hedges around the supreme Court's power. For instance, my amendment would say that if they write a decision like Roe that cancels a state or local law, that decision should be put on hold for a few months to give the US Senate a chance to respond. Remember, the Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the state governments. If say 60 senators agree that the state law is constitutional and should stand, then it should stand, and things should go on as if the ruling never happened.
Then, maybe once every 10 years, a special committee would be appointed, including former presidents and retired judges, to consider all the times that the Senate and the supreme Court disagreed, and propose constitutional amendments to clarify things. They would send those amendments out to the states for ratification. Right now we have no regular way to start the process of amending the Constitution.
If we had a process like this from the beginning, constitutional law would probably make a lot more sense. As it stands now, the two words "due process" in the fifth amendment have three distinct meanings, last time I counted. It was just a team of nine people, mostly from the East coast, who dreamed of these meanings over decades of decisions, filling in all the vague parts of the Constitution with books full of specificity, and they did not have to consult with anybody. They should have had to consult with the legislators, and it should have happened at regular intervals.
That’s qoute is one of the majors reasons I am glad RBG is gone. Her mindset is exactly what the founders of this country were trying to protect us from. She doesn’t want to live in a republic, just a simple democracy with autocrats.
I think you're misunderstanding. George Washington though we would be amending the constitution frequently. But we can't. The framers accidentally made it too hard to amend the Constitution. Yes, RBG and judges like her have been basically making stuff up with regard to what the Constitution says. They are "amending" it for us. Personally, I don't usually agree with how they chose to amend it, but that's not the point. As technology and society change it does need updates. If it was easier for We the People to update it, people like RBG would not have had the opportunity to do what they did.
If it’s easy to change the constitution, then it becomes a worthless document. What point does it serve if it can just be changed so easily and changed so significantly?
(09-26-2020, 09:13 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]If it’s easy to change the constitution, then it becomes a worthless document. What point does it serve if it can just be changed so easily and changed so significantly?
I'm just saying it should be easier to change.
Consider the Florida constitution.
The Florida Constitution seems to rack up about one amendment a year. That's too many, but I don't think either of us would say that there's no point to the Florida Constitution, or that it's worthless.
The US Constitution has gotten one amendment in the last 50 years. That's not enough. 50 years ago, there was no such thing as a mobile phone. 50 years ago, there had never been an oil embargo or a gasoline shortage. 50 years ago, we were still on the gold standard. 50 years ago, abortion was only legal in two states, and it could only be done surgically.
If we the people don't update our laws and constitutions to fit new technology and new social norms and realities, the nine elderly elites on the supreme Court will update it for us, and we won't like the result.
(09-26-2020, 09:13 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]If it’s easy to change the constitution, then it becomes a worthless document. What point does it serve if it can just be changed so easily and changed so significantly?
The constitution is almost 250 years old. If the founding fathers saw what the country had turned into, I'm pretty sure they'd want some changes made as well. The United States looks and runs nothing like it did when the constitution was written. It's become outdated in some areas.
Umm, that why we have that thing called the amendment process.
(09-26-2020, 11:09 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Umm, that why we have that thing called the amendment process.
It's too hard to start and too hard to finish.
It should start automatically whenever the supreme Court strikes a law down.
Or it should start at regular intervals, maybe once every 10 years.
The founders thought that the state governments would petition the federal government to start the process. They wrote in article V, that if two thirds of the States ever signed on to such a petition, a process to amend would start. A time and a place for a convention would be set, and delegates would be sent from all states.
even though it's really hard to get 34 states to agree on something, it has actually happened! US Congress has received petitions from 34 different states, for a balanced budget amendment, and term limits. Yet the petitions were ignored and the convention never took place.
The amendment process simply doesn't work.
(09-26-2020, 11:01 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2020, 09:13 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]If it’s easy to change the constitution, then it becomes a worthless document. What point does it serve if it can just be changed so easily and changed so significantly?
The constitution is almost 250 years old. If the founding fathers saw what the country had turned into, I'm pretty sure they'd want some changes made as well. The United States looks and runs nothing like it did when the constitution was written. It's become outdated in some areas.
Maybe or maybe not.
If there’s something so important to require an amendment, then it should be easy to get enough support to amend it. If the support doesn’t exist, then it shouldn’t be so easily changed. Support for random causes fluctuates all the time. What may be supported today may not be supported tomorrow, and if it’s an easy process to change it, you could find yourself on the wrong end of that change.
(09-26-2020, 11:23 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2020, 11:09 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Umm, that why we have that thing called the amendment process.
It's too hard to start and too hard to finish.
It should start automatically whenever the supreme Court strikes a law down.
Or it should start at regular intervals, maybe once every 10 years.
The founders thought that the state governments would petition the federal government to start the process. They wrote in article V, that if two thirds of the States ever signed on to such a petition, a process to amend would start. A time and a place for a convention would be set, and delegates would be sent from all states.
even though it's really hard to get 34 states to agree on something, it has actually happened! US Congress has received petitions from 34 different states, for a balanced budget amendment, and term limits. Yet the petitions were ignored and the convention never took place.
The amendment process simply doesn't work.
The amendment process was constructed to be intentionally difficult. If it were easy the party in power would change it to match their wants and the constitution would resemble very little of its original framework.