Write your own Amendment - Page 3 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

jviehe · #31 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJG

I like the intent of the amendment, but there are exceptions that should be considered.... I doubt something like this would ever happen, but say Wal-Mart hit the bucket for one reason or another. That's two million jobs lost right there (I doubt any single company can cause more pain than Wal-Mart can if it failed).

Once you make exceptions, theres no point to the law. WalMart can fail like any other. Small businesses would be happy to take their customers.

jviehe · #32 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Amendments:

A. The term of the president is a single 6-year term, a president may not be re-elected to the presidency. A VP who became president and served more than 4 years as president is ineligible to be elected to the presidency.

B. Corporations, companies, and legal groupings of people shall not be considered persons. Any rights guaranteed or protected by the constitution for US citizens are not necessarily protected or guaranteed for such groupings of people.

C. Congress's pay shall decrease by the same percentage as the federal deficit and be calculated each fiscal year. Pay raises for the congress are determined by the president no less than 6 years in advance.

D. We were serious when we ratified the 9th amendment as part of the bill of rights. Attention Supreme Court Justices, Congress, and the President: quit fucking with our shit.

This doesnt sound like you. And take "not neccesarily" out of B, as it leaves room for congress to wiggle, to grant only the groups they like citizen like rights.

Swoop187 · #33 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by daddio

any change to the Constitution is an amendment.

I see people "tweeking" amendments which makes them not amendments but addendums.

Quote:

In contracts

In other documents, most importantly in contracts, an addendum is an additional document not included in the main part of the contract which may contain additional terms, specifications, provisions, standard forms or other information. A contract addendum may also be called an appendix or a rider. Addendums are often used in standard form contracts to make changes or add specific detail. For example, an addendum might be added to a contract to change a date or add details as to delivery of goods or pricing. The Addendum should be referenced in the contract, or the contract should be referenced in the addendum, so that it's clear to which contract the addendum is modifying.

Schedules and exhibits are sub-categories of addendums, with schedules being related to numerical and time information, such as pricing and time-schedules, and exhibits used for examples of standard forms and different types of evidence or models.

Marcus1124 · #34 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009

Quote:

Swoop187
I see people "tweeking" amendments which makes them not amendments but addendums.

There is no such thing as a "tweek" or "addendums" to the Constitution, there are only amendments.

AJG · #35 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

Once you make exceptions, theres no point to the law. WalMart can fail like any other. Small businesses would be happy to take their customers.

Yes, but that wasn't my point. If there are cases where such an amendment could really cause some serious damage (I gave the Wal-Mart example) then maybe the amendment isn't really appropriate.

jviehe · #36 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJG

Yes, but that wasn't my point. If there are cases where such an amendment could really cause some serious damage (I gave the Wal-Mart example) then maybe the amendment isn't really appropriate.

And I think bailing out businesses causes far more damage.

mbpc3934 · #37 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009

Howabout this one:

Congress shall not spend, or budget more money in a single year than was recorded as revenue by the IRS in the year two years previous. This shall not be true of years where the United States is in the a declared war against a foreign power, or under direct threat of major economic or natural disaster. Further Congress shall lay plan's to reduce the federal deficit each each year by a minimum of 1%, and shall be required to show that they and their spouses have not personally shown profit in any year that the federal government has shown debt.

timj219 · #38 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009

I'd like to see an amendment that dictates public funding of elections and bans political contributions of any kind to politicians. IMO we will never get our government back until we get money out of the election process.

I would also like to see an amendment that requires immediate funding of any legislation - either through cuts in other areas or tax increases.

I would also like to see an amendment which pins the number of reps to one for every 50 or 60 thousand citizens.

Marcus1124 · #39 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009

Quote:

timj219
I'd like to see an amendment that dictates public funding of elections and bans political contributions of any kind to politicians. IMO we will never get our government back until we get money out of the election process.

I would also like to see an amendment that requires immediate funding of any legislation - either through cuts in other areas or tax increases.

I would also like to see an amendment which pins the number of reps to one for every 50 or 60 thousand citizens.

How would you determine who gets public funding? Can any jackass who decides to run for office qualify?

timj219 · #40 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

How would you determine who gets public funding? Can any jackass who decides to run for office qualify?

I think collection of a certain number of qualified signatures might be a good way. Or possibly the collection of a certain number of $20 (or some other fairly small amount) donations which go into the pool. The dollar amount could be calibrated to make it difficult for a joke candidate or someone exploiting a knee jerk reaction to a temporary sensation from running but still make the process available to a wider variety of candidates.

Marcus1124 · #41 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009

Quote:

timj219
I think collection of a certain number of qualified signatures might be a good way. Or possibly the collection of a certain number of $20 (or some other fairly small amount) donations which go into the pool. The dollar amount could be calibrated to make it difficult for a joke candidate or someone exploiting a knee jerk reaction to a temporary sensation from running but still make the process available to a wider variety of candidates.

How many and how much?

Quite frankly, any public financing proposal would dramatically increase the influence of the news media.

Take John McCain for example. In 2000, he did not campaign or spend a single penny in the Delaware primary, yet he got about 25% of the vote, all attributable to the national news coverage of him.

No, the answer is not to give candidates government funding, the answer--for anyone who understands basic economics--to reducing teh influence of money on politicians is to make it easier for them to raise it (the easier something is to get, the less valuable it is) coupled with incredibly strict disclosure rules.

Disillusioned_1 · #42 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

This doesnt sound like you. And take "not neccesarily" out of B, as it leaves room for congress to wiggle, to grant only the groups they like citizen like rights.

Doesn't sound like me? I guess I'm sneaky that way!

I think large groupings of people shouldn't arbitrarily be denied the same freedoms and protections that individuals have, however I feel there should be some allowance for congress to pass laws restricting certain behaviors of corporations. I do agree "not necessarily" is probably too vague, but what the hell this is just a rough draft.

Did you like (D)?

Tanngrisnir3 · #43 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009

All elected officials at the federal level must wear clown suits while during the execution of their duties.

timj219 · #44 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

How many and how much?

Quite frankly, any public financing proposal would dramatically increase the influence of the news media.

Take John McCain for example. In 2000, he did not campaign or spend a single penny in the Delaware primary, yet he got about 25% of the vote, all attributable to the national news coverage of him.

No, the answer is not to give candidates government funding, the answer--for anyone who understands basic economics--to reducing teh influence of money on politicians is to make it easier for them to raise it (the easier something is to get, the less valuable it is) coupled with incredibly strict disclosure rules.

The details are less important that the concept. And the media is already owned by the people who own the politicians so nothing about their behavior will change in a publicly funded system. If you think easy access to money is the answer there's not much easier than colecting some signatures or small donations to give you an equal share of the campaign money pool. When money determines the outcome of elections and when money buys access to the politicians then the concentrated sources of money will always own our government, the road to elected office will be closed to all but those favored by monied interests, and the vast majority of people will have less and less of a voice.