|
|
|
| Authored by: jesse on Friday, December 28 2012 @ 08:11 AM EST |
The common citizen would say no.
The common politician would mumble something that sounds like no.
The honest politician (oxymoron) would say yes.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 28 2012 @ 12:16 PM EST |
The Second is really big, many consider that the founding fathers actually split
if off from the first, and made two, the first and the second (as part of the
same thought).
Maybe we should focus on these below first (each one at a time)... not as a
group that all get voted on on one ballot.
-INTERNET NEUTRALITY amendment or a court ruling where it is an extension of
free speech (video, or text),
-One person one vote amendment, where corporations, unions, PACs, etc are not
allowed to be "we the people" and are thus excluded from the political
process ... as these non-human entities, they can live beyond the life times of
people, and have interests that are not "like every normal person"
like school, marriage, old age, good food, good education, protection from
crime, etc (only people should be allowed a voice in government, as the laws are
only in the end about people). A non-human entity has as it's goal it's own
narrow minded survival needs, and does not in any way serve the balanced needs
of society. If this were the law of the land then the people elected to Congress
will have to serve who elected them. Yep – a silly idea, but maybe they would go
to the people vs making deals with these non-human entities. The lobby industry
would instantly go away. We would not again hear about it during any election
cycle (and then find out nothing gets done about it). The Supreme Court ruled
correctly, on all items, NOW we just need to get some amendment proposed and 3/4
to ratify.
-Congress to meet only every 2 years, for only a 1⁄2 year
amendment ...to make them have to have another job (unless called back for
special session). We need a citizen government again, and not a professional one
like we have now that is only concerned with the job of re-election to their
"JOB". This, with the One person One vote amendment would be the best
campaign finance reform amendments ever.
-Balance budget amendment (finally), but with exception for emergency defense
spending during time of "declared war" approved by Congress of
course.
-Federal Mandate Amendment requiring the Federal Government to fully fund any
mandate that they require any other government entity to do, such as special
education costs, Medicaid costs, etc. The more rural the area, the higher cost
per person. These mandates end up being a higher burden for rural America. So,
the Federal government needs to pay all, or not pass a law in the first place.
This dovetails with the Balanced budget amendment.
-Lawsuit amendment where if you sue and lose, you pay all court costs, and have
to split those costs with your lawyer. Today, the court is loaded with cases
that have no merit. A suit would have to be on solid ground before being filed
in order to prevail.
See (for how we don't need to wait for Washington to start this change):
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Amendments
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
