Essay talk:Needed Constitutional Amendments (Avenger)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
So...[edit]
- What about the 25th amendment, which already sets the succession for the president (in a much more practical method than your 190 day requirement followed by a snap election which would be terrible)
- "A Justice of the Supreme Court may be removed on grounds of mental defect, obvious senility or insanity " That's horridly vague.
- your "War powers amendment" strikes me as horribly immobile, the exact opposite problem the above has.
- Your drug amendment strikes me as HORRIBLY misthought.
- Your presidential amendment strikes me as at once a good change and at once horribly misthought on why it's being held on a sunday or why I deserve double pay for it. It's also needlessly getting involved in workplaces by demanding I only work 5 hours and get double pay for those 5 hours.
--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- The amendments have to be specific to a T, otherwise, when a scenario does require of an amendment, the vague language will muck everything up. For example, the gun rights debacle lies solely in the Constitution's language, where the Second Amendment states that everyone has "the right to bear arms." It is debated by the pro-gun rights advocates that this means that the Public-At-Large has the right to carry a concealed weapon in public without fear of the Federal or State government taking it away, while the restriction gun rights advocates claim that only in the defense of American soil where a militia is formed is the only time the Second Amendment applies. Removing a Supreme Court Justice "on grounds of mental defect, obvious senility or insanity" is too vague, as "Paravant" has also pointed out. How does the amendment define whether how senile the Justice is, which mental defects, or how the law and amendment define insanity? — Unsigned, by: Zexcoiler Kingbolt / talk / contribs 02:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I would like for the several amendments to be discussed separately, as they all work on their own (or don't work on their own) and in fact some minor issues would contradict each other if all were passed... But here comes your response to how to define insanity: Well this is mostly to address a SCOTUS justice who has just become kookers with old age, but is too far gone to even notice how kookers they really are. As such they cannot function effectively on the bench but are unable to resign. In the current system they would have to stay on the bench until they finally kick the bucket. In my system, they can - under very limited circumstances - be removed to enjoy their last days of Alzheimer's in peace. I think with the ever growing advances of geriatrics and several mental diseases of old age being still without cure, this issue will only get more important as time goes on. And as for the 95 year age limit (notice how it is fifteen years older than that for pope?), I'd just say, somebody older than that has no business deciding the law of the land for all of the US Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- The amendments have to be specific to a T, otherwise, when a scenario does require of an amendment, the vague language will muck everything up. For example, the gun rights debacle lies solely in the Constitution's language, where the Second Amendment states that everyone has "the right to bear arms." It is debated by the pro-gun rights advocates that this means that the Public-At-Large has the right to carry a concealed weapon in public without fear of the Federal or State government taking it away, while the restriction gun rights advocates claim that only in the defense of American soil where a militia is formed is the only time the Second Amendment applies. Removing a Supreme Court Justice "on grounds of mental defect, obvious senility or insanity" is too vague, as "Paravant" has also pointed out. How does the amendment define whether how senile the Justice is, which mental defects, or how the law and amendment define insanity? — Unsigned, by: Zexcoiler Kingbolt / talk / contribs 02:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Sunday election[edit]
- The idea for the Election being on a Sunday or public holiday is to make everybody able to vote. However, I know very well that some people have to work in certain jobs. Imagine what would happen if emergency services or nuclear power plants where without people working there for a day. However, I also know that having to work is frequent ground for disenfranchisement. Hence a five hour limit, which is both long enough to get work done and short enough to be able to got to work before or after that. Double pay is to ensure employers really think about calling people in on election day. Other points will be addressed shortly Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
SCOTUS removal[edit]
- The removal of Supreme Court Justices is supposed to mainly apply in cases of Alzheimer or bullet through head cases. The mental defect is plain to see (it is absolutely that such an amendment cannot be abused for political purposes even by a eight to one SCOTUS majority) but the same defect makes the Justice unable to resign. (Other issues will be addressed shortly)Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Drug amendment[edit]
- The drug amendment purposefully uses the same language as the current second amendment. Why do you think of it as misthought? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Because I can now grow -any- drug, which includes ones unlike Marijuana. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- As the language is the same as that of the current second amendment there is bound to be drug control the same way there now is gun control. The genius of the second amendment is that it broadly defines a right while leaving a hardly visible but rather large backdoor open in being the only amendment with a "justification" built into it. I am sure politicians will figure stuff out. After all, milk of the poppy can't be much more dangerous than grapeshot, can it? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Your "justification" doesn't make any sense. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
Methinks it is a Weasel 07:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Which one? And as for drugs, well how dangerous can a few people on drugs really be? After all, we have tons of people on drugs in our streets right now Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know let's make PCP legal and see what chaos spreads--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 13:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- What is PCP? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- PCP, or Phencyclidine, is a dissociative drug that in smaller doses produces numbing and drunkenness, in medium states pain relief and anesthesia, large amounts lead to convulsion, and throughout all kinds of fun things like paranoia, hallucinations, euphoria, suicidal impulses and sometimes aggressive behavior. Given it also numbs you to pain, I'm sure you can see why the possibility of the last one in particular, but also those first two, is such a problem. But hey, if you want us to be able to argue that Cocaine and Heroin should be legal, go for it, but you're crazy and wrong. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- So you say machines, that have literally no other use than to kill people should be legal and widely available but substances that at worst hurt the people who take them the most should not? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes and no. I'm for restrictive gun control/ Becoming a mass murderer is not an inherent part of being a gun owner, but becoming an addict (which does harm more than just the user, don't be stupid)is with most illegal drugs a major part of being a drug user. They aren't at all the same thing. But hey, if people should be able to buy Heroin in a walgreens go for it.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- So you say machines, that have literally no other use than to kill people should be legal and widely available but substances that at worst hurt the people who take them the most should not? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- PCP, or Phencyclidine, is a dissociative drug that in smaller doses produces numbing and drunkenness, in medium states pain relief and anesthesia, large amounts lead to convulsion, and throughout all kinds of fun things like paranoia, hallucinations, euphoria, suicidal impulses and sometimes aggressive behavior. Given it also numbs you to pain, I'm sure you can see why the possibility of the last one in particular, but also those first two, is such a problem. But hey, if you want us to be able to argue that Cocaine and Heroin should be legal, go for it, but you're crazy and wrong. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- What is PCP? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know let's make PCP legal and see what chaos spreads--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 13:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Which one? And as for drugs, well how dangerous can a few people on drugs really be? After all, we have tons of people on drugs in our streets right now Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Your "justification" doesn't make any sense. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
- As the language is the same as that of the current second amendment there is bound to be drug control the same way there now is gun control. The genius of the second amendment is that it broadly defines a right while leaving a hardly visible but rather large backdoor open in being the only amendment with a "justification" built into it. I am sure politicians will figure stuff out. After all, milk of the poppy can't be much more dangerous than grapeshot, can it? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- (the Lunnistahs made a fookin aedit cunflict. We shall teik their howms and bern their fields) Addicts should get treatment not jail sentences longer than their live up to that point. And jails are a very bad place to shake a drug habit. And an even worse place to go cold turkey. Do addicts harm people besides themselves? Well in some cases, yes. Os this true for abusers of legal substances as well? Of course it is. Are there high functioning addicts? Of course there are. Look at the Rolling stones, look at Hitch look at quite a few stoners. Do you really think the current drug policy is better than one where the focus is on responsible drug consumption by law-abiding citizens who happen to use substances? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- When it's not your idea of letting people use Heroin and Cocaine whenever they want yes. But you'll continue this fallacy argument where if I disagree with you, I must want statusqou with no changes whatsoever. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well with the wording of my amendment, I would rather think of milk of the poppy and coca leave. Part of the problem with drug legislation is that illegal drugs usually undergo at least one step of concentration and often at least one step of "mixing" with other "filler" substance. Both have usually very detrimental health effects. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)\
- I would rather think of milk of the poppy and coca leave. You can do that but it's horridly short sighted for somebody proposing an amendment to the Constitution, which would then be a pain in the ass to modify when it comes up short. you say your inspiration for this is the second amendment, and that it's purposefully vague like the second amendment, but clearly you think the vagueness of the 2ndamend is a issue as its letting people buy guns widely and legally. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well with the wording of my amendment, I would rather think of milk of the poppy and coca leave. Part of the problem with drug legislation is that illegal drugs usually undergo at least one step of concentration and often at least one step of "mixing" with other "filler" substance. Both have usually very detrimental health effects. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)\
- When it's not your idea of letting people use Heroin and Cocaine whenever they want yes. But you'll continue this fallacy argument where if I disagree with you, I must want statusqou with no changes whatsoever. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- (the Lunnistahs made a fookin aedit cunflict. We shall teik their howms and bern their fields) Addicts should get treatment not jail sentences longer than their live up to that point. And jails are a very bad place to shake a drug habit. And an even worse place to go cold turkey. Do addicts harm people besides themselves? Well in some cases, yes. Os this true for abusers of legal substances as well? Of course it is. Are there high functioning addicts? Of course there are. Look at the Rolling stones, look at Hitch look at quite a few stoners. Do you really think the current drug policy is better than one where the focus is on responsible drug consumption by law-abiding citizens who happen to use substances? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Just an idea but maybe you should add a provision that the amendment only applies to recreational drugs that are not notably dangerous or lethal under normal circumstances. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:37, 26 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- I guess what we a ll can agree on is that the language of the original second amendment, which inspired the language of my drug amendment while beautifully sounding is horrible as a piece of law. So we might try to hammer out a more prosaic compromise wording... Where to begin? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Not making this an amendment to the Constitution. This should be a law, easily changeable when the need arises, not something written into a stone tablet that must go through a long and arduous process to edit even a single letter. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I guess what we a ll can agree on is that the language of the original second amendment, which inspired the language of my drug amendment while beautifully sounding is horrible as a piece of law. So we might try to hammer out a more prosaic compromise wording... Where to begin? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, the word grown. WalkerWalkerWalker 14:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Would breeding rattlesnakes fall under that? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:51, 26 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Depends... does Scalia like snakehandlers? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, the word drug. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if you could write full sentences... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- He means it's too broad/ambiguous, I gander. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:48, 26 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- It would be helpful if you could understand the implicit meanings of things without having to have it spelled out to you as if you were a child. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- So what kind of language guaranteeing the right to consume substances would you want to put into the constitution? And yes it belongs in the constitution, because the right to put into my body what I want is one of the fundamental rights currently denied to the people (the other being the right to laziness :-P). We should not even try to enumerate all allowed substances. And we should keep the power of Congress or the states to outlaw substances as small as humanly possible. Otherwise they will insert prohibition and a war on drugs through the back door. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Presidential succession[edit]
- My Presidential succession would in almost no cases call for a 190 day transition. If the President resigns, a new election is called and held within 90 days. Same for the case he dies. However, if the President does a Sharon and falls into a coma that may or may not end any time soon or - more likely - never, there should be some measure in place to determine whether it is a "temporary" caretaker government or a "perpetual" caretaker government, the latter is something this amendment tries to get rid of, as it is rather undemocratic. And an issue such as this should not get political, hence the "automatic" part in the law. In most Sharon style situations, a snap election would be called as soon as it becomes probable the coma will last. As a matter of fact the 100 days are taken from Israeli law Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- " a new election is called and held within 90 days. " That election would be absolutely terrible - this is an election for a leader of a deeply divided country, you expect people to just rise up candidates who everybody will accept within 90 days? and You have yet to justify why the current method is not acceptable for when the need arises - the other guy becomes president, followed by leaders of the legislature, followed by cabinet members. Israel is hardly a workable solution when it covers an area about the size of one of our smaller states.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- And for this snap election of yours, o you pay any attention to how we choose candidates? God forbid we go into a convention where a frontrunner wasn't clear, god forbid both parties aren't ready to appoint a new candidate for this snap election. It would literally be a travesty that would do nothing but divide the country.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry I only now saw the issue you raised. Right now I have even shortened the period of time to chose a successor. Well, the VP is most likely the candidate for the incumbent party anyway. As to the non-incumbent party... Well frankly there is no need whatsoever for the presidential nomination to be such a drawn out and painful process. Even India does it faster. And in that country ballots are still carried on mules for crying out loud. Just have a three week schedule: First week: Iowa and New Hampshire (they always have to be the first) Second Week: "Super Tuesday" Third week: Latecomers and Conventions. Badoom. Done. And if one should mount a third party run... well a two round voting system limits the damage done by that. And yes letting three people into the second round is a direct consequence from the disaster that was the 2002 French Presidential election Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't... you understand how big america is, correct? How diverse it is? How divided it is? 4 weeks of nomination and then a month or two of campaigning is not enough to get people into this, all this would do is lead to horribly low turnout snap elections, and YOU'VE STILL YET to explain why the current 25th amendment which is founded on preexisting setup isn't good enough of a solution to a vacancy. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Because, let's face it, nobody voted for Johnson in 1864, nobody voted for Truman in 1944 and nobody voted for Johnson in 1960. And especially nobody voted for Ford, ever. Sure the first three were all elected by the electoral college and yada yada yada. But they were elected to the Vice Presidency. In almost every country the VP taking over for a dead or deposed President and taking the reins for more than the time it reasonably takes to organize elections (and three months is generous) would be considered a coup de etát. And no, one year campaign seasons do not have to be the norm. They used to be unheard of in the US only a few decades ago. They mostly arose "thanks" to CNN and the cable hysteria media, that need a "story" every half an hour to interrupt their scheduled programming of airplane holograms... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Because Johnson taking over for Kennedy was such a coup, and -every time it ever happened in America it's only been bad". Why break a system that's not broke?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Truman - whom nobody elected to be President - threw a nuclear bomb in his first term. He furthermore decided the fate of Germany, Japan, much of Europe and East Asia. Don't you think the American people who had voted for Roosevelt in 1944 on account of him being a tried and trusted war leader would have deserved to get another chance to see whether they wanted to go down that path? In the case of LBJ chance would have it that exactly that almost occurred; he was reelected by a wide margin only a few months after he was first sworn in. It was still too long a period for my taste in democracy, but it was not the travesty that was A. Johnson in 1865. That man was only on the ticket due to reasons that made sense in early 1864 and none in late 1864, yet he was able to protect the first Klan and stop the efforts of Reconstruction. He almost got impeached out of office, and quite frankly the US would have been better of, had he been thrown out of office before even getting the chance of running for - and losing - an election Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Because Johnson taking over for Kennedy was such a coup, and -every time it ever happened in America it's only been bad". Why break a system that's not broke?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Because, let's face it, nobody voted for Johnson in 1864, nobody voted for Truman in 1944 and nobody voted for Johnson in 1960. And especially nobody voted for Ford, ever. Sure the first three were all elected by the electoral college and yada yada yada. But they were elected to the Vice Presidency. In almost every country the VP taking over for a dead or deposed President and taking the reins for more than the time it reasonably takes to organize elections (and three months is generous) would be considered a coup de etát. And no, one year campaign seasons do not have to be the norm. They used to be unheard of in the US only a few decades ago. They mostly arose "thanks" to CNN and the cable hysteria media, that need a "story" every half an hour to interrupt their scheduled programming of airplane holograms... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't... you understand how big america is, correct? How diverse it is? How divided it is? 4 weeks of nomination and then a month or two of campaigning is not enough to get people into this, all this would do is lead to horribly low turnout snap elections, and YOU'VE STILL YET to explain why the current 25th amendment which is founded on preexisting setup isn't good enough of a solution to a vacancy. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry I only now saw the issue you raised. Right now I have even shortened the period of time to chose a successor. Well, the VP is most likely the candidate for the incumbent party anyway. As to the non-incumbent party... Well frankly there is no need whatsoever for the presidential nomination to be such a drawn out and painful process. Even India does it faster. And in that country ballots are still carried on mules for crying out loud. Just have a three week schedule: First week: Iowa and New Hampshire (they always have to be the first) Second Week: "Super Tuesday" Third week: Latecomers and Conventions. Badoom. Done. And if one should mount a third party run... well a two round voting system limits the damage done by that. And yes letting three people into the second round is a direct consequence from the disaster that was the 2002 French Presidential election Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
War powers amendment[edit]
As to my war powers amendment, the idea behind it is this: If there is need for a war, there should be a vote in Congress as the framers intended. However, in some cases the President has to act immediately. For this cases the emergency provision exists. I can imagine no emergency that would leave the US intact enough to care about the constitution yet destroyed enough to make assembling Congress within thirty days. And the way war is defined is narrow on purpose to avoid "slippery slope wars" like Vietnam that started out with a handful of "military advisers" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- So we either have to establish a formal treaty or declare war to send advisers? Sounds impractical. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Funny tidbit: this part bans the president from being accompanied by any (armed) secret service agents when he's visiting another country. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- I guess this could be covered by some overall language in a treaty establishing diplomatic relations... But on the issue it addresses: Do you really think the President should have the power to put the US into war on his own?Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think he, as leader of the army, shouldn't have to go asking congress to either ratify a treaty or declare war every time he wants to send 5 guys over to a country to help them establish an army. It's an overreaction solution to the slippery slope issue that led to Vietnam.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think sending military advisers to a country the US don't currently have a treaty with allowing for such a thing would be a huge foreign policy move. Imagine Obama sending military advisers to Venezuela, Cuba or Iran... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- So impractical holla hoops for 5 guys, got it.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- First of all, the case of five advisers being sent to a country that does not already have some sort of treaty with an omnibus clause covering that is unlikely. Furthermore, just send them without arms and the letter of the law is satisfied. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- So impractical holla hoops for 5 guys, got it.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think sending military advisers to a country the US don't currently have a treaty with allowing for such a thing would be a huge foreign policy move. Imagine Obama sending military advisers to Venezuela, Cuba or Iran... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think he, as leader of the army, shouldn't have to go asking congress to either ratify a treaty or declare war every time he wants to send 5 guys over to a country to help them establish an army. It's an overreaction solution to the slippery slope issue that led to Vietnam.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I guess this could be covered by some overall language in a treaty establishing diplomatic relations... But on the issue it addresses: Do you really think the President should have the power to put the US into war on his own?Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
An unaddressed issue[edit]
I thought this might arise earlier, but: My fear in the war powers amendment was actually that it would basically degrade to a "rubber stamp" in short order. After all, even now that Obama wants a vote on ISIS he can't get one. What could be done about that? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Under your system nothing, because he would be impeached. Thanks a lot Avenger, America cannot intervene when it needs too.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- No. If the vote fails, the soldiers have to be withdrawn until and unless the vote succeeds. Only the failure to comply with this is grounds for impeachment... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- "Until they reach a vote" To bad the genocide finished in the time it took that to happen.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Funny you should say that. Usually the US is blamed for being way too trigger happy when it comes to foreign interventions. Including those that were justified with genocides... (Somalia and Bosnia in particular). But the question still stands: Why did the founders give Congress the power to declare war if it is a hindering vestige in modern times? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- For the same reason they made slaves 3-5th of a person and had an initial election system that led to problems when people with different opinions ran for office. What the founders intended means little when we are discussing editing the Constitution, because it implies what they intended isn't good enough anymore. }The short answer is to maintain civilian control of the military and a check and balance against the executives role as leader of the army. I've not said that the slippery slope doesn't exxist, I said your solution isn't a good one to it.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- So what would your solution to that issue be? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Don't got one, but that doesn't mean we must endorse your overly strict system. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- So what would your solution to that issue be? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- For the same reason they made slaves 3-5th of a person and had an initial election system that led to problems when people with different opinions ran for office. What the founders intended means little when we are discussing editing the Constitution, because it implies what they intended isn't good enough anymore. }The short answer is to maintain civilian control of the military and a check and balance against the executives role as leader of the army. I've not said that the slippery slope doesn't exxist, I said your solution isn't a good one to it.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Funny you should say that. Usually the US is blamed for being way too trigger happy when it comes to foreign interventions. Including those that were justified with genocides... (Somalia and Bosnia in particular). But the question still stands: Why did the founders give Congress the power to declare war if it is a hindering vestige in modern times? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- "Until they reach a vote" To bad the genocide finished in the time it took that to happen.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- No. If the vote fails, the soldiers have to be withdrawn until and unless the vote succeeds. Only the failure to comply with this is grounds for impeachment... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
so...[edit]
people who are violent serial murderers, (all) tax dodgers and people who don't even live in the country deserve to vote in it's elections? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- past criminal conviction means those people who served their sentence. And if you are free in the eyes of the law, you should be free to vote. As for people abroad.... They have to file taxes, so they should be able to vote. They currently are. The only people not able to vote are currently those residing in territories like Puerto Rico. CGP Grey made a video about this, but I can't seem to find it on my slow internet in (place where I reside) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Things you shouldn't be using to justify your point: a youtube video. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Do you even know CGP Grey? The fact of the matter is: people abroad may vote (that is called an "absentee ballot" and in part decided the 2000 election) - in fact even people on the ISS may vote. But people in Guam or the US Virgin Islands - even if they just moved their a year ago - cannot vote for anything ever on the federal level. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- there it is Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't particularly care for being told to watch youtube videos as a key part of a persons point.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is not a key part. Do you even read? I just explained above that currently the only place a human being has ever been to where you cannot by law vote for US President are the territories. If you don't believe me, I can dig up some boring WP article, or an entertaining CGP Grey video. Which ever you prefer. The point still stands. As an US citizen, you can vote on all places that exist, except the territories and you have to file federal income taxes from all places, period. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- John Oliver did a video on it too. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:35, 26 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- I know. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- John Oliver did a video on it too. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:35, 26 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- It is not a key part. Do you even read? I just explained above that currently the only place a human being has ever been to where you cannot by law vote for US President are the territories. If you don't believe me, I can dig up some boring WP article, or an entertaining CGP Grey video. Which ever you prefer. The point still stands. As an US citizen, you can vote on all places that exist, except the territories and you have to file federal income taxes from all places, period. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't particularly care for being told to watch youtube videos as a key part of a persons point.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- there it is Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Do you even know CGP Grey? The fact of the matter is: people abroad may vote (that is called an "absentee ballot" and in part decided the 2000 election) - in fact even people on the ISS may vote. But people in Guam or the US Virgin Islands - even if they just moved their a year ago - cannot vote for anything ever on the federal level. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Things you shouldn't be using to justify your point: a youtube video. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
One congressman for every 100K people[edit]
By my reckoning this makes a House of Representatives of slightly more than 3000 people. Wyoming, the least populated state, would get at least six. Not sure how this would help anything. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Make that about half that number or even less. As it is one rep for every 100 000 valid votes in the last election. And the issue addressed here is that constituencies are too large and small state are over-represented. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- So the number of people governing us would swing wildly around every 2 years based solely on whether people felt like going to vote in a election? That's incredibly stupid and would be chaos. Plus, you know, to bad my state lost half it's governing delegation because of voter apathy. This is slightly above that one idiot who proposed we tie citizenship to forced election turnout.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- The overrepresentation of small states would appear to me to relate more to the makeup of the Senate, where each state gets two regardless of population. This of course is a feature rather than a bug; it was specifically intended by the people who originally wrote the Constitution, to dilute the power of the population centers. Whether this was a good idea or not, it's working as planned. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I actually wanted to do something about that, but couldn't find a workable population threshold. Something like one Senator for one million, two for five, three for ten or something that at least loosely ties the Senate to population. Or of course the major overhaul, where the Senate is elected more akin to the way the House is right now and the other chamber is a nationwide proportionally elected chamber. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm wondering what problem this amendment would actually fix. If you merely add more representatives, you just end up with a higher quantity of people around to toe the party line or the lobby line and the same shit-quality of a system. I'm skeptical if even this "major overhaul" you mention would make all that much of a difference. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:57, 26 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Toeing the party line would not be as big a problem if there were more than two parties. Well the idea with the 100 000 votes is taken from the Weimar constitution. This one had a beautifully simple electoral system and was better than the current German constitution in many aspects, except for the weird semi-presidential thing (something the current French constitution also has) which never works. They should have gone all out and have no Prime Minister but a weak president and strong ministers dependent on parliament. E.g. a President who can't go to war or dissolve parliament on his own. And one with a term length of five years or less, preferably less. Anyway. In the Weimar constitution, the party would get one seat for every 100 000 votes. That's it. Some say this led to fractured parties and one of the "improvements" is the fact that there now is a x% threshold in almost all parliamentary systems. Be it 4% in Austria, 10% in Turkey or 2% (and talks of raising it) in Israel. I think thresholds in representative systems are good for nothing. Parties below that threshold are unlikely to wield much influence, because how much influence do five out of seven hundred seats really get you? And if a government is desperate enough to count on three or four splinter parties, it deserves the lack of stability it gets for that. The basic dilemma in deciding between a majority based voting system (i.e. First Past the Post or the system used in France) or a proportionally based voting system (i.e. the system employed in the Weimar constitution) is that the former is bad for proportionality and tends to produce two party systems or strong separatist / regionalist parties whereas the latter makes it hard or even impossible to vote for a certain person / certain people if they fall out of favor with their party. An example: In the US system a Bernie Sanders can just run for a district or Senate seat or whatever and does not have to join a party. However, in almost all cases I only have the choice between Democrat or Republican and in some rare cases an independent endorsed by either party. In a proportional system I can chose between a wide variety of ideological viewpoints, but if I dislike the person on the head of the list (say I want to vote for the Socialists, but they put some Tony Abbott up there) I cannot change him. All systems that try to remedy both of these problems at once are horribly complex and voting should be simple. Hence two houses based on the two principles is not entirely a stupid idea imho Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm wondering what problem this amendment would actually fix. If you merely add more representatives, you just end up with a higher quantity of people around to toe the party line or the lobby line and the same shit-quality of a system. I'm skeptical if even this "major overhaul" you mention would make all that much of a difference. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:57, 26 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- I actually wanted to do something about that, but couldn't find a workable population threshold. Something like one Senator for one million, two for five, three for ten or something that at least loosely ties the Senate to population. Or of course the major overhaul, where the Senate is elected more akin to the way the House is right now and the other chamber is a nationwide proportionally elected chamber. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- The overrepresentation of small states would appear to me to relate more to the makeup of the Senate, where each state gets two regardless of population. This of course is a feature rather than a bug; it was specifically intended by the people who originally wrote the Constitution, to dilute the power of the population centers. Whether this was a good idea or not, it's working as planned. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- So the number of people governing us would swing wildly around every 2 years based solely on whether people felt like going to vote in a election? That's incredibly stupid and would be chaos. Plus, you know, to bad my state lost half it's governing delegation because of voter apathy. This is slightly above that one idiot who proposed we tie citizenship to forced election turnout.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Kinda wondering why no one can earn more than the President[edit]
Is his job necessarily the hardest one in the government? Seems to me, in times of peace, they can mostly sit back and let the people they appointed run the departments for them. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:46, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- It should be the hardest job in the land (it being filled by people like Bush notwithstanding). And I don't know whether you have heard the "justification" for the absurdly high pay of some CEOs... "Well it is to show we appreciate the good job they are doing". That's part of what I had in mind with the presidential salary as well. Draw the best of the land to that office Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- In my experience, promises of high monetary gains don't tend to draw the best of the land, rather the opposite. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:07, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- The other thing I had in mind was to discourage corruption Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- promising lots of money is in no way going to do that--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you used a selection process that ensures the president is a moral, compassionate, trustworthy individual, I'd be fine with gratuitously making it worth their while financially; as it is there's way too much money not in the hands of such individuals. But if you're gonna go with the current sort of election process, yeah nah. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:02, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- You don't deem my presidential election amendment sufficient thaen? And as for giving huge amounts of money not discouraging corruption... Why? A police-officer that is paid five hundred dollars a year is more likely to be corrupt thaen one who gets paid two thousand a month. That's just empirically true... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- I doubt it. Corruption scandals often involve people who already have a vast income. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 21:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- I doubt it. Corruption scandals often involve people who already have a vast income. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
- You don't deem my presidential election amendment sufficient thaen? And as for giving huge amounts of money not discouraging corruption... Why? A police-officer that is paid five hundred dollars a year is more likely to be corrupt thaen one who gets paid two thousand a month. That's just empirically true... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- The other thing I had in mind was to discourage corruption Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- In my experience, promises of high monetary gains don't tend to draw the best of the land, rather the opposite. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:07, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Your presidential election amendment mostly just deals with people going to vote, it doesn't address what credentials/qualifications the candidates should have. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:30, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- I am a firm believer that the people deserve the President they vote for. And as for credentials... It is really hard to objectively say what makes a good leader. There have been good (Vaclav Havel, Nelson Mandela) and bad (Hitler) leaders who had been in jail. There have been good (FDR) and bad (80% of all monarchs ever) leaders who came from influential families. And formal education is not a good qualifying category either. Woodrow Wilson (one of the worst Presidents, all things told) was a Professor at a university, whereas Lincoln was hardly more thaen a self-taught country lawyer. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about people's education. Someone's criminal record could be relevant, depending on the crimes they committed. I already mentioned what qualities I consider necessary in any candidate that wants to lead a country: moral standards, compassion, reliability. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:47, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- I am a firm believer that the people deserve the President they vote for. And as for credentials... It is really hard to objectively say what makes a good leader. There have been good (Vaclav Havel, Nelson Mandela) and bad (Hitler) leaders who had been in jail. There have been good (FDR) and bad (80% of all monarchs ever) leaders who came from influential families. And formal education is not a good qualifying category either. Woodrow Wilson (one of the worst Presidents, all things told) was a Professor at a university, whereas Lincoln was hardly more thaen a self-taught country lawyer. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Your presidential election amendment mostly just deals with people going to vote, it doesn't address what credentials/qualifications the candidates should have. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:30, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Unfortunately, the categories are too ill defined to have any place in a constitution. And no, I don't think a previous criminal record of any kind should automatically exclude a candidate from running. People have been framed for crimes they did not do in the past. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- That you can't get 100% clarity of someone's level of morality, kindness or reliability doesn't mean the selection process can't be designed to still favour people with such qualities. That you wouldn't consider this a priority because "too vague, sorry" is highly problematic, as these qualities are essential to being a good leader. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 13:28, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- And who should make that judgment? I think it should ultimately be the judgment of voters and voters alone. And they are the ones who decide who's President in my system. Unlike 2000 when the honest and morally superior candidate (and the more qualified one) was preferred by the voters yet did not get elected President. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)