Essay talk:Needed Constitutional Amendments (ColbertFan)
- I am a newbie, so could you please tell WHAT THE FUCK that means! Colbert|FanNewbie-admin 21:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
"its territories' or its friends' land," WTF does "friends' land" mean? Any country that's "friends" with the US?
"Regardless if they are born one of those lands." That's not a sentence.
"One has the right to bare pot." That doesn't legalize marijuana. a) You mean bear pot; b) The wording needs to be "The right to possess and use marijuana shall not be infringed."
"The government of the United States of America cannot wage a war. Defence is the only justification for war." "Wage" just means "carry on," so both of those sentences contradict each other. You mean "the government of the United States (in Constitutional parlance referred to just as "the United States," but let's get to 9th grade before worrying about that) shall not wage an offensive war." Even this is highly problematic, because offensive tactics are used in defensive wars. Blue Talk 01:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Don't be so presumptuous. "Bare pot" obviously means we have the right to nude cookware. Why would it have anything to do with drugs? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Drop "natural born citizen" requirement for US Presidency? Seems quite reasonable to me. We live (and long have lived - it's nothing new) in a global world in which people frequently move from country to country - stop discriminating against foreigners! Maybe a foreign-born President is what the US needs to help stop it from being so insular and inward-looking, like the whole world is the US and nothing outside of it matters. The "ten year rule" is slightly silly (any citizen should eligible for the Presidency), but we can live with it.
Here in Australia, any citizen can become Prime Minister -- the current PM was born in Wales. Stupidly, however, we have a restriction on dual citizens being elected to Parliament, which practically means they cannot become PM (although technically speaking, one can serve as PM without being a member of Parliament for up to three months). Even more stupidly, in the case Sue v. Hill the High Court of Australia decided that British citizens owed "allegiance to a foreign power" for the purposes of the Australian constitution -- the original authors of the Australian constitution would be aghast at that interpretation, British citizens as they were all (at that time, there was no Australian citizenship separate from the British.) Arguably, the Australian constitutional disqualification should only apply to citizens of non-Commonwealth countries. Anyway, due to this brillant ruling, Australia is deprived of my services as Prime Minister. (Never will I give up my EU citizenship -- it is far too useful.)
As to a right to bear pot, I would extend that to opium too. It is my religious belief that marijuana and opium should be legal. (But one should not be able to smoke them except in designated places -- I have the right not to breathe in other people's smoke. So no smoking (of anything!) in public. Even in their own home, if they live in an apartment/tenement/etc. -- their neighbours should not have to put up with the smoke. But, in appropriately designated places, smoking both should be legal.
But, trying to stop all "offensive" wars won't work. Offence vs. defence is always going to be vague and ambiguous. Even offensive wars are not always wrong -- I would not object to Americans invading Iraq to protect the human rights of Iraqis, if only they were not so bloody hypocriticial and work against human rights everywhere else too (even in their own country). When the US overthrows the House of Saud, then I will say that the Iraq war was justifiable - until then, it is just plain hypocrisy, for as bad as Hussein was, al-Saud are worse. --Maratrean (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)