What I would change in the government

[kathyp]

Why would we put troops in SA?:  It is true that they are not really our friends, or the friends of anyone.  What they are is very, very, wealthy and they have a lot of oil.
We don't need the wealth or the oil, but we do need to keep it out of the hands of Iran.  I won't rehash my explanation of the Iranian religious ideology.  I will remind you that they took the billions that Obama gave them and put it into their weapons programs and military.  They would do the same with anything from SA that they could get their hands on. 

How close are they to those nukes that I predict they would use?  IDK, but every dollar they get helps the closer to the goal.  That is our reason for being there.  Someone pretty smart got a clue.  I don't know who, but at least they were listened to. 

[Ben Framed]

Hard to believe isn?t it iddee.  What Ace is projecting is what you will hear from the entire left. Leftist News outlets, leftist politicians, Hollywood, leftist college professors, etc. Yes they really believe this stuff iddee.  It seems they are blind to what they are doing. Filled with blind hate, rage, and disgust for a person who clearly loves his country, loves its Constitution which guarantees liberty and justice for ALL its CITIZENS.
Instead of uplifting that same person, that same Constitution by helping him to enforce it, a way of life that has produced freedom and hope for ALL its citizens of ALL races, a constitution built on ideas that have become a light of hope for the whole world to see, and wish to be a part of. Unbelievable iddee but yes iddee true, they really seem believe this stuff spewed out by the left, to the point of becoming consumed themselves with it, it seems, and a part of.  It seems that globalism is their goal? Now weather Ace really believes this stuff I do not know. I do know that Most of the good people that come to hear Mr Trump speak, do not believe it!! Who are these good people that stand in long lines for hours upon hours just to be a part of this make America Great Again Group of people, even though they know they are despised by the left? (As made evident by Hillary Clinton, Calling these people ''The Deplorables'').  When President Trump speaks, he lays it out clearly what he seeks to accomplish, what he is in the process of accomplishing, as well as what he has already accomplished for the American People and the left hate him for it!!!!!  Sad and hard to believe isn't it Iddee......  I guess he and our Constitution stand in the leftist way of globalism? Sad

Ben, why run off at the mouth so? It doesn't accomplish much, only creates more mirth
cider TY

Thank you Cider. I am glad that you are amused.... I am happy to bring a smile of joy and amusement to my friends on both sides of the equation. And if mirth can be accomplished by using truth, then so much the better!!  Don't you agree?
 

Phillip The Junior
 

[iddee]

""Kathy, the exit from Iraq was planned.  Generals were involved.""

Total BS again. Obummer fired all the top generals as soon as they disagreed with him on anything. That's why the underlings went along with him.

[Michael Bush]

One I forgot:

o  Equal protection under the law should be applied broadly.  The government should not be allowed to "bail out" one industry.  This is not equal protection.  The Congress should not be allowed to give themselves a different retirement and medical system than the American people.  That is a violation of equal protection.  Taxing things in a way the put an udue burden on one industry or one group of people or one region of the country would be a vioaltion of equal protection.  Having such a definition would have prevented the US Civil War and the bank bailout and the auto industry bailout.

[Troutdog]

>I would tax all property, regardless of who owns it or the use made of it.  This would extend taxation to real and "personal" property owned by religious organizations.

If I have a right to own property then property tax is a violation of that right.  I would prefer to get rid of all property tax.

>You want to get rid of the third branch of government? 

You mean the fourth don't you?  Executive, Legislative, Judicial and Bureaucracies.  I'm not saying you can entirely get rid of Bureaucracies, but you can get rid of a lot of them and constrain the remaining ones.

Fourth branch of govt was the grand jury.
It was Jefferson's last resort to a situation such as current.
Citizens could take back their government thru constitutionally embedded failsafe. The du jour grand jury aka common law vs admirality.
Reference 10th amendment as a remedy for federalism as well.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Michael Bush]

>Reference 10th amendment as a remedy for federalism as well.

If we actually applied the 10th ammendment then all the Federal Bureauracracies would go away.  And that would not be a bad thing...

[kathyp]

The problem is that we have had the SCOTUS reinterpret much of the constitution over the years.  Once that is done, and the reinterpretation put into effect, going back to intent is about impossible.  The left hates originalists because they have been able to get their stuff enforced with the help of the courts.

But it is not just the left.  There should not be mandatory, government run, programs like SSI and Medicare.  Right or left, try taking those away!

[Acebird]

One I forgot:

o  Equal protection under the law should be applied broadly.  The government should not be allowed to "bail out" one industry.  This is not equal protection.  The Congress should not be allowed to give themselves a different retirement and medical system than the American people.  That is a violation of equal protection.  Taxing things in a way the put an udue burden on one industry or one group of people or one region of the country would be a vioaltion of equal protection.  Having such a definition would have prevented the US Civil War and the bank bailout and the auto industry bailout.

 
Well now Mike it sounds like you agree with me.  The constitution is darn near useless when there is enough money to either ignore it or change it.  You all should keep that in mind especially, the second amendment.  It is a piece of paper with words on it.  It can be changed or ignored by either money or enough people to fight about it.

[kathyp]

It can be changed or ignored by either money or enough people to fight about it.

Which is why it is important to have orrigianlists on the SCOTUS rather than those who legislate from that building. 

[Bushpilot]

First question the assumption that we actually need a government ...

[Acebird]

It can be changed or ignored by either money or enough people to fight about it.

Which is why it is important to have orrigianlists on the SCOTUS rather than those who legislate from that building.

How would that matter if you are going to ignore it?
Secondly, if you are not willing to change you will fall by the wayside as the rest of the world passes you by.  China is a perfect example.

[kathyp]

How would that matter if you are going to ignore it?
Secondly, if you are not willing to change you will fall by the wayside as the rest of the world passes you by.

It is ignored by the "living document" types.

It can be changed and the process should be followed.  We have done it in the past for good reasons and bad.  The mechanism for changing it is not through activist courts. 

[Acebird]

You are right.  For the most part the mechanism for changing it is usually money.

[Ben Framed]

I am of the opinion that the constitution was written by men of insight and wisdom along with the understanding of human nature, both good and bad. I am confident that every jot and tittle was placed in this well thought out document for good reason and should not be tampered with, not only for the good of Americans of that day and time, but for OUR good today, along with generations to come. Sure, The Constitution is not perfect. and sure not to please each one of us in every circumstance, but it is a well balanced, well thought out, well discussed and debated document written and debated and accepted by our forefathers. I will go even further to say I am Persuaded that this same document, The Constitution,  the base and cornerstone of our Republic, should be PROTECTED at all cost, from ALL enemies both foreign and domestic. 

[iddee]

I have to take that with a grain of salt, or maybe a pound or two. With the original constitution and no changes or additions or modifications, we would not have the first or second amendment, nor any of those following them. We just need to follow the same rules to change it as was followed to change it those times.

[kathyp]

For the most part the mechanism for changing it is usually money.

it is usually changed by activists finding activist courts, but you are correct in that those activists are usually well funded and organized. 

[Ben Framed]

I have to take that with a grain of salt, or maybe a pound or two. With the original constitution and no changes or additions or modifications, we would not have the first or second amendment, nor any of those following them. We just need to follow the same rules to change it as was followed to change it those times.

Good points iddee  I overshot my thinking. I really do not want to see any more changes though, as per reason and points made by Kathy and Ace.

For the most part the mechanism for changing it is usually money.

it is usually changed by activists finding activist courts, but you are correct in that those activists are usually well funded and organized. 

1789, JAMES Madison submitted 12 amendments, though only 10 and our first 10 were passed. 1791 as the Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson submitted the 12th amendment. So out of the first twelve, at least eleven were for sure submitted by our founding fathers.  I do not remember who submitted the 11th amendment. The 13th was not submitted until the time of Abraham Lincoln.

[kathyp]

1789, JAMES Madison submitted 12 amendments, though only 10 and our first 10 were passed. 1791 as the Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson submitted the 12th amendment. So out of the first twelve, at least eleven were for sure submitted by our founding fathers.  I do not remember who submitted the 11th amendment. The 13th was not submitted until the time of Abraham Lincoln.

And I should have been more clear.  yes, those are official changes, but we have had tons of eating at the edges changes and those are by way of the courts and usually activists.  Because they can't or won't convince the people and the legislature of the righteousness of their cause, the use the courts to force those causes on them.  Many of them should be considered unconstitutional especially when they over-ride the will of the states. 

[Ben Framed]

1789, JAMES Madison submitted 12 amendments, though only 10 and our first 10 were passed. 1791 as the Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson submitted the 12th amendment. So out of the first twelve, at least eleven were for sure submitted by our founding fathers.  I do not remember who submitted the 11th amendment. The 13th was not submitted until the time of Abraham Lincoln.

And I should have been more clear.  yes, those are official changes, but we have had tons of eating at the edges changes and those are by way of the courts and usually activists.  Because they can't or won't convince the people and the legislature of the righteousness of their cause, the use the courts to force those causes on them.  Many of them should be considered unconstitutional especially when they over-ride the will of the states.

??Many of them should be considered unconstitutional especially when they over-ride the will of the states. ?

I agree Kathy

[Acebird]

Many of them should be considered unconstitutional especially when they over-ride the will of the states.

Yes, by all means we should go back to slavery because some states were over-ridden!