Convention of States - Article V

[Revoltingest]

That is possibly the worst limerick you have ever submitted to RF

It's not a limerick.
Not even doggerel.
Just pithy...at best.

 

[Heyo]

We live in a new era. They can make tik tok videos for free.

:creative:

 

[Curious George]

:creative:

Thank you for that, it was meant as a joke but one of those with a slightly serious undertone. The idea being, in this technological age, a campaign need not cost nearly as much as it does to create voter awareness. I of course understand that rallies and paying writers and all the other jockeying/posturing costs a great deal of money, but we shouldn’t assume that this is the best way to select the best candidates.

 

[Heyo]

Thank you for that, it was meant as a joke but one of those with a slightly serious undertone. The idea being, in this technological age, a campaign need not cost nearly as much as it does to create voter awareness. I of course understand that rallies and paying writers and all the other jockeying/posturing costs a great deal of money, but we shouldn’t assume that this is the best way to select the best candidates.

And you are not the first to have that idea and it seems to work also:

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Sounds good to me. You have seemed to be very far on the right but you might agree with someone on the left (the real, progressive left). Here's Cenk roasting Biden for his "compromises":

Do you agree with him?

No I do not agree with Cenk on how Biden is far right. That is ridiculous. I do agree that he is corrupt and the majority of the media does not do their job and is a cheerleader for the democrats. Cenk talks about Biden's past but Biden today is very progressive.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Remove corporations deemed as people.

Eliminate special interest and group lobbying.

Reform the practice of districting.

Mandate the electorate votes reflect the will of the people and not their own personal choice and remove the stipulations that qualify electorates to include common citizens and not just the elites.

I can agree in principle on these.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You do realize that the debt ceiling relates to bills we've already accrued?

Yes

Simply cutting spending has not worked, historically. In fact, in hard times the most beneficial approach would be the Keynesian tactic of increasing government spending and job creation.

Right, and this has worked where?

Yes. Increasing corporate taxation, regulation, and resumption of spending on education, housing, infrastructure and healthcare would remove most of the causes of poverty, homelessness and crime.

I disagree. Increasing taxes on corporations generally increases taxes on everyone. Not getting married until you have a stable job and not having children until you are married are the two best things you can do to not be in poverty. How much have we spent on welfare projects since 1964? The poverty rate has been almost static since 1967 despite tens of trillions being spent. The War on Poverty After 50 Years

So both the states and the federal government would be unable to regulate trade?
Isn't it just this deregulation that we've seen over the past 40+ years that's sent all our manufacturing jobs overseas, stagnated wages and infrastructure, made education, healthcare, and and housing unaffordable?

No, the intent of the commerce clause was to allow for commerce between the states and the federal governments role was to prevent any state from impeding that commerce and trade. The federal government uses this clause to regulate commerce within states and to make some commerce mandatory. This was never the intent.

How could we maintain an infrastructure, general prosperity and a functional, unified society if the country were a patchwork of tiny, sovereign kingdoms?

All I am talking about is people getting a fair price for their property and the right to refuse to sell.

Would corporations remain citizens?

Not sure. I have not made up my mind on this yet.

Q: What, in your opinion, is the purpose of government, and how is it to achieve this?

The purpose of the US government is to secure individual rights and the rights of the people to govern themselves in general so people can live the lives they want in a free manner. This is a high level answer and probably a new thread could be created.

Revamp??? Explain, please.

Not sure, I do think some concessions can be made on the pro 2nd amendment side. Not an outright ban but include better language on who can own a gun and how they should get one. Limit clip size etc. More comprehensive background checks and no private to private sales w/o background checks etc.

???? -- explain, please. For? Against? Other?

I am for making abortion mostly illegal through a constitutional amendment.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

What is the reasoning behind repealing the 17th Amendment?

The intent was the senate to represent the state's interests and the house to represent the people's interest. These two chambers would have to work together to compromise on the states interests vs the people's interests. The states are taken out of this process. What is the purpose of both chambers now?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Where should we cut spending, in your view?

I have posted this before:

You can download the federal budget into a spreadsheet here: GovInfo

When you do you can sort the items by mandatory or discretionary, if you do that you will see the 2022 federal budget was:

Total Budget: $6.01 trillion
Mandatory: $4.32 trillion
Discretionary: $1.69 trillion
Deficit: $1.80 trillion

The problem is you have to do something about the mandatory spending or raise taxes since the deficit is greater than the discretionary spending. Some want to get rid of the department of education, that is $683 million or 0.038% of the deficit. So there is not much you can do to make a large impact on the deficit in the discretionary expenditures.

If we raise taxes to cover the deficit then each taxpayer would owe about $12,000. (check my math)

I would recommend perusing the budget, it is informative.

when I was born the federal debt was $354 Billion
when I was able to vote for the first time the debt was $2.6 Trillion
it is now $32.4 trillion.

This happened on our watch, we have basically bought things we wanted and paid for it with future labor that does not exist yet. That is immoral in my opinion. We need to fix it for the future citizens. We need to sacrifice some of the mandatory spending for the benefit of future generations.

If we cut $360 Billion per year for 5 years we would have a balanced budget, then we could cut spending by $720 billion per year and we could pay off the debt in 45 years. No politician will ever want to do this because we the citizens will not reelect them. I see no doable solution to the spending/revenue problem.

"Blessed are the young for they shall inherit the national debt". ~ Herbert Hoover

"It would be easier to pay off the national debt overnight than to neutralise the long-range effects of our national stupidity" ~ Frank Zappa

I don't really know that this would solve much.

I do, it would limit the corruption in my opinion and lifetime politicians.

I don’t think SCOTUS justices need term limits. Their intention is not to be political appointments. Treating them like politicians just entrenches the problem of their politicization rather than solving it.

But it limits their ability to give long range harm to our liberties. They would not be elected but appointed the same as they are now.

YIKES, no. Adjudicating court cases by political vote sets a terrible precedent.

Why? 3/5th is 30 states. that would be hard to get and would have to be a very egregious opinion.

LOL oy, no. You think most Dems would agree to this stuff?

So a proper constitutional budget process is not ok with democrats?

Balanced budget legislating is mostly a right-wing bugaboo. It also would have serious negative economic effects:

Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment Poses Serious Risks | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

A balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be an unusual and economically dangerous way to address the nation’s long-term fiscal problems. It would threaten significant economic...

www.cbpp.org

This is the problem. No matter what we do if we want to get to a fiscally responsible position negative consequences will happen. The only other portion is long term negative consequences that may not be repairable. If I have major debt I will need to change tings to deal with it personally that will affect my life negatively. How much can we borrow?

Why 3 years?

Could be 5 or 2, the point is that they should be reauthorized at a regular interval.

Yikes - again you think most people not on the right wouls be in favor of preventing the federal government from ever regulating commerce?

Yes, The intent was for the government to make sure trade is fair between the states instead of regulating commerce in the states and forcing commerce in some situations.

As long as every citizen gets a free, easily accessible ID, sure.

I am ok with the citizens paying for ID's through our taxes. Nothing is free.

Depends how.


Depends what it says.

Yep.

 

[crossfire]

The intent was the senate to represent the state's interests and the house to represent the people's interest. These two chambers would have to work together to compromise on the states interests vs the people's interests. The states are taken out of this process. What is the purpose of both chambers now?

I was concerned that this would be a gerrymandering move.


Edit to add:
Actually, it seems that gerrymandering and other corrupt government power grabs was the reason for the 17th Amendment:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt17-1/ALDE_00000038/

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt17-2/ALDE_00001001/

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt17-3/ALDE_00001002/

 

[Twilight Hue]

And you are not the first to have that idea and it seems to work also:

Wonder if that can be construed as foreign interference since tic tok is owned by China.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I was concerned that this would be a gerrymandering move.


Edit to add:
Actually, it seems that gerrymandering and other corrupt government power grabs was the reason for the 17th Amendment:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt17-1/ALDE_00000038/

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt17-2/ALDE_00001001/

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt17-3/ALDE_00001002/

So what is the purpose of the senate today?

 

[crossfire]

So what is the purpose of the senate today?

The Senate (along with the House)is necessary for a bicameral Legislature. Specific to the Senate is that all Executive appointments and Treaties have to be approved by the Senate, and the Senate is the one that holds trials for impeachments. The Senate can also compose laws (except for Revenue raising, which must originate in the House.) Smaller States will have an equal say as larger States in the Senate, whereas The House representation is based on population. Senators represent their States, whereas House Reps represent their Districts.

 

[metis]

Increasing taxes on corporations generally increases taxes on everyone. Not getting married until you have a stable job and not having children until you are married are the two best things you can do to not be in poverty. How much have we spent on welfare projects since 1964? The poverty rate has been almost static since 1967 despite tens of trillions being spent. The War on Poverty After 50 Years

So, corporations are more important than people who may need financial support? Corporations use roads, educated people, and many other facilities, so why should be able to get all those benefits but then do nothing to contribute to our infrastructure and the educated populace that they use? Why should a struggling family have to pay federal taxes but multi-billion-dollar corporations don't?

BTW, the "war on poverty" we could do vastly better with if we adopted and implemented the Nordic Model: Nordic model - Wikipedia

Also, just remember that lower-income families spend money too, and they tend to spend more of it and more locally, which is where our economy benefits the most from.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The Senate (along with the House)is necessary for a bicameral Legislature. Specific to the Senate is that all Executive appointments and Treaties have to be approved by the Senate, and the Senate is the one that holds trials for impeachments. The Senate can also compose laws (except for Revenue raising, which must originate in the House.) Smaller States will have an equal say as larger States in the Senate, whereas The House representation is based on population. Senators represent their States, whereas House Reps represent their Districts.

Senators represent the people who elected them and are not beholden to the state legislature at all.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

So, corporations are more important than people who may need financial support? Corporations use roads, educated people, and many other facilities, so why should be able to get all those benefits but then do nothing to contribute to our infrastructure and the educated populace that they use? Why should a struggling family have to pay federal taxes but multi-billion-dollar corporations don't?

Corporations are made up of people who employ real people and many give health benefits as well. The issue is when a company is taxed, as they should reasonably be, much of it is passed on to the end user or their service or product.

BTW, the "war on poverty" we could do vastly better with if we adopted and implemented the Nordic Model: Nordic model - Wikipedia

I will read when i get a chance.

Also, just remember that lower-income families spend money too, and they tend to spend more of it and more locally, which is where our economy benefits the most from.

ok

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

BTW, the "war on poverty" we could do vastly better with if we adopted and implemented the Nordic Model: Nordic model - Wikipedia

Not sure I agree. After reading some it sounds like they all have at least a 25% VAT tax which is regressive. Also how does this model apply to a country that has 36 times the amount of people and a debt of $32 trillion? The Nordic model gets most of the revenue from consumption and labor, they also have a lower corporate tax rate than the US right now. They also do not have a wealth tax, the US sort of does, it does tax wealth in many ways. To do in the US what the Scandinavian countries do would put a high tax burden on middle class and poor people. This does not seem to be what liberals want.

They also have aging populations where less people are paying taxes. The outcome will be less services in the future if that continues, there is a limit to how high a tax rate can go.

 

[crossfire]

Senators represent the people who elected them and are not beholden to the state legislature at all.

Let me clarify: Senators represent the people of their state, whereas House Reps represent the people of their districts. History has shown that the State Legislatures can't be relied upon to keep the Senate filled because the state legislatures are playing politics with the appointment of Senators and taking bribes, etc. At least with the people electing them the Senate will get filled. The 17th Amendment even moved emergency appointments for vacancies in the Senate to the State Executive since the State Legislatures were so inept at it.

 

[Heyo]

Let me clarify: Senators represent the people of their state, whereas House Reps represent the people of their districts. History has shown that the State Legislatures can't be relied upon to keep the Senate filled because the state legislatures are playing politics with the appointment of Senators and taking bribes, etc. At least with the people electing them the Senate will get filled. The 17th Amendment even moved emergency appointments for vacancies in the Senate to the State Executive since the State Legislatures were so inept at it.

:informative:

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Let me clarify: Senators represent the people of their state, whereas House Reps represent the people of their districts. History has shown that the State Legislatures can't be relied upon to keep the Senate filled because the state legislatures are playing politics with the appointment of Senators and taking bribes, etc. At least with the people electing them the Senate will get filled. The 17th Amendment even moved emergency appointments for vacancies in the Senate to the State Executive since the State Legislatures were so inept at it.

And no one represents the states interests. You could modify the wording to take care of the issues of the past.