Sure there is. They just copied the parts about treason against Virginia from their original constitution and squeezed the word West in.
And it also would get rid of the “minority-majority district” concept created in the aftermath of the Voting Rights Act, so you’d get pushback from the Black and Hispanic caucus.
I could get behind a proposal to the effect of “Benefits and concessions granted in regards to the activities and goods of nonprofit service entities shall be uniform and there shall be no privileged condition accruing to being of a religious nature”, if you are going to make the churches pay taxes, or deny deductions for donations to them, you’d better make it so for any secular NPOs in a similar fiscal situation, too.
Too broad. So corporations have no constitutional rights? So, the state can seize a corporate entity’s goods without compensation, then? What if the corporate person is the SEIU or NARAL, are they forbidden from supporting a candidate?
The issue is not really legal personhood, that notion dates back to Roman Law and was part of the Common Law. The Legal Person had the right in its own name to private property (and to trade in it), making and signing contracts, to sue and be sued (with the concommicant procedural protections), engage agents and assigns, and make internal rules consistent with law. People’s problems are with its extension under case law to political and even to religious exercise rights of “the corporation” (meaning really the management). I don’t believe you need to abolish legal personhood to address that.
“we”?
Generally, the polls are open 12 hours, so that would give you 8 hours, and I have never needed more than 15 minutes.
Yes.
And again, how about police, firefighters, medical personel?
So, we cant sue Corporations? Cant fine them, cant hold them legally responsible? They have no rights at all, then? States can simply confiscate all their assets at a whim?
Corps having personhood goes back to the time of the Romans, and in the uSA has been at least since 1886.
Yes, I know the fact that they can donate to Politicians is annoying, and Citizens United gets peoples danders up (it was a very bad law) , but that is not a solution.
Instead of making Election Day a national holiday, can we just move elections to the first Saturday and Sunday after the first Monday, along with mail-in ballots? Two (weekend) days to vote gets past most of the need to specify time off, and with any luck some of the breathless TV coverage (yeah, I know that isn’t going to happen). And sidesteps most religious objections, since I’m unaware of any religion that has two consecutive days of rest.
And that is just a change to the current law, not an amendment.
That’s great. So a radical district simply arrests the President every five days. :rolleyes:
Again, less voting, more vacationing. Where are people getting the idea that people arent voting due to work?
Require vote by mail as a option for all would cover this.
I stand corrected.
Anyone who thinks any US President should fear being prosecuted by this provision should have his head examined though.
Your statements are all pretty far down the slippery slope.
Have you studied the principle of corporate personhood? Do you know why it is part of common law in every free nation?
His first paragraph is a pretty accurate description of what English common law has been for centuries, and then passed on to its colonies and former colonies.
What part do you see as a slippery slope? Cause if it is, we’ve been at the bottom of it for a few hundred years.
I would add that the president should only be allowed to pardon people for crimes they’ve been convicted of. Ford’s blanket pardon of Nixon still bothers me.
Negative on this. The FRA requires single transferable voting, which generally requires far less than a majority of votes cast. In a five-member district, for example, a candidate can win a seat with about 16.7% of the votes cast. A boon for minorities and third party voters.
“Oh no, the rules might change!”
Bad laws should be changed and governments evaluated by their results in making laws that are optimal.
Actually, that sounds like a pretty good idea. I’m sure that there are quite a few Western-style democracies with constitutions that, while modeled on the US Constitution, have been constructed so as to avoid unforeseen flaws in the 1789 version. In cases where this avoidance has proven successful, we could probably do worse than to emulate.
Oh, and:
Amendment 28: The Republican Party is hereby banned, and its fiscal assets (as calculated on January 19, 2017) are awarded to Kaylasdad99. Its fiscal liabilities as of that date are assigned to the father-in-law of Jared Kushner.
That kind of gerrymandering would be pushed to a different place. As I understand it, in Proportional Representation, each party puts up a list of candidates before the election. Ater it’s determined that a certain party gets N seats, the top N people on its list get those seats. There’s nothing that says these lists can’t be gerrymandered. A party that wants to appeal to a certain minority group can guarantee a minimum number of positions on its list to members of that minority.
For example, say a party usually gets about 8 seats from a state and roughly 25% of that party’s voters are black. So the party guarantees at least 1 of the first 3 and 2 of the first 7 positions on its list go to blacks. This can be extended to other groups that don’t currently have minority-majority districts, such as women. The main thing is to make sure everyone understands that these are minimums and not maximums.
Make invasion of privacy by any means unconstitutional. If evidence is needed a warrant needs to be issued and it needs to be proven in court that the warrant was necessary.
Hey, the law against murder falls off the books tonite, but the legislature is deadlocked.
Time to go on a spree!
South Africa
People here sometimes queue all day.
What about them?