There have been too many accusations of procedures designed to disenfranchise broad swaths of voters. I think we need a Constitutional amendment to put an end to this.
Banking panics went away because of FDIC, not the Fed. Remember the Great Depression?
Nullification of the fugitive slave law was successful. Federal marijuana laws have been nullified in several states. Also, Missouri recently passed a gun law nullification bill.
We certainly wouldn’t want any of those sick freaks like Chagall or Kandinsky in a state-funded museum.
Would felons have the right to vote under this amendment?
I would think they should unless their rights can be terminated under strict scrutiny conditions. With exceptions like voter fraud or treason, why shouldn’t they get to vote? They are still citizens.
Oh I agree. I was just asking because they are a class of individuals that is perenially denied the right to vote in one way or another.
Also Brainglutton in regards to nullification Rasmussen reportsthat
Also according to thisPew Pollmore people believe the federal government should not override state marijuana law than people who think marijuana should be legal, which is interesting.
I’d be willing to concede a loss of their voting rights while they are incarcerated. Prisoners lose a number of civil rights. But once they’ve been released from prison and are back in society, their rights should be restored.
This is why in the last few months, I have shifted my support and sympathies by and large to the Democrats.
Isn’t this available via voting records of Congressmen/women/critters/freaks/mutants?
How so?
[quote=“silenus, post:33, topic:658213”]
- We ban tobacco advertising. We ban or restrict condom ads. Same same for the churches.
QUOTE]
I don’t think condom ads should be restricted except by private broadcasters. And unlike tobacco, religion doesn’t give you a high probability of developing lung cancer.
No problem at all, actually. Consider this analogy: Driving down the road is presumed to be legal unless a traffic cop pulls you over and gives you a citation that is either conceded or upheld on challenge. By your reasoning, enforcement of the traffic laws is “problematic” and it “would be difficult” to assess penalties for violating them, which is not generally the case in the real world.
The only part that presents a bit of difficulty is the definition of “blatantly” (which I presume to mean “anyone fit to hold office knew, or should have known, that the bill was unconstitutional and that introducing it was contrary to his oath of office”). However, my traffic-law analogy applies: the law generally manages to distinguish between going 11 mph over the limit and careening through a school zone at 90 mph and apply certain laws only to the latter scenario.
On the contrary – it is the exemption for churches on grounds of being a church that is problematic under the First Amendment. A church would have no more (and no less) ability to claim existing charitable deductions than any other charitable organization under silenus’ proposal. assuming that it is in fact engaged in charitable works.
Anyway, a few items from my list:
-
Ban gerrymandering by defining a clearly stated and objective “compactness” criterion (e.g. district area divided by perimeter, perhaps with down-weighting for perimeter portions corresponding to navigable waterways and preexisting city/county lines). Any interested parties who care to do so submit their maps; any with excess population variances between districts or Voting Rights Act problems are thrown out; the remaining one with the best number wins.
-
Plug a hard number (on the order of 50 years) into the “limited times” of the Copyrights and Patents Clause.
-
The above-mentioned penalty for introducing blatantly unconstitutional laws – judicial review would follow up judgments of “unconstitutional” with judgments of “blatant violation” or “innocent misjudgment”. A penalty of three strikes and disqualification from future office might be sufficient; I’ll leave it at that and crank it up if necessary.
Do I not get an answer, Oakminster? It was a (tongue-in-cheek) but serious question. You seem to be espousing the opinion that no other Constitutional issue overrides the takings clause. I.e., just like citizenship involves some sacrifices, so does the ability to claim rights under the First.
I’m guessing he was referring to these items from your platform:
This is a pretty ambitious foreign policy slate and it’s hard to reconcile it with this item:
You can say you don’t want a war. But when you have confrontational policies like you’ve described, you have to be realistic and consider how other countries will react to what you’re doing. The regimes you mention won’t want to give up power and will resist any pressure on them to do so.
Most of what I advocate isn’t too different from current policy IMO, after all Obama already has had a “pivot” to the Pacific, and opposing those regimes listed above while at the same time advocating cutting military spending and without being perceived as overtly aggressive.
Why should we label these guys strategic threats? We should be eliminating trade barriers. Isolating countries leads to war and/or threats of war (ex: Japan pre ww2, Cuban missile crisis, modern day Iran and North Korea). The common trope that democracies don’t make war on democracies is a fallacy.
If you commit to the drone war you are making a lifetime commitment. You are committing to the unending creation of enemies abroad.
All of those methods mentioned for toppling regimes will either cause economic havoc in the countries or lead to further isolation and war. Assassination has the added bonus of being illegal. We do not need these countries to be democratic.
We should be looking for smart ways of reigning in the empire.
Sorry, whenever I read “Rasmussen” these days, I tend to twitch. 
Just to ask, what laws do you think nullification will be used on? Everyone talks about federal marijuana laws and stuff like that, but can you think of any other likely laws these would be used against, especially ones you actually agree with?
Obviously this wouldn’t be stated openly but China and Russia both have foreign policy interests strongly contrary to our own.
I agree hence my support for free-trade throughout the platform.
Considering that Japan in the run-up to Pearl Harbour was waging a brutal war of conquest in China, I’d say isolating them and imposing sanctions was justified even at the cost of a war.
That said I support maintaining diplomatic links and trade with both Russia and China. However the US should be nonetheless in a position of strength and make this clear to our allies (such as Poland, the Baltic Countries, Georgia, Korea, and Japan) who are neighbours to China or Russia.
That depends I suppose on whether you consider Imperial Germany a full democracy or not.
All forms of warfare are likely to result in the creation of at least some enemies.
These countries aren’t being solely targeted because they’re dictatorships (or else countries like Vietnam would also be on the list) but rather because they’re especially heinous and brutal in their oppression.
I find myself on the opposite side of debates from Qin Shi Huangdi and so I opened this thread with a great deal of skepticism. But I’ll be damned if I don’t agree with most of his platform to such a degree that I’d support it all rather than get none of it.
I don’t like space funding. I think humans need to solve our problems here on Earth before we go spreading out into the great beyond. I think free trade is bad policy though such pacts with other advanced industrial nations are not a huge problem. I don’t agree with such a blanket restriction on abortion. I’d rather have families making those decisions most of the time. I’m not sure what good sterilizing sex criminals would do. They could still hurt people for thrills without the equipment and there would be no way to undo a wrongful conviction. I think Iranian politics are democratic enough to support even if they don’t care for us all that much. Isolating them just plays into the hands of the regressive forces in their society. I’m not a fan of drone warfare. Losing soldiers is horrible of course but having some of our lives in the balance and not just those of people we don’t like can insert some much needed caution into the decisions to intervene.
So yeah, some of that I have a problem with but most of it I find acceptable and some of it I enthusiastically second.
Huangdi/Sosoth 2016!!!
If I were able to predict something as fickle as the political caprice of the American public, I’d have a better paying job. That said, I could see the ACA being nullified if the health care costs rise enough.
My main “political” platform would be “if it doesn’t harm the person or property of another, it shouldn’t be illiegal”
Of course, with an idea like that I’ll never be supported for public office.
As I’ve said in other threads, in 1992 I voted for the Perot/Stockdale ticket, because of a statement the latter made during the VP debate. When asked his position on abortion rights, Ret. Adm. Stockdale replied simply “I believe that what a woman does with her body is her own business, period.”
Our only foreign policy interest should be protection of our own citizens. In what ways do China and Russia present a threat to our citizens? If you mean to continue our mercantilist agenda of maintaining hegemony over the oil, we just disagree.
Except for the examples you listed. You forget by targeting a country through sanctions, you are destroying their economy and starving their citizens. This is just adds to any oppression you claim is present.
Nevertheless, the embargo led to war. Would such a war be justified and/or desirable with any of the countries you listed?
What happened to your policy of isolating Russia and China? China wants resources. They’re smarter than us. They’re buying them. They’re not a threat to Korea or Japan. They have too many internal problems to pose a threat anyway. Same with Russia. If you want peace through strength, you have to realize you achieve a position of strength through economic might. Mainland US hasn’t been attacked in 200 years because of our geography and economic might, not because we meddled in others business.
The reason no democracies have made war on eachother is because the US has maintained hegemony over virtually the entire democratic world. Of course the US would not allow, say, Korea to war with Japan when she maintains bases in both countries. During the reign of the Soviet Union, no communist dictatorships made war on eachother. Does this also become a rule: communist dictatorships do not make war on communist dictatorships?
Has not Israel made war with both Lebanon and Palestine?
Is this form working? Is al-Qaeda ready to throw in the towel? Meanwhile we are killing civilians by the hundreds in Pakistan and creating further instability.
You want to free the people of these countries by bringing economic chaos and/or warfare to their soil. I’m seeing a disconnect. If the people of these countries felt like they were being oppressed let them overthrow the government. If the rebel movement isn’t fully supported by the people you’ll have abortions like the proxy war in Syria.