| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 6/15/2005 11:22:01 AM |
I don't think that our voting system is accurate; if nothing else there is absolutely no accountability.
I honestly believe that's the issue. Exit polls don't agree... something's VERY wrong here. That's a fact, not a theory. | |
|
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 6/15/2005 1:22:14 PM | Aside from XVIII (prohibition) which ones haven't been a good idea?
I am going to list a few; some of them I have issues with and some Amendments I will list what other people have some issues with. Bear in mind that many of these Amendments have numerous sections, and I'm only addressing the parts I think are debatable.
2nd Amendment: Fully supports militias, and the right to bear arms. While I am very much in favor of this Amendment, it has been watered down to exclude many weapons. The same weapons that would be needed to actually defeat an invading army, or even our own military should they be turned against us. Other people seem to favor that this amendment be repealed altogether.
3rd Amendment: Allows troops to be quartered in your house. Again, I'm not specifically opposed to this, but I'm sure some of you would be pissed if Bush ordered troops to live in your house because it was needed in the war on terror.
5th Amendment: Makes no allowance for incidence where someone can be found innocent of a crime due to error or falsehoods, and to be tried again.
13th Amendment: Maintains slavery as a viable punishment for a crime.
14th Amendment: Allows the US to ignore any debt incurred from a country that that is insurgent or rebllious against the US. Irght now, this could be ANY middle eastern country, depending on who you talk to.
18th Amendment: Already listed frorm the poster who I am addressing with this post. I think we all agree it prohibition was not the best idea.
I honestly believe that's the issue. Exit polls don't agree... something's VERY wrong here. That's a fact, not a theory.
Elwood, polls, and surveys, are not scientific facts. They are all flawed to some degree, and are merely the best form we have for gleaning information. The smaller the sample of a given target group, the more likely the margin of error is. You're going to have to understand that exit polls are a quick, sloppy way of estimating the results. There is only one way to get the correct numbers, and that is to count every ballot. Not poll 5% of a group. | |
|
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 6/15/2005 2:38:03 PM |
I honestly believe that's the issue. Exit polls don't agree... something's VERY wrong here. That's a fact, not a theory.
Sounds like someone didn't take stats in college. | |
|
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 6/15/2005 2:43:22 PM | I'll agree with you about the second amendment. The whole purpose of the first and second amendments were to allow the people of the United States to have the knowledge to know when their government was abusing them, and the power to do something about it. We should be able to have howitzers in our back yard if we want to.
The third amendment actually says that the government cannot quarter troops in people's private homes. Again, another amendment helping to protect us from our own government, nothing bad here. As a matter of fact, since we're not actually in a declared war against a foriegn power (presidents don't bother doing that any more, since it requires congressional approval) they can't even pass a law to allow it, which it does give a provision for in the amendment.
We NEED every part of the fifth amendment. Sure, it may let some criminals go free, but they'll be caught again eventually. This amendment was created with the ideal that the freedom of the individual is more important than the desires or security of the group. I agree with this ideal. It also prevents the government from continually persecuting individuals who disagree with it.
If it weren't for the clause "except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" in the thirteenth amendment then we would not be allowed to have chain gangs or other involuntary servitude in prisons. While I'm of the opinion that our penal system is in need of a large overhaul, I still don't think that prison should be a "nice" place to be, for anybody.
I don't much like the 14th amenmdment either. Think of when it was passed. The northern government was still pissed off at the south, and wanted to make sure that southern politicians could not be elected into office. I believe that if Abe Lincoln had not been shot, this might not even have been proposed.
Oh, and prohibition is STILL not a good idea. Most drugs and narcotics should be decriminalized. The "War on Drugs" is a sham, and a law to tell people they cannot do drugs will never keep people from doing drugs, only turn those people into criminals. | |
|
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 6/15/2005 3:56:58 PM | The 3rd Amendment ("No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.") has been used in the past, and I don't think that an actual declaration of war would be needed to make it legal. Hell, FEMA has the power to do just about anything it wants, should something happen.
Good points about the 5th, but I still think some provisions are needed on the double jeopardy thing. It might be best not to mess with it, but aren't we sick of criminals walking away scott free, because of some procedural or technical error, or outright tampering with the judicial system?
I don't think that prison should be a nice place either, but the wording in the Amendment is quite clear: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Slavery has NOT been fully abolished, according to our Constitution. | |
|
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 6/15/2005 6:15:34 PM | | why not? if there is a president that the people want, lets keep him then. i sure wish we could have voted for clinton again. he would have handled the war on terror in a way that wouldn't cost us billions upon billions, as well as our international image. i say destroy the ammendment. | |
|
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 10/8/2005 11:27:37 AM | | I don't mind a dem becoming president, as long as it's not Hillary or John Kerry.... Those two can go straight to hell! | |
|
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 10/8/2005 1:36:31 PM | | WillyDStyle- well you saved me a lot of time. I was going to post essentially everything you said until I saw your post. | |
|
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 10/8/2005 7:17:23 PM |
A) Give ourselves the right to SEVERELY limit campaign contributions via constitutional amendment.
I couldn't agree with you more! Right now we have people making economic policy that have spent 10's of millions of dollars to get a job that pays 1/100th annually. Not exactly the sort of sound economic investment that has proven effective in my household. | |
|
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 10/9/2005 5:14:44 AM | LMAO.... Lola, capitalism is not the anti-christ!
Unfortunately, Congress polices itself. True reform will never occur so long as the candidates are allowed to keep unspent campaign funds. | |
|
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 10/9/2005 11:12:55 AM | | I think the 22nd amendment should not be repealed, but rather modified to extended to three terms. It gives the president more time to see his policies go through, and to face the consequences of success and failure of those policies. | |
|
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 10/9/2005 11:40:28 AM |
I think the 22nd amendment should not be repealed, but rather modified to extended to three terms. It gives the president more time to see his policies go through, and to face the consequences of success and failure of those policies.
If we ever get a President that is really good for the country, I'm sure I'll be eating these words, BUT, I think it's best left alone. We were in danger of becoming a monarchy under Roosevelt, and the respected statesman that he was, I think he could have been just as effective with his social and economical agenda outside the Whitehouse. | |
|
yna6
|
Joined: 5/2/2004
Msg: 35 | |
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 10/9/2005 1:58:08 PM | In order to win an election, you have to get YOUR people out to vote...so...if you have a bus going out to pick folks up, who normally wouldn't get to the polls...and they are voting for your party...well....they exit, enmass, are polled, ans "holy heck!" All of a sudden it looks like that candidate is gonna win, cause 95% of the people polled exiting (your "group" voted for that party...is it such a big surprise that there is a big discrepancy between exit polls and actual results? Nope.
They have what is known as a "Neilson box" in some homes...it lets programmers know what is on TV in certain homes, in order to poll which network is doing best. What if they had a similar box in every home for voting purposes? Be real easy to fix that up....and new laws could actually be voted on BY the people FOR the people. A mandatory voting law could be passed..no vote, no help from the gov't, and a fine. Voter turnout...100%...doesn't mean people HAVE to vote for anyone in particular...they could choose a "nobody I want to vote for" option...but that "vote" would be "dead"...but at least there. Lots of things that COULD be done.... | |
|
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 10/9/2005 7:20:19 PM | In response to lola05 on 10/9/2005 7 13 PM
--->What exactly do those two quotes have to do with capitalism?
>>>Corporate interests are so dominating your political process now, that the needs and desires
of the American people are not even getting addressed or represented.
--->that is a problem with our corrupt political system, not with our economic system. | |
|
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 10/9/2005 7:59:10 PM | >>>here's the trick for quoting in those white boxes.
---->Yeah, I don't really like those... I rather do it my way, but thanks. | |
|
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 10/10/2005 9:06:59 AM | | Capitalism can be manifested in different ways, and, which is most fair, effective, and stable is certainly a valid debate. Also I don't think you can seperate the economic system from the politial system, although it would be nice if you could. One could argue for a bottom up form of capitalism as opposed to top down, where small local business is empowered as opposed to massive conglomorate coprporations. One could argue laissez faire capitalism where regulation is anathema, and the system is allowed to regulate itself, or for heavily regulated commerce. And one could argue anywhere in between. The thing is that money is power. Every government in history, whether capatilist, communist, democracy, republic, monarchy, fascist, or any combination thereof, eventually becomes somewhat the puppet of those who control the resources, so I don't think it is invalid to discuss both politics and commerce in the same breath. This is an issue with regulation, because the regulations often end up serving the very people it is supposed to regulate. Personally, I think we should draft an economic bill of rights that equally protects the rights of three parties- the employer, the employee and the consumer. A simple, straightfoward protection of basic rights without the convoluted mess of regulation that exists today, and largely just either serves the interests of the people who already have the power, or some vocal interest group with a seperate political agenda. That being said, what was this thread about again? | |
|
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 10/10/2005 9:19:44 AM | >>>Posted By: wonkavision on 10/10/2005 9:06:59 AM: I think we should draft an economic bill of rights that equally protects the rights of three parties- the employer, the employee and the consumer.
--->I agree a simplified law that protects everyone's interests, instead of a very complex set of laws that seem to only protect large multinational corporations would be much better than what we have now.
I don't believe you can judge capitalism as bad or evil because we have poorly implemented it or because our political system is so corrupt. Capitalism works, it's our government that has screwed it up. | |
|
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 10/10/2005 9:26:22 AM | Instead of repeal why dont they ammend it to a 1 1/2 term limit? So we could hold elections next year....  | |
|
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 10/10/2005 4:33:58 PM |
Not that it actually happened or will, but didn't President Clinton or perhaps moreso the Democratic party seriously consider trying to get the 22nd amendment repealed? Didn't the repubs wanna do the same thing in the 80's for Reagan?
But the end result will be the same now as it has been several times before. It wont happen.
Yes, they did, its always amusing to see lay people invoke the constitution when most people probably haven’t even taken the time to read it, much less understand how our legal system works. | |
|
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 10/10/2005 4:38:55 PM |
Yes, they did, its always amusing to see lay people invoke the constitution when most people probably haven’t even taken the time to read it, much less understand how our legal system works. I don't think it's amusing. That would be... oh, I don't know... a bit self-important. | |
|
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 10/11/2005 5:32:53 AM | Lola
I know the popular theory is that big business controls the government... if you consider that big business equates to big payroll (AKA employees), would it not be reasonable to assume that the employees (voters / constituents) would also likely try to lead government down the same path? We are not a socialist country, people are considered equal in their pursuit of happiness, not equal in their achievement of that happiness. | |
|
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 10/11/2005 1:58:36 PM | >>>Posted By: timpommell on 10/11/2005 5 53 AM: We are not a socialist country, people are considered equal in their pursuit of happiness, not equal in their achievement of that happiness.
--->Very well put. The guarantee of the pursuit of happiness does not guarantee happiness. Personal responsibility is key. | |
|
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 10/11/2005 8:21:42 PM | | I don't know how I feel about that. aren't you supposed to throw em in the incinerator when yer done. 2 terms is plenty, but what if the pres. is great? | |
|
| Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Posted: 10/12/2005 3:11:58 PM | | How about we modify the 22nd to one two-year probationary term? Then if you behave yourself, don't get into any trouble and don't fail a piss test, your contract is extended for an additional 5 years. What do you think about some sort of testing procedure before you are allowed to be elected to a Federal office. You have to pass high school and get a decent ACT score to get into college, why not into politics. Keep in mind these are just ideas off the top of my head, but what I am trying to say is why not experiment with the process a little as the old fashioned ways have only led to the mishmash that is our Federal government. Even better how about a new reality series like survivor and you get to vote one person off each week until you're down to three contestants and then these three get to run for President? | |
|
Home
login 
