Patlal said:

Since congress is dissolved and the senate represent political parties, people would bitch so I figured every decision made by senate would go directly to the supreme court for approval.

---

luvdemshrooms said:

Patlal said:

Since congress is dissolved and the senate represent political parties, people would bitch so I figured every decision made by senate would go directly to the supreme court for approval.

---

Again, the system is unclear to you.

"Congress" is both the House of Representatives AND the Senate, and as you in your plan have dissolved Congress, you leave no-one in a position to vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress

---

Patlal said:

Enlil said:

Patlal said:

Yeah, but if you rewrite the constitution. each state is gonna have to sign it. The senators will be in charge of that. Thus needing 3 instead of 2.

But I'm thinking too far ahead here.

---

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding in how the American system works.  Senators aren't "in charge" of anything at the state level.  They don't decide state laws.  They don't decide if a state ratifies an amendment (or a "rewrite").  They simply don't decide shit about the state.  They solely vote on federal acts applying to the federal government.

Truthfully, Patlal, I don't blame you.  Most Americans don't understand the concepts of separate sovereigns and federalism.  I don't expect a Canadian to.  The fact that you don't understand it, however, doesn't make it a bad idea.  Federalism is one of the greatest inventions put into the Constitution, and its erosion is one of the greatest problems facing America today.

---

I completely understand the system. Its just I'm thinking way too far ahead and didn't explain myself.

Im talking if the constitution is rewritten, congress will be dissolved.

If congress is dissolved, no new bills, which is good cause you're in the process of rewriting everything.

That gives the president to become somewhat of a dictator. Therefore what I quickly thought of to prevent that would be for the senate to vote on the president's decision.

Since congress is dissolved and the senate represent political parties, people would bitch so I figured every decision made by senate would go directly to the supreme court for approval.

Now since the constitution would be "on hold" these kind of temporary changes would be possible since you know, change requires change.

I figure 6 months like that for the time the new constitution is written up.

Then you would have to get the signature of every state to approve the new constitution (you may or may not lose Texas in the process).

Then you declare a massive election of every position in government.


Now, some or most of this may not make sense at all. I just thought of all this right now.... But hey, I guess its one way to potentially do it.

Onl;y problem I can see happening is whether you ask the states to sign before the election (2 senators therefore conflicting results may happen) or if the states sign after the election (which would mean they would have to agree without signing)... Catch 22.

Oh well. Im just brainstorming

---

luvdemshrooms said:

Patlal said:

Since congress is dissolved and the senate represent political parties, people would bitch so I figured every decision made by senate would go directly to the supreme court for approval.

---

Again, the system is unclear to you.

"Congress" is both the House of Representatives AND the Senate, and as you in your plan have dissolved Congress, you leave no-one in a position to vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress

---

zappaisgod said:

Patlal said:

Enlil said:

Patlal said:

Yeah, but if you rewrite the constitution. each state is gonna have to sign it. The senators will be in charge of that. Thus needing 3 instead of 2.

But I'm thinking too far ahead here.

---

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding in how the American system works.  Senators aren't "in charge" of anything at the state level.  They don't decide state laws.  They don't decide if a state ratifies an amendment (or a "rewrite").  They simply don't decide shit about the state.  They solely vote on federal acts applying to the federal government.

Truthfully, Patlal, I don't blame you.  Most Americans don't understand the concepts of separate sovereigns and federalism.  I don't expect a Canadian to.  The fact that you don't understand it, however, doesn't make it a bad idea.  Federalism is one of the greatest inventions put into the Constitution, and its erosion is one of the greatest problems facing America today.

---

I completely understand the system. Its just I'm thinking way too far ahead and didn't explain myself.

Im talking if the constitution is rewritten, congress will be dissolved.

If congress is dissolved, no new bills, which is good cause you're in the process of rewriting everything.

That gives the president to become somewhat of a dictator. Therefore what I quickly thought of to prevent that would be for the senate to vote on the president's decision.

Since congress is dissolved and the senate represent political parties, people would bitch so I figured every decision made by senate would go directly to the supreme court for approval.

Now since the constitution would be "on hold" these kind of temporary changes would be possible since you know, change requires change.

I figure 6 months like that for the time the new constitution is written up.

Then you would have to get the signature of every state to approve the new constitution (you may or may not lose Texas in the process).

Then you declare a massive election of every position in government.


Now, some or most of this may not make sense at all. I just thought of all this right now.... But hey, I guess its one way to potentially do it.

Onl;y problem I can see happening is whether you ask the states to sign before the election (2 senators therefore conflicting results may happen) or if the states sign after the election (which would mean they would have to agree without signing)... Catch 22.

Oh well. Im just brainstorming

---

You have absolutely no clue.  Between you and Asante you offer the best evidence to any American to completely ignore the opinion of foreigners in toto.

---

zappaisgod said:

maddad said:

That's fine I'm not asking you to take anything from me, just stating that you have a very constipated view of how things work in our country. And it's people like you who give Americans a bad name, because you care only for yourself.

---

I believe the state should exist to serve the individual and not the other way around.  Kennedy was a piece of shit with his ask not crap

Quote:

.

Think of people who are stricken with life threatening diseases that can't get any treatment because they don't have insurance. If that is ok in your mind than it's no different than murdering someone.

---

How many terminally ill poor people did you not murder today? 

Quote:

Maybe you should open your mind to something other than your own materialist mindset.

---

I take care of mine, thank you very much, and they have never been a burden on the taxpayer.  Why should I give a shit about every single person?.  I know almost none of them.  I got an idea.  You take care of yours and I'll take care of mine

Quote:

I'd rather have my tax dollars go towards helping people who aren't as financially stable get the care they need than to buy myself shit I don't need.

---

  Has it never occurred to you that whatever pittance you pay in taxes gets funneled through a grotesquely inept funnel of bureaucracy and that if the parasitic government employees were cut out of the loop that the money you saved on taxes would go a lot further in helping anybody you wished to help?  Adopt a sick person.  Or you are a murderer.

Quote:

Take your holier than thou attitude somewhere else...

---

I'm not the one with the holier than thou attitude.

---

zappaisgod said:

luvdemshrooms said:

Patlal said:

Since congress is dissolved and the senate represent political parties, people would bitch so I figured every decision made by senate would go directly to the supreme court for approval.

---

Again, the system is unclear to you.

"Congress" is both the House of Representatives AND the Senate, and as you in your plan have dissolved Congress, you leave no-one in a position to vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress

---

He also thinks the Senate represents political parties

---

Patlal said:

luvdemshrooms said:

Patlal said:

Since congress is dissolved and the senate represent political parties, people would bitch so I figured every decision made by senate would go directly to the supreme court for approval.

---

Again, the system is unclear to you.

"Congress" is both the House of Representatives AND the Senate, and as you in your plan have dissolved Congress, you leave no-one in a position to vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress

---

Shit sorry, I meant the house. But I think you kinda knew that

---

Patlal said:

It actually does beleive it or not. Right now the senate has a democrat majority doesn it not (by like maybe 2 seats)? Or am I just completely off track here?

---

Senators mostly represent themselves and a few close friends. When the Constitution was written there was talk of term limits. The Founders decided the people were smart enough to not elect assclowns repeatedly. 

They fucked that one up.

But to your question, Senators are not required to vote by party though they frequently do.

Enlil said:

The senate represents their individual states...not their party affiliations.

---

maddad said:

Just look out for only yourself and tell me how that works out for you...

---

Quote:

And if you really want to know how many terminally ill people I didn't murder today it would be 1. The job I was just recently promoted to in my company makes donations to charitable organizations to help people in need. I was able to give $5,000 dollars to a little girl who needs surgery on a brain tumor that she her family can't afford. So at least I'm doing something for what I believe in rather than talk about how good everything is just because I'm in a good place.

---

Quote:

Of course most of the tax dollars we spend go towards government officials, and I am very against that. But supporting the way things are run in this country only gives those low life manipulators more power. What do you do to keep your constitutional rights in tact?

---

Quote:

I don't expect you to change the way you think or even consider what I am saying, simply because you are too hard-headed to give up your own little shred of existence.

---

Patlal said:

OMFG....

You understand freedom...

You're like the first guy I've talked to in here that actually understands what freedom is.

Everybody on here thinks its something you just have that the government wants to take away

---

zappaisgod said:

Patlal said:

OMFG....

You understand freedom...

You're like the first guy I've talked to in here that actually understands what freedom is.

Everybody on here thinks its something you just have that the government wants to take away

---

It isn't just that but the government does want to take it away.  That is how they make their living.  It is also why our Constitution is great.  It stops the government from fucking us.

---

Enlil said:

It's not so much that the government wants to take freedom away as it is just a natural tendency of those with power to seek more power.  Reduction of freedom is just a natural byproduct of that tendency.  If they could gain power without taking freedom, they'd do it, but that's simply not possible.

---

Enlil said:

Freedom is a spectrum.  No one on the planet is absolutely free.  The purpose of civilization is to allow people to coexist.  That requires some limitations on freedoms.  I don't want you to have the freedom to kill me just like you don't want me to have the freedom to kill you.  So, as a society, we've agreed to give up that freedom so that we can coexist.

If politicians don't serve the will of the people, it's only because the people choose not to speak up.  Silence is often taken as assent.

---

Enlil said:

It's not so much that the government wants to take freedom away as it is just a natural tendency of those with power to seek more power.  Reduction of freedom is just a natural byproduct of that tendency.  If they could gain power without taking freedom, they'd do it, but that's simply not possible.

---