What amendments do you want?

[Tiberius]

 

Balanced budget

 

Stupid as as stupid can be. The government can't borrow money??? Destroy the bond market?

 

I'd build a giant blender and just...well, you can just guess who i'd toss in it for a whirl...

[DC Tom]

Stupid as as stupid can be. The government can't borrow money??? Destroy the bond market?

 

So? Only fat-cat bankers invest in bonds. It would only hurt Wall Street, not Main Street.

[LeviF]

How do you propose eliminating gerrymandering?

 

 

Good question – Doesn’t some state already do it with an algorithm?

 

I just think it would change much of the political atmosphere we have today which rewards far left/right stances coupled with uncompromising positions.

 

When one thinks about it – gerrymandering is about as anti-representative as you can get and its completely legal…of all the subjects discussed that seem to threaten the republic – I really believe this is having the biggest long term effect – and it has the good possibility to not change – or get worse for decades to to come.

 

Fair enough. I would, like you, say that gerrymandering is not good (though one could argue that it is checked by the representative process, since we elect those who do the deed). My question went more towards what sort of Constitutional amendment would you draft? What's the alternative? The algorithm idea is interesting, I'll have to look that up.

[4merper4mer]

Whichever one gave women the right to vote. :wacko: :blink:

[DC Tom]

Whichever one gave women the right to vote. :wacko: :blink:

 

Come on...you couldn't even go with "Keep Canadians out of the country?"

[4merper4mer]

Come on...you couldn't even go with "Keep Canadians out of the country?"

 

Do we really need an amendment for common sense now?

[B-Large]

 

I'd be opposed to this.

 

The primary legitimate function of a federal government is national defense. An Amendment restricting spending to a pre-written budget would make it nearly impossible to defend ourselves durring a truely defensive war.

 

In that case, the emergency overspending could be slotted for in the next budget with tax increases/ cuts to equalize the difference, or at least accounted for over a time period. I don't think anyone would feel the government shouldn't have access to money for legitimate defense needs, but this spend it with no plan to pay it back or raise taxes to pay for it or specific cuts to offset it is become absurd.

 

What the point of a budget if you are not really held to it? We could just call it "let's try not to spend too much" process... That basically what were doing now I guess.

[/dev/null]

That is. You'd be causing a very significant turnover and loss of domain knowledge that could only be filled by long-term contractors, increasing reliance on Beltway Bandits.

 

Really, the idea of the "lazy government employee" is overblown - most of them work their asses off; the ones that don't fall by the wayside pretty quickly. The perception is based on the citizen-focused desk workers such as at the SSA or IRS, who are completely unmotivated GS-8's that are an atypical example.

 

Valid points, but my reasoning and I suspect you have seen this too in your dealings with Federal Agencies, is there are lifers that rack up years of service and build up their own private empire within the Civil Service. Presidents come and go but they remain constant with no real accountability

 

Would you want term limits for Congressmen as well? Or would this alone satisfy you?

See above for my misgivings about term limits. At least Congress Critters and Senators are somewhat accountable to the voters. Implementing term limits without reforming the Civil Service would transfer power to unelected bureaucrats like Lois Lerner.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

In that case, the emergency overspending could be slotted for in the next budget with tax increases/ cuts to equalize the difference, or at least accounted for over a time period. I don't think anyone would feel the government shouldn't have access to money for legitimate defense needs, but this spend it with no plan to pay it back or raise taxes to pay for it or specific cuts to offset it is become absurd.

 

What the point of a budget if you are not really held to it? We could just call it "let's try not to spend too much" process... That basically what were doing now I guess.

I'd be more in favor of a War Bonds provision within any balanced budget amendment. I'd also require a provision reaffirming the absolute necessity of a formal declaration of war preceded by an affirmative vote by the Legislature.

[K-9]

26th - Lifespans, educational years, and time spent dependent on parents' money have increased, and probably will continue to. Consequently, it makes little sense to allow 18 year olds to vote their immature and inexperienced consciences into law.

 

This seems myopic and prejudiced as maturity and inexperience vis a vis voting in an election cannot be quantified by age. Would you feel the same way about repealing the law that requires 18 year olds to register with the Selective Service and also making people under 21 ineligible for any future military drafts?

 

Seems to me if we can expect our 18 years olds to be mature enough to defend their country in a time of crisis, they should have a say in who gets to send them to war.

Edited December 10, 2014 by K-9

[DC Tom]

Seems to me if we can expect our 18 years olds to be mature enough to defend their country in a time of crisis, they should have a say in who gets to send them to war.

 

But we can't expect them to be mature enough to drink, or care for their own health.

[B-Large]

 

I'd be more in favor of a War Bonds provision within any balanced budget amendment. I'd also require a provision reaffirming the absolute necessity of a formal declaration of war preceded by an affirmative vote by the Legislature.

 

even better

[LeviF]

This seems myopic and prejudiced as maturity and inexperience vis a vis voting in an election cannot be quantified by age. Would you feel the same way about repealing the law that requires 18 year olds to register with the Selective Service and also making people under 21 ineligible for any future military drafts?

 

Seems to me if we can expect our 18 years olds to be mature enough to defend their country in a time of crisis, they should have a say in who gets to send them to war.

 

See Tom's post. This country has chosen to be rather selective (no pun intended) with the rights, requirements, and privileges it bestows upon 18 year olds. The 26th amendment is a silly relic from the Nixon era when Vietnam hysteria was still rearing its ugly head.

[/dev/null]

But we can't expect them to be mature enough to drink, or care for their own health.

 

[Koko78]

I like the executive orders being automatically vacated after 90 days proposal.

 

Other ones I wouldn't mind seeing:

 

-Line-item veto.

-Signing statements are illegal.

-Federal spending may not exceed projected revenue without Congress passing an explicit override listing reasons for exceeding the spending cap in the budget and for each and every subsequent spending bill. Money in excess of the cap that is not exlpicity justified in a subsequent spending measure cannot be spent (as in no pork being attached to post-budget spending bills without Congress stating a reason justifying the pork). Does not apply to emergency spending, and money not specifically earmarked for whatever the stated emergency is cannot be included in an emergency spending measure.

-Federal judges must retire at age 80, but otherwise cannot be removed absent bad behavior (does not apply to anyone who takes the bench prior to the enactment).

-Congressmen may not invest any money in anything other than a blind trust while they are in office, nor may they or their immediate family have any stake (other than money that may have been invested by a blind trust) in any company doing business with the federal government while in office.

-No person shall serve more than 18 years in the Senate or House.

-No Congressman shall run in a general election for another office without first resigning their current office, effective January 1st of the year following the election, unless their current term is due to expire prior to the date they would be sworn into their new position, if elected, and they are not seeking re-election to their current office.

-Spending bills passed by the Senate must substantially conform to the bill originating in the House, and may not be completely re-writtennd passed by the Senate unless the re-written version passes the House first. As in, the Senate cannot take the number of a bill passed by the House and completely re-write the legislation like they did with Obamacare, and try to pass it off as a spending bill that originated in the House.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Koko78

[Tiberius]

So? Only fat-cat bankers invest in bonds. It would only hurt Wall Street, not Main Street.

 

Wow, that's a stupid statement. But, not unexpected

[LeviF]

-Federal judges must retire at age 80, but otherwise cannot be removed absent bad behavior (does not apply to anyone who takes the bench prior to the enactment).

 

There's been talk for a while about putting an age limit on the service of federal court judges. New York has a system in place for our state court judges with mandatory retirement at age 70, with the ability to get three two-year "certifications" afterwards for a hard ceiling of 76. If I had to set the age, I'd put it at 75 instead of 80.

[KD in CA]

Stupid as as stupid can be. The government can't borrow money??? Destroy the bond market?

 

I'd build a giant blender and just...well, you can just guess who i'd toss in it for a whirl...

 

Leave it to you to be dumb enough to not understand the difference between borrowing money and balancing a budget. :lol:

 

Thanks for providing the simpleton laugh of the day.

[Tiberius]

Leave it to you to be dumb enough to not understand the difference between borrowing money and balancing a budget. :lol:

 

Thanks for providing the simpleton laugh of the day.

 

Pretty sure you don't have any idea at all what you are talking about. Put your head back up your butt

[KD in CA]

Pretty sure you don't have any idea at all what you are talking about. Put your head back up your butt

 

No, I'm positive what I'm talking about: that you are a !@#$ing moron.

 

Let me help you, Special Ed. I borrow money every day when I use a credit card. I also balance my budget. Careful, don't let your head explode.