If you could rewrite the Constitution, what would you change?

[Thistle]

banning books

Pornography for little children is not okay, and neither is deliberate grooming. Yes children must be protected against sexual exploitation. If you want to insanely characterize that as book banning by all means you can take up the cause of Satan's chief demons.

going after companies

People are under no obligation to make the people rich who use their money to destroy everything that they believe in. That's not going after anybody. These companies are not neutral they're not even handed they are stampeded by the left into weaponizing themselves against the majority of American families. That's fine but those American families are under no obligation to take their money and enrich these completely amoral ciphers.

Do I really think that these executives our secret pedophiles who want your children groomed and sexually exploited by some teacher somewhere? Of course not. They're cowards who don't care if your children are sexually exploded. And they are perfectly willing to submit to any extortion (or suggestion of extortion) that may be coming from the violent left. That's fine. It's a business decision. No blood no foul. We just don't have to make those despicable cowards rich!

 

[vibise]

Pornography for little children is not okay, and neither is deliberate grooming. Yes children must be protected against sexual exploitation. If you want to insanely characterize that as book banning by all means you can take up the cause of Satan's chief demons.

People are under no obligation to make the people rich who use their money to destroy everything that they believe in. That's not going after anybody. These companies are not neutral they're not even handed they are stampeded by the left into weaponizing themselves against the majority of American families. That's fine but those American families are under no obligation to take their money and enrich these completely amoral ciphers.

Do I really think that these executives our secret pedophiles who want your children groomed and sexually exploited by some teacher somewhere? Of course not. They're cowards who don't care if your children are sexually exploded. And they are perfectly willing to submit to any extortion (or suggestion of extortion) that may be coming from the violent left. That's fine. It's a business decision. No blood no foul. We just don't have to make those despicable cowards rich!

No one is putting pornographic books in kindergartens. But RWers want to ban any books that treat homosexual characters as normal people, or that have black people as heros, or focus on black history in America.

The RW has now taken to calling teachers "groomers". This is despicable behavior and is driving good people out of that profession.

 

[glenlogie]

No one is putting pornographic books in kindergartens. But RWers want to ban any books that treat homosexual characters as normal people, or that have black people as heros, or focus on black history in America.

The RW has now taken to calling teachers "groomers". This is despicable behavior and is driving good people out of that profession.

Give evidence that no one has tried to put pornographic books in kindergarten. Your say so is insufficient

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Give us an example of a written document that cannot be twisted into pretzels.

You are asking pronoun the expert with word games?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I certainly think the 2nd amendment is due for an overhaul, and that the 1st amendment could be more explicit.

The duties of SCOTUS could be clearer and should be time limited.

Comments?

I'd add a Constitutuonal Amendment that would add the provision whereby every citizen, from the day of their birth (or naturalization) would receive $50,000 a year tax free, and roll back Gasolene to $.25 a Gal like it should be.

That'll do it.

 

[tbeachhead]

How is it tyranny to have a clearly written Constitution that could not be twisted into pretzels by justices who think they can devine the thoughts and intentions of the Founders? And come up with interpretations that coincidentally align with their conservative positions!

You’re talking about Roe v Wade in the seventies. I know. It took fifty years to correct that horrendous decision. Liberals like to legislate by court so the tyranny can be enforced. You’re right. Then there was the forced and enforced ban on prayer in the sixties, still being imposed by the courts. But you noticed Roe got corrected after fifty years of slaughter, because the genius that is our constitution allows for mistakes to get corrected. Like the Jim Crow Laws.
This is hilarious, though. By the numbers:

Your side is the side attempting to control others - banning books,

Preventing kindergartners from reading porn.

You can’t read so you can’t know. Your claims are specious based on ignorance and unwillingness to do basic research. Learn to read. My wife was a children’s librarian for ten years. We’ve seen and we know.

going after companies that disagree with your policies

Who cancels companies that aren’t woke? Do you need a list?

and refusing to allow women agency.

What are you talking about?

Is this about having autonomy to slaughter the offspring in your womb even when they are women? You survived gestation, and now you’re the judge over which women get to survive? That’s tyranny on steroids, and a policy worthy of China, except China only aborts baby girls. They discriminate.

We abort children’s lives indiscriminately so we’re more civilized.

 

[squirrelyguy]

I certainly think the 2nd amendment is due for an overhaul, and that the 1st amendment could be more explicit.

The duties of SCOTUS could be clearer and should be time limited.

Comments?

I would repeal the 17th amendment and return the power of choosing senators to state legislatures.

I would also change how the Supreme Court is constituted.
- Each seat is numbered 1-9.
- Every two years, the longest serving justice's seat becomes vacant and that justice enters retirement. In so doing, the SCOTUS would be completedly renewed every 18 years.
- The vacancy is filled by offering it to the most senior federal judge.
- Even if a SCOTUS judge dies or retires prior to the 18 year term limit, that seat still becomes vacant on schedule.

This is where it gets complicated. All federal judges except for those on the Supreme Court would still be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for life tenure. When an individual receives his confirmation to the federal judiciary, his name goes on the list. As judges die or retire, that newly appointed judge gradually rises to the top of the list. When he's at the top of the list, he will be offered the next Supreme Court vacancy that comes available. He can turn it down if he so chooses; in which case, the seat is offered to the next most senior judge, and to the next, and to the next, on down the list until someone accepts the appointment. The reason someone at the top of the list might turn down an appointment is because that vacancy might be set to expire sooner than 18 years. Let's say that the SCOTUS judge who occupies seat 5 dies in office, and his seat was set to become vacant in 3 years (after seat 4 becomes vacant next year). The most senior federal judge on the list could accept appointment to fill that seat, but he would only occupy it for the remainder of that previous justice's term (not the full 18 years). He has to wait until seat 4 becomes vacant and accept that one if he intends to serve for the full 18 year limit. If he accepts the unexpected vacancy of seat 5, he will serve for only 3 more years. And once appointed to the Supreme Court, a justice can never has his term extended for any reason beyond the expiration of the seat which he has chosen to occupy.

 

[Thistle]

No one is putting pornographic books in kindergartens.

These books are going into grade school libraries. Where do you think kindergartners go to school? And by the way you're changing the argument I didn't say kindergartners I said little children.

But RWers want to ban any books that treat homosexual characters as normal people,

Nobody ever suggested to me that Paul Lynn, Liberace, and Elton John weren't normal people. And I've never suggested to any child that they are not normal people. Why do you want to talk to little children about the sexual preferences of adults? And why would you want to fill grade school libraries with books about the sexual preferences of adults? And why would you want to put books in those libraries depicting children performing oral sex? Do you know what the definition of sexual grooming is? It sounds like you don't know what it is. Because this is definitely sexual grooming.

or that have black people as heros, or focus on black history in America.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The Tuskegee Airmen are American heroes nobody denies that nobody minimizes that a nobody objects to making sure that our school children are aware of that.

The RW has now taken to calling teachers "groomers".

No kidding! They don't call all teachers groomers, they call the groomers, groomers. It's a little thing we like to call Fidelity to the truth!

This is despicable behavior

The truth is never despicable. Lying is despicable.

and is driving good people out of that profession.

Turns out the people who didn't get the vaccine weren't killing grandma. Yet you were all for these people losing their jobs. I just find your desire to protect sexual groomers in their positions as primary school employees wildly ironic. Groomers in such positions do great damage and it's not theoretical and we're not going to have data that's gonna overcome the fact that is already very well documented.

 

[Thistle]

I would repeal the 17th amendment and return the power of choosing senators to state legislatures.

I agree.

I would also change how the Supreme Court is constituted.
- Each seat is numbered 1-9.
- Every two years, the longest serving justice's seat becomes vacant and that justice enters retirement. In so doing, the SCOTUS would be completedly renewed every 18 years.
- The vacancy is filled by offering it to the most senior federal judge.
- Even if a SCOTUS judge dies or retires prior to the 18 year term limit, that seat still becomes vacant on schedule.

This is where it gets complicated. All federal judges except for those on the Supreme Court would still be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for life tenure. When an individual receives his confirmation to the federal judiciary, his name goes on the list. As judges die or retire, that newly appointed judge gradually rises to the top of the list. When he's at the top of the list, he will be offered the next Supreme Court vacancy that comes available. He can turn it down if he so chooses; in which case, the seat is offered to the next most senior judge, and to the next, and to the next, on down the list until someone accepts the appointment. The reason someone at the top of the list might turn down an appointment is because that vacancy might be set to expire sooner than 18 years. Let's say that the SCOTUS judge who occupies seat 5 dies in office, and his seat was set to become vacant in 3 years (after seat 4 becomes vacant next year). The most senior federal judge on the list could accept appointment to fill that seat, but he would only occupy it for the remainder of that previous justice's term (not the full 18 years). He has to wait until seat 4 becomes vacant and accept that one if he intends to serve for the full 18 year limit. If he accepts the unexpected vacancy of seat 5, he will serve for only 3 more years. And once appointed to the Supreme Court, a justice can never has his term extended for any reason beyond the expiration of the seat which he has chosen to occupy.

What is this procedure intended to correct for?

 

[Mike McK]

I would repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, I would add penalties for violating the Constitution, I would clarify the 1st and 2nd Amendments, I would de-nationalize the National Guard, I would prohibit property taxes, put a sunset clause on all federal taxes, I would abolish all agencies and cabinets not directly related to Article I, Section 8. I would return all federally held land not covered under the Enclave Clause to the states, I would make it illegal for any military unit or active duty military personnel to serve under the authority of the UN, I would abolish the Federal Reserve, I would grant freedom to Puerto Rico, and probably some other things
.

Now, this is the part where you respond with something stupid.

Adding that I would clarify the role and powers of the court and return SCOTUS and federal courts to their pre-Marbury intended purpose and limits.

 

[Mike McK]

You were the one who said Puerto Rico should be set free. My point is they might not want independence, but prefer becoming a state.

Irrelevant. You asked what I would do, not what Puerto Rico might want.

And property taxes that fund education are local taxes, not federal.

And...?

 

[Mike McK]

Your side is the side attempting to control others - banning books, going after companies that disagree with your policies and refusing to allow women agency.

Could you please give us some examples of books that have been banned, companies that have been "gone after", and policies that do not allow women agency?

 

[Reformedguy]

Target sellers who supply straw purchasers.
Limit or end the manufacture of weapons of choice of criminals.
Stiff sentences for criminal use of guns and ownership of guns by felons and people under restraining orders.

Gun toters oppose gun laws saying those laws will not stop criminals from getting guns, but other laws in existence do not stop murders, rapes and robberies. But those laws provide the means of charging criminals with breaking laws and sending them to prison.

So they would not find new weapons of choice? What a bizarre statement.

 

[vibise]

You’re talking about Roe v Wade in the seventies. I know. It took fifty years to correct that horrendous decision. Liberals like to legislate by court so the tyranny can be enforced. You’re right. Then there was the forced and enforced ban on prayer in the sixties, still being imposed by the courts. But you noticed Roe got corrected after fifty years of slaughter, because the genius that is our constitution allows for mistakes to get corrected. Like the Jim Crow Laws.
This is hilarious, though. By the numbers:

Preventing kindergartners from reading porn.

You can’t read so you can’t know. Your claims are specious based on ignorance and unwillingness to do basic research. Learn to read. My wife was a children’s librarian for ten years. We’ve seen and we know.

Who cancels companies that aren’t woke? Do you need a list?
What are you talking about?

Is this about having autonomy to slaughter the offspring in your womb even when they are women? You survived gestation, and now you’re the judge over which women get to survive? That’s tyranny on steroids, and a policy worthy of China, except China only aborts baby girls. They discriminate.

We abort children’s lives indiscriminately so we’re more civilized.

It is conservatives that tend to use the courts to get unpopular provisions passed. Gore v Bush. Citizens United. Dobbs. They allowed gerrymandering to continue.

I still do not believe that book collections for kindergarteners contain porn, and have yet to see any surveys or studies that provide data on this. What comes across is that some people want to remove books that treat homosexuals as people instead of perverts.

So you think it is OK to cancel companies that are "woke", IOW that hold progressive opinions?

When it comes to abortion, I should not get to judge for anyone but myself. And you should not get to make decisions for me or for any other woman.

And what do you mean with your reference to a forced ban on school prayer? Are you seriously advocating that we go back to a time when students were expected to participate in prayer at the beginning of each school day? What sort of prayer would be acceptable to a diverse student body?

 

[Reformedguy]

It is conservatives that tend to use the courts to get unpopular provisions passed. Gore v Bush. Citizens United. Dobbs. They allowed gerrymandering to continue.

I still do not believe that book collections for kindergarteners contain porn, and have yet to see any surveys or studies that provide data on this. What comes across is that some people want to remove books that treat homosexuals as people instead of perverts.

So you think it is OK to cancel companies that are "woke", IOW that hold progressive opinions?

When it comes to abortion, I should not get to judge for anyone but myself. And you should not get to make decisions for me or for any other woman.

And what do you mean with your reference to a forced ban on school prayer? Are you seriously advocating that we go back to a time when students were expected to participate in prayer at the beginning of each school day? What sort of prayer would be acceptable to a diverse student body?

They should all be allowed to pray to the deity of their choice or not pray at all. A moment of silence if you will.

 

[glenlogie]

It is conservatives that tend to use the courts to get unpopular provisions passed. Gore v Bush. Citizens United. Dobbs. They allowed gerrymandering to continue.

I still do not believe that book collections for kindergarteners contain porn, and have yet to see any surveys or studies that provide data on this. What comes across is that some people want to remove books that treat homosexuals as people instead of perverts.

So you think it is OK to cancel companies that are "woke", IOW that hold progressive opinions?

When it comes to abortion, I should not get to judge for anyone but myself. And you should not get to make decisions for me or for any other woman.

And what do you mean with your reference to a forced ban on school prayer? Are you seriously advocating that we go back to a time when students were expected to participate in prayer at the beginning of each school day? What sort of prayer would be acceptable to a diverse student body?

Are you advocating that if a law is unpopular then it should be ignored? You have flipped flopped from your position last week, that all laws should be enforce.

 

[vibise]

They should all be allowed to pray to the deity of their choice or not pray at all. A moment of silence if you will.

A moment of silence, as long as it is not described as a time to pray.

 

[vibise]

Are you advocating that if a law is unpopular then it should be ignored? You have flipped flopped from your position last week, that all laws should be enforce.

Where did I say laws should be ignored? I said nothing like that!

I said companies are being punished if they state progressive opinions on laws being passed. You have something against opinions?

 

[Mike McK]

I said companies are being punished if they state progressive opinions on laws being passed. You have something against opinions?

And you still haven't provided any examples of that, nor of books being banned, nor of women being denied "agency".

 

[vibise]

And you still haven't provided any examples of that, nor of books being banned, nor of women being denied "agency".

1 - Disney
2 - Dobbs