Prosposed Constitutional Amendment

[donttread]

I think we would truly be better off to choose congress by lottery. It may be the only way to assure that someone other than power mongering control freaks gets involved in politics.
What say yea ?

[AZ Jim]

I think we would truly be better off to choose congress by lottery. It may be the only way to assure that someone other than power mongering control freaks gets involved in politics.
What say yea ?I don't like the idea of yielding the power of Congress by random luck.

[Peter1469]

I think we would truly be better off to choose congress by lottery. It may be the only way to assure that someone other than power mongering control freaks gets involved in politics.
What say yea ?

How would you propose to amend Article I? If it is merely that simple sentence I must vote no.

[donttread]

I think we would truly be better off to choose congress by lottery. It may be the only way to assure that someone other than power mongering control freaks gets involved in politics.What say yea ?

[Chris]

Buckley said something about picking them randomly out of the phone book. Just set term limits, short ones.

[Peter1469]

Notice: Duplicate threads merged

[donttread]

I don't like the idea of yielding the power of Congress by random luck.

Do you think such a congress could possibly be less effective than the one we have?

[donttread]

How would you propose to amend Article I? If it is merely that simple sentence I must vote no.

WE ammend it to say something to the effect that our current represenative Republic is not able to produce a funtional congress so from this day forward all congressional seats will be one term and chosen by random using SS numbers

[Tahuyaman]

I think we would truly be better off to choose congress by lottery. It may be the only way to assure that someone other than power mongering control freaks gets involved in politics.
What say yea ?


No....

[The Sage of Main Street]

I think we would truly be better off to choose congress by lottery. It may be the only way to assure that someone other than power mongering control freaks gets involved in politics.What say yea ? If it is recognized to be that pathetic, why don't we wake up and take away its power to vote? The public should decide issues through national referendums, with the formerly autocratic legislators being mere law clerks who will write up the bills to be voted on by the people.

[Chris]

If it is recognized to be that pathetic, why don't we wake up and take away its power to vote? The public should decide issues through national referendums, with the formerly autocratic legislators being mere law clerks who will write up the bills to be voted on by the people.

Democracy is the problem, and you want more of it!

[Truth Detector]

I think we would truly be better off to choose congress by lottery. It may be the only way to assure that someone other than power mongering control freaks gets involved in politics.
What say yea ?

It's hard to say that this is one of your more moronic eruptions, you've had so many. But this one ranks right up there with chem trails and free drugs.

[Truth Detector]

Do you think such a congress could possibly be less effective than the one we have?

How does anyone with a modicum of education on our system of Government continue to think that our founders intended Congress to get things done easily and quickly???? DERP.

We are much better off when Congress is divided and cannot pass any new laws. We have too many now.

[Truth Detector]

Democracy is the problem, and you want more of it!

Wrong; low information and corrupt politicians who are willing to pander to them are the problem. Term limits and abolishing the current abomination of a tax code supplanting it with a Fair Tax would be a better solution than some moronic amendment.

[donttread]

No....

OK, tell me how congress could be any worse?

[donttread]

How does anyone with a modicum of education on our system of Government continue to think that our founders intended Congress to get things done easily and quickly???? DERP.

We are much better off when Congress is divided and cannot pass any new laws. We have too many now.

They could start by abolishing old useless laws and then the differentially enforced laws

[donttread]

It's hard to say that this is one of your more moronic eruptions, you've had so many. But this one ranks right up there with chem trails and free drugs.

So then explain how a lottery could give us a worse congress? I've never cared much about chem trails and I want legalize drugs not free drugs.
Perhaps you should change you screename from "Truth detector" to "Opinion infector"?

[MisterVeritis]

How does anyone with a modicum of education on our system of Government continue to think that our founders intended Congress to get things done easily and quickly???? DERP.

We are much better off when Congress is divided and cannot pass any new laws. We have too many now.
Congress no longer passes the majority of the laws. The Executive branch, through the nearly 500 independent agencies do. That is tyranny.

[donttread]

Tyranny that I boldly boldly predict will increase with each successive donkephant regime we elect

[Tahuyaman]

OK, tell me how congress could be any worse?


By selecting your elected representatives as if it was a jury in some inbred part of West Virginny. That's how

[donttread]

By selecting your elected representatives as if it was a jury in some inbred part of West Virginny. That's how

Soo you got nothin either. Noted

[Tahuyaman]

Soo you got nothin either. Noted


WTF are you talking about?

[donttread]

WTF are you talking about?

Your "post" if we can it that #20.

[Tahuyaman]

Allridiethen.....

[TrueBlue]

So, if Congress was chosen by picking out members from their Social Security numbers then that would effectively cancel both political parties as it would be a big gamble to get a majority assembled through, in essence, spinning the wheel. Is that the ultimate goal? If so, it might work but I would still be against it in principle. What if Murphy's Law always came into play and it turned out that all members thus chosen were from only one political party? It would then become an unfair monopoly for the American people. Or would the goal also be to do away with both Democratic and Republican Parties as a whole for good? And what about their core beliefs and political philosophy that could still be used in Congress? What would happen to that as that could also come into serious play to effectively affect legislation without carrying the title of either "Republican" or "Democrat".

[donttread]

So, if Congress was chosen by picking out members from their Social Security numbers then that would effectively cancel both political parties as it would be a big gamble to get a majority assembled through, in essence, spinning the wheel. Is that the ultimate goal? If so, it might work but I would still be against it in principle. What if Murphy's Law always came into play and it turned out that all members thus chosen were from only one political party? It would then become an unfair monopoly for the American people. Or would the goal also be to do away with both Democratic and Republican Parties as a whole for good? And what about their core beliefs and political philosophy that could still be used in Congress? What would happen to that as that could also come into serious play to effectively affect legislation without carrying the title of either "Republican" or "Democrat".

First this method of selection would introduce nation leaders who for perhaps the first time in history were not either raised to take power from birth or willing to lie , cheat and steal to get such power. It's time to see if "absolute power corrupts absolute" or if people with corruptible tendencies are just far more likely to wind up in power.
As for the random selection yeilding a congress of one party , that would be mathmatically all but impossible. In fact, I think such a system would at first yeild a multi-partied coalition congress and then the very notion of political parties would start to fade from there

[The Sage of Main Street]

Democracy is the problem, and you want more of it! Democracy is the political power of the 50+% over the 1%. We do not have that at all. As usual, you call anything that isn't an oligarchic dictatorship "democracy, socialism, or statism" just to give the will of majority a bad name. You always point to some undesirable fringe group being given rights as an example of democracy. Doing so is a contradiction in terms. You have nothing on your Masters' side, so you have to create a boogyman scaring everyone from standing up to the upper class and taking it down. You're repeating the fascist pattern of anti-semitic scapegoating.

[Truth Detector]

Congress no longer passes the majority of the laws. The Executive branch, through the nearly 500 independent agencies do. That is tyranny.

Yep; so how do you think a Constitutional Convention will work out for you? :rollseyes:

[Truth Detector]

They could start by abolishing old useless laws and then the differentially enforced laws

Yep; right after they win the lottery right?? :biglaugh:

[Truth Detector]

So then explain how a lottery could give us a worse congress? I've never cared much about chem trails and I want legalize drugs not free drugs.
Perhaps you should change you screename from "Truth detector" to "Opinion infector"?

When I say "But this one ranks right up there with chem trails and free drugs", how do you incorrectly infer I was talking about YOU? Good lord, pull up your britches and man up. :biglaugh:

[Truth Detector]

Tyranny that I boldly boldly predict will increase with each successive donkephant regime we elect

I guess yer just going to have to move your butt to Venezuela or Somalia; lots of chaos going on there and no worries about a Congress or laws. :biglaugh:

[Truth Detector]

Democracy is the political power of the 50+% over the 1%. We do not have that at all. As usual, you call anything that isn't an oligarchic dictatorship "democracy, socialism, or statism" just to give the will of majority a bad name. You always point to some undesirable fringe group being given rights as an example of democracy. Doing so is a contradiction in terms. You have nothing on your Masters' side, so you have to create a boogyman scaring everyone from standing up to the upper class and taking it down. You're repeating the fascist pattern of anti-semitic scapegoating.

^BINGO-hit the target.

[MisterVeritis]

I guess yer just going to have to move your butt to Venezuela or Somalia; lots of chaos going on there and no worries about a Congress or laws. :biglaugh:
Your response is not appropriate because it is completely wrong.

[MisterVeritis]

Yep; so how do you think a Constitutional Convention will work out for you? :rollseyes:
Who, in your opinion is calling for a Constitutional Convention?

Have you read the Constitution? Are you familiar with how the Constitution is amended? Have you read Article V? Did you understand it? This website will help you to see the error you have made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

[donttread]

Democracy is the political power of the 50+% over the 1%. We do not have that at all. As usual, you call anything that isn't an oligarchic dictatorship "democracy, socialism, or statism" just to give the will of majority a bad name. You always point to some undesirable fringe group being given rights as an example of democracy. Doing so is a contradiction in terms. You have nothing on your Masters' side, so you have to create a boogyman scaring everyone from standing up to the upper class and taking it down. You're repeating the fascist pattern of anti-semitic scapegoating.

Yes we are a Republic and have a Constitution that is supposed to protect the individual from the fickle will of the masses

[Truth Detector]

Who, in your opinion is calling for a Constitutional Convention?

I see that you are lost....let me assist you:

Title of the thread: Prosposed Constitutional Amendment

Your link: shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states

You on drugs today??? :biglaugh:

[donttread]

It's hard to say that this is one of your more moronic eruptions, you've had so many. But this one ranks right up there with chem trails and free drugs.

This is a post where "Truth detector " wondered later in post 30, why I assumed he was talking about me. Looks pretty well directed at me when it starts out "It's hard to say that this is one of your more moronic eruptions you've had so many" Then he tries to say the back half of his half assed post wasn't directed at me?
C'mon TD if you're goning to pull out the grade school insults to try to win debates at least man up and stand behind what you said.

[Truth Detector]

This is a post where "Truth detector " wondered why I assumed he was talking about me. Looks pretty well directed at me when it starts out "It's hard to say that this is one of your more moronic eruptions you've had so many" Then he tries to say the back half of his half assed post wasn't directed at me?
C'mon TD if you're goning to pull out the grade school insults to try to win debates at least man up and stand behind what you said.

Perhaps if you read S L O W E R you can comprehend what is being typed....here, let's try again.....

But this one ranks right up there with chem trails and free drugs

Means the "statement" you made ranks right up there with "OTHER" dumb statements like "chem trails and free drugs". It doesn't infer YOU made them.

Damn you're one thick headed low info citizen. :biglaugh:

[MisterVeritis]

I see that you are lost....let me assist you:

Title of the thread: Prosposed Constitutional Amendment

Your link: shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states

You on drugs today??? :biglaugh:
I take it you do not understand the difference between a constitutional convention and a convention of states to propose amendments. This is a serious flaw in your understanding. I suggest you fix it. I hate it when you look, well uninformed and a bit stupid.

Here is the short version.

A constitutional convention is called to write a constitution. There is no provision in our constitution to call a constitutional convention.

A convention of states to propose amendments is a Constitutional provision for the states to propose amendments to the existing constitution. It was designed for exactly the situation we find ourselves in today where the Federal government is the source of tyranny and the greatest threat we face.

[Peter1469]

I take it you do not understand the difference between a constitutional convention and a convention of states to propose amendments. This is a serious flaw in your understanding. I suggest you fix it. I hate it when you look, well uninformed and a bit stupid.

Here is the short version.

A constitutional convention is called to write a constitution. There is no provision in our constitution to call a constitutional convention.

A convention of states to propose amendments is a Constitutional provision for the states to propose amendments to the existing constitution. It was designed for exactly the situation we find ourselves in today where the Federal government is the source of tyranny and the greatest threat we face.


The Convention called by the States most certainly can toss the entire Constitution out and start over should it choose.

[MisterVeritis]

The Convention called by the States most certainly can toss the entire Constitution out and start over should it choose.
Not Constitutionally.

[Peter1469]

Not Constitutionally.

100% incorrect.

The States can call a convention and do what they want. Congress has zero say in the matter. It is up to the people to vote on their work.

[donttread]

Perhaps if you read S L O W E R you can comprehend what is being typed....here, let's try again.....

But this one ranks right up there with chem trails and free drugs

Means the "statement" you made ranks right up there with "OTHER" dumb statements like "chem trails and free drugs". It doesn't infer YOU made them.

Damn you're one thick headed low info citizen. :biglaugh:

Bullshit.

[MisterVeritis]

100% incorrect.

The States can call a convention and do what they want. Congress has zero say in the matter. It is up to the people to vote on their work.
We can agree to disagree. The Constitution provided no provisions for a Constitutional Convention. Therefore, a complete rewrite of the Constitution under Article V would be unconstitutional. We might just as well overthrow the government and start fresh.

It is true that the Congress has no control. That is the whole point. But the states do.

[Standing Wolf]

Congressional appointment by lottery?

Has anyone stopped to think about who tends to win all the big lotteries? How many retired 68-year-old retired pipefitters and small town school teachers can Congress use?

[Mac-7]

I think we would truly be better off to choose congress by lottery. It may be the only way to assure that someone other than power mongering control freaks gets involved in politics.
What say yea ?

As a complaint against congress I get the point.

but as an actual change to the Constitution it would be a very bad idea.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Yes we are a Republic and have a Constitution that is supposed to protect the individual from the fickle will of the masses Saying so doesn't make it so, no matter how many times they bombard us with anti-democratic propaganda. In a republic, we have no power except lesser-evilism. We don't have to let the Establishment define what kind of rule we live under. If we can't dispose of their snobbish objection by answering that the ruling aristocracy and its flunkies have a fickle will and have forfeited their privileges, then we will have to depose those conceited mediocrities by different means.

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Convention called by the States most certainly can toss the entire Constitution out and start over should it choose. It begs the question by assuming that we need any Constitution at all. Despite deafening brainwashing by self-appointed authorities giving it a divine aura, the Constitution is an unnecessary obstruction and tyrannical overlord on any laws we should be allowed to decide on ourselves. It is a suffocating superstition that belongs in slavish eras. The fact that instead of asking only whether a legislative proposal is good for the country, we are forced to first ask whether it is Constitutional, shows that the Constitution is not good for the country.

[Truth Detector]

I take it you do not understand the difference between a constitutional convention and a convention of states to propose amendments. This is a serious flaw in your understanding. I suggest you fix it. I hate it when you look, well uninformed and a bit stupid.

Here is the short version.

A constitutional convention is called to write a constitution. There is no provision in our constitution to call a constitutional convention.

A convention of states to propose amendments is a Constitutional provision for the states to propose amendments to the existing constitution. It was designed for exactly the situation we find ourselves in today where the Federal government is the source of tyranny and the greatest threat we face.

:biglaugh:

[Truth Detector]

It begs the question by assuming that we need any Constitution at all. Despite deafening brainwashing by self-appointed authorities giving it a divine aura, the Constitution is an unnecessary obstruction and tyrannical overlord on any laws we should be allowed to decide on ourselves. It is a suffocating superstition that belongs in slavish eras. The fact that instead of asking only whether a legislative proposal is good for the country, we are forced to first ask whether it is Constitutional, shows that the Constitution is not good for the country.

You really are one big nut case; seriously. DERP

I cannot imagine a more asinine argument than one that suggests that people can live together without the rule of law or processes to govern. Funny sh!t; but stupid.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Congressional appointment by lottery?

Has anyone stopped to think about who tends to win all the big lotteries? How many retired 68-year-old retired pipefitters and small town school teachers can Congress use? And drugdealers, Skid Row winos, burglars, and lawyers--oh wait, Congress is already practically all lawyers! At least a lottery is not guaranteed to pick the lowest of the low and would only give us a few lawyers.

[decedent]

A lottery would ruin the old boys club and create a system that represents the people. This is intolerable.