TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › America's constitution
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

America's constitution

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 
http://www.economist.com/books/displ...ry_id=10097645

After reading the article I realized that a lot of what the author is saying is a good idea. 2 years of mandatory service for every single young person in America, removing old laws like the right to not have soldiers quartered in homes, and putting an age limit on the Supreme Court.

Do you think we should have a second constitutional convention?
post #2 of 19
"If it ain't broke, why fix it?", indeed.
Quote:
Mr Sabato wants to restore some fairness by giving extra senators to big states. Mr Sabato wants to ban gerrymandering (except racial gerrymandering), to establish term limits and to more than double the size of the House so that each member will know a smaller area better.
Just what we need - more politicians!
post #3 of 19
Nope! It doesn't need rewording or updating! Our forefathers were much wiser than we were. They fought too hard and too long for it to EVER be changed!
post #4 of 19
Nope, no changes. And I, for darn sure, don't think there should be an age limit on a Supreme Court Justice. How disrespectful is THAT.
post #5 of 19
How about we start enforcing the one we already have instead?
post #6 of 19
Ummm NO!!!! Not needed at all.
post #7 of 19
No we don't. The mechanism for ammending the Constitution has worked very well and is satisfactory for anything that might come up in the way of changes needed.
post #8 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
How about we start enforcing the one we already have instead?
That's EXACTLY what we need!
post #9 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass View Post
http://www.economist.com/books/displ...ry_id=10097645

removing old laws like the right to not have soldiers quartered in homes,

Do you think we should have a second constitutional convention?
as the robot in lost in space used to say, danger will robinson danger.
there are already enough laws that lets a city or state take your house, without your permission, dont need more.


second constitutional convention? the congress we have cant even submitt a budget, i really dont think the people we have now are as smart as the fonders where( or at least they dont have the common sense.)
post #10 of 19
I would really like to abolish the Electoral College and replace it with a more representative way of electing the president and vice-president.

Still and all, I agree, that letting the politicians we have now have a free day with the constitution sounds like we're crazier than they are.
post #11 of 19
Changing the constitution should remain a long and laborious task. Our state constitution can be changed on a whim and we have all sorts of things that really weren't thought through.
post #12 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by katie=^..^= View Post
I would really like to abolish the Electoral College and replace it with a more representative way of electing the president and vice-president..
Oooooooo----there are all kinds of dangers that would invite----too many to have time to research right now, but check it out. I think the main problem is that the less populated states would end up with NO representation because the highly populated areas would have enough votes to decide the election. In other words, direct elections would actually be a LESS representative way of electing. The founders were very smart in instituting the electoral college. Yet, it could probably be updated. For example, instead of winner-takes-all for each state, the electoral votes might be apportioned in some manner representative of the voting in that state: split proportionally according to the vote totals, or maybe split according to who takes each congressional district. I think a couple states have already instituted split electoral votes.

But direct voting --- no, not a good idea. Thomas Jefferson said: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. " And I think he was a pretty smart cookie.
post #13 of 19
abolish the Electoral College ? then how would suggest that people in smaller states still be important to the process
post #14 of 19
As much the Electoral College is confusing and seems pointless, it's not and it works. I don't think they are going to get rid of it.
post #15 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster
I think the main problem is that the less populated states would end up with NO representation because the highly populated areas would have enough votes to decide the election. In other words, direct elections would actually be a LESS representative way of electing.
Tim, isn't that the case with the Electoral College anyway? How many candidates actually make campaign appearances in, or promises to, a state like Alaska, with its paltry three electoral votes?
post #16 of 19
But at least they have the three votes. With direct representation, they wouldn't have ANY.
post #17 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
But at least they have the three votes. With direct representation, they wouldn't have ANY.

I don't understand - an Alaskan's vote would count as much (or as little, if he/she chose the losing side) as a Californian's. Under the current system, it doesn't.
post #18 of 19
But not really. The majority of the US population is clustered in large cities, primarily on the two coasts, and that's where the election will be decided. It might even be decided well before the polls close on the west coast. There could be a scenario where those three Alaskan electoral votes could decide the Presidency. But a scenario where the Alaskan popular vote could decide it is virtually nil. Keeping the electoral college is really the best way of the whole country being represented.
post #19 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass View Post
2 years of mandatory service for every single young person in America

Out of curiosity, why the "I'd like that passed" on this? The article's lack of elaboration on this leaves the possibility that there would be no choice there, especially if war was ongoing or being declared when such a thing passed.

In my opinion, it is a beautiful thing to have a choice in whether or not to battle (possibly to the death) for causes you may or may not understand or believe in.

You should be on a battlefield because you choose to be there, not because you are a warm, young body which happend to start life in the US.

In theory, the forced community service may sound awesome, but in execution it'd have some major problems which would be difficult to govern as well.
.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › America's constitution