If I Had My Druthers.

[Guest]

There are basically two camps in America's struggling cultural war. We have those who want to redefine America ( the new normal) vis a vis those who would reaffirm (its tradition)

As a legally appointed designee how would you resolve this struggle? Would you re-shape government, our Charters Of Freedom, government agencies, etc?


Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

First I would see to it that the constitution and all laws of the land to be enforced 100%.
Eliminate the two party system of government; voter registration and voter ID 100% enforced. No non citizens in national elections.
Term limits on ALL elected officials; two term maximum.
No more than 20% (pick a number) of any nationally elected office to be held by lawyers; POTUS shall not be a lawyer. (I have nothing against lawyers. Becuase of how they are trained and how they think limits practicality).
This would be redundant within enforcing all laws of the land but deserves special mention, all USA borders 100% closed and immigration and laws of entry will be fully documented and enforced.
Eliminate the executive oreders capabilities of the POTUS. All actions will be unanimous approval of all branches of the federal government.
Develop a new tax code under which everybody pays their determined rate. There will be no corporations that will be tax exempt and there will be an incentive to repatriate profits from foreign entities.

Just for starters.

Let's try to treat this this three word sentences or some other addative entity where the name of the game is to add to or enter your own list but NOT to take aim and tear down to diss any other's recommendations.

[Guest]

First I would see to it that the constitution and all laws of the land to be enforced 100%.
Eliminate the two party system of government; voter registration and voter ID 100% enforced. No non citizens in national elections.
Term limits on ALL elected officials; two term maximum.
No more than 20% (pick a number) of any nationally elected office to be held by lawyers; POTUS shall not be a lawyer. (I have nothing against lawyers. Becuase of how they are trained and how they think limits practicality).
This would be redundant within enforcing all laws of the land but deserves special mention, all USA borders 100% closed and immigration and laws of entry will be fully documented and enforced.
Eliminate the executive oreders capabilities of the POTUS. All actions will be unanimous approval of all branches of the federal government.
Develop a new tax code under which everybody pays their determined rate. There will be no corporations that will be tax exempt and there will be an incentive to repatriate profits from foreign entities.

Creative to say the least. Not to tear down but just to comment a bit.
What is "determined rate" in the tax part of the plan? Same rate with no deductions for everyone?
All legislation needs unanimous approval of all branches of federal government? Absolutely nothing would EVER get done.
Anyhow, yours was creative and enjoyable to read.

[Guest]

Intended to mean between congress and executive branch.

[Guest]

I am actually surprised (and disappointed) at the lack of response to what I think could be an excellent discussion exercise.

[Guest]

I too would want to see term limits. I expressed previously on this forum that Congressional leaders should have two four year terms the same as then president. I also agree that we have far too many lawyers in Washington and that is in my view the main impetus to the layers and layers of worthless regulations strangling us all. Those lawyers do like their creative writings.

I also agree to the importance of preservation of the writings of our Constitution. I do not believe it is a living document that changes as moods or fads drift through our society.

Big government is paramount in this cultural struggle. I believe we should reduce the federal government and emphasis state rights. I have my choices but 1) would you shrink the federal government? 2) in what manner such as eliminating agencies etc.? 3) what important functions would you preserve at the federal level?

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Congressional Democrats to Introduce Ambitious New Bill to Restore the Voting Rights Act | The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/article/210673/congressional-democrats-introduce-ambitious-new-bill-restore-voting-rights-act#)


I would restore the parts of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court stripped away two years ago. And guess what, two members of congress will introduce an ambitious new bill tomorrow (Wed) to do just that.

If this bill does not become law before the 2016 election, this would be the first election in over 50 years without the protections of the VRA.

[Guest]

What should be done with foreign policy? How would you re-shape it?

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

I would examine and modify the constitution to represent the Best for today and not 200 years ago. Times change. To follow rules made up by a small representation of Americans is just simply not applicable today. The constitution still works well, but only for a decreasing number of our population.

[Guest]

I agree with everything you propose. Regarding term limits, an excellent, way overdo idea, but I don't see that happening, ever. Reducing the size of the Government is also impossible. I don't mean to sound negative but you are talking about ideas that require an informed and involved electorate to enact. We have anything but that and those elected have little interest in these ideas. We will continue to expand our already bloated, inefficient government that is help captive by special interest groups.

I too would want to see term limits. I expressed previously on this forum that Congressional leaders should have two four year terms the same as then president. I also agree that we have far too many lawyers in Washington and that is in my view the main impetus to the layers and layers of worthless regulations strangling us all. Those lawyers do like their creative writings.

I also agree to the importance of preservation of the writings of our Constitution. I do not believe it is a living document that changes as moods or fads drift through our society.

Big government is paramount in this cultural struggle. I believe we should reduce the federal government and emphasis state rights. I have my choices but 1) would you shrink the federal government? 2) in what manner such as eliminating agencies etc.? 3) what important functions would you preserve at the federal level?

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

I would examine and modify the constitution to represent the Best for today and not 200 years ago. Times change. To follow rules made up by a small representation of Americans is just simply not applicable today. The constitution still works well, but only for a decreasing number of our population.

Are you advocating a rolling or fluid constitution?
For some reason throughout history those with the ability to modify the constitution have not done so. There must be a reason for that.
I disagree with the highlighted comments above.

If the immigration rules were strictly enforced we would not be a "decreasing number".
If there were ever enough incentive to get the other 50-60% of Americans that do not vote for whatever reason, I think the outcomes would be very different.

Once the constitution starts being amended as a matter of accomodating "changing times", over time there will eventually be no evidence of the basics of what America was intended to be.

Let the local and state laws accomodate the special interests and minority groups (race as well as numbers).

Who is it that will determine which of the changes due to "changing times" are appropriate for constitutional amendment?

So far....history states no. Open borders and lack of enforcement will facilitate a CHANGED America at some point in the future.

[Guest]

Are you advocating a rolling or fluid constitution?
For some reason throughout history those with the ability to modify the constitution have not done so. There must be a reason for that.
I disagree with the highlighted comments above.

If the immigration rules were strictly enforced we would not be a "decreasing number".
If there were ever enough incentive to get the other 50-60% of Americans that do not vote for whatever reason, I think the outcomes would be very different.

Once the constitution starts being amended as a matter of accomodating "changing times", over time there will eventually be no evidence of the basics of what America was intended to be.

Let the local and state laws accomodate the special interests and minority groups (race as well as numbers).

Who is it that will determine which of the changes due to "changing times" are appropriate for constitutional amendment?

So far....history states no. Open borders and lack of enforcement will facilitate a CHANGED America at some point in the future.

Dear Guest: you are so right and its pretty obvious there is a select group here in the USA that want to change our way of life. They are quite clever at what they do and how they do it. Its called social justice, income equality or redistribution, white guilt, internationalism, stopping pervasive racism. They won their ridiculous attack on the Confederate Flag and I guarantee they will now come after the American Flag

We better hope their are a lot of people like Justice Antonin Scalia that will fight to preserve our Constitution because we have people high in government that would turn hard left to make us a socialistic state

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

I too would want to see term limits. I expressed previously on this forum that Congressional leaders should have two four year terms the same as then president. I also agree that we have far too many lawyers in Washington and that is in my view the main impetus to the layers and layers of worthless regulations strangling us all. Those lawyers do like their creative writings.

I also agree to the importance of preservation of the writings of our Constitution. I do not believe it is a living document that changes as moods or fads drift through our society.

Big government is paramount in this cultural struggle. I believe we should reduce the federal government and emphasis state rights. I have my choices but 1) would you shrink the federal government? 2) in what manner such as eliminating agencies etc.? 3) what important functions would you preserve at the federal level?

Personal Best Regards:







We already have term limits - we call them elections.

Seems the ones always advocating term limits are those whose candidates and ideas constantly get voted down.

[Guest]

We already have term limits - we call them elections.

Seems the ones always advocating term limits are those whose candidates and ideas constantly get voted down.

Totally and completely wrong ! You by choice choose to ignore what term limits actually is.
A good example of the disease of the day. If it does not fit the agenda just re-define it.

I dare you to ask 20 people of your choosing to state what they think term limits means and I bet none will even try to finess "elections".

[Guest]

We already have term limits - we call them elections...

Ridiculous.

[Guest]

I disagree. We are all Americans. From its very beginnings, this country was built on compromise. The present Congress is the major culprit in our current situation. Anything that will make the President and his Administration look bad is fine with them, even if it's to the detriment of those they serve. Unless we re-learn how to rationally discuss issues, solve problems without using political labels, use some objectivity, recognize that ours is not the only valid position, and compromise, we are doomed.

[Guest]

Term limits via the election process will not work when people like the Koch brothers, George Soros, and others pour $$millions into the process, and incumbents have first dibs.

[Guest]

I disagree. We are all Americans. From its very beginnings, this country was built on compromise. The present Congress is the major culprit in our current situation. Anything that will make the President and his Administration look bad is fine with them, even if it's to the detriment of those they serve. Unless we re-learn how to rationally discuss issues, solve problems without using political labels, use some objectivity, recognize that ours is not the only valid position, and compromise, we are doomed.

Dear Guest: I do not want to belabor this so let me succinctly state that Obama is doing quite well on his own to make himself look bad. But I digressed because you digressed. So let's get back to the nature of the thread if you had your druthers.

Not only would I like to see term limits for all politicians I also believe those who seek election should have bona fides to support their position that they are the most suitable. I believe the commander In Chief for instance ought to have served in the military and I believe in returning to conscription (draft)because we all should have skin in the game. I do not believe we are getting the best with a volunteer military and those that do volunteer are so few that their exposure to combat is too long and damaging to them and our defense.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Dear Guest: I do not want to belabor this so let me succinctly state that Obama is doing quite well on his own to make himself look bad. But I digressed because you digressed. So let's get back to the nature of the thread if you had your druthers.

Not only would I like to see term limits for all politicians I also believe those who seek election should have bona fides to support their position that they are the most suitable. I believe the commander In Chief for instance ought to have served in the military and I believe in returning to conscription (draft)because we all should have skin in the game. I do not believe we are getting the best with a volunteer military and those that do volunteer are so few that their exposure to combat is too long and damaging to them and our defense.

Personal Best Regards:


Do you have any idea what it requires to pass a constitutional amendment? That's what would be required to require the commander-in-chief to have military experience.

[Guest]

Totally and completely wrong ! You by choice choose to ignore what term limits actually is.
A good example of the disease of the day. If it does not fit the agenda just re-define it.

I dare you to ask 20 people of your choosing to state what they think term limits means and I bet none will even try to finess "elections".


Ask those same 20 people if Florida has term limits and report back your findings. The answer is yes, members of the Florida legislature do have term limits.

[Guest]

My steps....


Take money out of politics.....Everyone can raise X number of dollars and that's it! No Super Pac's.
Do away with the birthright...if somone is born here to an illegal then they cannot be a citizen.
Register eveyone to vote on their 18th birthday
Institute an election period of X days so that everyone who wants to vote has a chance to vote.
Stop political redistricting...draw them along natural lines not political ones
Raise the minimum wage to a living level.
Flat tax on everyone.


Just a start!

[Guest]

I really wouldnt change to much but with a few exceptions and they are, 2 reps per state thats all we have to many now and all their aids big issue. The federal government would only take care of federal issues stay out of the states problems. The president if you could find one would have had to make payroll at some point in his life meaning he had to meet a budget and not one set up buy him. Campaigning would only be allowed for two months prior to elections for any office held. The constitution would have to be changed just enough to meet these changes. I could come up with more but this might help a little.

[Guest]

Some Supreme Court judges think the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be interpreted as written. Other judges think it is subject to interpretation relevant to the times. According to the strict interpretation of the bible the Earth is between 6000-7000 years old. Or is it 14 billion years old? Which is relevant to today's reality. Does God love us less because we believe one way or the other?
Romans 8:35-8:39