Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Funny Amendments?

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 12:35:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Funny Amendments never to be ratified.

Here are a few.

1876- An attempt to abolish the United States Senate

1876- The forbidding of religious leaders from occupying a governmental office or receiving federal funding.

1878- An Executive Council of Three to replace the office of the President.

1893- Renaming this nation the 'United States of the Earth"

1893- Abolishing the United States Army and Navy

1894- Acknowledging that the Constitution recognize God and Jesus Christ as the supreme authorities in human affairs

1912- Making marriage between races illegal

1914- Finding divorce to be illegal

1916- All acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army

1933- An attempt to limit personal wealth to $1 million

1936- An attempt to allow the American people to vote on whether or not the United States should go to war

1938- The forbidding of drunkenness in the united states and all of it's territories

1947- The income tax maximum for an individual should not exceed 25%

1948- The right of citizens to segregate themselves from others

1971- American citizens should have the alienable right to an environment free of pollution

Which ones do you like?

Did I miss any?

Which is your favorite funny one?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 12:50:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 12:35:39 PM, comoncents wrote:
1893- Abolishing the United States Army and Navy

There is nothing "funny" about that.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 12:51:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 12:50:34 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 7/25/2010 12:35:39 PM, comoncents wrote:
1893- Abolishing the United States Army and Navy

There is nothing "funny" about that.

What would have happened during the world wars.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 12:52:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 12:50:34 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 7/25/2010 12:35:39 PM, comoncents wrote:
1893- Abolishing the United States Army and Navy

There is nothing "funny" about that.

funny-
1.
providing fun; causing amusement or laughter; amusing; comical: a funny remark; a funny person.
2.
attempting to amuse; facetious: Did you really mean that or were you just being funny?
3.
warranting suspicion; deceitful; underhanded: We thought there was something funny about those extra charges.
4.
Informal . insolent; impertinent: Don't get funny with me, young man!
5.
curious; strange; peculiar; odd: Her speech has a funny twang.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 12:52:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 12:50:34 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 7/25/2010 12:35:39 PM, comoncents wrote:
1893- Abolishing the United States Army and Navy

There is nothing "funny" about that.

Except the invasion that follows.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 12:54:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 12:35:39 PM, comoncents wrote:
1876- The forbidding of religious leaders from occupying a governmental office or receiving federal funding.

1947- The income tax maximum for an individual should not exceed 25%

1971- American citizens should have the alienable right to an environment free of pollution


Those are the only 3 I agree with, the second on to an extent, but the other two definitely.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 12:55:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 12:52:19 PM, comoncents wrote:
5.
curious; strange; peculiar; odd: Her speech has a funny twang.


And what is peculiar about abolishing the military?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 12:56:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 12:54:05 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 7/25/2010 12:35:39 PM, comoncents wrote:
1876- The forbidding of religious leaders from occupying a governmental office or receiving federal funding.

1947- The income tax maximum for an individual should not exceed 25%

1971- American citizens should have the alienable right to an environment free of pollution


Those are the only 3 I agree with, the second on to an extent, but the other two definitely.

I like that one also.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 12:56:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 12:55:43 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 7/25/2010 12:52:19 PM, comoncents wrote:
5.
curious; strange; peculiar; odd: Her speech has a funny twang.


And what is peculiar about abolishing the military?
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 1:02:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"1893- Renaming this nation the 'United States of the Earth"" lol I could so see the US trying to do that.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 1:02:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 1:02:08 PM, lovelife wrote:
"1893- Renaming this nation the 'United States of the Earth"" lol I could so see the US trying to do that.

That one is the funniest!
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 1:52:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 12:56:20 PM, mongeese wrote:
Panda, isn't it a tad bit discriminatory to prevent priests from occupying government positions?

Nope. 1st amendment.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 1:54:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 1:02:59 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 7/25/2010 1:02:08 PM, lovelife wrote:
"1893- Renaming this nation the 'United States of the Earth"" lol I could so see the US trying to do that.

That one is the funniest!

Wikipedia says it didn't happen http://en.wikipedia.org...
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 2:01:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 12:35:39 PM, comoncents wrote:
1971- American citizens should have the alienable right to an environment free of pollution

whats the point of having an alienable right to no pollution? how is that different from what we already have? (yeah clean air is nice but we'll only enforce it insofar as the lobbyists don't object too strenuously)

was that a typo or did some idiot actually suggest that?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 2:51:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 12:35:39 PM, comoncents wrote:

Which ones do you like?

Did I miss any?

Which is your favorite funny one?

1878- An Executive Council of Three to replace the office of the President.

'Cause three idiots are better than one?

1893- Renaming this nation the 'United States of the Earth"

Zomg, new world order. The Illuminati must have been behind this one.

1916- All acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army

Yes. This. How come it never passed?

1938- The forbidding of drunkenness in the united states and all of it's territories

Lol, didn't learn from it the first time around?

1947- The income tax maximum for an individual should not exceed 25%

It'd be an improvement over what we currently have, but I'd like to see it limit the income tax a little lower. Like, to 0%.

1948- The right of citizens to segregate themselves from others

If I understand this correctly, it's just protecting the right to free association, no? I'd support it, then.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 3:12:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 1:52:38 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 7/25/2010 12:56:20 PM, mongeese wrote:
Panda, isn't it a tad bit discriminatory to prevent priests from occupying government positions?

Nope. 1st amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Pray tell, how does that translate into priests not being allowed to occupy government positions?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 3:30:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 3:12:37 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/25/2010 1:52:38 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 7/25/2010 12:56:20 PM, mongeese wrote:
Panda, isn't it a tad bit discriminatory to prevent priests from occupying government positions?

Nope. 1st amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Pray tell, how does that translate into priests not being allowed to occupy government positions?

Congress cannot make laws respecting the establishment of a religion. Insofar as that, congress may not interfere with the affairs of a religion. Appointing a priest to a government post is blatantly doing so. It's shifting the job of a religious leader from religion to politics.

Regardless amendments can override earlier other amendments. I would agree with such an amendment due to the fact separation of state and religion needs to be a key concept of any state.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 3:35:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 3:30:44 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 7/25/2010 3:12:37 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/25/2010 1:52:38 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 7/25/2010 12:56:20 PM, mongeese wrote:
Panda, isn't it a tad bit discriminatory to prevent priests from occupying government positions?

Nope. 1st amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Pray tell, how does that translate into priests not being allowed to occupy government positions?

Congress cannot make laws respecting the establishment of a religion. Insofar as that, congress may not interfere with the affairs of a religion.

Does that mean that a religious man may not interfere with the affairs of politics? As long as the priest doesn't impose his religion upon the country, there isn't actually anything wrong.

Appointing a priest to a government post is blatantly doing so.

If and only if the priest then passes laws or commands imposing his religion upon others.

It's shifting the job of a religious leader from religion to politics.

It's not impossible to keep both jobs separate.

Regardless amendments can override earlier other amendments. I would agree with such an amendment due to the fact separation of state and religion needs to be a key concept of any state.

But to go so far as to discriminate against religious people for the fact that they are sp active in religion? That just seems wrong. Is there any reverse side that helps religion in any way, or would this amendment be entirely anti-religion?
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 4:12:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
1876- The forbidding of religious leaders from occupying a governmental office or receiving federal funding

1916- All acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army

1947- The income tax maximum for an individual should not exceed 25%

1948- The right of citizens to segregate themselves from others

I could get behind these ones.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 6:23:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"1916- All acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army"

I fully support this one.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 6:28:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The following are good ideas.

1878- An Executive Council of Three to replace the office of the President.

1893- Renaming this nation the 'United States of the Earth"

1916- All acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army

1947- The income tax maximum for an individual should not exceed 25%

1948- The right of citizens to segregate themselves from others
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 6:30:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 1:54:35 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 7/25/2010 1:02:59 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 7/25/2010 1:02:08 PM, lovelife wrote:
"1893- Renaming this nation the 'United States of the Earth"" lol I could so see the US trying to do that.

That one is the funniest!

Wikipedia says it didn't happen http://en.wikipedia.org...

I disagree. http://en.wikipedia.org...
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
phill3006
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 6:32:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 12:52:49 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 7/25/2010 12:50:34 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 7/25/2010 12:35:39 PM, comoncents wrote:
1893- Abolishing the United States Army and Navy

There is nothing "funny" about that.

Except the invasion that follows.

Like the one in 1812?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 6:35:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 6:34:17 PM, phill3006 wrote:
Why the heck DO we have the senate?

To prevent things from getting done.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 6:55:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 6:28:27 PM, wjmelements wrote:
The following are good ideas.

1893- Renaming this nation the 'United States of the Earth"

Why?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 7:30:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 6:55:27 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/25/2010 6:28:27 PM, wjmelements wrote:
The following are good ideas.

1893- Renaming this nation the 'United States of the Earth"

Why?

Hawaii isn't in America. It's a chain of Pacific Islands.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 7:32:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 7:30:29 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/25/2010 6:55:27 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/25/2010 6:28:27 PM, wjmelements wrote:
The following are good ideas.

1893- Renaming this nation the 'United States of the Earth"

Why?

Hawaii isn't in America. It's a chain of Pacific Islands.

Still Japan is an Island, it isn't in Asia. Its still considered part of Asia. Although I think Hawaii is closer to Japan then California...
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 7:33:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
On a more serious note, it was because the U.S really thinks it can rule the world then sstart whining when ppl fight against it.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave