Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Amendment XXIII of the US Constitution

augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 7:45:33 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Amendment XXVIII

Section 1

Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of the Executive Departments and submitted to the Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the United States, the justice of which shall have been judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish.

All Bills appropriating money from the Treasury shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purpose for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.

Every Bill appropriating money shall deal only with such appropriation, and other matters unrelated thereto shall have no effect.

Where Congress amends any Bill (but subject to this Constitution) that increases the dollar item of an existing appropriation or that introduces new appropriations, the Houses shall likewise include recommendations for the raising of additional revenue in order to cover the cost of such increases. For this purpose a loan shall not count as an adequate source of revenue.

Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect. Laws imposing taxation, except laws imposing duties of customs or of excise, shall deal with one subject of taxation only; but laws imposing duties of customs shall deal with duties of customs only, and laws imposing duties of excise shall deal with duties of excise only.

Congress may not amend any Bill so as to impose or increase any financial charge or burden on the people.

Section 2

Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject and that shall be expressed in the title. If a law embraces a subject not expressed in its title, only the part not expressed is void. A law may not be amended by reference to its title. A section of a law may not be amended unless the section is re-enacted as amended.

All Bills appropriating money, or imposing, altering or repealing any tax, levy or impost, shall not originate in the Senate, but the Senate shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to amend or concur with the Bill as on other Bills.

Section 3

If one House of Congress passes a Bill, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the other House will not agree, and if after an interval of six months, the first-mentioned House, in the same or next session, again passes the Bill with or without amendments which shall have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the second-mentioned House, and the latter House rejects fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, the Houses shall convene a joint-sitting of both Houses of Congress, and if a majority of the whole number of all senators and representatives, jointly, agree to pass the Bill, with or without amendments as agreed to by the joint-sitting, the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses of Congress and shall be presented to the President in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.

Any Bill that shall have had a second reading in both Houses of Congress may be deemed urgent at the request of not less than one-fifth of the whole number of senators and representatives, jointly; in such cases the Houses shall suspend deliberation on all other business until such time as a vote on the designated Bill shall have been concluded; provided, that such urgent deliberation is requested on only one Bill at a time, and only once per session of Congress. But nothing in this section shall apply to any Bill which is required by this Constitution to be examined by a specific date or period of time.

Section 4

The President my approve any appropriation and disapprove or reduce any other appropriation in the same Bill. In such case he shall, in signing the Bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the Bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President. The disapproval of an appropriation shall also extend to the reversion of a dollar amount of an appropriation to its original figure.

Section 5

The Bill appropriating money for the purpose of supplying the Government with the funds to carry on the Government of the United States shall deal only with such appropriation, but may contain more than one item of appropriation, and that for one certain, expressed purpose.

The President shall present the Congress with the said Bill within the first thirty days of the first session of Congress each calendar year. As on other appropriation Bills the Congress shall not amend said appropriations, except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas or nays; and where the President or Congress includes additional appropriations the appropriations shall relate to only those items concerning the foregoing, and the Houses likewise may not alter the revised estimates but they shall have power to concur or reject any or all of them.

Congress shall pass the Bill for foregoing appropriations Bill by the fifteenth-day of June each year. If, by midnight on the fifteenth-day of June the Congress shall have failed to pass the said Bill, there shall be no appropriation from the current or future appropriations for the emoluments, benefits or allowances for senators and representatives, from midnight at the said day and time until the Bill is presented to the President. No emolument or reimbursement for benefits or allowances forfeited pursuant to this clause shall be paid retroactively. And if, by the final day of June the Houses have not passed the aforementioned Bill the President shall instruct the Treasury to continue disbursing funds to carry on the Executive Government in accordance with the appropriations of the preceding Bill, until such time as the new Bill shall have passed both Houses of Congress, and become a law upon the President's signature.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 4:58:26 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
I want all viewers to read this amendment and think about how this amendment would change the political landscape in the United States.

Ultimately, the purpose of the Constitution is to develop the basic institutions of the nation, but it also has a second function: to control and regulate the behaviour of political actors or those involved in the political institutions of the nation.

We talk about the economy, terrorism, etc. but is serious reform on any issue really possible when the structure of the political system makes such reform almost impossible? It's like telling the people that you will fix a car by painting red, instead of changing the engine and its other components. You're only going to rhetoric and superficial change if you don't go to the heart of the issue.

People should be getting angry about this. This should be the number one issue in American politics today. Bernie Sanders should be advocating for significant constitutional and political reform, but he isn't and neither is any other candidate. Is it because no one in America knows what the issue is? Am I the only person who recognizes this issue? Are we all so ignorant as to not see what is before us?
Toad-Uoff
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 10:34:14 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/11/2015 4:58:26 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
I want all viewers to read this amendment and think about how this amendment would change the political landscape in the United States.

Ultimately, the purpose of the Constitution is to develop the basic institutions of the nation, but it also has a second function: to control and regulate the behaviour of political actors or those involved in the political institutions of the nation.

We talk about the economy, terrorism, etc. but is serious reform on any issue really possible when the structure of the political system makes such reform almost impossible? It's like telling the people that you will fix a car by painting red, instead of changing the engine and its other components. You're only going to rhetoric and superficial change if you don't go to the heart of the issue.

People should be getting angry about this. This should be the number one issue in American politics today. Bernie Sanders should be advocating for significant constitutional and political reform, but he isn't and neither is any other candidate. Is it because no one in America knows what the issue is? Am I the only person who recognizes this issue? Are we all so ignorant as to not see what is before us?

The primary problem is the U.S. Supreme Court has established that our governments are a "body politic" instead of a "body corporate" and by improperly labeling our governments, the Lawyers have installed an unconstitutional government on top of us, full of politics, which politics inherently and patently violate Article 4 but the Lawyers have also declared that Article 4 shall be political FOREVER so the Lawyers on the bench won't apply Article 4 to the grand scheme of all of this, so we are doomed to live under the opinion of the Lawyer until the world wakes-up and realizes what the Lawyer has been doing to them.

"A patriot to the politics of government is a traitor to the People of the World." - Old Toad Proverb

http://tinypic.com...

Ribbit :)
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 11:25:23 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
If I read this correctly, this is just the United States legislature setting the budget through a series of individual votes with a higher demanded line of passage, rather than one larger modified budget plan approved by a simple majority vote. Besides that, it gives the president unchecked veto powers when it comes to the "appropriation of money"
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 11:27:19 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Truthfully I see this creating more problems than it solves. I think I understand the problem *you* might think it solves, but perhaps it is better to just come out and say it, so one could fully analyze the merits of this proposal, which you could find plenty to criticize on from my perspective.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 11:42:05 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
You could do way more by simply repealing the Commerce clause, and then adding an amendment banning state tariffs and commerce licenses. There would be zero reason to buy politicians then.
Toad-Uoff
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2015 7:44:55 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/11/2015 11:42:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You could do way more by simply repealing the Commerce clause, and then adding an amendment banning state tariffs and commerce licenses. There would be zero reason to buy politicians then.

That isn't a bad idea!

Strip Congress and the State Legislatures of their Interstate and Intrastate Commerce Powers, which then strips them of their power to CONTROL the pHuck out of everything, especially the People. Then co-ops will take over, instead of state and/or congressional regulations.

But if you do that, you also have to pass the Reins to the United Nations and the United States would then be subjected to International Trade Laws and all other International Laws but they are simple and fewer, so that works too.

I'm sold! :D

Ribbit :)

Ps: Before we do that, we need to get rid of the Patsy TPTB put in place at the UN. A politically embroiled country, such as South Korea, CANNOT provide the Secretary General. Politically embroiled countries are FULL of politics and the Secretary General cannot be political and it's impossible for anyone from South Korea to not be political, the country is saturated with politics, it oozes out of their pores, especially the press. The country it corrupted by politics, absolute.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2015 12:42:09 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/12/2015 7:44:55 AM, Toad-Uoff wrote:
At 12/11/2015 11:42:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You could do way more by simply repealing the Commerce clause, and then adding an amendment banning state tariffs and commerce licenses. There would be zero reason to buy politicians then.

That isn't a bad idea!

Strip Congress and the State Legislatures of their Interstate and Intrastate Commerce Powers, which then strips them of their power to CONTROL the pHuck out of everything, especially the People. Then co-ops will take over, instead of state and/or congressional regulations.

But if you do that, you also have to pass the Reins to the United Nations and the United States would then be subjected to International Trade Laws and all other International Laws but they are simple and fewer, so that works too.

I'm sold! :D

Ribbit :)

Ps: Before we do that, we need to get rid of the Patsy TPTB put in place at the UN. A politically embroiled country, such as South Korea, CANNOT provide the Secretary General. Politically embroiled countries are FULL of politics and the Secretary General cannot be political and it's impossible for anyone from South Korea to not be political, the country is saturated with politics, it oozes out of their pores, especially the press. The country it corrupted by politics, absolute.

We don't need UN brokered trade agreements. We can be very prosperous taking the China attitude. "If you want to buy our crappy shiyt, then simply buy it. No restrictions"
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2015 4:28:04 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/12/2015 7:55:36 AM, SM2 wrote:
Isn't there already a 23rd amendment?

https://en.wikipedia.org...

In the topic title he forgot the V, but he used it in the OP to signify it as the 28th amendment.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2015 9:34:38 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/12/2015 4:28:04 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 12/12/2015 7:55:36 AM, SM2 wrote:
Isn't there already a 23rd amendment?

https://en.wikipedia.org...

In the topic title he forgot the V, but he used it in the OP to signify it as the 28th amendment.

Ah. Yeah, I didn't read the OP coz it was long and boring.
Toad-Uoff
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 6:26:11 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/12/2015 12:42:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/12/2015 7:44:55 AM, Toad-Uoff wrote:
At 12/11/2015 11:42:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You could do way more by simply repealing the Commerce clause, and then adding an amendment banning state tariffs and commerce licenses. There would be zero reason to buy politicians then.

That isn't a bad idea!

Strip Congress and the State Legislatures of their Interstate and Intrastate Commerce Powers, which then strips them of their power to CONTROL the pHuck out of everything, especially the People. Then co-ops will take over, instead of state and/or congressional regulations.

But if you do that, you also have to pass the Reins to the United Nations and the United States would then be subjected to International Trade Laws and all other International Laws but they are simple and fewer, so that works too.

I'm sold! :D

Ribbit :)

Ps: Before we do that, we need to get rid of the Patsy TPTB put in place at the UN. A politically embroiled country, such as South Korea, CANNOT provide the Secretary General. Politically embroiled countries are FULL of politics and the Secretary General cannot be political and it's impossible for anyone from South Korea to not be political, the country is saturated with politics, it oozes out of their pores, especially the press. The country it corrupted by politics, absolute.

We don't need UN brokered trade agreements. We can be very prosperous taking the China attitude. "If you want to buy our crappy shiyt, then simply buy it. No restrictions"

You don't understand, the UN doesn't do that, they just set the rules in place and that's it.

"Order, via Control, breeds Chaos but Control. via Order, isn't Control." - Open System Law of Order

I see you didn't catch me explaining how WE create WORLDWIDE FREE TRADE. ;)

"Zer0 Control = Zer0 Chaos = Perfect Order" - Open System Law of Perfect Order

Ribbit :)
smelisox
Posts: 850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 7:38:09 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/11/2015 4:58:26 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
I want all viewers to read this amendment and think about how this amendment would change the political landscape in the United States.

Ultimately, the purpose of the Constitution is to develop the basic institutions of the nation, but it also has a second function: to control and regulate the behaviour of political actors or those involved in the political institutions of the nation.

We talk about the economy, terrorism, etc. but is serious reform on any issue really possible when the structure of the political system makes such reform almost impossible? It's like telling the people that you will fix a car by painting red, instead of changing the engine and its other components. You're only going to rhetoric and superficial change if you don't go to the heart of the issue.

People should be getting angry about this. This should be the number one issue in American politics today. Bernie Sanders should be advocating for significant constitutional and political reform, but he isn't and neither is any other candidate. Is it because no one in America knows what the issue is? Am I the only person who recognizes this issue? Are we all so ignorant as to not see what is before us?

You do realise no one gives a flying f-ck about the amendments?
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 10:29:07 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/11/2015 11:42:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You could do way more by simply repealing the Commerce clause, and then adding an amendment banning state tariffs and commerce licenses. There would be zero reason to buy politicians then.

Hello,

The Commerce Clause is important for the Federal Government, because it allows the Government to regulate banks, financial corporations and the financial system. If you didn't assign this power to the Federal Government, you'd have a situation in which the banks and financial corporations would pit the States against each other for the least regulation, and it would create the phenomenon of 'race to the bottom.' Because the US Constitution was developed early on, it didn't take into consideration a global banking system: if you look the Canadian Constitution, it assigns the regulation of banks and financial institutions to the Federal Government.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 10:35:45 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/11/2015 11:25:23 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
If I read this correctly, this is just the United States legislature setting the budget through a series of individual votes with a higher demanded line of passage, rather than one larger modified budget plan approved by a simple majority vote. Besides that, it gives the president unchecked veto powers when it comes to the "appropriation of money"

I understand you're concern about the two-thirds appropriation requirement. This clause is actually an innovation from the Constitution of the Confederate States of America during its short existence. Whilst I certainly don't advocate the Confederacy as a beacon of governance due to its preservation of the institution of slavery, there are many additional clauses in the Constitution, which demonstrate shortcomings observed in the US Constitution during the first eighty or so years since its inception.

The additional clauses serve as a 'check' on the Legislature in regards to finances and budgetary requirements, because there weren't ENOUGH checks on the Legislature to begin with; and hence why these additional clauses were added. The President should be the branch of Government that is in charge of the budget and the appropriation of money, not Congress. Other systems of Government assign the responsibility of budgeting and finance to the Executive Branch, not the Legislative. In fact, the US Congress is unprecedented in its power over budgetary matters. Hence, the innovations assigned by the CSA Constitution, and in the suggested XVIII Amendment.

I strongly encourage you to read up on the CSA Constitution to confirm what I have written, and ask yourself why they implemented these clauses. They understood that Congress had too much power over the budget.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 10:40:43 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/11/2015 11:27:19 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
Truthfully I see this creating more problems than it solves. I think I understand the problem *you* might think it solves, but perhaps it is better to just come out and say it, so one could fully analyze the merits of this proposal, which you could find plenty to criticize on from my perspective.
--
If you think this creates more problems than it solves, I invite you to explain why. As mentioned in a previous response, many of these clauses are taken from the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, which serves as an example of the shortcomings of the original US Constitution. Some clauses are contained in other nations' Constitutions, which begs the question: why did they include these clauses in their Constitution?

You don't think that these problems would solve anything, because you don't believe that there's anything wrong with the current system. Because you are in it, you don't see the defects. I want you to carefully think about how each clause would impact on the political process and policy-making. If the CSA Government realised these problems less than 100 years since the founding of the US, surely we can use this one example to understand the defects of the Constitution. We know that the document is not perfect: it was a new system that didn't take into consideration certain changes in society and in the economic system that would come later on.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 10:43:40 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/12/2015 9:34:38 PM, SM2 wrote:
At 12/12/2015 4:28:04 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 12/12/2015 7:55:36 AM, SM2 wrote:
Isn't there already a 23rd amendment?

https://en.wikipedia.org...

In the topic title he forgot the V, but he used it in the OP to signify it as the 28th amendment.

Ah. Yeah, I didn't read the OP coz it was long and boring.

Clearly, if you had read the first word of the OP you would've realized the V in XVIII. The fact you didn't either indicates a shortcoming in your capacity to read and think, or an inability to exercise a brainwave to analyze and think about the issues in your country.

You may not care about your nation and its people, or how it does business in Washington; but some people do, so perhaps you should think about how your apathy and inability to think disqualifies you from making a reasoned opinion about this 28TH Amendment.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 10:45:35 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 7:38:09 AM, smelisox wrote:
At 12/11/2015 4:58:26 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
I want all viewers to read this amendment and think about how this amendment would change the political landscape in the United States.

Ultimately, the purpose of the Constitution is to develop the basic institutions of the nation, but it also has a second function: to control and regulate the behaviour of political actors or those involved in the political institutions of the nation.

We talk about the economy, terrorism, etc. but is serious reform on any issue really possible when the structure of the political system makes such reform almost impossible? It's like telling the people that you will fix a car by painting red, instead of changing the engine and its other components. You're only going to rhetoric and superficial change if you don't go to the heart of the issue.

People should be getting angry about this. This should be the number one issue in American politics today. Bernie Sanders should be advocating for significant constitutional and political reform, but he isn't and neither is any other candidate. Is it because no one in America knows what the issue is? Am I the only person who recognizes this issue? Are we all so ignorant as to not see what is before us?

You do realise no one gives a flying f-ck about the amendments?
--
You don't care because you are a simpleton who is incapable of analysis and thought. You don't realize the shortcomings of your political system. You think everything is all right; you don't look at the big picture; you're only concerned about yourself and your insignificant world.

I feel sorry you for you that you are incapable of changing your beliefs and views about the world.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 11:25:32 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 10:43:40 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/12/2015 9:34:38 PM, SM2 wrote:
At 12/12/2015 4:28:04 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 12/12/2015 7:55:36 AM, SM2 wrote:
Isn't there already a 23rd amendment?

https://en.wikipedia.org...

In the topic title he forgot the V, but he used it in the OP to signify it as the 28th amendment.

Ah. Yeah, I didn't read the OP coz it was long and boring.

Clearly, if you had read the first word of the OP you would've realized the V in XVIII. The fact you didn't either indicates a shortcoming in your capacity to read and think, or an inability to exercise a brainwave to analyze and think about the issues in your country.

You may not care about your nation and its people, or how it does business in Washington; but some people do, so perhaps you should think about how your apathy and inability to think disqualifies you from making a reasoned opinion about this 28TH Amendment.

I'm not American, so I actually don't have to care. The US is not so important that the world can't survive without it.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 1:54:29 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 10:29:07 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/11/2015 11:42:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You could do way more by simply repealing the Commerce clause, and then adding an amendment banning state tariffs and commerce licenses. There would be zero reason to buy politicians then.

Hello,

The Commerce Clause is important for the Federal Government, because it allows the Government to regulate banks, financial corporations and the financial system. If you didn't assign this power to the Federal Government, you'd have a situation in which the banks and financial corporations would pit the States against each other for the least regulation, and it would create the phenomenon of 'race to the bottom.' Because the US Constitution was developed early on, it didn't take into consideration a global banking system: if you look the Canadian Constitution, it assigns the regulation of banks and financial institutions to the Federal Government.

But then we wouldn't have banks too big to fail. Oh my.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 1:57:55 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 10:29:07 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/11/2015 11:42:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You could do way more by simply repealing the Commerce clause, and then adding an amendment banning state tariffs and commerce licenses. There would be zero reason to buy politicians then.

Hello,

The Commerce Clause is important for the Federal Government, because it allows the Government to regulate banks, financial corporations and the financial system. If you didn't assign this power to the Federal Government, you'd have a situation in which the banks and financial corporations would pit the States against each other for the least regulation, and it would create the phenomenon of 'race to the bottom.' Because the US Constitution was developed early on, it didn't take into consideration a global banking system: if you look the Canadian Constitution, it assigns the regulation of banks and financial institutions to the Federal Government.

Also, banks racing to the top truly means people end up with the shaft to the tune of trillions of dollars as the commerce clause is invoked to save "some" banks (not all).
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 2:04:59 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 10:29:07 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/11/2015 11:42:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You could do way more by simply repealing the Commerce clause, and then adding an amendment banning state tariffs and commerce licenses. There would be zero reason to buy politicians then.

Hello,

The Commerce Clause is important for the Federal Government, because it allows the Government to regulate banks, financial corporations and the financial system. If you didn't assign this power to the Federal Government, you'd have a situation in which the banks and financial corporations would pit the States against each other for the least regulation, and it would create the phenomenon of 'race to the bottom.' Because the US Constitution was developed early on, it didn't take into consideration a global banking system: if you look the Canadian Constitution, it assigns the regulation of banks and financial institutions to the Federal Government.

Also, the banning of state commercial licensing would mean free competition among banks, which would mean there would be no race between banks to go to a "favorable State," as the rules would be mostly equal (the ones they would be willing to pay for). No handouts, and no subsidies, and no fixed markets to purchase from politicians. If they want to do a tax reduction incentive, fine, at least the public will be alot more likely to know what's going on. This crony shift of the wealth from the least educated to the top 1% has a tipping point.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 2:13:40 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 10:40:43 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
You don't think that these problems would solve anything, because you don't believe that there's anything wrong with the current system.
That couldn't be farther from the truth.

If the CSA Government realised these problems less than 100 years since the founding of the US, surely we can use this one example to understand the defects of the Constitution. We know that the document is not perfect: it was a new system that didn't take into consideration certain changes in society and in the economic system that would come later on.

I think I understand the problems, but I want you to tell me the problems as well. I also found problems of my own, which may or may not be problems the CSA was attempting to solve, but due to my opinions on political theory, I believe them to be misguided.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 4:59:09 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 11:25:32 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:43:40 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/12/2015 9:34:38 PM, SM2 wrote:
At 12/12/2015 4:28:04 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 12/12/2015 7:55:36 AM, SM2 wrote:
Isn't there already a 23rd amendment?

https://en.wikipedia.org...

In the topic title he forgot the V, but he used it in the OP to signify it as the 28th amendment.

Ah. Yeah, I didn't read the OP coz it was long and boring.

Clearly, if you had read the first word of the OP you would've realized the V in XVIII. The fact you didn't either indicates a shortcoming in your capacity to read and think, or an inability to exercise a brainwave to analyze and think about the issues in your country.

You may not care about your nation and its people, or how it does business in Washington; but some people do, so perhaps you should think about how your apathy and inability to think disqualifies you from making a reasoned opinion about this 28TH Amendment.

I'm not American, so I actually don't have to care. The US is not so important that the world can't survive without it.
--
I'm neither American as well, but what you don't realize is that if you change America you actually change the world.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 5:00:41 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 1:54:29 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:29:07 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/11/2015 11:42:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You could do way more by simply repealing the Commerce clause, and then adding an amendment banning state tariffs and commerce licenses. There would be zero reason to buy politicians then.

Hello,

The Commerce Clause is important for the Federal Government, because it allows the Government to regulate banks, financial corporations and the financial system. If you didn't assign this power to the Federal Government, you'd have a situation in which the banks and financial corporations would pit the States against each other for the least regulation, and it would create the phenomenon of 'race to the bottom.' Because the US Constitution was developed early on, it didn't take into consideration a global banking system: if you look the Canadian Constitution, it assigns the regulation of banks and financial institutions to the Federal Government.

But then we wouldn't have banks too big to fail. Oh my.
--
Banks will always be too big to fail, regardless; if the Federal Government doesn't regulate the financial sector, it opens up society to exploitation. The problem with banks in the US is that Washington wasn't regulating them enough.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 5:04:56 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 2:13:40 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:40:43 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
You don't think that these problems would solve anything, because you don't believe that there's anything wrong with the current system.
That couldn't be farther from the truth.

If the CSA Government realised these problems less than 100 years since the founding of the US, surely we can use this one example to understand the defects of the Constitution. We know that the document is not perfect: it was a new system that didn't take into consideration certain changes in society and in the economic system that would come later on.

I think I understand the problems, but I want you to tell me the problems as well. I also found problems of my own, which may or may not be problems the CSA was attempting to solve, but due to my opinions on political theory, I believe them to be misguided.
--
Let me guess: the kind of problems you think there are is that the Federal Government is too big? Or that the Government is involved in so many aspects of our life? But this isn't the issue. What I'm referring to is HOW politicians do business in Washington - it's about regulating behaviour, and ensuring that public policy is considered and is responsive to the needs of society. As far as I am concerned the two-thirds appropriation requirement is a game-changer: it doesn't put budgeting in the hands of powerful chairmen or individual members of Congress, it puts it squarely on the President, who is, by the way, accountable to the people.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 5:06:37 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 1:57:55 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:29:07 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/11/2015 11:42:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You could do way more by simply repealing the Commerce clause, and then adding an amendment banning state tariffs and commerce licenses. There would be zero reason to buy politicians then.

Hello,

The Commerce Clause is important for the Federal Government, because it allows the Government to regulate banks, financial corporations and the financial system. If you didn't assign this power to the Federal Government, you'd have a situation in which the banks and financial corporations would pit the States against each other for the least regulation, and it would create the phenomenon of 'race to the bottom.' Because the US Constitution was developed early on, it didn't take into consideration a global banking system: if you look the Canadian Constitution, it assigns the regulation of banks and financial institutions to the Federal Government.

Also, banks racing to the top truly means people end up with the shaft to the tune of trillions of dollars as the commerce clause is invoked to save "some" banks (not all).
--
The fact it wouldn't matter, anyway; the US would've bailed them out, even if the States regulated the banks. This is because Washington collects the majority of the tax revenue, and the States wouldn't have been able to bail them out, so the Feds would've got involved anyway.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 10:04:07 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 5:06:37 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:

Also, banks racing to the top truly means people end up with the shaft to the tune of trillions of dollars as the commerce clause is invoked to save "some" banks (not all).
--
The fact it wouldn't matter, anyway; the US would've bailed them out, even if the States regulated the banks. This is because Washington collects the majority of the tax revenue, and the States wouldn't have been able to bail them out, so the Feds would've got involved anyway.

That's the problem. When a car hits you, does the government compensate? How about when a doctor saws off the wrong limb, does the government compensate?

There are alternatives.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 10:27:11 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 5:04:56 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 12/13/2015 2:13:40 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:40:43 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
You don't think that these problems would solve anything, because you don't believe that there's anything wrong with the current system.
That couldn't be farther from the truth.

If the CSA Government realised these problems less than 100 years since the founding of the US, surely we can use this one example to understand the defects of the Constitution. We know that the document is not perfect: it was a new system that didn't take into consideration certain changes in society and in the economic system that would come later on.

I think I understand the problems, but I want you to tell me the problems as well. I also found problems of my own, which may or may not be problems the CSA was attempting to solve, but due to my opinions on political theory, I believe them to be misguided.
--
Let me guess: the kind of problems you think there are is that the Federal Government is too big? Or that the Government is involved in so many aspects of our life? But this isn't the issue. What I'm referring to is HOW politicians do business in Washington - it's about regulating behaviour, and ensuring that public policy is considered and is responsive to the needs of society. As far as I am concerned the two-thirds appropriation requirement is a game-changer: it doesn't put budgeting in the hands of powerful chairmen or individual members of Congress, it puts it squarely on the President, who is, by the way, accountable to the people.

You will never regulate the behavior of powerful criminals, no matter how well intentioned your plans are. The best you can do is to remove the incentives that create powerful criminals.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 12:00:54 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Obviously you can see how the war on Drug Lords is working out so well...if only there was more oversight and accountability of those pesky drug lords.....