The GOP is 1 state away from having control of 3/4 of all state legislatures

Here is a map of where things stand courtesy of @marcportermagee

https://twitter.com/marcportermagee/stat...79648?s=09

I really hope this power is not abused. No matter your political leaning jamming something down this countries throat in a partisan manner never turns out well. See Care, Obama

Having said that, if a congressional term limit amendment were to ever pass now is the time

(11-12-2016 08:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  The GOP is 1 state away from having control of 3/4 of all state legislatures

Here is a map of where things stand courtesy of @marcportermagee

https://twitter.com/marcportermagee/stat...79648?s=09

I really hope this power is not abused. No matter your political leaning jamming something down this countries throat in a partisan manner never turns out well. See Care, Obama

Having said that, if a congressional term limit amendment were to ever pass now is the time

You're talking about the possibility of a Convention of States, as outlined in Article V of the Constitution, aren't you? We definitely need it. Hell, if I could volunteer to represent Texas, I would.

I'm not sure there are too many changes to the constitution that I would like to see...

(11-12-2016 09:01 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  I'm not sure there are too many changes to the constitution that I would like to see...

I'd like to see a couple amendments added and a couple repealed.

Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment - Made the federal income tax system legal (and subsequently the Federal Reserve).
Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment - Made the election of United States Senators by popular vote in each respective state legal.
Add a Balanced Budget Amendment
Add a Term Limit for Members of Congress (including the Senate) Amendment

(11-12-2016 09:04 PM)GeminiShamrock Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:01 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  I'm not sure there are too many changes to the constitution that I would like to see...

I'd like to see a couple amendments added and a couple repealed.

Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment
Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment
Add a Balanced Budget Amendment
Add a Term Limit for Members of Congress (including the Senate) Amendment

If the 16th was a part of HR25 being enacted?...Hell yeah.
Im OK with the 17th either way..especially if term limits were enacted.
Ditto on a balanced budget amendment.

Honestly...the repeal of the 16th and a consumption tax/vat replacement would be enough for me. It would spur economic growth..address the trade deficit and give people back the power over how they allow the government to confiscate the fruits of their labors. This..along with a balanced budget amendment would return America to fiscal responsibility and make us have to decide on "national priorities" in regard to spending.

Once a Constitutional Convention is called you are going to lose your Constitution. No matter what you would "like to see"....what you WILL see is a new 4,000 page European Union style Constitution.

You really want to give the current crop of plastic hair, fundraising, spinning, sociopaths a chance to replace the Constitution?

Y'all crazy.

(11-12-2016 09:04 PM)GeminiShamrock Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:01 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  I'm not sure there are too many changes to the constitution that I would like to see...

I'd like to see a couple amendments added and a couple repealed.

Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment - Made the federal income tax system legal (and subsequently the Federal Reserve).
Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment - Made the election of United States Senators by popular vote in each respective state legal.
Add a Balanced Budget Amendment
Add a Term Limit for Members of Congress (including the Senate) Amendment

what possible reason could you have for repealing the 17th?

term limits for the legislative branch is something that sounds good on paper but in practice is quite stupid.

(11-12-2016 09:21 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Once a Constitutional Convention is called you are going to lose your Constitution. No matter what you would "like to see"....what you WILL see is a new 4,000 page European Union style Constitution.

You really want to give the current crop of plastic hair, fundraising, spinning, sociopaths a chance to replace the Constitution?

Y'all crazy.

I cant argue with that.

(11-12-2016 09:21 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Once a Constitutional Convention is called you are going to lose your Constitution. No matter what you would "like to see"....what you WILL see is a new 4,000 page European Union style Constitution.

You really want to give the current crop of plastic hair, fundraising, spinning, sociopaths a chance to replace the Constitution?

Y'all crazy.

exactly. the 17th amendment was the hardest fought amendment to get passed because it affected senators job security and they were reluctant to pass it even though the people overwhelmingly supported it. so the states started enacting constitutional convention votes and when they got close to a convention the senate finally caved rather than risk triggering a constitutional convention.

(11-12-2016 09:21 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Once a Constitutional Convention is called you are going to lose your Constitution. No matter what you would "like to see"....what you WILL see is a new 4,000 page European Union style Constitution.

You really want to give the current crop of plastic hair, fundraising, spinning, sociopaths a chance to replace the Constitution?

Y'all crazy.

Well Fo apparently wants to pay more taxes on top of the ones he already pays in his support of HR25, so the scenario you paint is probably a-ok with him.

(11-12-2016 09:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:21 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Once a Constitutional Convention is called you are going to lose your Constitution. No matter what you would "like to see"....what you WILL see is a new 4,000 page European Union style Constitution.

You really want to give the current crop of plastic hair, fundraising, spinning, sociopaths a chance to replace the Constitution?

Y'all crazy.

exactly. the 17th amendment was the hardest fought amendment to get passed because it affected senators job security and they were reluctant to pass it even though the people overwhelmingly supported it. so the states started enacting constitutional convention votes and when they got close to a convention the senate finally caved rather than risk triggering a constitutional convention.

State governments lost a say in the federal government when they lost control of senator appointment

Now the people vote for politicians who promise them things. The politicians pass them and then pass the cost on to the states. If state governments appointed senators to represent the interest of the state that would not happen

(11-12-2016 09:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:04 PM)GeminiShamrock Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:01 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  I'm not sure there are too many changes to the constitution that I would like to see...

I'd like to see a couple amendments added and a couple repealed.

Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment - Made the federal income tax system legal (and subsequently the Federal Reserve).
Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment - Made the election of United States Senators by popular vote in each respective state legal.
Add a Balanced Budget Amendment
Add a Term Limit for Members of Congress (including the Senate) Amendment

what possible reason could you have for repealing the 17th?

term limits for the legislative branch is something that sounds good on paper but in practice is quite stupid.

Because the Founders originally left it up to each state's legislatures to choose their respective Senators. The Senate was mean to represent the States' interests. That is, as opposed to the House of Representatives, which is meant to represent the population. The original debate when the Founders were writing the Constitution was about larger states vs. smaller states. (In terms of population.) That's why we have the House of Representatives, formed to represent states with large populations more, and the Senate, formed to represent the interests of those states with smaller populations. That why the Legislative Branch is bicameral.

I believe that when the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified, it opened up the door for what we see now: K Street lobbyists and special interest groups trying to gain influence in both chambers. If we did away with the Seventeenth Amendment, I believe (in theory, at least) that it would be harder for lobbyists and special interest groups to gain traction in the Senate since the Senate would be chosen by their respective state legislatures.

(11-12-2016 09:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:04 PM)GeminiShamrock Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:01 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  I'm not sure there are too many changes to the constitution that I would like to see...

I'd like to see a couple amendments added and a couple repealed.

Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment - Made the federal income tax system legal (and subsequently the Federal Reserve).
Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment - Made the election of United States Senators by popular vote in each respective state legal.
Add a Balanced Budget Amendment
Add a Term Limit for Members of Congress (including the Senate) Amendment

what possible reason could you have for repealing the 17th?

term limits for the legislative branch is something that sounds good on paper but in practice is quite stupid.

Im curious as to how something never done before could be seen as stupid? Different? ..sure. Stupid? Pure conjecture. What if we raised the pay for Congressional seats to compete with market levels of experience and competence to spur the best among us to serve under term limits. We also include a nice retirement benefit package. As it is now?...We really don't get our best. We get people that intend on making their livings in politics. That does not make them smart or make them people that should be leading. I really think a lot of our problem in Washington is that we have a lot of really mediocre and incompetent people in office. The BEST among us have better jobs.

I'm against it.

There is no possible Amendment that should trigger this kind of issue.

(11-12-2016 09:24 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:21 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Once a Constitutional Convention is called you are going to lose your Constitution. No matter what you would "like to see"....what you WILL see is a new 4,000 page European Union style Constitution.

You really want to give the current crop of plastic hair, fundraising, spinning, sociopaths a chance to replace the Constitution?

Y'all crazy.

Well Fo apparently wants to pay more taxes on top of the ones he already pays in his support of HR25, so the scenario you paint is probably a-ok with him.

HR25 would repeal the 16th retroactively and replace it with a consumption tax. HR25 is revenue neutral. It is just a different way of collecting your tribute...not more. No matter how many times you make the the above claim does not make it factual. The information is readily available at the click of a mouse.

(11-12-2016 09:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:04 PM)GeminiShamrock Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:01 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  I'm not sure there are too many changes to the constitution that I would like to see...

I'd like to see a couple amendments added and a couple repealed.

Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment - Made the federal income tax system legal (and subsequently the Federal Reserve).
Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment - Made the election of United States Senators by popular vote in each respective state legal.
Add a Balanced Budget Amendment
Add a Term Limit for Members of Congress (including the Senate) Amendment

what possible reason could you have for repealing the 17th?

term limits for the legislative branch is something that sounds good on paper but in practice is quite stupid.

Im curious as to how something never done before could be seen as stupid? Different? ..sure. Stupid? Pure conjecture. What if we raised the pay for Congressional seats to compete with market levels of experience and competence to spur the best among us to serve under term limits. We also include a nice retirement benefit package. As it is now?...We really don't get our best. We get people that intend on making their livings in politics. That does not make them smart or make them people that should be leading. I really think a lot of our problem in Washington is that we have a lot of really mediocre and incompetent people in office. The BEST among us have better jobs.

term limits for legislators exist in all levels of govt both here and across the globe. we have plenty of examples to look at including state legislators. The issue has been studied based on what we know about the 15 states that have them on the legislative state level as well as basic common sense. With inexperienced legislators and the lack of tenured leaders the net result is the executive branch has stronger influence over the legislators and you see an absolutely massive increase in lobbying/special interest influence.

I'm actually an incredibly strong supporter of legislators being allowed to choose their own pay. This is primarily due to the Harvey Milk/Dan White situation which is a perfect case study of the consequences to pay limits in the legislative branch. it gives them no excuse for corruption, minimizes the corruption risk, makes the politicians 100% accountable to their constituents regarding their salary, and it helps those like Dan White who were truly desperate and was getting screwed over by everyone because he truly needed a pay raise to support his family. obviously you need a limit but I really think it will make the system less corruptible and could potentially save money with these guys being so directly accountable for their pay.

(11-12-2016 09:39 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:24 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:21 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Once a Constitutional Convention is called you are going to lose your Constitution. No matter what you would "like to see"....what you WILL see is a new 4,000 page European Union style Constitution.

You really want to give the current crop of plastic hair, fundraising, spinning, sociopaths a chance to replace the Constitution?

Y'all crazy.

Well Fo apparently wants to pay more taxes on top of the ones he already pays in his support of HR25, so the scenario you paint is probably a-ok with him.

HR25 would repeal the 17th retroactively and replace it with a consumption tax. HR25 is revenue neutral. It is just a different way of collecting your tribute...not more. No matter how many times you make the the above claim does not make it factual. The information is readily available at the click of a mouse.

16th

(11-12-2016 09:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:39 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:24 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:21 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Once a Constitutional Convention is called you are going to lose your Constitution. No matter what you would "like to see"....what you WILL see is a new 4,000 page European Union style Constitution.

You really want to give the current crop of plastic hair, fundraising, spinning, sociopaths a chance to replace the Constitution?

Y'all crazy.

Well Fo apparently wants to pay more taxes on top of the ones he already pays in his support of HR25, so the scenario you paint is probably a-ok with him.

HR25 would repeal the 17th retroactively and replace it with a consumption tax. HR25 is revenue neutral. It is just a different way of collecting your tribute...not more. No matter how many times you make the the above claim does not make it factual. The information is readily available at the click of a mouse.

16th

Thanks...and yes.

(11-12-2016 09:55 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:04 PM)GeminiShamrock Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:01 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  I'm not sure there are too many changes to the constitution that I would like to see...

I'd like to see a couple amendments added and a couple repealed.

Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment - Made the federal income tax system legal (and subsequently the Federal Reserve).
Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment - Made the election of United States Senators by popular vote in each respective state legal.
Add a Balanced Budget Amendment
Add a Term Limit for Members of Congress (including the Senate) Amendment

what possible reason could you have for repealing the 17th?

term limits for the legislative branch is something that sounds good on paper but in practice is quite stupid.

Im curious as to how something never done before could be seen as stupid? Different? ..sure. Stupid? Pure conjecture. What if we raised the pay for Congressional seats to compete with market levels of experience and competence to spur the best among us to serve under term limits. We also include a nice retirement benefit package. As it is now?...We really don't get our best. We get people that intend on making their livings in politics. That does not make them smart or make them people that should be leading. I really think a lot of our problem in Washington is that we have a lot of really mediocre and incompetent people in office. The BEST among us have better jobs.

term limits for legislators exist in all levels of govt both here and across the globe. we have plenty of examples to look at including state legislators. The issue has been studied based on what we know about the 15 states that have them on the legislative state level as well as basic common sense. With inexperienced legislators and the lack of tenured leaders the net result is the executive branch has stronger influence over the legislators and you see an absolutely massive increase in lobbying/special interest influence.

I'm actually an incredibly strong supporter of legislators being allowed to choose their own pay. This is primarily due to the Harvey Milk/Dan White situation which is a perfect case study of the consequences to pay limits in the legislative branch. it gives them no excuse for corruption, minimizes the corruption risk, makes the politicians 100% accountable to their constituents regarding their salary, and it helps those like Dan White who were truly desperate and was getting screwed over by everyone because he truly needed a pay raise to support his family. obviously you need a limit but I really think it will make the system less corruptible and could potentially save money with these guys being so directly accountable for their pay.

Without term limits we had a history of State Legislators setting up a long-term criminal enterprise. With term limits we had special interests writing bills and dropping them all over the capitol like snow.

Neither situation is tolerable. What is the solution?

(11-12-2016 09:32 PM)GeminiShamrock Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:04 PM)GeminiShamrock Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 09:01 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  I'm not sure there are too many changes to the constitution that I would like to see...

I'd like to see a couple amendments added and a couple repealed.

Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment - Made the federal income tax system legal (and subsequently the Federal Reserve).
Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment - Made the election of United States Senators by popular vote in each respective state legal.
Add a Balanced Budget Amendment
Add a Term Limit for Members of Congress (including the Senate) Amendment

what possible reason could you have for repealing the 17th?

term limits for the legislative branch is something that sounds good on paper but in practice is quite stupid.

Because the Founders originally left it up to each state's legislatures to choose their respective Senators. The Senate was mean to represent the States' interests. That is, as opposed to the House of Representatives, which is meant to represent the population. The original debate when the Founders were writing the Constitution was about larger states vs. smaller states. (In terms of population.) That's why we have the House of Representatives, formed to represent states with large populations more, and the Senate, formed to represent the interests of those states with smaller populations. That why the Legislative Branch is bicameral.

I believe that when the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified, it opened up the door for what we see now: K Street lobbyists and special interest groups trying to gain influence in both chambers. If we did away with the Seventeenth Amendment, I believe (in theory, at least) that it would be harder for lobbyists and special interest groups to gain traction in the Senate since the Senate would be chosen by their respective state legislatures.

the founders also gave us the opportunity to amend the constitution for this very reason. the people wanted direct election of senators because the concept of the people choosing their politicians directly was a mindset that developed only after the constitution was created.