 |
The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Americans: If you were king for a day, ...
If you had the power to enact a single constitutional amendment-- anything-- what would it be?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on -
So now I'm sixteen. I get you poking him for restricting the gender of this omnipotent legislator - but we still all really want to know what you would do if you were Empress for a day. Sorry for being a dick.
-
Permalink Reply by Jo Jerome on -
If I was king for a day, I think I'd be so amazed at the workings of my new penis that I might forget about amending the constitution.
Weeks after reading this, I am still laughing out loud at it!
-
Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on -
"Dogs shall be prohibited from whistling.
Pursuant to the above, three-quarters supermajority votes shall always be required to amend the United States Constitution or the Constitutions of the States. Supermajority votes shall never be required to pass any ordinary legislation in the United States Congress or in any State Legislature or on any State Ballot Initiative or Referendum."
Because the filibuster is stupid. I'd also love to see the line-item veto as an amendment, and the amendment suggested above that requires Congress to abide by its own laws would be great. And as long as we're fixing things, I see no reason at all why the people who live in the District of Columbia shouldn't be able to vote for Maryland senators, governors, and a congressperson who's district would include the Capital. Didn't we fight a war over taxation without representation? How is it OK for the people who live in the Capital to not have it? I don't believe for an instant that this would give Maryland's senators, governors, or representatives any undue power. After all, Wyoming gets two senators for just a half a million people. Wyoming would still have more power in the Senate per capita than Maryland.
-
Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on
-
The filibuster is stupid. And that's coming from a guy who thinks that the fewer laws that Congress passes, the better - as a general rule of thumb. However, if you are going to have representative democracy - then, g'dammit! let them represent. Can you imagine how often one vote in the Supreme Court totally frikkin' changes things almost forever? But we can't pass a law with 59%? WTF?
-
Permalink Reply by Emily Dietle on -
If you own a home or an apartment complex, you must have a food growing garden, size depending on the amount of people there. Assistance would be available for those who need it.
(Based on health reasons, national security, pursuit of happiness- for the many)
-
Permalink Reply by Wayne on -
The inability to use your religion or belief as an excuse to prey on minorities that have done nothing wrong.
-
Permalink Reply by Ronnie Swain on -
All laws have to be demonstrated to directly support the U.S. Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights or they are unceremoniously dismissed.
-
Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on
-
Actually Ronnie, any law that doesn't violate something prohibited by the Constitution is constitutionally allowed because of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article 1, section 8, clause 18):
"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
We have a Congress because laws need to change with the times and the Founders knew perfectly well that they couldn't anticipate the country's future needs. Congress has staff dedicated to reviewing the constitutionality of laws before they are passed. They don't always get it right, which is why we have the Judicial Branch. But basically, they already try to do what you are saying, and that's all that can be done, since there's basically no such thing as a logical proof of constitutionality.
-
Permalink Reply by Jo Jerome on
-
Free basic healthcare for all as necessary for the safety and security of the populous: To be paid for via tax on unnecessarily unhealthy processed foods and recreational substances (most especially tobacco).
-
Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on
-
Not that I oppose the idea, Jo, but I don't think those revenue sources would be adequate.
-
Permalink Reply by Jezzy on -
Assuming this is national, not state, then I'm thinking gay marriage and polygamous marriage.
Health care reform is vastly important, but I'm not entirely sure I have the expertise to do it the best way.
Naturally I would also like to reinforce the separation of church/state which should already be there. Particularly in our "public" schools.
 |
 |
 |
 |
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
Luara replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Oligofructose and obesity in the group Diet and Exercise Support Group
© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
