|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ghostrider
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:29 am Post subject: How Rick Perry Wants To Change The Constitution |
 |
|
| Quote: |
1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.
2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.
3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.
4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.
5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.
6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.
7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country. |
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html
I don't agree with most of these proposed changes. Judges should be in a position to objectively interpret the Constitution which they won't be if they have to worry about losing their job every time they decide case. They shouldn't be subject to the same kind of political pressures as legislators. As for gay marriage, Americans don't have to accept every alternative form of marriage that gets proposed. Americans in the 19th Century decided to reject and outlaw polygamy. Abortion is probably good for society since the kind of people that get abortions probably wouldn't be good parents anyway. They're less likely to raise their children to be contributing, law-abiding members of society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| 1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution. |
No, unless some great alternative is presented (unlikely)
| Quote: |
| 2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote. |
No. Only by Constitutional Amendment should the Supreme Court be able to be overridden.
| Quote: |
| Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment. |
If such an Amendment is repealed by the Constitutional process, then fine.
| Quote: |
| End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. |
I am not in favor of this, but if the proper Constitutional procedure to repeal this Amendment is enacted, then fine.
| Quote: |
| Require the federal government to balance its budget every year. |
In theory a great idea, in practice a very bad one. Deficit spending is sometimes necessary.
| Quote: |
| The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states. |
No, that is a question for the individual states. Marriage is a state matter, not a federal one.
If Wyoming wants to make it legal for you to marry a horse and if Montana wants it to be between a man and a woman only, that is a decision for Wyoming and Montana.
| Quote: |
| Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country. |
No, that is a question for the individual states or even individual counties/municipalities. Birth certificates are handled by the states, to my understanding. Now if birth certificates were handled by the federal government, then it would be a federal question. If Jones County, Mississippi wants to have no abortion and Orange County wants to have abortion on demand, that is to be decided by the people in those communities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| No, that is a question for the individual states or even individual counties/municipalities. Birth certificates are handled by the states, to my understanding. Now if birth certificates were handled by the federal government, then it would be a federal question. If Jones County, Mississippi wants to have no abortion and Orange County wants to have abortion on demand, that is to be decided by the people in those communities. |
I have to ask, why do civil rights have to change depending on which side of an artificial line drawn on a map you happen to live on? I thought this was settled at Appomattox. It should have been settled at Appomattox. It was settled then, until the reactionary anti-Federalists raised their treasonous heads recently.
If you want to argue that first cousins can marry at 14 rather than at 15, without parental permission as I wish, then that is a state matter. It's just tweaking the edges. If you want to set up a separate category of people who can and cannot marry, then that is a federal matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I thought this was settled at Appomattox. It should have been settled at Appomattox. |
Aw, poor Ya-ta. Only now realizing that to many people military might and subjugation doesn't = "right"... You must have a dreadful time trying to make sense of the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ahhh...you lost in 1788 and again in 1865.
I can see why you continue to whine.
The plurality of the Election of 1860 said we wanted Lincoln and one nation. Your side said, 'No!'. The election was enforced by the war. You lost a second time.
I can see why you would continue to whine. Those less evolved would do that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Ahhh...you lost in 1788 and again in 1865.
I can see why you continue to whine.
The plurality of the Election of 1860 said we wanted Lincoln and one nation. Your side said, 'No!'. The election was enforced by the war. You lost a second time.
I can see why you would continue to whine. Those less evolved would do that. |
This sort of hubris is nothing new. Deep down you know your position is morally bankrupt (imposed at the end of a gun barrel) and very fragile. We'll see who gets the last laugh - till then, mock on, mock on... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No facts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| No, that is a question for the individual states or even individual counties/municipalities. Birth certificates are handled by the states, to my understanding. Now if birth certificates were handled by the federal government, then it would be a federal question. If Jones County, Mississippi wants to have no abortion and Orange County wants to have abortion on demand, that is to be decided by the people in those communities. |
I have to ask, why do civil rights have to change depending on which side of an artificial line drawn on a map you happen to live on? I thought this was settled at Appomattox. It should have been settled at Appomattox. It was settled then, until the reactionary anti-Federalists raised their treasonous heads recently.
If you want to argue that first cousins can marry at 14 rather than at 15, without parental permission as I wish, then that is a state matter. It's just tweaking the edges. If you want to set up a separate category of people who can and cannot marry, then that is a federal matter. |
Ya-Ta is correct. He speaks of the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Upholding citizens' fundamental rights and equal protection under the law only strengthens Federalism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| No, that is a question for the individual states or even individual counties/municipalities. Birth certificates are handled by the states, to my understanding. Now if birth certificates were handled by the federal government, then it would be a federal question. If Jones County, Mississippi wants to have no abortion and Orange County wants to have abortion on demand, that is to be decided by the people in those communities. |
I have to ask, why do civil rights have to change depending on which side of an artificial line drawn on a map you happen to live on? I thought this was settled at Appomattox. It should have been settled at Appomattox. It was settled then, until the reactionary anti-Federalists raised their treasonous heads recently.
If you want to argue that first cousins can marry at 14 rather than at 15, without parental permission as I wish, then that is a state matter. It's just tweaking the edges. If you want to set up a separate category of people who can and cannot marry, then that is a federal matter. |
I don't consider drinking or abortion a civil right. In my view, the issue is whether types of treatment can be licensed/regulated and certain products can be sold. Universal Civil Rights are those defined by our Constitution.
The most important thing in a democracy is not which decisions are made, it is ensuring that the proper people get to make them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well at least he doesn't want to ban porn like Bachmann does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stout
Joined: 28 May 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| Well at least he doesn't want to ban porn like Bachmann does. |
Would be interesting to see how senators handle the discussion on that issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 11:57 pm Post subject: Re: How Rick Perry Wants To Change The Constitution |
|
|
| ghostrider wrote: |
6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.
7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country. |
Pathetic.
On what possible basis could a woman seeking to have an abortion, or a man seeking to marry another man, be denied the chance to serve their interests to the fullest?
Nothing, surely, could be dearer than liberty and egoism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 6:44 pm Post subject: Re: How Rick Perry Wants To Change The Constitution |
|
|
| ghostrider wrote: |
| Quote: |
1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.
2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.
3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.
4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.
5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.
6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.
7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country. |
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html
I don't agree with most of these proposed changes. Judges should be in a position to objectively interpret the Constitution which they won't be if they have to worry about losing their job every time they decide case. They shouldn't be subject to the same kind of political pressures as legislators. As for gay marriage, Americans don't have to accept every alternative form of marriage that gets proposed. Americans in the 19th Century decided to reject and outlaw polygamy. Abortion is probably good for society since the kind of people that get abortions probably wouldn't be good parents anyway. They're less likely to raise their children to be contributing, law-abiding members of society. |
Oil makes my car speed up fine when I'm driving, but Perry's views don't make sense to me. They are irresponsible. Why does he not want senators elected? Also, as far as gay marriage, many in the South when they were trying to shelter themselves from being criticizing strongly for the apartheid, Jim Crowe system's spoke of state's rights. Now, he wants to force his views that are popular in Texas on the people of New York and Vermont?
In my opinion, he sounds too much like George Bush. In fact, he sounds worse. Y'all better not voted for Perry, 'cause he's awfully scary. And he doesn't want to pay taxes. No one does in a way. However, you can't have the army and support the troops without a personal income tax.
That would make him unpopular with those who support the military. Unless he revises some of his positions, he'll be in big trouble. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
weso1
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Republicans and the Constitution are like my ex gf. They say they love it, but all they want to do is change it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
