The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

NPR has an interesting interactive page where they solicited amendment ideas and posted them for us to 'vote' on.  I think there's about a dozen questions, including these:

Campaign contributions to any candidate for office in the United States government from any entity shall not exceed those limits set for citizens. Corporations, companies, unions, PACs and other organizations shall not be considered citizens.

Limit Supreme Court seats to a single nine-year term with one seat getting turned over every year. Justices would be chosen by lot from a pool of candidates. The amendment would state the requisite qualifications needed (as decided by both houses of Congress). If you meet the criteria, and you want to be a Supreme Court justice, you enter your name in the pool. The most senior judge is chief justice.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall be drawn from those citizens who may keep and bear arms only after receiving proper military training.



http://www.npr.org/2011/12/14/143648941/interactive-join-our-constitutional-convention (http://www.npr.org/2011/12/14/143648941/interactive-join-our-constitutional-convention)

OK


Term limits, OK.  Pool with qualifications set by congress is no better, maybe not as good as the present system.  President nominates, Congress approves/rejects.


We could have mopped up Iraq if those "clowns" didn't have guns.  I'll agree to civilian training in firearm safety but keep the military out of it.

Dont be an a**hole..... ;D

 Put me in for affirmative on each one. Its good to see that there are some thinking people left scattered around the country.

Red, we mopped them up even when they had the mother of all armies!

We may have mopped up their army but the aftermath that followed probably wouldn't have been if the Iraqi citizens had been unarmed.

The problem with this, and the reason that term limits were not originally written into the constitution, is then it becomes a political situation.  By having life terms the justices are able to make their decisions without worry of political retaliation. 

I believe a single, shorter term would would do the same.  If there were any chance of reappointment, then your point would certainly be valid.

If the justices have a term then they still have to worry about retribution once their term ended. I can see the whole "if you do this, you will go nowhere when your term is up" threat coming into play.

No on all. Here's one, if you haven't paid a federal income tax for two years and receive government financial assistance, you cannot vote.

GE?

So then, the poor get discriminated against?

17 year olds get discriminated against. Certain felons get discriminated against. Point is, persons not paying income tax vote for the folks that will give them more money. Now, will I vote for the candidate that will vote my way? Sure. I just find it troubling that persons having no skin in the game are deciding how my skin in the game is being spent.

Yep. And it's CEO by the way does work for Obama.

Why do I get the feeling Guido would see no problem bringing back poll taxes, and worse, having no qualms about their effect?

Prove it. I suspect there are quite a few white folks in Kansas who haven't paid income tax since the Bush cuts and happily vote for Republicans. ;)

Prove what? I don't care which party those who pay nothing vote for. I just do not want to hear any more crap like this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19v5Kjmc8FI[/youtube]

Is this to say that individuals should only be able to bear arms after having military training?  If so, it's major FAIL and tramples all over the 2nd.

Good argument for a poll tax.

Was that the sound of Ed's head exploding?  :o

So it's all about money, right?  He who hath the gold rules?  17 year olds have not reached the age of majority, simply put, they are not legally adults.  Their inexperience in life is why they don't get a vote, as well as still do things like do what their parents tell them to do, follow curfew, not join the military, ect.  Felons have lost their rights.  They made a choice.  What your saying is kick those who are down, and make damn sure they don't have a say in it.

Not kicking them while their down, but perhaps inspiring them to get off the government (I mean, taxpayer) dole. If that means people have to move where the jobs are, so be it. Those women in that video I posted was my inspiration. That last moron canceled out my vote.

And again, this thread is about hypotheticals.

You act like everyone that is down on their luck have a way out.  It's not always that cut and dry.

I gave them two years to get out. :o

I love the Poll tax. Helps keep failures from foisting their skill set/belief structure on the rest of us. Things would be so much better if I was the only person allowed to vote....

I agree with custosnox.

There are many reasons why people are poor and many of them are not completely because they haven't tried hard enough. Half the people you know have a less than average IQ. Many circumstances can cause an unlucky person to spiral into debt, unemployment, and homelessness.

I know some of these people. You know some of these people. They are part of our society. I believe I live in a country that has amazing wealth and power and I like that my country can take care of the disadvantaged.  I when I say my country. I mean our churches, our non-profits, and even our government. I am willing to pay a little more in taxes to the government to make it work.

I know you get it guido. You served in our military to protect all Americans and not just rich Americans. You have given generously to the Food Bank and inspired me to give more to them. You may write like Scrooge, but we know deep down you have the giving spirit.

We all want them to get off the government dole. No one disputes that. But we can afford it if we spend less elsewhere.

These are the percentages of the Obama budget this year by category...

National defense operations  7.89%
Other National defense   7.22%
Military personnel   4.16%
Veteran's benefits   3.22%

Unemployment compensation  2.52%
Education and job training  2.77%
Housing assistance   1.22%
Student financial aid  0.58%  

Military spending by the United States in 2010 was $687 Billion. The United States was number one. Number two through 20 spent less than that combined.

(in order of spending) China, France, United Kingdom, Russia, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Italy, India, Brazil, South Korea, Canada, Australia, Spain, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Israel, Netherlands and Greece combined spent less than the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Spend a little less on military stuff and we can afford to take care of all Americans. Spend even less on war and we could afford to lower you taxes.

My head hasn't exploded since the Reagan administration, when Ronald Reagan substantially raised taxes after campaigning on reducing them.  That's been quietly forgotten in order to canonize him.

So Guido is OK with establishing a monarchy if he gets to be king?  Sorry, G, but you're not even in the running:

(http://www.models-port.com/images/sf8/sf_050208_2.jpg)


Gotta watch my blood pressure....

Pole tax?  Does that mean I'd have to leave an extra quarter for each transaction at Night Tri.....what, what?  Oh, 'poll tax'.

Gotta watch my weakness for gingers....especially as it relates to Gillian...  :o

I don't know why, but for some odd reason, the use of ginger to describe a really hot red head just irritates me...

I use it to describe redheads in general.  Lighten up, Francis.   ;D

DON'T... CALL... ME... FRANCIS.  It's Psycho

Problem is, Gillian is not a true redhead.  She's a blonde.

only one way to find out for sure.  For the good of the mission, I volunteer.

This is a very disturbing thread to me. Other than the ginger of course.

I can only hope some are playing devil's advocate.

Here are the results as of about noon today.  It's the full list of questions.  The closest issue seems to be the idea of calling national referendums on laws enacted by Congress:

Campaign contributions to any candidate for office in the United States government from any entity shall not exceed those limits set for citizens. Corporations, companies, unions, PACs and other organizations shall not be considered citizens.
  For   86%
 Against    14%
   
You can't be president if any of the following family members have been president: wife, husband, mother, father, brother, sister, child, or any "in-law" version of the preceding.
For   18%
Against    82%

The Electoral College should be abolished and presidents should be elected by popular vote.
 For    75%
 Against 25%
 
A direct citizens' vote should be required before entering into any type of war.
 For    34%
 Against 66%
 
Ten percent of voters may demand a national referendum on laws passed by Congress.  A law is void if voters reject it; otherwise, it retains its validity. Congress may repeal the law before the referendum takes place.
 For   44%
 Against    56%

 No member of Congress shall become a lobbyist or a consultant for anyone or any company or business doing business with the United States government once he or she has completed service in Congress, nor shall any member of his or her immediate family.
 For    67%
 Against    32%

 Elections should be conducted in the same way The X Factor takes votes for contestants: by phone, Twitter or email.
 For 10%
 Against 90%

 The approval of the U.S. citizens would be required for all spending bills. Once per month, all taxpaying U.S. citizens would have the ability to log in to an Internet site and vote on the spending proposals that Congress puts forward.
 For    27%
 Against 73%

 Limit Supreme Court seats to a single nine-year term with one seat getting turned over every year. Justices would be chosen by lot from a pool of candidates. The amendment would state the requisite qualifications needed (as decided by both houses of Congress). If you meet the criteria, and you want to be a Supreme Court justice, you enter your name in the pool. The most senior judge is chief justice.
 For    39%
 Against    60%

 A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall be drawn from those citizens who may keep and bear arms only after receiving proper military training.
 For    36%
 Against    63%

 The rights enumerated in the Constitution are expressly for the benefit of living human beings. Corporations are expressly denied any claim of protection under the Bill of Rights.
 For    83%
 Against 17%

Doesn't matter to me.

Gee, I guess I'm pretty moderate afterall. Even the two that I differed with from the majority %'s , I don't feel that strongly about.

edit: forgot this was an NPR poll. So I fall in line with "enlightened" citizens.  ;) I would love to see it replicated on a more conservative leaning medium.

Yes, it's from NPR, but even giving the usual stereotype of NPR listeners as liberal, intellectual, and open-minded (which happens to be true in my case) I think this poll shows that our countrymen are unwilling to do major tinkering with the Constitution.  Now, there are some obvious problems with it.  The respondents are self-selected rather than random, and there's nothing to prevent taking the poll several times in an effort to skew the results.

And as for replicating it in a more conservative medium, I posted it here with that in mind.  As Jon Stewart said, Oklahoma is such a red state that you can't have blue eyes!

Well that explains my problem, I have red hair and blue eyes.

There were quite a few that fell along my lines of thinking.  It's interesting this one was overwhelmingly against, considering it's been such a topical issue this last year:

Interesting that the two regarding campaign finance and corporate citizenship both have overwhelming support. They happen to also be the only ones whose implications I'm not terribly bothered by, although the corporate citizenship one could be pretty hairy. A company needs to have many of the rights of people to function as intended. However, that should be construed as narrowly as possible. Unfortunately, the courts have been construing that necessity as broadly as possible as of late.