Amendment XXVIII
Primary Elections of Representatives shall be open to all registered voters in Non-Competitive (“Gerrymandered”) Districts. This amendment applies to the primary election of a party that has held uninterrupted power in a district for over Seven years.
Considering Amendment XXVII is a particularly self serving ammendment referring solely to Senators and Congressmen, I figure its about time to bring some balance to the mix, considering that non-competive districts are not exactly the best example of Democracy in action. Or should we just continue to take after the old USSR, where only the votes of HardCore party members mattered?
A little Real competition never hurt consumers, so why should voters settle for the SameOleSh!t?
Red Dog
03-31-05, 01:28 PM
I don't like this amendment. There are several reasons why, but my main beef with it is that it refers to the existance of political parties, something that the Constitution has been silent on for 215 years.
There is no party registration here in Virginia, so all primaries are open (you can't vote in both though). Push for your state to do the same.
Venusian
03-31-05, 01:29 PM
primaries are open in GA as well
bhk
03-31-05, 03:33 PM
If it doesn't involve Shakespeare's recommendation about what to do with lawyers, I'm not interested.
;) for those with humor impairment syndrome.
X
03-31-05, 03:37 PM
Another state right being taken over by the federal government?
Sounds like it should be an amendment to your state constitution.
classicman2
03-31-05, 03:41 PM
I might entertain an amendment that mandated closed primaries. ;)
classicman2
03-31-05, 03:46 PM
My humble proposal for a XXVIII Amendment is for the repeal of the XVII Amendment.
adamblast
03-31-05, 05:24 PM
Can we have an ammendment to stop using those roman numeral thingies?
Thor Simpson
03-31-05, 05:35 PM
Can we have an ammendment to stop using those roman numeral thingies?
NO! "Superbowl 30" is nowhere near as cool as "Superbowl XXX"
mikehunt
03-31-05, 06:09 PM
the problem with that is that one party could get its members to heavily vote for the worst candidate of the other party in cases where their party only has one person running, thus insuring a win in the general election
I like the idea of only republicans voting for the republican candidates and the same for the democrats
I could maybe see some change to allow independents to vote on primary day by doing a temp registration at the polling place for one party or the other, but that should still be a state level decision not an amendment to the Constitution
wildcatlh
03-31-05, 06:36 PM
My humble proposal for a XXVIII Amendment is for the repeal of the XVII Amendment.
:up:
JasonF
03-31-05, 07:50 PM
NO! "Motherboy 30" is nowhere near as cool as "Motherboy XXX"
Fixed!
chowderhead
04-01-05, 01:59 PM
My proposal for a XXVIII admendment:
Congress shall submit and the President shall sign a balanced budget as defined by standard accounting practices each fiscal year. If agreement is not reached, Congress shall stay in continous session and the President shall forfeit his/her pay until such time a budget resolution is achieved. In cases of national emergency or crisis, Congress may vote to suspend this previous rule with a three-fourths vote majority.
--------------
It is past time that we stop this borrow and spend mentality that my generation and your children and grandchildren will have to pay for in the future in the form of trillions of dollars in debt.
classicman2
04-01-05, 02:23 PM
What would you do if there was a catastrophic economic downturn?
Sorry - your idea of an amendment concerning a balanced budget is not realistic, because it doesn't take the above (and other things) into account.
mikehunt
04-01-05, 03:09 PM
What would you do if there was a catastrophic economic downturn?
suspend the budget with the 3/4ths vote that he mentioned
classicman2
04-01-05, 03:14 PM
The Balanced Budget Amendment didn't make any sense 10 years ago.
It would make even less sense today.
Budget restraint is possible. Problem - the party in power doesn't want it. They have an agenda to promote. Now the Repubs are in power. A few years ago they were screaming for a balanced budget amendment. Now they would run from it like a scared biddy.
chowderhead
04-01-05, 03:57 PM
The Balanced Budget Amendment didn't make any sense 10 years ago.
It would make even less sense today.
Budget restraint is possible. Problem - the party in power doesn't want it. They have an agenda to promote. Now the Repubs are in power. A few years ago they were screaming for a balanced budget amendment. Now they would run from it like a scared biddy.
That is why we need a balanced budget admendment codified into the Constitution. It forces the two sides to the table and make the hard choices. Right now, they have a third option which is to borrow and spend.
Right now the Republicans are in power and they have borrowed and spent the most money in the history of the world. If the Republicans want tax cuts, they have to have the guts to CUT spending. If the Democrats when they eventually come back into power if ever, want higher spending, they have to have the guts to raise taxes IF there is a balanced budget admendment. The notion that you can "grow" the GDP out of debt is great but when you have a 7 trillion dollar debt, you saw what both sides were tripping over themselves to cut taxes and spend money instead of paying down the debt when we had all that surplus money. :(
classicman2
04-01-05, 04:01 PM
A constitutional amendment mandating a U. S. trade balance would make a hell of a lot more sense.
wendersfan
04-01-05, 04:05 PM
A constitutional amendment mandating a U. S. trade balance would make a hell of a lot more sense.So you're advocating a constitutional amendment regulating sales and purchases by private individuals and corporations? Care to share a bit more of your 5 year plan, Comrade classicman?
Red Dog
04-01-05, 04:10 PM
So you're advocating a constitutional amendment regulating sales and purchases by private individuals and corporations? Care to share a bit more of your 5 year plan, Comrade classicman?
Buy foreign and it's off the Gulag for you!!!!!
classicman2
04-01-05, 04:25 PM
No, I'm not advocating a balanced trade amendment, a balanced budget amendment, or any other amendment. I'm merely responding to the idea of a balanced budget amendment. To me that makes about as much sense as term limits.
I believe we've amended the constitution too much.
The amendment I would favor is the an amendment to repeal the XVII Amendment.
Now that doesn't sound much like a socialist or communist idea, does it?
BTW: I never cease to be amazed by those people who are so concerned about the budget deficit and national debt and don't seem to give a damn about the runaway trade deficit.
X
04-01-05, 04:29 PM
The amendment I would favor is the an amendment to repeal the XVII Amendment.Take an "I" off that and I'd support it!
Red Dog
04-01-05, 04:32 PM
I believe we've amended the constitution too much.
I agree.
Oh wait, you're not including all the stuff various Congresses and Presidents have rammed through that should have required constitutional amendments. In that case, I disagree. :)
wendersfan
04-01-05, 04:38 PM
BTW: I never cease to be amazed by those people who are so concerned about the budget deficit and national debt and don't seem to give a damn about the runaway trade deficit.I'm concerned with all of those things.
I would advocate eliminating both XVI and XVII. I'm still on the fence about XIX. ;)
classicman2
04-01-05, 05:02 PM
Repeal the XVI Amendment and nothing will change.
There is no chance that this SC or any SC in the foreseeable future that would hold the imposition of the federal income tax to be unconstitutional.
Like it not - it's here to stay.
chowderhead
04-01-05, 05:07 PM
BTW: I never cease to be amazed by those people who are so concerned about the budget deficit and national debt and don't seem to give a damn about the runaway trade deficit.
I am concerned about the national deficit and national debt as well as the balance of trade deficit. I am concerned because these two items go hand in hand. Foreign countries and foreign banks (read Japan and China) have accumulated billions and trillions of dollars because we run deficits with them in trade. They in turn buy our debt. These foreign banks are some of the largest owners of these bonds. How is this good for the US in terms of policy or our strategic/bargaining position if foreign countries and foreign banks are some of our largest creditors?
I am a social libertarian and fiscal moderate. I am a strong Democrat (made even more partisan by the crap that GWB and the Republicans have pulled). The solvency of the United States is one of the highest priority that I am concerned about. The national debt and unending deficits along with a high negative balance of trade is very concerning. I do not advocate amending the Constitution lightly. I think forcing politicans to make hard choices (choices most Americans have to make each day) will perhaps head off a fiscal disaster that is on the horizon.
classicman2
04-01-05, 06:30 PM
Reality: How are you going to get a congress that won't even discipline itself when only a simple majority is required to agree to a constitutional amendment when a 2/3 majority is required for a constitutional amendment.
You can't even get the Repubs to agree to PayGo.
Of course you can always call a constitutional convention to amend the constutition. But remember what happened the last time. ;)
Buy: