LucyDuke
staring at the clock
No More Flag Burning: New Amendment banning the burning of the flag
Why do you think that that is a good idea?
No More Flag Burning: New Amendment banning the burning of the flag
Why do you think that that is a good idea?
Well, I posted. Now what?People who just click boxes and don't post are lame
Allowing foreigners to run for president? I think "maybe", but definitely not without say 40 years in the country. I know Da Arnold is great, but say if Bin Laden became prez?
Allowing foreigners to run for president? I think "maybe", but definitely not without say 40 years in the country. I know Da Arnold is great, but say if Bin Laden became prez?
I agree with this too.The States need to propose an amendment that limits or prohibits the Federal government from denying funds for not complying with a federal law (eg: Montana being forced to introduce speed limits or loose highway money).
I dunno how to word it, but I think it's a strong way to decentralize power. The best part being if you can get 38 States on board, Washington cannot stop it.
I agree here too.It would also be good to restrict the interstate commerce clause because right now it is interpreted to mean that congress can more or less regulate anything it wants, in it's current form it voids the tenth amendment.
First, I personally think this whole affair of first-past-the-post is BS, but I also know that Americans don't understand the concept of not having a local rep.
It would also be good to restrict the interstate commerce clause because right now it is interpreted to mean that congress can more or less regulate anything it wants, in it's current form it voids the tenth amendment.
That's the really tricky part. But the broad interstate commerce clause interpretation is one of the principle means judges are able to reform this country for the better. Not many people know this, but nowadays 'basic' liberties like Civil Rights and laws against discrimination (i.e; 'No 'no coloreds' signs) were justified solely on interstate commerce. Surely, looking back at it, we'd consider these decisions wise, no?
Because the reform taken has to be justified based upon something. It can't always be arbitrary. :3And why didn't they justify them on grounds that would actually hold up going forward?
You know, this attitude really chaps my hide. Maybe we just like our system better. Is it so impossible to conceive that we could understand a different system to elect our representatives but reject it because we like our system better?
Prayer that our untaxed population will use their assets in defense of the country the moment our enemies realize that our government has no money to defend us or maintain a decent infrastructure.And of course no one wants to pay income tax. But how would the Federal government make up the difference? What is the alternative?
Hey, I like having a local rep, too, but the biggest obstacle to prop-rep by party lists is that people here don't get it (I've tried explaining the [wiki]mixed member proportional[/wiki] system to my government class; three-quarters of them didn't get the concept for an entire month), and that most who understand party-list-based proportional representation won't like it (I'm OK with it, but I'm not its biggest fan, either). That's why I like STV, especially for the USA.