Trucks Gone Wild Classifieds, Event Information and Mud News
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
MudDawg

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 2,830
Reply with quote  #1 
I am laying down a challenge to all of my muddin buddies out there - watch this and tell me what you think...  I think its about that time!!  Small business needs a boost and no one is watching out for us any longer!





__________________
http://www.trucksgonewild.com - Event Links http://www.tgwstore.com - TGW Gear and DVD's Sign up for TGW Alerts by texting 'TGW' to 64600 Sign up to win TGW Event Tickets - text 'TGWticket" to 64600
0
coonbottom

Avatar / Picture

Buy my truck!
Registered:
Posts: 964
Reply with quote  #2 
 
Ok, I'll bite. Here are my opinions to a few of the notes I wrote down.
 
First, huge pet peeve of mine, the author is wrong- 
We were never framed to be a representative democracy. We were created to be a elected democratic representation. The original colonies were to big geography wise to have every single white male present in the creation of laws. 
 
Second, here is Article V:
 
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
 
Even the author said, "[sic] a constitutional convention has never been tried in an effective manner". So, even when our nation was young and the populous was concerned about freedom, even when the war between the states was immanent and certain destruction was guaranteed, even then during the most crucial times in our nation's history, an amendment from a constitutional convention was never implemented to change the constitution. However, he thinks now, NOW, enough states would be willing to stand up and get this done... 
Riiiight.
 
He said states don't have a lot of say, he is wrong (sorta). States have a lot of say. Just not with topics most people care about or even realize the state is part of. It is IRS's job to make sure your have your 1099 processed but the state's responsibility to make sure you have it filled out.

 
"Professional ruling class" I do like that choice of words. And I do believe if you pass a law, it should apply to you as well. It is another pet peeve of mine that legislature is excluded from sunshine laws. 
 
Term limits on legislatures- I am torn, when the Constitution was drafted, politics was a lot easier. Four or five years of law school and you knew all there was to know about law. Now, I don't think anyone can ever know all aspects of criminal, civil, international, constitutional law, etc. When you have a politician in there for 20 years, they are just getting the hang of being a politician. The problem isn't how many terms they can server, it is if they are simply a good politician or not. 
Having term limits just means the lousy guys are out sooner. But the good politicians are out before they can make a difference. 
 
 
 
States can over ride judicial decisions..
Hmmm?
I don't know. I could see this being used more for evil than good. Sometimes the SCOTUS issues descisions on the fairness of a law, not the popularity of it. That is why they are appointed. So they don't have to worry about being popular with the voters. 
Plus, say the states could overturn their descision, what makes you think they wouldn't issue another descision that would re-enact the original law that was challenged? 
 
 
Constitutional amendments will not limit government or government spending. Sorry. It just won't.
Bankruptcy is the only thing I know that might.

Besides, the big chunks of government spending have come from the public demanding it. Social Security and other entitlements were in the name of, "social responsibility". It just isn't entitlement programs but even military spending. We all don't want anymore burning buildings falling on us. 

Not just federal spending programs, but state programs as well can be justified. "No more food stamps!! Cut welfare!! Make the poor work for their dinner! " Sounds good to me but ...well, what about unemployment compensation? "Ohhh ..yeah I just got laid off from the plant ...soo....let's keep that." 
 
I am getting off topic here but I bet you could go down every list of all governments program's and someone could justify every single one. 
 
 
Anyway... 
I don't see where there would ever be a time where the states would rally to add an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Maybe give them the power to strike down an amendment. Maybe.
Most state legislatures are too busy fighting each other for the favor of their constituents to try and put the Feds in check. 
 
He has a few good ideas ...but it is like throwing a tea spoon of wisdom onto a forest fire of apathy. 
 
 
 

__________________
I don't think of myself as a "has been", but rather, "retired loser". 
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.