Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Freep this poll
http://www.morrowcounty.net/ ^

Posted on 05/20/2005 12:49:29 PM PDT by sparkomatic

1) If you were in charge of writing a whole new Constitution for America, what would it say?

Nothing different than the current one says 6 60.00%
A few minor changes 2 20.00%
It wouldn't even be recognizable! 2 20.00%


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: freeppoll
This is my little home town web page doohickey. The web site and it's forums is mostly overrun with libs even though this is a largely red area. Let's blow this poll out of the water.
1 posted on 05/20/2005 12:49:29 PM PDT by sparkomatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sparkomatic
FReeped.


2 posted on 05/20/2005 12:52:09 PM PDT by TChris (Just once, we need an elected official to stand up to a clearly incorrect ruling by a court. - Ann C)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sparkomatic

Mt. Gilead! Dang. Here I was thinking I should maybe look into property there.


3 posted on 05/20/2005 12:52:31 PM PDT by combat_boots (Dug in and not budging an inch. NOT to be schiavoed, greered, or felosed as a patient)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots
It's still a good place. However, lot's of freaks, just like anyplace else.

Tee Hee. It's working. Jumped up to 25 good votes already.

4 posted on 05/20/2005 12:55:57 PM PDT by sparkomatic (This happens every time one of these floozies starts poontangin' around with those show folk fags!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sparkomatic

Freeped (a few minor changes)


5 posted on 05/20/2005 12:57:56 PM PDT by theDentist (The Dems are putting all their eggs in one basket-case: Howard "Belltower" Dean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
What would those changes be? I said leave it as it is. However, if I were to make changes it would be to say, "The first ammendment does not mean to imply a separation of church and state. Nope it doesn't say separation. There is no separation. Do you understand NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE?"
and
"The second ammendment is an individual right. Individuals have the right to carry firearms. This is so they can protect themselves from their government. They should be allowed to carry any kind of firearm anywhere they want. They do not need a permit or license."
6 posted on 05/20/2005 1:03:34 PM PDT by sparkomatic (This happens every time one of these floozies starts poontangin' around with those show folk fags!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sparkomatic

FReeped. I'd change a couple of minor things, like clearly stating the original intent so liberals couldn't twist the meaning anymore.


7 posted on 05/20/2005 1:10:37 PM PDT by clee1 (We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: clee1

And add, "This is not a living, breathing document. It means what it says, and says what it means."


8 posted on 05/20/2005 1:12:16 PM PDT by sparkomatic (This happens every time one of these floozies starts poontangin' around with those show folk fags!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sparkomatic

Add to that "No slavery". How many of our troubles today stem from that stain upon our nation?


9 posted on 05/20/2005 1:12:57 PM PDT by theDentist (The Dems are putting all their eggs in one basket-case: Howard "Belltower" Dean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: clee1

79% - nothing different


10 posted on 05/20/2005 1:12:57 PM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sparkomatic

I could inclue, "This Constitution will always be interpreted literally. Any judge violating this provision is subject to impeachment and removal from the bench."


11 posted on 05/20/2005 1:21:06 PM PDT by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc

Another bump for more freeping.


12 posted on 05/20/2005 1:25:45 PM PDT by sparkomatic (I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me. Phil 4:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc

bttt


13 posted on 05/20/2005 1:26:25 PM PDT by sparkomatic (I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me. Phil 4:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sparkomatic

For all you 29%ers out there.

What minor changes would you make?

I would get started with the line below. Taken directly from the Constitution of the Confederate States of America
March 11, 1861.


(20) Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.


14 posted on 05/20/2005 1:26:41 PM PDT by grayforkbeard (If itís not controversial, how can we learn from it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sparkomatic

Now at 75.84%


15 posted on 05/20/2005 1:27:10 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (I - L O V E - my attitude problem!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sparkomatic

What's wrong on your Costitution Americans?

This paper from the French Revolution on the whole West has copied, from this has drawn inspiration, still constitutes the backbone of America.


16 posted on 05/20/2005 1:33:43 PM PDT by an italian (without Victory there is no Survival...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sparkomatic
A few minor changes.

1. Absolutely no income or private property taxes. EVER!

2. The second amendment. "The obligation of every free American man women and responsible child to keep and bear arms can in no way be infringed, licensed or regulated in any way by any federal, state or local government or any other regulatory body private or public.

3. Every ten years, each congressional district will hold free elections to elect a body of citizenry for a term not to exceed six months who's sole function will be to review the operational buearocracy of the Federal government and eliminate any department or function other than those clearly enumerated in the constitution that have been created in the previous ten years. There shall be no appeal to the decisions handed down by this temporary body. all decisions of the body will be decided on a strict majority vote after no more than three days of debate.

4. Your right to freedom of religion does not mean you have an absolute right to freedom from religion.

17 posted on 05/20/2005 1:43:23 PM PDT by Desron13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grayforkbeard

I'd put term limits on judges.

And I'd prevent the 14th Amendment from ever passing.

And I'd expressly forbid a federal income tax.


18 posted on 05/20/2005 1:45:29 PM PDT by bigLusr (Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: grayforkbeard

I'd add: that every bill passed by Congress must cite it's specific Constitutional authority; that the purpose of regulatory agencies is to monitor enforcement, meaning all new regulations must be passed specifically by Congress; that all appropriations must be limited directly to the powers granted to the Federal Congress in clauses 1 through 18 in Article 1, Section 9 - all other appropriations are therefore Constitutional; that the preamble is just that - an introduction - and that therefore the phrase "to promote the general welfare does not hold force of statute"; that enumerated rights embody no "penumbras"; repeal amendments 17 and 26; add clauses to amendment 24 stating that each voter, upon attaining voting age will demonstrate competency to vote by passing with a grade of 70% or greater an bipartisan examination pertaining to the provision contained within this document and that any person not being able to identify both federal senators, the representative of his congressional district, the president and vice presidents of the United States will not be permitted to vote until the next federal election, at which time the same questions will be posed; a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress in two separate sessions is sufficient to overturn any decision of the U.S. Supreme Court; the federal judiciary has no enforcement power - only the executive and legislative branches have that authority; Presidential executive orders cannot void, even temporarily, laws duly passed by the Legislature; if the Legislature makes provisions for the temporary suspension of a given law, for example in time of emergency, that suspension must be for a preordained period of time and the situations that can be considered such an emergency must be specifically defined. If given time, I might be able to come up with a few more!


19 posted on 05/20/2005 1:56:28 PM PDT by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: grayforkbeard

Just thought of two more: there is no constitutional right not to be offended and that property cannot commit a crime, therefore civil forfeiture is a violation of your 4th Amendment right to be secure in your property and in your 5th Amendment protection against seizure of property without just compensation.


20 posted on 05/20/2005 2:00:43 PM PDT by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
How many of our troubles today stem from that stain upon our nation?

I don't know. In 64 years I never met a slave, never talked to a slave, and never knew anyone who owned a slave.
I have never seen anyone that had starved to death lying on the street nor have I seen anyone hanged or tared and feathered. I have seen some racial hate crimes but under todays laws I think most are caught and punished. Also I have observed that racial hate crimes are committed by all races and in general are a way of blaming someone else for their under achievement. I feel neither guilt nor shame or responsible for someones else's actions that were committed before my generation was born. I a responsible for my own actions and do not feel that I have any stain what so ever.
21 posted on 05/20/2005 2:05:00 PM PDT by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MarcusTulliusCicero

I love most of what you've said. But I think that by allowing Congress to overturn the SC you'd just transfer the runaway branch from the judicial to the legislative. Essentially you'd let them get away with passing anything, no matter how Unconstitutional, as long as they had 2/3 support two years running.


22 posted on 05/20/2005 2:07:56 PM PDT by bigLusr (Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sparkomatic

I'd make purposing any legislation, executive order, or judicial activism, that runs contrary to the plain wording of the Constitution punishable the same as treason.


23 posted on 05/20/2005 2:13:56 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Never underestimate the will of the downtrodden to lie flatter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigLusr

Well, that's not much different than what they do now, of course. But at least, you'd have the possibility of voting the bums out as opposed to the judiciary. You have to leave the judiciary as lifetime appointments to try to isolate them from political games as much as possible but restore the intent to make them subservient to the legislature (witness what happened with direct election of Senators, as opposed to selection by state legislatures - a twofold effect of greatly lessening the role of the states in determining federal policy as well as turning great statesmen into political hacks). Alternatively, you could just prevent them from having the power they usurped in the first place via Madison v. Marbury of deciding Constitutionality.


24 posted on 05/20/2005 2:15:35 PM PDT by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MarcusTulliusCicero

No. Judges would only play political games if they could run for re-election. Make it simple - one term (10 years?) then you're out of the game forever.

And ... yeah, in many MANY ways we'd be better off w/out Marbury v. Madison... but ultimately I think it's necessary (to prevent a runaway legislature)... and the historical record suggests that the framers overwhelmingly approved of judicial review...


25 posted on 05/20/2005 2:25:57 PM PDT by bigLusr (Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MarcusTulliusCicero

Oh. And I don't trust the people to "vote the bums out" if the unconstitutional laws they pass are popular.


26 posted on 05/20/2005 2:27:38 PM PDT by bigLusr (Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bigLusr

Yes, which is why I didn't add it but specifically stated that Congress could overturn an obvious misrule (e.g. Pledge of Allegiance comes to mind). By making it take two sessions (which some states do for amendments to their Constitution) makes it hard enough to do that it just wouldn't be an example of Congressional pique at being overruled.


27 posted on 05/20/2005 2:28:50 PM PDT by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson