If You Were Dictator...

[SicEmBaylor]

What would you do?
ScottD brought this up in another thread, so I thought I'd find out what everyone would do if you were an American dictator.

I would begin by holding a large convention of every state legislator and governor of every state in the nation and explain to them that I would be stripping away Federal programs and that it would be their responsibility to create replacement state programs if the people in their state still demand those services and programs.

Then I would begin to reduce the Federal government to only those responsibilities specifically enumerated in the constitution thus leaving everything else up to the states.

This in turn would free up a huge surplus in federal tax revenue which I would use to pay off the national debt.

After the debt is paid off that budget surplus would then be returned to the people so the states could then re-work their own tax codes to pay for the state programs and services enacted to replace similar now eliminated federal programs.

I would then eliminate the 14th and 17th Amendments to the US Constitution while adding a balanced budget amendment that included capping Federal spending (with exceptions for emergency and war time spending).
Once the individual states had a reasonable amount of time to catch up with the shift in power from the Federal to the State level, I would once again call for the regularly scheduled federal elections.

.........but not before building myself one big *** pimpin' palace on the banks of the Potomac. ;-)

[okienole3]

Go to Area 51, then Camp David for vacation.

[SCOUT]

I would eliminate the IRS and implement a flat tax.

I don't want to be overly simplistic but I think this would go a long way to solving the games that are played in politics today.

I am not naive enough to think that pandering would go away, but it would be more difficult. Everyone would have to pay their percentage and that would be it.

[King Crimson]

more reality shows. and no way the Tony Danza show and Tyra Banks show run in the same time slot.

more sitcoms.

[Scott D]

*sigh* it's so obvious

First all politicians report to 'reassignment' camps....the only reassignment going on however is the reassignment of unspent bullets into their heads full of hot air. Next on the agenda would be the abolishment of the media. If you want to actually be a journalist in this country then by God, you are going to need to be a journalist and not a leech.

Next I'd just turn Texas into a parking lot for the hell of it, and do the same with California and tell the rest of the world that they'd be next if they wanted to **** with me.

[etouffee]

I would abolish all CSI and Law & Order shows and make it a crime to create more. David Caruso would be tortured and executed on national tv to drive home the point.

Oh, and Mitch Hedberg's likeness would be on a coin, probably the quarter.

[soonercody]

After a successful coup d'etat over at Sic'Em's place I'd want to get representative democracy back quickly. Without an electoral college and hopefully with several legitimate parties.

Taxes would include a sliding scale type system where the richest pay the most and those with more kids pay more too. An idea whose time has come, taxing the fertile!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I would eliminate the IRS and implement a flat tax.

I don't want to be overly simplistic but I think this would go a long way to solving the games that are played in politics today.

I am not naive enough to think that pandering would go away, but it would be more difficult. Everyone would have to pay their percentage and that would be it.This action alone would make life much better. I'll vote for you, when the next Dictator election is held.

[royalfan5]

If I was dicatator:
1)Mississippi and Lousiana are busted back down to Territories
2)A consistent determined drive to alternative energy
3)Farm subsidies would be gone.
4)Nuclear power plants would be everywhere
5)Fred Phelps would disappear
6)LCMS becomes official state religon
7)California-I'll Listen to offers
8)A completely free market
9)University of Texas would be disbanded
10)Canada Annexed
11)Drugs legalized
12)Serious medical tort reform
13)Soccer abolished
14)The Royals would be much improved if MLB knew what was good for them
15)The Big 8 would be back and Nebaska would play OU on the Friday after Thanksgiving
16)My Birthday would be a national holiday
That should be a good start.

[Scott D]

oh and I forgot....Japan and Germany would get a bill for a) the bombs dropped on their asses, and b) the cost of rebuilding their countries after all the bombs we dropped on their asses.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Shrimping would be banned. Cormorants would have bounties on them. Pigeons, as well. No gill netting, long lines or purse seines either. NO COMMERCIAL FISHING-only sport fishing allowed. Then, after flat tax enactment, I would go with the stuff Sic Em said in post #1.

[royalfan5]

I have a few more
17)No more democracy period-All state govenors would be appointed by me
18)The National Capital would shift to a new City in the Plains ala Brasila
19)Wilmer Valdarama disappers
20) I take a wife named Eva

[Flagstaffsooner]

Repeal the XIX amendment :P

Make texass a penal colony:texan:

Pump all sewage to Payne County:eddie:

Put Beano on Valium:twinkies:

[soonerhubs]

I'd get a new car?

[Flagstaffsooner]

I'd get a new car?BY would be ashamed of your low goals as dictator.;)

[soonerhubs]

BY would be ashamed of your low goals as dictator.;)
Okay, Okay, I'd get some new wives as well. There... ya happy? ;)

[Flagstaffsooner]

Okay, Okay, I'd get some new wives as well. There... ya happy? ;):D
I was baiting you for that, pal.:)

[soonerhubs]

:D
I was baiting you for that, pal.:)
Non polygamists these days Typical. ;)

[Flagstaffsooner]

I had two dates tonight, does that count?

[SicEmBaylor]

I had two dates tonight, does that count?
Pfft, I could have had two dates at once this week but passed ;).

[Flagstaffsooner]

Pfft, I could have had two dates at once this week but passed ;).Why, Sic, did they want to dance?:D

[Flagstaffsooner]

dp

[soonerhubs]

Pfft, I could have had two dates at once this week but passed ;).
Heh. I don't think I ever did that at FTG. But I did date Budo's daughter. :)

[SicEmBaylor]

Why, Sic, did they want to dance?:D
http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67853&highlight=Sic%27Em

No, I think they wanted to rob me or give me some communicable disease that will have me starring in Valtrex commercials.

[SicEmBaylor]

Heh. I don't think I ever did that at FTG. But I did date Budo's daughter. :)

Hahaha nooo, I definitely never did that in FTG either. Budo?

[Flagstaffsooner]

Heh. I don't think I ever did that at FTG. But I did date Budo's daughter. :)What is FTG and who is Budo?:confused:
Gawd I hope this is not something weird when Mormons and Baptists get together.;)

[soonerhubs]

What is FTG and who is Budo?:confused:
Gawd I hope this is not something weird when Mormons and Baptists get together.;)
Fort Gibson Oklahoma, and Budo is a famous Fort Gibson resident.

More when Mormons date the Church of Christ members.

Pretty cool still.

[Flagstaffsooner]

I was sitting here thinking F'n Tail Gate and Budo was Dean.

[soonerhubs]

I was sitting here thinking F'n Tail Gate and Budo was Dean.
Heh! Well that could've worked as well.

[SicEmBaylor]

Heh! Well that could've worked as well.

Ohhh, Budo hahaha yeah okay I know who you're talking about now.

[Flagstaffsooner]

More when Mormons date the Church of Christ members.

Pretty cool still.Let the good times roll!:D

[Mongo]

Hey Sic"em, you will need a fellow that has the same thoughts as you, but has a nastier disposition to get the job done. If you build me a lesser of a pimp*ss house and not make me pay taxes, I will ensure you that the job gets done.




then overthrow your arse!!!!

[Flagstaffsooner]

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67853&highlight=Sic%27Em

No, I think they wanted to rob me or give me some communicable disease that will have me starring in Valtrex commercials.whorn girlies start early.

[KaiserSooner]

I would then eliminate the 14th and 17th Amendments to the US Constitution

You'd get rid of the amendment that denies individual states the ability to deny citizens equal protection of the laws, and the amendment that provides for direct election of senators? Explain why you'd get rid of these?

[Scott D]

well on the part of the one..if you are a Dictator why would you need senators? :D

[SicEmBaylor]

You'd get rid of the amendment that denies individual states the ability to deny citizens equal protection of the laws, and the amendment that provides for direct election of senators? Explain why you'd get rid of these?

Because I'm a believer in originalist intent regardless of whether it's consistent with contemporary liberal or conservative politics. I've already explained my position on both accounts numerous times on this board, but for the sake of being cooperative I'll do so again...

Originally the US constitution was a limit on Federal not state power except in those specific instances where the federal government was granted specific rights and enumerated powers. This included constitutional protections that prevented federal but not state infringement upon those rights until the dubious ratification of the 14th Amendment. It's my personal belief that states should be free to adopt whatever state constitutional protections and laws that are consistent with the beliefs of the people of those individual states, thus allowing more liberal states to provide more progressive laws and programs while conversely allowing conservative states to provide more conservative laws. In this way we prevent the political friction that results in using the Federal government to act beyond its constitutional mandate to enact blanket policies inconsistent with at least half of the nation.

Now as for the 17th Amendment...

The framers intended the two houses of congress to provide for the representatives of the people directly (the House of Representatives) and representatives of the individual states as a whole (the Senate). There were of course several reasons for this, but chief among them was the desire to have at least one body of Congress that was somewhat immune from the almost daily whims of the electorate in order to provide more long term political stability and moderation. It also divided congress up between the interests of the people and the interests of the states themselves rather than the individuals within those states. States have lost much of their power becuase they lost their representatives to the Federal system. Let's remember that it was the states who created the Federal government not vice versa, therefore it's fundamentally important that the states have representation within the federal system.

[SicEmBaylor]

well on the part of the one..if you are a Dictator why would you need senators? :D

Because as dictator my overall goal is to return reserved powers to the individual states. US Senators are representatives of those individual states, therefore a senate would be essential for coordinating the transfer of that power.

[william_brasky]

Who's this Dick Tator guy?

[jk the sooner fan]

if i were dictator, i would make every thursday "free icee day" at 7/11

[soonerbrat]

If I was dicatator:
1)Mississippi and Lousiana are busted back down to Territories
2)A consistent determined drive to alternative energy
3)Farm subsidies would be gone.
4)Nuclear power plants would be everywhere
5)Fred Phelps would disappear
6)LCMS becomes official state religon
7)California-I'll Listen to offers
8)A completely free market
9)University of Texas would be disbanded
10)Canada Annexed
11)Drugs legalized
12)Serious medical tort reform
13)Soccer abolished
14)The Royals would be much improved if MLB knew what was good for them
15)The Big 8 would be back and Nebaska would play OU on the Friday after Thanksgiving
16)My Birthday would be a national holiday
That should be a good start.


ok..you CANNOT abolish soccer. sorry.
it keeps my daughter really busy and out of trouble AND it's great exercise. I forbid you to abolish soccer. At least for girls.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/cfbmedia/Picture003a.jpg

[Okla-homey]

fair and balanced time.


Originally the US constitution was a limit on Federal not state power except in those specific instances where the federal government was granted specific rights and enumerated powers. This included constitutional protections that prevented federal but not state infringement upon those rights until the dubious ratification of the 14th Amendment.

See, here's why that wasn't workable in actual practice and the 14th became necessary. Baylor's correct in his view that the Constitution is considered by some people to have been intended by the framers strictly as a hedge against an all powerful federal government. There are those who disagree with that extreme position, like me, but I'm not going there today. Be that what it may, the guys who draft amendments are considered "framers" too because the amendment becomes part of the document...but I digress.

Anyhoo, here's the thing. We all agree citizens have many fundamental rights guarenteed them by constitution. We all remember the litany of them from high school. The federal government can't deny a citizen those rights except under certain very limited circumstances which the government must be able to demonstrate in federal court.

Problem was, for a very long time, as Baylor points out, the Constitution was interpreted by the SCOTUS as only applying to federal government conduct -- the actions of state governments to deny citizens their rights were considered pretty much not actionable in federal courts.

Then, we had the Civil War, (aka the War Between the States,) which settled the issue of human slavery on our shores. The framers of the 13th (slavery illegal and even private persons could be prosecuted if they held slaves), the aforementioned 14th, and the 15th (giving former male slaves and any other 21 y/o man who was born here the right to vote) knew that these amendments might be construed in the states of the former Confederacy to apply only to federal government actions so they wisely included language in the 14th which specifically stated a citizens rights under the constitution may not be denied by a state government either, except under very limited exceptions and with the blessing of the SCOTUS.

See, going all the way back to the earliest days of our republic, the Supreme Court of the United States are the finally authority on constitutional interpretation. IOW, the Constitution means what they say it means. Nobody else's opinion is of any consequence. A great Virginian by the name of Chief Justice John Marshall is the cat who first articulated that fact. The language of the 14th amendment made it clear that neither state nor federal action could deny a citizen his rights without due process of law.

Even armed with the 14th amendment, it took about another hundred years, but finally, the great civil rights struggles of the 1950's and 60's established once and for all that the actions of the state governments to deny citizens their rights because of the color of their skin was illegal under the constitution. It was a tough fight but the strugglers would not have been able to prevail without the 14th amendment's language.

Therefore, IMHO, the 14th is the amendment which made fully possible that the implied promises of 1789 contained in the "original" document's "Bill of Rights" would be kept for all citizens and even oppressive state governments couldn't hold sway to deny citizens their rights.

I also don't understand why the 14th Amendment's ratification is considered by Baylor to be "dubious." It was legally approved by the Congress and ratified by the requisite number of states per the terms and conditions of the "original" Constitution. How is that "dubious?"

It's my personal belief that states should be free to adopt whatever state constitutional protections and laws that are consistent with the beliefs of the people of those individual states.

I shudder to think what life would be like in many parts of this country if that were the case.

[royalfan5]

ok..you CANNOT abolish soccer. sorry.
it keeps my daughter really busy and out of trouble AND it's great exercise. I forbid you to abolish soccer. At least for girls.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/cfbmedia/Picture003a.jpg
fair enough, I'll let it stay for girls, but it can never be televised.

[sooneron]

I would hire Ken Starr to look into the usc and texas football programs.

[soonerscuba]

1) Churches decide whether they are in politics or not. If they decide they are, I hope they enjoy their new tax rate.

2) All guns registered accompanied by background checks and licenses, however you want a full auto in your trunk? You got it. No questions asked.

3) All military engagements over 2,000 troops must be accompanied by a Congressional declaration of war, no more "police actions". Does this limit my power? Yes, history will remember as wise, as well as brutal.

4) No more jorts.

5) We gonna be declassifying lots of non-military ****, plus some military ****, so if you don't want your faith in God tested when I wheel out the alien corpses to the Smithsonian, I recommend a nice shack in Montana. Also a public demonstration of our third most badass plane, the SR-71 was designed in 1964, that is over 40 years ago, so you know that there is some insane **** that has been put out by skunk works since, I feel that we should put the fear of God into people more than we already have.

[Jerk]

What would you do?
ScottD brought this up in another thread, so I thought I'd find out what everyone would do if you were an American dictator.

I would begin by holding a large convention of every state legislator and governor of every state in the nation and explain to them that I would be stripping away Federal programs and that it would be their responsibility to create replacement state programs if the people in their state still demand those services and programs.

Then I would begin to reduce the Federal government to only those responsibilities specifically enumerated in the constitution thus leaving everything else up to the states.

This in turn would free up a huge surplus in federal tax revenue which I would use to pay off the national debt.

After the debt is paid off that budget surplus would then be returned to the people so the states could then re-work their own tax codes to pay for the state programs and services enacted to replace similar now eliminated federal programs.

I would then eliminate the 14th and 17th Amendments to the US Constitution while adding a balanced budget amendment that included capping Federal spending (with exceptions for emergency and war time spending).
Once the individual states had a reasonable amount of time to catch up with the shift in power from the Federal to the State level, I would once again call for the regularly scheduled federal elections.

.........but not before building myself one big *** pimpin' palace on the banks of the Potomac. ;-)

Ditto.

[Jerk]

Because I'm a believer in originalist intent regardless of whether it's consistent with contemporary liberal or conservative politics. I've already explained my position on both accounts numerous times on this board, but for the sake of being cooperative I'll do so again...

Originally the US constitution was a limit on Federal not state power except in those specific instances where the federal government was granted specific rights and enumerated powers. This included constitutional protections that prevented federal but not state infringement upon those rights until the dubious ratification of the 14th Amendment. It's my personal belief that states should be free to adopt whatever state constitutional protections and laws that are consistent with the beliefs of the people of those individual states, thus allowing more liberal states to provide more progressive laws and programs while conversely allowing conservative states to provide more conservative laws. In this way we prevent the political friction that results in using the Federal government to act beyond its constitutional mandate to enact blanket policies inconsistent with at least half of the nation.

Now as for the 17th Amendment...

The framers intended the two houses of congress to provide for the representatives of the people directly (the House of Representatives) and representatives of the individual states as a whole (the Senate). There were of course several reasons for this, but chief among them was the desire to have at least one body of Congress that was somewhat immune from the almost daily whims of the electorate in order to provide more long term political stability and moderation. It also divided congress up between the interests of the people and the interests of the states themselves rather than the individuals within those states. States have lost much of their power becuase they lost their representatives to the Federal system. Let's remember that it was the states who created the Federal government not vice versa, therefore it's fundamentally important that the states have representation within the federal system.

Dude, if you ever run for office, I'll volunteer time by calling people, putting up sings, tearing down your opponents signs, raising money, driving a bus full of believers to the polls, voting twice...WHATEVER YOU WANT.

[Okla-homey]

Dude, if you ever run for office, I'll volunteer time by calling people, putting up sings, tearing down your opponents signs, raising money, driving a bus full of believers to the polls, voting twice...WHATEVER YOU WANT.

I don't think it will happen Jerk. His writings (which are now eternally memorialized in cyberspace) about the evil 14th amendment would be trotted out and he'd be labeled some very bad things.;)

[jk the sooner fan]

hmmm, i really thought that free icee thursday would have a much wider appeal

[Jerk]

2) All guns registered accompanied by background checks and licenses, however you want a full auto in your trunk? You got it. No questions asked.

.

I've have wondered before if a "deal" like this could be made, but I don't think it could for two reasons - the gun banners don't wan't registeration, they want confiscation (I sound like Johnny Cochran) and they darned sure don't want no f'n hillbillies with machine guns - background check or not. Plus, I don't think the gun rights side would agree either, giving that they'd believe that registration is the next step to an all out ban.

But, if it would work, and both sides would stick to the agreement, I'd go for it. I have no felonies, so I have nothing to lose. And it would be cool to see machine guns become affordable again for law abiding peeps.

I'm more optimistic now after reading Democrat Underground's gun forum. Those leftists loonies are really starting to see the importance of an armed populace. Seriously, I was shocked by how many hard core demos support gun ownership. Maybe they're afraid that Bush is going to open up some concentration camps for local insurgents?

[SoonerInKCMO]

What would you do?
ScottD brought this up in another thread, so I thought I'd find out what everyone would do if you were an American dictator.

I would begin by holding a large convention of every state legislator and governor of every state in the nation and explain to them that I would be stripping away Federal programs and that it would be their responsibility to create replacement state programs if the people in their state still demand those services and programs.

Then I would begin to reduce the Federal government to only those responsibilities specifically enumerated in the constitution thus leaving everything else up to the states.

This in turn would free up a huge surplus in federal tax revenue which I would use to pay off the national debt.

After the debt is paid off that budget surplus would then be returned to the people so the states could then re-work their own tax codes to pay for the state programs and services enacted to replace similar now eliminated federal programs.

I would then eliminate the 14th and 17th Amendments to the US Constitution while adding a balanced budget amendment that included capping Federal spending (with exceptions for emergency and war time spending).
Once the individual states had a reasonable amount of time to catch up with the shift in power from the Federal to the State level, I would once again call for the regularly scheduled federal elections.

.........but not before building myself one big *** pimpin' palace on the banks of the Potomac. ;-)

After removing nearly all of the federal government's services, how would you justify to the populace collecting sufficient taxes to pay off the debt?

I think you'd be making yourself ripe for a coup. ;)

[slickdawg]

1) All American troops recalled to the US - none deployed in foriegn countries.

2) Flat tax rates

3) Reopen Alcatraz and put convicted child molesters there until they die

4) Mexico - you and your oil are now US property. Don't like it?
I've got my entire f'n military coming in to enforce it.

5) Total redesign of the federal procurement and contracting system.

6) Rapists shall be castrated on the first conviction

7) English shall be the official language of the United States

8) Put 80% of all energy industry profits in escrow until they come up with
new solutions. When these solutions are in mass production, they get their
money.

9) Eliminate federal funding to states. Exceptions only for disasters
and severe crisis management

10) Kick every non-American student out of American colleges and universities
and deport them

11) Profile terrorists like mad

12) No foriegn aid for anyone. They have their problems, we have ours.

13) Trade agreements will be dollar for dollar. Any trade defecits not
corrected in 6 months will see trade with that nation cut off.
We buy your stuff, you buy ours.

14) Strict punishment for "white collar" crimes. The Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers,
Duke Cunningham types would be busting up rocks witha sledgehammer in the
desert.

15) Deport all illegal aliens

16) term limits in the house and senate

[royalfan5]

Am I the only would be dicator that abolishes democracy? What's the point of being a dicator if the citizens have some power?

[soonercody]

Am I the only would be dicator that abolishes democracy? What's the point of being a dicator if the citizens have some power?

Do I hear free ICEEs?

[Scott D]

Am I the only would be dicator that abolishes democracy? What's the point of being a dicator if the citizens have some power?

*cough*someone did mention executing all politicians*cough*

you know, the only smart thing saddam ever did ;)

[SicEmBaylor]

fair and balanced time.
You sir, are of course, correct on all your points. Our disagreement lies with the positive and negative effects of the 14th Amendment.

As you sort of indicated not all of the original framers (since you consider any author(s) to post-convention amendments to be framers as well)believed in this concept of strict limitation of federal power nor a constitution that limits only federal power. However, that was the resulting document. In fact, there was talk at the convention of totally eliminating states all together or even re-drawing them into somewhat equal administrative districts. While that may have been the wish at some which was totally rejected by the "committee as a whole" and was not reflected in the final document.

I refer to the ratification of the 14th amendment as dubious becuase the Federal government counted the southern states for the purpose of ratification, but not for representation within congress when the 14th Amendment was before that body. In addition, there are the issues regarding the leadership of the southern states during that time being coerced, however, this is less of a problem than the lack of representation in Congress.

At any rate, you're probably right about what I'd be labeled by opposing the 14th Amendment but I hope you yourself would not resort to such insinuations as they are wholly untrue.

[royalfan5]

Do I hear free ICEEs?
sure, On thursday afternoon everyone gets a free icee.

[SicEmBaylor]

After removing nearly all of the federal government's services, how would you justify to the populace collecting sufficient taxes to pay off the debt?

I think you'd be making yourself ripe for a coup. ;)

1. I'm a Dictator and do what I want. :P
2. Yes, I'd be keeping those Federal funds for the purpose of paying off the national debt, but I would make the case that after the debt is paid off that money would be returned. Then they can b**** about their state governments taking their money instead of the Feds.

I also endorse the idea of eliminating the IRS as we know it and installing a national sales tax.

[royalfan5]

1. I'm a Dictator and do what I want. :P
2. Yes, I'd be keeping those Federal funds for the purpose of paying off the national debt, but I would make the case that after the debt is paid off that money would be returned. Then they can b**** about their state governments taking their money instead of the Feds.

I also endorse the idea of eliminating the IRS as we know it and installing a national sales tax.
If you are a dicator, what's the point of maintaining a Federal System? I would do away the exisiting states. I would set up some sort of adminstrative district system to replace them, and all taxes would go to the national government.

[SicEmBaylor]

If you are a dicator, what's the point of maintaining a Federal System? I would do away the exisiting states. I would set up some sort of adminstrative district system to replace them, and all taxes would go to the national government.

Because I don't want to be a permanent Dictator. I want to be dictator for the purpose of repairing the Federal system and then return to regular elections. In fact, the people would still vote for and maintain all of their state officials.

I fancy myself a modern day Cato. :D

[Okla-homey]

:D


You sir, are of course, correct on all your points. Our disagreement lies with the positive and negative effects of the 14th Amendment.

As you sort of indicated not all of the original framers (since you consider any author(s) to post-convention amendments to be framers as well)believed in this concept of strict limitation of federal power nor a constitution that limits only federal power. However, that was the resulting document. In fact, there was talk at the convention of totally eliminating states all together or even re-drawing them into somewhat equal administrative districts. While that may have been the wish at some which was totally rejected by the "committee as a whole" and was not reflected in the final document.

General observation: Its really hard to discern the "original intent" of the makers of a document crafted by committee composed of almost 40 delegates with widely varied interests and involving lots of wheeling and dealing.

I refer to the ratification of the 14th amendment as dubious becuase the Federal government counted the southern states for the purpose of ratification, but not for representation within congress when the 14th Amendment was before that body. In addition, there are the issues regarding the leadership of the southern states during that time being coerced, however, this is less of a problem than the lack of representation in Congress.

There were ten states whose ante-bellum Congressional delegation was replaced by Republicans after the "woah" ended. Just for the sake of argument, lets do the math. In 1868 when the 14th was ratified there were 37 states. They needed 2/3's of both houses of Congress to send it to the states. They got that easily. Of course, I suppose you could argue that since those states hadn't been "re-admitted" yet, it was bogus. Here's my point, those states never legally left the union because as we now know, once admitted, a state can't decide it wants out. Their delegations walked out, but that was a self-inflicted wound. Therefore, the votes present were sufficient to send it to the states.

As you know, they needed 28 of the state legislatures to sign off...3/4's -- I rounded up to be fair. Therefore, I presume your point is that since those ten former Confederate state legislatures surely wouldn't have voted to ratify, leaving them one short for ratification, the 14th was snuck into the Constitution illegally?

I think that's a stretch.

At any rate, you're probably right about what I'd be labeled by opposing the 14th Amendment but I hope you yourself would not resort to such insinuations as they are wholly untrue.

Not me, but it doesn't matter what I think. I know you are young and your political views are still "gelling." That said, be careful about what you write. You may regret some stuff later, particularly if your views change. People can and do hold public figures accountable for their early writings. I should think stated opposition to the amendment which made it illegal for states to deny black folks their fundamental rights would be construed negatively in many circles and thus could become a political liability. Heck, an awful lot of people in this country disliked Bill Clinton first because of that letter he wrote to ROTC as an undergrad when he stated he "loathed the military." The press is bad enough to make up bad stuff about politicians (a-la Dan Rather,) you don't need to give them ammo.

[dolemitesooner]

I would shoot 3 people in the head with a gun

[Scott D]

Because I don't want to be a permanent Dictator. I want to be dictator for the purpose of repairing the Federal system and then return to regular elections. In fact, the people would still vote for and maintain all of their state officials.

I fancy myself a modern day Cato. :D

you sir, would have a government destine for failure.

[slickdawg]

I would shoot 3 people in the head with a gun


Dare I ask, which three?

[SicEmBaylor]

:D

I appreciate the comments, although quite honestly my political views aren't still "gelling." I've never been the type of guy who ever changes his mind about anything unless presented with overwhelming reason to do so.

But politics has been my single narrow focus since 5th grade, and while my political views have grown more complex they have not really changed.

It's probably unusal for someone my age to be so resistant to change, but since I believe I was born 180 years too late things have changed enough for me as it is. :D

[Scott D]

I appreciate the comments, although quite honestly my political views aren't still "gelling." I've never been the type of guy who ever changes his mind about anything unless presented with overwhelming reason to do so.

But politics has been my single narrow focus since 5th grade, and while my political views have grown more complex they have not really changed.

It's probably unusal for someone my age to be so resistant to change, but since I believe I was born 180 years too late things have changed enough for me as it is. :D

*sigh* tittays and touchdowns were my narrow focus since 5th grade :D

[SoonerInKCMO]

But politics has been my single narrow focus since 5th grade, and while my political views have grown more complex they have not really changed.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y52/ToddG/shakehead.gif

[SicEmBaylor]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y52/ToddG/shakehead.gif

Sad isn't it? :D

[royalfan5]

Because I don't want to be a permanent Dictator. I want to be dictator for the purpose of repairing the Federal system and then return to regular elections. In fact, the people would still vote for and maintain all of their state officials.

I fancy myself a modern day Cato. :D
I suppose if you fancy yourself benevelolent dictator, myself, I would use Papa Doc Duvalier as my model.

[Okla-homey]

I appreciate the comments, although quite honestly my political views aren't still "gelling." I've never been the type of guy who ever changes his mind about anything unless presented with overwhelming reason to do so.

But politics has been my single narrow focus since 5th grade, and while my political views have grown more complex they have not really changed.

It's probably unusal for someone my age to be so resistant to change, but since I believe I was born 180 years too late things have changed enough for me as it is. :D

I was the same way. Then I started working, married and had children. It changes you. You'll see.

[Jerk]

The beautiful thing about SicEm's ideas are that it would let people rule their own lives. Take Montana and New Jersey - two completely different states, different cultures, different ways of life. The laws of one state might not be good for the other. Sure, our constitional rights apply to the people of both states, but I bet there are many laws passed by congress that don't.

[SicEmBaylor]

The beautiful thing about SicEm's ideas are that it would let people rule their own lives. Take Montana and New Jersey - two completely different states, different cultures, different ways of life. The laws of one state might not be good for the other. Sure, our constitional rights apply to the people of both states, but I bet there are many laws passed by congress that don't.

That's precisely the idea. I'm sometimes told from friends that I'm not really a conservative because I'm as opposed to imposing conservatism on the entire nation as I am liberalism through Federal means.

I don't advocate these ideas simply because I want to reduce the size of the Federal government (though that's part of it). I advocate these policies because I sincerely believe in state government that's closer to the people. More liberal states should be free to enact progressive policies and the same is true for more conservative states.

Look, fundamentally we are a collection individual semi-soverign states bound together into one federal union. I believe that government is best when it governs not only the least but closest to the people. Today the Federal government has a footprint in our lives that is much much too big. I want the government most involved in our lives to be our local and state government.

And if you have a problem with the state government your local state representative or state senator should be easily accessible. These are local politicans who live in your neighborhood, who go to your church or the church down the street, and the ones you see at the grocery store.

Change is easier when you're closer to your elected officials and the government is closer to you.

[Mongo]

What about the full faith and credit? Say a liberal state lets John and James get married, should a neighboring conservative state recognize that?

[SicEmBaylor]

What about the full faith and credit? Say a liberal state lets John and James get married, should a neighboring conservative state recognize that?

There's a recognized legal exception to the full faith and credit clause that's known as the "public policy exception" which maintains the integrity of a state's policy when it conflicts with other states. Marriage laws would fall under this exception which is why state DOMA laws have not been overturned.

So the answer is no, a neighboring conservative state should not have to recognize any marriage that conflicts with its own marriage laws.

[KaiserSooner]

Because I'm a believer in originalist intent regardless of whether it's consistent with contemporary politics.

The way I see it, that philosophy/interpretation is more than just being inconsistent with contemporary politics, Left or Right. It (originalist intent) simply ignores the realities of a 21st Century (heck, even a 19th Century) United States. If any social compact, such as the U.S. Constitution, isn't responsive to the realities of the present, it is only waiting to be discarded and replaced by a new social compact that will respond to the realities of the present.

I don't believe the Founding Fathers had such a rigid intent, as you imply they had. Rather, it seems to me they understood the need to create a document that'd be flexible and responsive to the needs of the Nation, as the years passed.....which, to me, is why the U.S. Constitution is relatively vague (when compared to other consitutions) and was made and continues to be amendable.



Originally the US constitution was a limit on Federal not state power except in those specific instances where the federal government was granted specific rights and enumerated powers. This included constitutional protections that prevented federal but not state infringement upon those rights until the dubious ratification of the 14th Amendment. It's my personal belief that states should be free to adopt whatever state constitutional protections and laws that are consistent with the beliefs of the people of those individual states, thus allowing more liberal states to provide more progressive laws and programs while conversely allowing conservative states to provide more conservative laws. In this way we prevent the political friction that results in using the Federal government to act beyond its constitutional mandate to enact blanket policies inconsistent with at least half of the nation.

More than an originalist, it sounds like your an old-fashioned states' rights fella.

You make a relatively compelling argument, but I have trouble ignoring the unethicality, even immorality, of a national government standing by, allowing states to deny citizens basic rights guaranteed them in the U.S. Constitution.


Now as for the 17th Amendment...

The framers intended the two houses of congress to provide for the representatives of the people directly (the House of Representatives) and representatives of the individual states as a whole (the Senate). There were of course several reasons for this, but chief among them was the desire to have at least one body of Congress that was somewhat immune from the almost daily whims of the electorate in order to provide more long term political stability and moderation. It also divided congress up between the interests of the people and the interests of the states themselves rather than the individuals within those states. States have lost much of their power becuase they lost their representatives to the Federal system. Let's remember that it was the states who created the Federal government not vice versa, therefore it's fundamentally important that the states have representation within the federal system.

This is actually, very similar to the German federal system, which, for all intents and purposes has been in existence since 1867, only being discarded during Hitler's dictatorship. To this day, the Bundesrat (ie, the upper house) is not directly elected in Germany, but appointed by the governments of Germany's various states, so as to provide the governments of those states a voice in Berlin.

[SicEmBaylor]

The way I see it, that philosophy/interpretation is more than just being inconsistent with contemporary politics, Left or Right. It (originalist intent) simply ignores the realities of a 21st Century (heck, even a 19th Century) United States. If any social compact, such as the U.S. Constitution, isn't responsive to the realities of the present, it is only waiting to be discarded and replaced by a new social compact that will respond to the realities of the present.

I don't believe the Founding Fathers had such a rigid intent, as you imply they had. Rather, it seems to me they understood the need to create a document that'd be flexible and responsive to the needs of the Nation, as the years passed.....which, to me, is why the U.S. Constitution is relatively vague (when compared to other consitutions) and was made and continues to be amendable.

Well, I'll grant you the concerns about states denying equal protection and individual rights, however most states already had in place state constitutional protections of the same rights that were later federalized. More over, the Bill of Rights themselves were based on existing constitutional protections already provided by most of the states (plus some additional ones which weren't ratified).

As for the rigidity, you're absolutely right that the constitution shouldn't be rigid and neither did the framers intend for that to be the case which is why they created the amendment process. I think, however, that while amending the constitution can be important it shouldn't tinker with the delicate balance of the document or the mechanics of the government itself which is what the 14th and especially 17th Amendment do.

Let me make this case to you which I talk to liberals about pretty often, and have even managed to somewhat convince them of the beauty of this system. I think we both agree on the need for social change. The question is, what level of government should be the vehicle of social change? To me it seems obvious that since this is a very diverse nation with diverse interests, beliefs, and customs that a one size fits all federal policy only leads to friction between the political parties and ideologies.

Why not allow the individual states to be the vehicle for social change unencumbered by superceding federal laws, statutes, and regulations? I truly don't want to "conservatize" the entire nation. I'm not so naive to believe that the citizens of Vermont value the same social and economic policies of the citizens of Mississippi.


More than an originalist, it sounds like your an old-fashioned states' rights fella.

That's pretty much what I am.


You make a relatively compelling argument, but I have trouble ignoring the unethicality, even immorality, of a national government standing by, allowing states to deny citizens basic rights guaranteed them in the U.S. Constitution.

I understand and truly respect those concerns. As I've stated though the Constitution itself did not originally provide those protections beyond restricting the federal government from infringing upon them.

However, like I said above most states already protected those rights in their state constitution. The problem was not that the states didn't protect those rights, but who those rights were extended to. You're totally right that it is immoral for the state to deny equal protection and full rights of citizenship based on color or any other physical characteristic or circumstance which an individual has no control over. I'm unwilling though to justify federal intervention in what is essentially a state matter.

People must be vigilant of their rights which is why they must be as vigilant of their state denying their individual rights as they are about the federal government. Ultimately it's a matter of personal responsibility and people will only truly ensure their rights are protected when they demand and hold their public officials accountable. This is as true on the federal level as it is on the state level, and I personally think in most cases it's easier for the individual to protect their rights from a government closer to them on the state level than the national level thousands of miles away.


This is actually, very similar to the German federal system, which, for all intents and purposes has been in existence since 1867, only being discarded during Hitler's dictatorship. To this day, the Bundesrat (ie, the upper house) is not directly elected in Germany, but appointed by the governments of Germany's various states, so as to provide the governments of those states a voice in Berlin.

Aye, that's actually very interseting. Do members of that upper body usually act in their sectional interests or party interests?

[KaiserSooner]

Let me make this case to you which I talk to liberals about pretty often, and have even managed to somewhat convince them of the beauty of this system. I think we both agree on the need for social change. The question is, what level of government should be the vehicle of social change? To me it seems obvious that since this is a very diverse nation with diverse interests, beliefs, and customs that a one size fits all federal policy only leads to friction between the political parties and ideologies.

Why not allow the individual states to be the vehicle for social change unencumbered by superceding federal laws, statutes, and regulations?

I don't disagree with that, so long as the federal government sets something of a minimum standard, by which states should not fall below.

I can't think of a good example now, but it seems to me the 14th Amendment is a good enough example, which prohibits states from denying due process of the law. This, to me, isn't overly intrusive into states' abilities to set the course of social change, yet it sets something of a minimum standard.




People must be vigilant of their rights which is why they must be as vigilant of their state denying their individual rights as they are about the federal government. Ultimately it's a matter of personal responsibility and people will only truly ensure their rights are protected when they demand and hold their public officials accountable. This is as true on the federal level as it is on the state level

I agree 100%. Unfortunately, I think people tend to be less vigilant about such matters these than every before.



Aye, that's actually very interseting. Do members of that upper body usually act in their sectional interests or party interests?

I'm not a close follower of the Bundesrat, but am a relatively diligent observer of German politics, and from what I've been able to gather, Bundesrat members tend to act more in the interest of their parties than in the interest of their individual states. At least these days.

A good example of this is the 2005 parliamentary elections held in Germany, in which Gerhard Schroeder's center-left coalition lost to Angela Merkel's center-right coalition. These elections were called by then chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, because his home state's parliamentary elections resulted in the defeat of a center-left coalition that had governed for over 40 yrs.

This defeat pushed the majority of Germany's upper house, which was held by the then opposition center-right, into something similar to a veto-proof majority. Schroeder, likely correct, came to the conclusion that his center-left government would not be able to govern with such a massive opposition presence in the upper house, thus elections were called.

That's sort of a rambling example, but it does show party interests were held above state/sectional interests in this case.

However, whenever discussing German politics, the case of Bavaria can never be left out. Bavaria has always (and in the case of a unified Germany, I do mean ALWAYS) been known for its particularist interests. During the German Empire days (1871-1918), Bavaria was allowed to maintain its own army and even a few embassies in foreign countries. The Bavarian branch of Germany's political parties are always organized separately, with the Social Democratic Party as an exception. Between WWI and Hitler, the powerful catholic Center Party was represented by the Bavarian People's Party, and today, the Christian Democratic Union is represented by the Christian Social Union in Bavaria. To make a long story short, Bavarian members of the upper house likely pursue Bavarian, rather than party interests.

That's a long a rambling answer...but there you have it :)

[JohnnyMack]

I would make it legal to post boobies on the SO.

[SicEmBaylor]

I would make it legal to post boobies on the SO.

I endorse that.

[pb4ou]

I would make it legal to post boobies on the SO.


I endorse that.

sinners!!!!! :P

[william_brasky]

Fridays would be No Pants Fridays instead of Casual Fridays

[Jerk]

I don't believe the Founding Fathers had such a rigid intent, as you imply they had. Rather, it seems to me they understood the need to create a document that'd be flexible and responsive to the needs of the Nation, as the years passed.....which, to me, is why the U.S. Constitution is relatively vague (when compared to other consitutions) and was made and continues to be amendable.



This is kind of what China is doing with the Communist manefesto. "It doesn't work as it is, so we'll make it a living document and say it's okay to have some free enterprise." And bamo, 15 years later, China is becoming an economic super power. Thing is, you go too far with the "living document" thing and you can make the constitution say whatever you want it to say, especially if it conflicts with your beliefs. And unlike communism, our system works.