If you were to write a constitution…

[Chuck Bao]

Apparently, the board didn't like my proposal for constitutional amendments for cross dressers and elephants.

[Chuck Bao]

I'll try again. And, thanks to whomever already gave this a five-star rating!!!

To continue with my ongoing series of reporting about silly politics in a very small, Texas-sized country with 65 million people called Thailand. And, I’m still finding some perverse pleasure in drawing parallels with the US.

In tonight’s episode: Reason number…umm whatever…why countries shouldn’t have frequent coups and new constitutions. THIRD SEX POWER – ELEPHANT POWER – BUDDHIST POWER – INTERNET POWER – POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!

This like gives me a flashback to my high school civics class in the 70s about the NOW (National Organization of Women) constitutional amendment proposal and scaremongers who warned about the dangers of the states’ opening up some sort of constitution-ratifying convention and like anything could be added or deleted to the constitution at that convention.

Basically, this is what we are getting in Thailand now in abundance. Every special interest group is grouping.


Nathee Thirarojanapong, president of the Thai Political Gay Group, said a network of homosexual rights groups has agreed that the (constitutional) clause guaranteeing equal rights for men and women should also include the phrase "and people with other sexual conditions and preferences". The so-called "third sex" includes gays, lesbians, transvestites and cross-dressers.

Alright, I have an affinity to those people who just want to live their lives and be themselves. I still don’t know about a proposal in the constitution to protect the “third sex”. I’m trying to be sensitive here, but the whole third world and third sex thing just seems downgrading or degrading somehow.

With that being said, I think every country should make it a constitutional right for everyone to cross dress if they so want. But, what exactly is cross dressing? And, how much constitutional fashion leeway should we really give to heterosexual cross dressers.

I have more of a problem with the proposal to include a constitutional clause setting Buddhism as the state religion. Why? What benefit is there? The only purpose I see is to antagonize the Muslims in southern Thailand and further exacerbate the southern separatist movement.

A few day ago there was a group of monks, lay people and elephants who walked from a Buddhist park outside Bangkok into the city to just outside parliament building. I’m mostly angry that it is illegal to bring elephants into Bangkok and the police did nothing. But seriously, to bring them into the city amid the traffic congestion and the middle of the hottest month of the year should be a crime!!! I’m thinking we need an elephant’s constitution, as well.

http://img5.ranchoweb.com/images/kanunu/260407_new01.jpg


Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont yesterday suggested that there could be an ulterior motive behind a mass rally to press for Buddhism to be recognised as the state religion in the new constitution...The rally outside parliament, which drew around 20,000 monks and lay people, raised tension and concerns about a violent confrontation…Maj-Gen Thongkhao Puangrodphan, deputy secretary-general of the Buddhism Protection Centre of Thailand, said the prime minister's claim was ''really not constructive'' and would create disunity in society. ''The gathering of Buddhists and monks to support Buddhism as the state religion is done in good faith. They have no any hidden agenda as suspected,'' Maj-Gen Thongkhao said.

Heh! Monks and violent confrontation! Constitutional fighting monks! Also, I love the good faith quote!

The 1997 Thai constitution is widely accepted as the most democratic. It has somewhat amused me that that constitution guaranteed the right to internet access to all Thais.

I don’t think that clause of the constitution was ever exercised in a court of law. I mean nobody can ever say they’ve been denied access to the internet with all the internet cafes around. Maybe I’m mistaken. I suppose that it’s important to say that the country won’t block all overseas internet access, given Thailand’s recent block of all youtube access. Too bad that that constitution is the waste bin now.

By the way, if you were to write an amendment to the constitution, what would you write?

[C&CDean]

I wouldn't 5 star this POS, but the other day was the first time I'd ever heard the phrase "the 3rd gender." I laughed.

Carry on.

[Mjcpr]

I always start mine with "Here I sit all broken-hearted....."

It's kind of the Bill of Rights.

[TUSooner]

fascinating

[usmc-sooner]

my constituion would call for the execution of cross dressers.

[GottaHavePride]

All I know about writing a Constitution is this. (http://www.marriedtothesea.com/042007/constitution-flute.gif)

[85Sooner]

1. All taxes voted in must have an expiration date. This includes fees. tolls etc.. ya know those little words they use to get around calling it a tax increase.

All Elected and appointed positions are set at a fixed salary. All benefits cease on the day office is left. No retirement is to be accumulated or paid.
All increases in pay must be voted on by the people.

No government benefits can be paid to anyone but a legal U.S. Citizen.

No one can be deprived of their property for failure to pay property taxes however, leans my be placed up to tha value of the home. Restablishing the ability to own private property which has disappeared.

All members of the media and eductational instructors must open their voting records for public consumption. Much like CEO's etc.. must make public their trading intentions.

[SicEmBaylor]

My constitution would require people to pray toward Richmond, 3 times a day.

[royalfan5]

I wouldn't have one. Who wants a bunch rules telling you that you can do ****?

[SicEmBaylor]

You know what I find amazing?
After all the work of the Founding Fathers and over 200 years of government by a document that doesn't prevent people from doing things but instead limits what the government can stop you from doing is that every time anyone discusses the "what would you do" to either change the constitution or write their own the **** they ALWAYS come up with are ways to limit what people can do rather than limit what you can do to the people.

[85Sooner]

You know what I find amazing?
After all the work of the Founding Fathers and over 200 years of government by a document that doesn't prevent people from doing things but instead limits what the government can stop you from doing is that every time anyone discusses the "what would you do" to either change the constitution or write their own the **** they ALWAYS come up with are ways to limit what people can do rather than limit what you can do to the people.


I believe my ideas are in line with the limiting government rather than limiting the populace.

[slickdawg]

1. If you are not a legal citizen, you do not have ANY rights inder this constitution. In fact, your *** should be sent back to your homeland.

2. The United States Military SHALL USE the maximumm amount of force from its arsenal to win wars. No press or politicians allowed in the war zone.

3. Term limits

4. All politicians salaries are the mean of their constituants.

[royalfan5]

1. If you are not a legal citizen, you do not have ANY rights inder this constitution. In fact, your *** should be sent back to your homeland.

2. The United States Military SHALL USE the maximumm amount of force from its arsenal to win wars. No press or politicians allowed in the war zone.

3. Term limits

4. All politicians salaries are the mean of their constituants.
1:That's very bad for the economy

3: That has worked well for Mexico hasn't it?

4:That's great if you only want rich people running for office.

[sanantoniosooner]

I would repeal the law of gravity.

And the speed of light is just too fast.

It should be slowed down a little.

[slickdawg]

1:That's very bad for the economy

3: That has worked well for Mexico hasn't it?

4:That's great if you only want rich people running for office.


The Messicans are more corrupt than our government. However, our governemnt is really a pseudo government. Large corporations run the US, politicians are just the faces of government.

Denying Civil Rights under the US constitution for non-citizens is bad for the economy?

Only rich people run for office. Every single one of them.

[royalfan5]

The Messicans are more corrupt than our government. However, our governemnt is really a pseudo government. Large corporations run the US, politicians are just the faces of government.

Denying Civil Rights under the US constitution for non-citizens is bad for the economy?

Only rich people run for office. Every single one of them.
The United States needs immigrants for economic growth, what would be gained by going out of your way to spite them? What civil right do you want to deny them the most?

If it weren't for large corporations, we would be screwed. Corporations are good for the United States.

Term limits strip the voters ability to hold their elected officials accoutnable, more term limits will won't equal better government.

In general, populism tends to be bad for countries, and your proposals smack of pure populism.

[slickdawg]

The United States needs immigrants for economic growth, what would be gained by going out of your way to spite them? What civil right do you want to deny them the most?

If it weren't for large corporations, we would be screwed. Corporations are good for the United States.

Term limits strip the voters ability to hold their elected officials accoutnable, more term limits will won't equal better government.

In general, populism tends to be bad for countries, and your proposals smack of pure populism.

There's nothing wrong with LEGAL immigrants. Most of us are.

Corporations are good to a degree. When they place too much pressure on governemtn for thier own good or buy votes in the senate, that's not good. Enron and Worldcom were great corporations, eh?

Former KKK member and curtent King of Pork Robert Byrd is a prime example of the need for term limits. Also see Ted Kennedy.

The forefathers had no way to envision how their original document would be twisted and contorted to the degree it has been today.

[royalfan5]

There's nothing wrong with LEGAL immigrants. Most of us are.

Corporations are good to a degree. When they place too much pressure on governemtn for thier own good or buy votes in the senate, that's not good. Enron and Worldcom were great corporations, eh?

Former KKK member and curtent King of Pork Robert Byrd is a prime example of the need for term limits. Also see Ted Kennedy.

The forefathers had no way to envision how their original document would be twisted and contorted to the degree it has been today.
In your first post you wanted to ship all immigrants back with no distinction.

There is some risk inherent in the capitalism. It's something you have to live with. The governmental overreaction to Enron and World-Com is helping to fuel the current private equity boom. In a capitalist society, there is always the chance you can lose big. I don't think corporation vote buying is any worse than pork spending to pander to indivdual constituents.

If the people of West Virginia and Mass. think that Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd are the people they want to represent them, why shouldn't they get to keep sending them?

The U.S. Constitution is the oldest working one in the world. Perhaps the fact that it hasn't been replaced has more to due with it's shortcomings than people twisting it.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

1. All taxes voted in must have an expiration date. This includes fees. tolls etc.. ya know those little words they use to get around calling it a tax increase.

All Elected and appointed positions are set at a fixed salary. All benefits cease on the day office is left. No retirement is to be accumulated or paid.
All increases in pay must be voted on by the people.

No government benefits can be paid to anyone but a legal U.S. Citizen.

No one can be deprived of their property for failure to pay property taxes however, leans my be placed up to tha value of the home. Restablishing the ability to own private property which has disappeared.

All members of the media and eductational instructors must open their voting records for public consumption. Much like CEO's etc.. must make public their trading intentions.In order to prevent expansion of the welfare state, nobody should be allowed to vote who receives a regular government check OF ANY KIND. This would include, of course, social security checks and govt. paychecks, of any kind.

[SicEmBaylor]

In order to prevent expansion of the welfare state, nobody should be allowed to vote who receives a regular government check OF ANY KIND. This would include, of course, social security checks and govt. paychecks, of any kind.
What about students who receive Federal student loans? Farmers who receive an Ag subsidy? Someone who buys their house through a HUD program?

I'm all for limiting the right to vote, but if you eliminated people who receive government assistance then virtually nobody would be allowed to vote.

[SicEmBaylor]

There's nothing wrong with LEGAL immigrants. Most of us are.
Every time I hear that I'm reminded of that exchange in the movie The Good Shepherd between Matt Damon and Joe Pesci.

Pesci asks Damon, "we Italians, we got our families, and we got the chuch; the Irish they have the homeland, jews their tradition; even the negroes, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?"

And Damon responds, "The United States of America, and the rest of you are just visiting."

Well, that's kind of the way I feel when someone says, "We're all immigrants."
Both sides of my family are Anglo-Saxon protestant and got here before the Revolution so I tend to consider anyone who says, "we're all immigrants" as someone who is just visiting.

[GottaHavePride]

Every time I hear that I'm reminded of that exchange in the movie The Good Shepherd between Matt Damon and Joe Pesci.

Pesci asks Damon, "we Italians, we got our families, and we got the chuch; the Irish they have the homeland, jews their tradition; even the negroes, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?"

And Damon responds, "The United States of America, and the rest of you are just visiting."

Well, that's kind of the way I feel when someone says, "We're all immigrants."
Both sides of my family are Anglo-Saxon protestant and got here before the Revolution so I tend to consider anyone who says, "we're all immigrants" as someone who is just visiting.

I think there are some Cherokee folks that would like to have a word with you. ;)

[mdklatt]

Both sides of my family are Anglo-Saxon protestant and got here before the Revolution so I tend to consider anyone who says, "we're all immigrants" as someone who is just visiting.

I was about to give RUSH credit for the stupidest ****ing thing said in this thread, but we have a new winner!

[SicEmBaylor]

I think there are some Cherokee folks that would like to have a word with you. ;)
Haven't we got rid of the injuns yet?

[SicEmBaylor]

You spoke way the hell too soon ^^^^

I was about to give RUSH credit for the stupidest ****ing thing said in this thread, but we have a new winner!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

What about students who receive Federal student loans? Farmers who receive an Ag subsidy? Someone who buys their house through a HUD program?

I'm all for limiting the right to vote, but if you eliminated people who receive government assistance then virtually nobody would be allowed to vote. Then, you would be possibly very surprised how many people don't receive a regular govt. check. They would earn the right to vote, by enlarging the tax base, instead of enlarging the obligations of govt. Of all people here, I would think you would like this concept.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I was about to give RUSH credit for the stupidest ****ing thing said in this thread, but we have a new winner!Look, I knew you guys (non-conservatives)would freak at my idea, and expected outrage from an earlier post. What took ya so long?

[royalfan5]

Then, you would be possibly very surprised how many people don't receive a regular govt. check. They would earn the right to vote, by enlarging the tax base, instead of enlarging the obligations of govt. Of all people here, I would think you would like this concept.
Who would want to serve in the military, police, or CIA then?

[sanantoniosooner]

How many generations should be born here before they aren't considered immigrants anymore?

[Frozen Sooner]

That's really sweet that Rush wants to exclude the armed forces from voting.

[royalfan5]

How many generations should be born here before they aren't considered immigrants anymore?
2,000,000 unless you are a WASP. Then you are never an immigrant.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Who would want to serve in the military, police, or CIA then?I'm not proposing those people don't get paid. They are doing a job. Just that you don't want a conflict of interest in the voting booth. Look, I'm not saying this would EVER have a chance of passing, but it would have a positive effect on size of govt.(down) and growth of the private sector and the tax base.

[royalfan5]

I'm not proposing those people don't get paid. They are doing a job. Just that you don't want a conflict of interest in the voting booth. Look, I'm not saying this would EVER have a chance of passing, but it would have a positive effect on size of govt.(down) and growth of the private sector and the tax base.
Why would somebody want to give up their say in the government to protect the government that denies them their say? Last I checked a gov't paycheck doesn't exempt you from taxes. If you are going to strip gov't employees rights to vote, they shouldn't have to pay taxes.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Why would somebody want to give up their say in the government to protect the government that denies them their say? Last I checked a gov't paycheck doesn't exempt you from taxes. If you are going to strip gov't employees rights to vote, they shouldn't have to pay taxes.1) It's a job, and voting isn't the only right we have as citizens.2) Why shouldn't they pay taxes? Schools police, military all have to be funded. I knew some would get huffy about my proposal.

[FaninAma]

All I want is reparations for the Irish......I'll take mine as a lifetime supply of beer.

[royalfan5]

1) It's a job, and voting isn't the only right we have as citizens.2) Why shouldn't they pay taxes? Schools police, military all have to be funded. I knew some would get huffy about my proposal.
They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they don't have representation. Isn't taxation without representation something that upset founders? I would argue that the right to vote is the most fundamental of all rights. Do you really think that military, police, schools, and other gov't services will get cheaper if strip rights from their workers. If I were to give up my most fundamental right, I would demand some serious, serious, coin as compensation. Gov't jobs to don't pay near enough to get lots of people to waive their rights.

[Frozen Sooner]

So, yeah, about what I'd include in a constitution (and I'll admit to swiping ideas from some sources here...)

1. Three branches of government seems to work pretty well.

A. Executive branch. The executive branch is empowered to carry out the directives of the legislative branch as well as plenipotentiary powers to negotiate all treaties. The Executive is also emplowered to declare war and deploy all troops. No veto power is vested in the executive branch.

B. Legislative branch. Bicameral legislature. One house has as its sole responsibility the origination and ratification of all bills. A 2/3rds majority must be attained to pass any bill. The other house has as its sole responsibility the repeal of existing laws. A simple majority will be necessary for repeal. An abstention on any vote before either house will result in immediate recall of the offending legislator. Legislators in the first house will be directly elected by the states they represent, each state being apportioned four legislators to serve in rotating four-year terms. Legilators in the second house will be voted in by national vote and apportionment every two years. Any party can get on the ballot by collecting the signatures of 1% of the registered voters.

C. Judicial branch. Much as it is now-however, presidential appointments to the bench will not need legislative approval and are made at the sole discretion of the executive branch. The number of justices on the supreme court will be fixed.

1. Right to vote guaranteed for all citizens over the age of majority.
2. Right to free speech guaranteed with the proviso that the public has no obligation to provide a forum for such speech and that public property may have restrictions placed on speech and/or expression.
3. Right to serve in the military guaranteed subject to military discipline. Similarly, the right to conscientously object to military service is guaranteed.
4. Right to deny unreasonable intrusion into the home and freedom from search and seizure without due process of law.
5. The right to practice the religion of your choosing so long as said religion does not conflict with community standards on animal abuse, sexual abuse, or drug abuse.
6. The right to petition for redress from the government.

I'm sure I can come up with some others.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

All I want is reparations for the Irish......I'll take mine as a lifetime supply of beer.We are all victims, and "the man" should provide reparations for all.

[mdklatt]

Who would want to serve in the military, police, or CIA then?

Plus teachers, firefighters, air traffic controllers, the employees of a lot of hospitals...useless burdens on society one and all. :rolleyes:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they don't have representation. Isn't taxation without representation something that upset founders? I would argue that the right to vote is the most fundamental of all rights. Do you really think that military, police, schools, and other gov't services will get cheaper if strip rights from their workers. If I were to give up my most fundamental right, I would demand some serious, serious, coin as compensation. Gov't jobs to don't pay near enough to get lots of people to waive their rights.All ciiizens would be well informed that their govt. employment would prohibit a right to vote. There would be plenty of folks who would still want the security of a govt. job. It would still be an unwieldy bureaucracy, but less so if those who get govt. money aren't capable of voting themselves more money. Elected officials wouldn't be able to vote, either, although some way of dealing with legislators voting themselves more money, and some way to curtail lobbyists kicking money to lawmakers for favors would still need to be dealt with.

[royalfan5]

All ciiizens would be well informed that their govt. employment would prohibit a right to vote. There would be plenty of folks who would still want the security of a govt. job. It would still be an unwieldy bureaucracy, but less so if those who get govt. money aren't capable of voting themselves more money. Elected officials wouldn't be able to vote, either, although some way of dealing with legislators voting themselves more money, and some way to curtail lobbyists kicking money to lawmakers for favors would still need to be dealt with.
So if you were a Federal Employee would you still get to vote at the state and local levels? Or vice versa? You don't think there could be problems with large amounts of people denied representation?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So if you were a Federal Employee would you still get to vote at the state and local levels? Or vice versa? You don't think there could be problems with large amounts of people denied representation?Got a regular govt. check =forget voting. If people knew the rules ahead of time, it would work, if it was also explained why the rule was there.

Hey, we both know it is as unrealistic as eliminating women's suffrage.

[mdklatt]

So if you were a Federal Employee would you still get to vote at the state and local levels? Or vice versa? You don't think there could be problems with large amounts of people denied representation?

The more I think about, the more I think he has the right idea--he's just not taking it far enough. Don't stop with people who get paid directly by the government, but anybody who receives any benefit from the government whatsoever. It's a conflict of interest. If you or your kids ever attended a public school (including a university)--no vote. If you ever drive down a publicly funded road--no vote. If you've ever flown in a plane--no vote. If you've ever bough food that was inspected by the USDA--no vote. If you've ever used a drug approved by the FDA--no vote. Pretty much nobody should ever be allowed to vote, because all they'll do is vote in their own best interest. And then what would have? Anarchy! Why don't we just install George Bush as ruler for life and get rid of that pesky democracy altogether?

[Frozen Sooner]

Yep. That's just ****ing stupid. And insulting to those who bust their *** in the public sector.

[mdklatt]

Yep. That's just ****ing stupid. And insulting to those who bust their *** in the public sector.

I retract what I said about SicEm winning the prize for dumbest comment of the thread, because I don't think he was entirely serious.

[King Crimson]

all i know is everyone is an EXPERT on higher education.

and stroke themselves as such.

it will be really cool when people claim knowledge about building an airplane before flying on one....

[Jerk]

Did the injuns cross the Beiring Straight back when it was frozen?

So, aren't they immigrants too?

Here's my constitution: You do what you want to, and I will do what I want to, we'll mind our own business, and not interfere with each others' rights to live life to it's fullest (pursuit of hapiness, yadda yadda).

Don't go sellin' your vote to some scumbag because he promises that he will take from me and give to you.

If he you need help, like, say, your barn burns down and you need a hand to build a new one...I'm a nice guy, I'll be there for you.

You try and steal from me, and I will kill you.

That's about the way I feel about things.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The more I think about, the more I think he has the right idea--he's just not taking it far enough. Don't stop with people who get paid directly by the government, but anybody who receives any benefit from the government whatsoever. It's a conflict of interest. If you or your kids ever attended a public school (including a university)--no vote. If you ever drive down a publicly funded road--no vote. If you've ever flown in a plane--no vote. If you've ever bough food that was inspected by the USDA--no vote. If you've ever used a drug approved by the FDA--no vote. Pretty much nobody should ever be allowed to vote, because all they'll do is vote in their own best interest. And then what would have? Anarchy! Why don't we just install George Bush as ruler for life and get rid of that pesky democracy altogether?No, I would stick by the original plan of govt. checks. As long as people knew the rules, it would help cut down expanding cost of govt. Lots of people would still want govt. jobs, I betcha.