51–60 of 128 posts
It is funny that these things are done by """conservatives""". To be conservative means to conserve things, keep them as they are, and to develop them further guided by traditional values. These """conservatives""" are not conserving anything, they are destroying old institutions with the motivation to build an autocracy.
Five Constitutional amendments we need: 1. Strike pardon power; 2. First sentence of Article II changed to: “The President shall execute the laws of the United States of America”; 3. Abolish the electoral college; 4. Congress may regulate money in politics; and 5. Congress may create independent agencies with charters of up to 25 years. (President still names and Senate still confirms appointments. But they can be in…
Other than 4 I disagree whole heartedly. The worst part of the Fed government might be the Federal Reserve (abolish the fed), which would be like your 5. Electoral college is an important step to relegating the power of the masses. Pardon should be clarified in scope but not removed, Bidens indefinite pardons for any possible crimes was absurd.
Five Constitutional amendments we need: 1. Strike pardon power; 2. First sentence of Article II changed to: “The President shall execute the laws of the United States of America”; 3. Abolish the electoral college; 4. Congress may regulate money in politics; and 5. Congress may create independent agencies with charters of up to 25 years. (President still names and Senate still confirms appointments. But they can be in…
I agree with everything, other than the two caveats below: > Strike pardon power; I'd go slightly narrower. I think pardons and clemency are a good thing to have in the system. I think we can put reasonable guardrails around it - Require pardons to be published to a public register to be effective - Allow a 2/3 vote of both chambers of congress to veto a pardon within 90 days - Disallow pardons in the final year of t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No chance 3 ever passes It’s honestly the hardest one on there. > a wealth tax would require an amendment Genuine question, why? > It would also be a bad idea to abolish the EC because then candidates would only ever campaign in cities This doesn’t mathematically work. Most Americans live in suburbia. (We define “urban” very, very broadly for statistical purposes.) And this effect is more than compensated for by th…
>” Genuine question, why?” A wealth tax would clearly be a ‘direct tax’, which must be apportioned among the states according to the constitution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No chance 3 ever passes It’s honestly the hardest one on there. > a wealth tax would require an amendment Genuine question, why? > It would also be a bad idea to abolish the EC because then candidates would only ever campaign in cities This doesn’t mathematically work. Most Americans live in suburbia. (We define “urban” very, very broadly for statistical purposes.) And this effect is more than compensated for by th…
The 16th amendment plainly restricts taxation to income. Same reason there isn't a Federal sales tax or property tax.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 4. Congress may regulate money in politics; This one is completely useless. Congress may regulate, but why would they? They directly benefit from more money in politics. If anything this should be more direct, and read: "Political donations may only come from individual US citizens, and cannot exceed the amount of monthly minimum wage per person, per year". Or maybe just add a field in the tax return form where any…
Campaigns already have strong limits. They get around it by giving money to PACs, which can spend money opposing other candidates or talking about issues in particular. Should there be limits on spending on messaging opposing a certain candidate? Or supporting / opposing a specific policy? It's going to be pretty tough to draw a line there that doesn't sound a lot like solidifying and entrenching the powers that alre…
The SC decided today that political parties can spend as much money as they want in coordination with candidates.
Five Constitutional amendments we need: 1. Strike pardon power; 2. First sentence of Article II changed to: “The President shall execute the laws of the United States of America”; 3. Abolish the electoral college; 4. Congress may regulate money in politics; and 5. Congress may create independent agencies with charters of up to 25 years. (President still names and Senate still confirms appointments. But they can be in…
The EC provides a failsafe by capping the max impact of a single state in the event of an anomaly.
In other words, you can’t talk about abolishing the EC without a national voter ID law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>” Genuine question, why?” A wealth tax would clearly be a ‘direct tax’, which must be apportioned among the states according to the constitution.
Eh, this is debated. ( Moore .) It could be written as an excise tax, too, push come to shove.
Five Constitutional amendments we need: 1. Strike pardon power; 2. First sentence of Article II changed to: “The President shall execute the laws of the United States of America”; 3. Abolish the electoral college; 4. Congress may regulate money in politics; and 5. Congress may create independent agencies with charters of up to 25 years. (President still names and Senate still confirms appointments. But they can be in…
You can’t abolish the electoral college without standardized voting across all states. A single state or even county allowing frivolous or unverified voting can swing the entire election. The EC provides a failsafe by capping the max impact of a single state in the event of an anomaly. In other words, you can’t talk about abolishing the EC without a national voter ID law.
Sure we can. We can even do it right here. I'd never let someone tell me what I can and cannot talk about.