close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

What should the founders have done differently with the COTUS?

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by certifiedfunds, May 13, 2012.


  1. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds
    Expand Collapse
    Tewwowist

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    50,042
    2,754
    Location:
    Houston
    Forget the amendments for a moment, except for the BOR obviously.

    What did the founders get right and what did they do wrong?
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. Bruce H

    Bruce H
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2000
    3,807
    297
    Location:
    missouri
    Term limits. They should have been included from day one. Thinking people will be and do honorable things never works around politics. The illusion of power is a powerful narcotic.
     

  3. JAS104

    JAS104
    Expand Collapse
    NRA Life Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2012
    4,438
    136
    Location:
    USA
    Well I was gonna say lets screw the 17th amendment, and more appropriately not have the 2nd written so vaguely.

    But those aside,

    More state power vs the fed govt, term limits
     
  4. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc
    Expand Collapse
    MAJ (USA Ret.)

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    34,969
    6
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    The acceptance of slavery was anti-liberty. I can't think of anything more anti-liberty than owning another man, and being able to sell his family members off with little or no input from him. Being able to take liberties with the ladies without their consent is abhorrent too. The founders got torqued about being taxed without representation, and that pales in comparison. Slavery removed all the freedom of some. Better to have repatriated them all at the beginning, if they chose to be repatriated, and stopped the insanity then instead of bearing the cost of the uncivil war 90 years later. It's never too early or too hard to do the right thing.

    OK, this one I am going to take a lot of crap for, but it's the way I feel. The right to keep arms is not absolute. It makes no sense to be able to have your own nukes, so there are some reasonable limits. Now, I would definitely make things less limited to the way they are now. National carry rights are reasonable. Handguns and rifles of any caliber are OK with me. Fully auto should not require a special permission or cost. Suppressors should come with the darn gun. Without any special permission or cost. I'm OK with the mentally ill or properly convicted felon not being able to own guns. If there are redeeming qualities in the individual, a pardon would be in order. But I'm OK with that hurdle being placed in their way. I'm OK with carrying in a bar, as long as you are not legally intoxicated. Go ahead and have A beer, but don't get sloppy while carrying, have the designated driver carry and back you up. I do see the wisdom in making the statement in an absolute way, as they did, as limitation should be much harder than allowance.

    I'm really wishing that a right to fail had been included in the bill of rights. People should have an absolute and irrefutable right to be poor.

    In the same line of thinking, a balanced budget requirement should have been included. Deficit spending is a theft from future generations. We can do what we can do, and should never have attempted to correct the problems of all people by spending money we didn't have. We all make due with what we have, and we as a people should have committed to do the same. That one omission will likely lead us all into very interesting times, which we may not recover from as an intact union.

    A right to die when you are ready would have been a good idea. You have a right to live as long as your body supports that wish, but we all die at least once, might as well have the right to exit with dignity and style, when we are ready.

    A right to play if you can pay your own way would be cool with me too. If you want to amuse/abuse your body, that's your choice. But you should have to take responsibility for that choice. Don't suck down a fifth of vodka a day for 30 years, and then repent and expect the taxpayers to provide the funds needed for your liver transplant. Same goes for smoking, or any other substance.

    It was a darn good try, by men that were imperfect themselves, some even despicable men, but it was a good try, and it did pretty well.

    But I can't gripe too much, I wasn't around when these things were being decided. Some normal humans gave it their best shot, and did a pretty good job of it. Of all the places I have been, this is the place I CHOOSE to call home, and I'd rather be here than anywhere else.
     
  5. Sgt127

    Sgt127
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2002
    2,873
    315
    Location:
    Texas
    Only property owners, those who paid federal income taxes or honorably discharged veterans are allowed to vote.

    It would have solved everything. If you have no stake in the country, you don't get to decide how everyone elses money is spent.
     
  6. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds
    Expand Collapse
    Tewwowist

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    50,042
    2,754
    Location:
    Houston
    There were no federal income taxes provided for in the COTUS.

    Honestly, it was fixed in the original with apportioned taxation and state legislatures selecting senators.
     
  7. maxsnafu

    maxsnafu
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    2,942
    1
    Lifetime terms for judges: Bad idea.
     
  8. evlbruce

    evlbruce
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    5,305
    0
    Madison was right the Bill of Rights was unnecessary and guaranteed that the COTUS devolved from a contract of "negative liberties" into pro forma veneer of the absolute state.
     
  9. CAcop

    CAcop
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2002
    18,606
    1,561
    Location:
    California
    Slavery would have been nice to leave out but that would have driven the south away from the north from the beginningand instead of a civil war over where slave/free states should be it would effectively be two nations fighting each other. It wouldn't have lasted the War of 1812 anyway without a larger United States.
     
  10. concretefuzzynuts

    concretefuzzynuts
    Expand Collapse
    Brew Crew

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    7,475
    13
    Location:
    PNW
    This, 100%
     
  11. Syclone538

    Syclone538
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    2,086
    0
    Interstate commerce, necessary and proper, and general welfare, are what fed gov uses to do all the stuff they have no authority to do.
     
  12. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds
    Expand Collapse
    Tewwowist

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    50,042
    2,754
    Location:
    Houston
    Correct me if I'm wrong but was there not slavery in all of the states at that time?
     
  13. Mass10mm

    Mass10mm
    Expand Collapse
    Armed Yankee

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    422
    35
    Location:
    Boston MetroWest 'burbs
    You are correct. The Massachusetts church in which I worship was constructed in the 1790's and had seating around the balcony for the poor and slaves.
     
  14. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds
    Expand Collapse
    Tewwowist

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    50,042
    2,754
    Location:
    Houston
    You're very fortunate.

    Had it been located in the South, Sherman might have burned it.
     
  15. Bullwinkle J Moose

    Bullwinkle J Moose
    Expand Collapse
    Quick! Duck!

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2001
    876
    17
    Location:
    SC
    Calvary Doc is right. Slavery should have been abolished and we should have picked our own cotton.
     
  16. concretefuzzynuts

    concretefuzzynuts
    Expand Collapse
    Brew Crew

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    7,475
    13
    Location:
    PNW
    Lincoln gave Sherman the go ahead to lay waste to any structure he chose to burn. That makes me so mad whenever I think about it. All that lost history and destroyed property.
     
  17. Guss

    Guss
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    3,722
    152
    Location:
    Tampa
    Term limits is not the issue. Seniority rights is the issue. Just because someone from a podunk state gets elected repeatedly should not allow him more rights in Congress than any other Congressman. This isn't a constitutional issue, either, since Congress could change their internal rules at any time.
     
  18. concretefuzzynuts

    concretefuzzynuts
    Expand Collapse
    Brew Crew

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    7,475
    13
    Location:
    PNW
    Congress will never impose such restrictions on themselves.
     
  19. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds
    Expand Collapse
    Tewwowist

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    50,042
    2,754
    Location:
    Houston
    Go to Savannah. The POS didn't burn Savannah.

    You ever read up on the common raping the union soldiers did to the southern women?
     
    #19 certifiedfunds, May 14, 2012
    Last edited: May 14, 2012
  20. concretefuzzynuts

    concretefuzzynuts
    Expand Collapse
    Brew Crew

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    7,475
    13
    Location:
    PNW
    It was a terrible war but the north were particularly savage. They got to write the history so it was dismissed as acts of war.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
What should I have done? Cop Talk Aug 14, 2015
THIS is what the Commiecrats have done .... Political Issues Jul 14, 2014
'President': 'Hillary Did What She Should Have Done' With Benghazi Political Issues May 21, 2014
The Sequester ‘Crisis’ and What Should Be Done Political Issues Mar 5, 2013
What does the IDF do differently? Black Rifle Forum Nov 12, 2012
Duty Gear at CopsPlus