THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:Next cap supreme court terms at 20 years. The high court shouldn't be a lifetime job. No accountability for poor rulings.

Their rulings are supposedly based on laws. Maybe the legislature shouldn't be so ambiguous on how they write the laws. Make them simple, straight forward, and direct instead of the crap we currently get with all kinds of loopholes, special interests, etc..

How about an admendment that requires that every bill be read by the members of congress and that they must sign off that they actually read the legislation? I think this would lead to much simpler legislation without all the legal mumbojumbo and would add a level of accountablilty to the process.

There is an organization called ....downsizedc.org...that has proposed this.

Yeah, cause they'd never sign off without actually reading it....

Fo Shizzle Wrote:What about the scope of executive power? I think the President has been allowed to gain more and more power and needs to be restrained.

The use of Executive Orders & Signing Statements to circumvent the legislative process needs to be ended. The President shouldn't be able to set laws & effecitively commit the US to following treaties without congressional approval.

jh Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:What about the scope of executive power? I think the President has been allowed to gain more and more power and needs to be restrained.

The use of Executive Orders & Signing Statements to circumvent the legislative process needs to be ended. The President shouldn't be able to set laws & effecitively commit the US to following treaties without congressional approval.

Dont treaties have to be ratified by 2/3s of congress?...Correct me if Im wrong..my constitutional memory is sketchy.

As far as the Executive orders...I tend to agree...They have been abused...as well as Executive pardons.

I would make it so that you have to pay into the Federal income tax to be able to vote. People that don't currently make enough income would be given a choice between their refund check and the privilege of voting. Those without a job/income would lose their voting privilege.

This would keep people that invest nothing into the country from electing the politicians that decide how to spend someone else's money.

BuckeyeStu Wrote:I would make it so that you have to pay into the Federal income tax to be able to vote. People that don't currently make enough income would be given a choice between their refund check and the privilege of voting. Those without a job/income would lose their voting privilege.

This would keep people that invest nothing into the country from electing the politicians that decide how to spend someone else's money.

Oh..Man...Talking about thinking outsite the box?....I like your imagination.:ncaabbs:
Of course, Id like to see NO income tax and the repeal of the 16th admendment which would also end "withholding"...When the IRS got this ability to withhold from your paycheck....you lost ALL ability to revolt against any tyranny that it may pose upon you by the withholding of your financial support for its programs.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Dont treaties have to be ratified by 2/3s of congress?...Correct me if Im wrong..my constitutional memory is sketchy.

As far as the Executive orders...I tend to agree...They have been abused...as well as Executive pardons.

Treaties have to ratified by 2/3s of the Senate, the House gets no input. If I remember correctly, however, Clinton issued an executive order commiting the US to following the Koyoto Protocol even after the Senate refused to ratify it.

BuckeyeStu Wrote:I would make it so that you have to pay into the Federal income tax to be able to vote. People that don't currently make enough income would be given a choice between their refund check and the privilege of voting. Those without a job/income would lose their voting privilege.

This would keep people that invest nothing into the country from electing the politicians that decide how to spend someone else's money.

So basically you want to go back to where only the rich can vote.

Honestly, the people who don't have jobs don't vote now, taking away their rights doesn't affect that large of a population.

I personally think that is a terrible idea, however, as everyone who is a citizen (and can prove it) should have the right to have their voice heard (through voting).

I do think that welfare should be changed and force these people to do something for the community for their check. They can clean roads, clean parks, paint schools or government building, etc., thus keeping the costs of maintaining these public lands and buildings down. Nobody gets a free ride, if you are down on your luck and you need a government handout you better be ready to do some sort of work.

mlb Wrote:I do think that welfare should be changed and force these people to do something for the community for their check. They can clean roads, clean parks, paint schools or government building, etc., thus keeping the costs of maintaining these public lands and buildings down. Nobody gets a free ride, if you are down on your luck and you need a government handout you better be ready to do some sort of work.

That sounds good.
I propose we send this on to the Senate.
All those in favor, say I.

cb4029 Wrote:

mlb Wrote:I do think that welfare should be changed and force these people to do something for the community for their check. They can clean roads, clean parks, paint schools or government building, etc., thus keeping the costs of maintaining these public lands and buildings down. Nobody gets a free ride, if you are down on your luck and you need a government handout you better be ready to do some sort of work.

That sounds good.
I propose we send this on to the Senate.
All those in favor, say I.

Id prefer that the Welfare system be elliminated. The problem with our system is that it lumps in "deserving" poor with those that are in it for a free ride. Elimination of the entire system would make it easy to identify the "deserving" poor...so private charity could focus on helping them. The freeriders would have to change their habits,get training and enter the workforce.

I believe it was the Cato Institute who proposed adding a temporary agency to identify & eliminate wasteful government spending. Their budget, after the first year, would be a fixed percentage of the savings actually enacted. This would mean that there would be someone with a vested interest in eliminating wasteful programs (usually the only people who show up at buget hearings are there to protect their little piece of the pie). I'm sure it would eventually backfire, but it's a nice idea that might help for a while.

Make all spending appropriation bills single item bills......that way they couldn't "attach" a spending item for a $1mil bridge in Alaska to nowhere. It would have to be voted on separately & we would be able to see just who voted to approve stuff like this...... and then vote out goof balls that condone this stuff.

If each legislator knew that "after I vote for $500K for a Liberace museum, some watchdog group is going to ask why & I'll have to explain my vote", I think a whole lot of todays pork spending would go away.

jh Wrote:I believe it was the Cato Institute who proposed adding a temporary agency to identify & eliminate wasteful government spending. Their budget, after the first year, would be a fixed percentage of the savings actually enacted. This would mean that there would be someone with a vested interest in eliminating wasteful programs (usually the only people who show up at buget hearings are there to protect their little piece of the pie). I'm sure it would eventually backfire, but it's a nice idea that might help for a while.

Anything that could reduce the size of the Federal Government is a instant winner with me.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:

cb4029 Wrote:

mlb Wrote:I do think that welfare should be changed and force these people to do something for the community for their check. They can clean roads, clean parks, paint schools or government building, etc., thus keeping the costs of maintaining these public lands and buildings down. Nobody gets a free ride, if you are down on your luck and you need a government handout you better be ready to do some sort of work.

That sounds good.
I propose we send this on to the Senate.
All those in favor, say I.

Id prefer that the Welfare system be elliminated. The problem with our system is that it lumps in "deserving" poor with those that are in it for a free ride. Elimination of the entire system would make it easy to identify the "deserving" poor...so private charity could focus on helping them. The freeriders would have to change their habits,get training and enter the workforce.

Crebman Wrote:Make all spending appropriation bills single item bills......that way they couldn't "attach" a spending item for a $1mil bridge in Alaska to nowhere. It would have to be voted on separately & we would be able to see just who voted to approve stuff like this...... and then vote out goof balls that condone this stuff.

If each legislator knew that "after I vote for $500K for a Liberace museum, some watchdog group is going to ask why & I'll have to explain my vote", I think a whole lot of todays pork spending would go away.

There ARE ways around this as well... as an example (though I don't claim to be as smart as those who make a living stealing our tax money) by voting to give 500byn to the "rebuild America" group who are rebuilding all of our roads... AND they're building a bridge to nowhere....

but... unbundling bills makes a ton of sense... We'd also accomplish much less as a government... but in MY world, that is a GOOD thing.

i used to like term limits, but I'm convinced that this will do little to stop corruption. It might only increase the number of corrupters and decrease their individual thefts... but the totals would probably actually rise. In their last term, what could you do to them??

GrayBeard Wrote:Keep the electoral college the way it is for P/VP.

What is the purpose of keeping the electoral college? In my opinion it should go.

uhmump95 Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:Keep the electoral college the way it is for P/VP.

What is the purpose of keeping the electoral college? In my opinion it should go.

Without the EC the elections would be decided by the large population centers...rural America would have almost no say in the election.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:

BuckeyeStu Wrote:I would make it so that you have to pay into the Federal income tax to be able to vote. People that don't currently make enough income would be given a choice between their refund check and the privilege of voting. Those without a job/income would lose their voting privilege.

This would keep people that invest nothing into the country from electing the politicians that decide how to spend someone else's money.

Oh..Man...Talking about thinking outsite the box?....I like your imagination.:ncaabbs:
Of course, Id like to see NO income tax and the repeal of the 16th admendment which would also end "withholding"...When the IRS got this ability to withhold from your paycheck....you lost ALL ability to revolt against any tyranny that it may pose upon you by the withholding of your financial support for its programs.

I don't think it's that far outside the box. The founding fathers limited voting rights to those who owned property for a reason. This is just a modern interpretation of the same idea.

But I am also against completely doing away with the income tax because the funding it provides might be necessary in the case of another major conflict like World War 2 or the Civil War. To completely do away with it and then to try to bring it in the case of national crises could leave our military/defense underfunded for several years until the income tax is properly reinstated. IMO the problem with income tax is that we use a progressive tax that punishes people for being successful. Instead we should move to a flat rate income tax of 10-12%.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:

uhmump95 Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:Keep the electoral college the way it is for P/VP.

What is the purpose of keeping the electoral college? In my opinion it should go.

Without the EC the elections would be decided by the large population centers...rural America would have almost no say in the election.

What type of say do they have now when you can win the most populous states and still win the election? The rural vote still does not mean jack. I think the electoral college should be abolished and we go by straight popular vote.