# Mandatory voting? Obama says it would be 'transformative'



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Does anyone still believe Obama is not trying to take our guns, our liberties, our way of life? This man, and those who think like him, should be public enemy #1.

Mandatory voting? Obama says it would be 'transformative'


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> Does anyone still believe Obama is not trying to take our guns, our liberties, our way of life? This man, and those who think like him, should be public enemy #1.
> 
> Mandatory voting? Obama says it would be 'transformative'




One meaning of 'reactionary' is a person who reacts strongly to 'threats of change'. I think Obama believes compulsory voting to be a good democratic (note the lowercase 'd') idea, without looking around at the world and seeing that the notion has nothing to do with democracy. It should be obvious that compulsory voting isn't the answer to getting quality into government. Getting those that do vote to practice due diligence, that's the answer; legislation ain't going to get that done.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I don't think Obama or his ilk are concerned with "quality" of government. They just want control. That is the quality they want.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

While I like the idea that everyone should vote, I think making it mandatory may be a bit too much. How 'bout "If you don't vote you pay more taxes?" :mrgreen:

Honestly, those that don't vote are the ones who usually bitch the most. If you voted, you know you tried.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Well, I'm wondering how Mandatory Voting would be dealt with considering that the people do not elect the president, the Electoral College elects the president. Now I'm not completely well informed in this area however, I believe that whoever wins the most votes in the state, that state's electoral college delegates who are pledged to a particular presidential candidate are the only electoral college votes which are counted in the final result, so if you have 51% of the population voting for a Democrat and 49% voting for a Republcan, the electors pledged to the Democrat candidate are the only electoral college votes counted. I believe that can result in a big majority of the final electoral vote going one way or the other, rather than maybe only a slight majority of the popular vote deciding who becomes president. NOt sure I remember correct but I seem to recall this is how it currently works. What' I'd like to know in his proposal is whether or not it would eliminate the electoral college process. If it did, I'd be in favor of it because it would definitely end up being majority rule. I don't think majority rules now, imo. What I'm getting at is that I believe that there is a true "silent majority" out there that does not like what is going on in this country but feels powerless to change it. Majority rule could make many changes, imo.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I have voted all my life once I was able to, except for this last election. I supported neither candidate, and I refuse to be made to vote for some idiot the party puts up. There is no way this would ever pass the amendment process, but the fact that he even said it out loud is more telling than anything. That mindset is the real danger to this society. It completely goes against everything we were founded on. Liberty.


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

The results of the last election showed BHO that his vote buying tactics of amnesty, food stamps for all, no voter ID etc. etc. aren't enough to get "his" base off of their 

asses long enough to vote. 

This compulsory voting law would be impossible to pass. I doubt it would be enough to get people off their lazy asses anyway.

GW


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Re the Electoral College - it was created by the Founders as a States' Rights hedge. So... it's a Conservative, right wing thing.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Better bet would be to make Voting Day a national holiday - mandatory at least a half-day no matter WHAT your job is. That way, anyone that WANTS to vote, can do so.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

> GCHBM
> This man, and those who think like him, should be public enemy #1.


Hooooh Hooh&#8230;.. slow down.
Did you forget that the voters and that means the citizens of the United States of America voted this prank into office?

So I would say, how can the majority of citizens that voted (sure not they who stayed home) be the enemy of themselves. Don't forget that this prank has here right in this forum disciples enough. They don't like was he stands for and speaks, but they love him very much. I say that if he could manage somehow to run for president a next term again, the people would vote for him again regardless what he stands for, speaks and if he takes their weapons away or even if Hillary runs. That is like a religion and that can't be possible be explained.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

I'm sure some of you are familiar with Watter's World on FOX News, and the type of people that are interviewed. 

Do we really want mandatory voting?


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

paratrooper said:


> I'm sure some of you are familiar with Watter's World on FOX News, and the type of people that are interviewed.
> 
> Do we really want mandatory voting?


 in light of those interviewees, no, definitely no.

However, in light of that possibility, mandatory voting based on the results of a mandatory IQ test. Score in the retard level, you got no say in anything because likely you are already a ward of the state. And also mandatory sterilization if you score below a certain level on the mandatory IQ test, so that you can not pass on those defective genes and perpetuate generational government dependence. The prospect of mandatory sterilization might make everyone truly try to do the best they could on the IQ test. So if they want to play the system, I don't care if they want to go out and sleep with a different baby mama every night of the year, if they're sterile, I'm not having to pay for the consequences of their behavior.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

PT111Pro said:


> Hooooh Hooh&#8230;.. slow down.
> Did you forget that the voters and that means the citizens of the United States of America voted this prank into office?
> 
> So I would say, how can the majority of citizens that voted (sure not they who stayed home) be the enemy of themselves. Don't forget that this prank has here right in this forum disciples enough. They don't like was he stands for and speaks, but they love him very much. I say that if he could manage somehow to run for president a next term again, the people would vote for him again regardless what he stands for, speaks and if he takes their weapons away or even if Hillary runs. That is like a religion and that can't be possible be explained.


Not having come from this country I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The average voter here is totally ignorant of the real issues before this country. Most voters do so out of a perceived civic duty thinking that they have to do their part and vote for the lesser of two evils. They really have no clue who they are voting for, and truthfully, aren't really voting for anyone. Rather, they are voting against the other guy in a lot of cases. No one wanted Mitt Romney as president, but aside from that, less than half this country actually participates in the election process, and for good reason. The machine makes sure the two candidates running will still do its bidding, and in case you have not noticed, the political class really has but one agenda, which is to stay in control.

All this other stuff is merely fodder to distract the people from the fact that it really doesn't matter who is elected president. Both candidates are approved by the machine.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

GCBHM said:


> The average voter here is totally ignorant of the real issues before this country. The machine makes sure the two candidates running will still do its bidding, and in case you have not noticed, the political class really has but one agenda, which is to stay in control.
> 
> All this other stuff is merely fodder to distract the people from the fact that it really doesn't matter who is elected president. Both candidates are approved by the machine.


Which is what the political process is all about, staying in control. Not about helping anyone or anything other than themselves. Which is why you will never see term limits imposed on Congress or accepted by Congress.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> Which is what the political process is all about, staying in control. Not about helping anyone or anything other than themselves. Which is why you will never see term limits imposed on Congress or accepted by Congress.


Exactly! Which is also why they are constantly floating removing term limits for the potus also. Ever notice how it always comes up, though, when a Democrat is in office?


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

I figure term limits -along with some other 'democratization of the residual benefits of office' - are a good thing. However, where are the new candidates going to come from? The same political machinery, of course. This is why removing most of the in-office and after-office perks won't improve the quality of the office holders. They will just become lower level weenies than before. We'd save some federal money, that's about it. I'm thinking we actually _would_ be better off if the office holders were selected randomly by computer from voter grand lists. Well, maybe a wider net than that. The people we _need_ in office would try to avoid those lists.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Hillman:


> Getting those that do vote to practice due diligence, that's the answer; legislation ain't going to get that done.


By Jove, you've got it! I've got another idea, how 'bout only allowing those that pay taxes to vote? Can you imagine working for somebody and being allowed to vote for your own benefits and salary? How long will that company stay in business? Why should government be any different? Oh, that's right government is a monopoly that will never go out of business. Taxpayers are an ATM, an endless resource of money and a bottomless pit. Voters that have no skin in the game elect politicians who are willing to give them more at everyone else's expense.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

desertman said:


> Hillman:
> 
> By Jove, you've got it! I've got another idea, how 'bout only allowing those that pay taxes to vote? Can you imagine working for somebody and being allowed to vote for your own benefits and salary? How long will that company stay in business? Why should government be any different? Oh, that's right government is a monopoly that will never go out of business. Taxpayers are an ATM, an endless resource of money and a bottomless pit. Voters that have no skin in the game elect politicians who are willing to give them more at everyone else's expense.


Excellent idea! Of cousre those who stand to gain from a big central government are going to vote for it to sustain itself. Of course they will vote for higher taxes b/c they don't pay taxes, or much tax. Of course the illegals want a vote...of course, of course!

But move to change the system so that only those who pay taxes get a vote, and boy watch out.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> Hillman:
> 
> By Jove, you've got it! I've got another idea, how 'bout only allowing those that pay taxes to vote? <snip!>


That only works if the companies that have moved to tax-havens are not allowed to contribute to either party .... Levels the playing field to only those with skin in the game. No taxes paid in the US, no input to the elections.


----------



## Tip (Aug 22, 2012)

Didn't Idi Amin espouse mandatory voting, didn't Castro, and Saddam hold required sham elections. Doesn't the "fine" gentleman leading North Korea hold periodic mandatory elections?

Hmmm, mandatory voting - what a novel idea....


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> That only works if the companies that have moved to tax-havens are not allowed to contribute to either party .... Levels the playing field to only those with skin in the game. No taxes paid in the US, no input to the elections.


There should be no influence there, in my opinion, but I don't blame them for moving. The tax structure here is ridiculous.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

GCBHM:


> I have voted all my life once I was able to, except for this last election. I supported neither candidate, and I refuse to be made to vote for some idiot the party puts up.


Same here, and I can't blame you for not voting for Romney. I almost did the same, once that man was nominated I contacted the Republican Party numerous times telling them that there was no way in Hell that Romney would ever become president. Same for McCain. Two of the worst candidates in my opinion that the Republicans have ever nominated. Now they are pushing Jeb Bush, another grave mistake. But I have to confess I had no choice but to vote for both of them, as Obama, as we have now come to realize has done more damage to this country than either of those could ever do. I had to do all I could to ensure that a Black militant would ever become president. I'm now just praying to God that Jeb Bush does not get the nomination, but as much as I detest that man over his position on illegal immigration; I'll have to hold my nose and vote for him, if he does indeed become the nominee of the Republican Party. The alternative is "Da Bitch". More than likely during the next president's term many of the Conservative justices on the Supreme Court will no longer be there. Do we really want to have Hillary Clinton packing the court with justices that think like her? Same for any Democrat. Clinton as with Obama are both disciples of Saul Alinsky and other radical Leftists. I can understand wanting to give the Republican Party a message by not being forced to vote for their chosen candidate. However the alternative is going to be far worse. If a Democrat becomes our next president along with a Leftist Supreme Court. We can kiss our "Constitutional Republic" goodbye. As those new justices will be on the bench far longer than the next president's term. A lot of cases will have to be decided during their tenure.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

desertman said:


> GCBHM:
> 
> Same here, and I can't blame you for not voting for Romney. I almost did the same, once that man was nominated I contacted the Republican Party numerous times telling them that there was no way in Hell that Romney would ever become president. Same for McCain. Two of the worst candidates in my opinion that the Republicans have ever nominated. Now they are pushing Jeb Bush, another grave mistake. But I have to confess I had no choice but to vote for both of them, as Obama, as we have now come to realize has done more damage to this country than either of those could ever do. I had to do all I could to ensure that a Black militant would ever become president. I'm now just praying to God that Jeb Bush does not get the nomination, but as much as I detest that man over his position on illegal immigration; I'll have to hold my nose and vote for him, if he does indeed become the nominee of the Republican Party. The alternative is "Da Bitch". More than likely during the next president's term many of the Conservative justices on the Supreme Court will no longer be there. Do we really want to have Hillary Clinton packing the court with justices that think like her? Same for any Democrat. Clinton as with Obama are both disciples of Saul Alinsky and other radical Leftists. I can understand wanting to give the Republican Party a message by not being forced to vote for their chosen candidate. However the alternative is going to be far worse. If a Democrat becomes our next president along with a Leftist Supreme Court. We can kiss our "Constitutional Republic" goodbye. As those new justices will be on the bench far longer than the next president's term. A lot of cases will have to be decided during their tenure.


Unfortunately, I voted for McCain, I'm ashamed to say, but I've wised up since. From now on, I will be smarter about things, but I just can't vote for somone I do not believe in.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Mandatory voting?
Silly idea.

Do you really want all of the country's shiftless dole-suckers to be required to vote?
Who would they vote for?
Why, the candidate who promises a bigger and better dole, of course.
And who pays for that?
You, that's who. (Whom.)

In opposition, I propose that only stakeholders be allowed to vote.
In order to vote in a given election, you would have to produce, at the polling place, decisive proof that you paid some amount of income tax in the proximate period.
Even if you submitted a statement of earnings (and particularly if you got an all-inclusive refund), if you didn't actually pay-out tax, you wouldn't be allowed to vote.
Thus, only the people who pay for the state's services would get to decide who will represent them in government.

Dole-suckers need not apply.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Mandatory voting?
> Silly idea.
> 
> Do you really want all of the country's shiftless dole-suckers to be required to vote?
> ...


hum....., maybe a reasonable idea. But then you'll have the nay sayers crying "oh, you got the money and you just trying to keep it by keeping all the poor folk down".

to which, you may be forced to reply."'ya know,.... you're right."


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

GCBHM:


> Unfortunately, I voted for McCain, I'm ashamed to say, but I've wised up since. From now on, I will be smarter about things, but I just can't vote for somone I do not believe in.


I hear ya, so did I and also for Senator. As much as I hated to. It's just that the alternative was far worse. God knows how many times I've contacted the RNC both state and national over my dissatisfaction with many of their candidates. But I'm just one voice. Collectively we can change the Republican Party to our liking. We just have to get enough people to do it. The Republican Party is our only chance to put an end to this "progressive" politically correct madness. When you look at it objectively there are more Republicans on our side than not. How many anti gun bills have the Republicans submitted? Very few if any. Remember if the government can't trust law abiding people with guns. How can those same law abiding people trust the government? Or the party that consistently proposes such legislation. The Democrats have always been behind some of the most oppressive anti gun legislation. Lies, deceit and fraud are their modus operandi. They count on the ignorant and misinformed of which there are many to achieve their goals. Just look at the states where they have absolute control, New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois, Maryland, Delaware, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island. Did I miss any? These state laws are what they want to impose on the entire country, until one day the 2nd Amendment will be all but gone. No question about it the Democratic Party has made it no secret that they do not believe in nor do they abide by "Constitutional Law". They consistently try and convince people that the "Constitution" is a "living breathing document" that has not kept up with the times. The teacher's unions, a core constituency of the Democratic Party are educating our children by teaching them a convoluted version or should I say perversion of American history. Unfortunately, it ain't the same country anymore. We can not afford to let it get any worse or slip into the abyss. Please, don't give up just yet.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> <snippage>
> 
> They consistently try and convince people that the "Constitution" is a "living breathing document" that has not kept up with the times.
> 
> <more snips>


I know we disagree on this, but here's a thought - if the Constitution, which contains Amendments (including a couple we BOTH hold dear) that PROVE it is a living breathing document, is not allowed to liove and breath a little, then the country is doomed to stagnate. Without it living and breathing there would be no Second Amendment, and we would have no guns.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

I may have given the impression that I think both parties suck; it's a true impression. Just a throw-in - The Vermont statehouse has been dominated by Democrats for quite awhile now - mostly I think because the R party fields some, ah, unlikely candidates. A watered-down version of the Bloombergies' useless gun control thingy is on its way to the senate floor, and may get passed there. For some reason, my emailed displeasure has been ignored by my county's senators. I have also noticed my district representative voicing approval. I wonder if these people are all transplanted New Jerseyites, Massachusettsers and Connecticuters. Hell, they could be 2nd generation even; weenieism is transferable.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

hillman:
Fortunately for you Vermonters and us Arizonans is that our state "Constitution" is very specific when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Some states have none, therefore it is much easier to get oppressive legislation passed on the state level in those states.

Vermont:


> That the *people* have a right to bear arms for the *defense of themselves* and the state-and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.


Arizona:


> The right of the *individual citizen* to bear arms in *defense of himself* or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.


I agree that both parties suck. I'm just picking the lesser of two evils when it comes to the 2nd Amendment and "Constitutional Law". Both parties have their share of corrupt, loathsome swines. It's just that the Republicans have been less hostile to the "Constitution".


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

When the country was founded only property owners were allowed to vote. The only Representatives were voted for by the people, the Senators were appointed by the states to represent the State interest. The Electoral College was to protect the office from The popular vote then as now if the Pres. was elected by popular vote only the cities would decide not the whole country.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:
I have no problem with the "Constitution" living and breathing as long as it is amended (you'll note I said amended) to add civil liberties instead of trying to annihilate our established civil liberties from the bench or through legislation. This circumvents the legal process that the founders of this nation provided for amending the "Constitution". A difficult process indeed. The 2nd Amendment along with the original "Bill of Rights" were there from the beginning and not added at a later time. They are the foundation; a set of principles to ensure our civil liberties from an oppressive and over bearing government. That's why the revolution took place. There is nothing old or out of date regarding those principles, they are timeless, have kept this country free and there's no need to change them.



> That only works if the companies that have moved to tax-havens are not allowed to contribute to either party


A lot of corporations have moved their operations overseas because of labor costs, and competition from their competitors. I hate to say this but it does benefit consumers as well, as the same product would cost for arguments sake 5 times more if manufactured here. I blame the unions for this. After World War Two the United States was the world's leading industrial power as most of the world was in ruins. There really wasn't that much competition. The unions came in and consistently demanded better wages and benefits, companies gave in. After all we were the only kid on the block. Meanwhile other countries particularly China were developing their own industrial base at a far lower cost. You have to ask yourself if you would be better off earning $2.00 an hour and filling your grocery cart for $20.00 or making $20.00 an hour and filling the same cart for $200? The Chinese are filling their carts for $20, Americans $200. I don't think that corporations are moving overseas because of taxes. Corporations regardless of where they are located do not pay any taxes. *It is the consumers of their products who those taxes are being passed on to along with all the other costs of doing business.* Many of which are imposed by our very own government. Some good, some bad. For many it was either move overseas or go out of business altogether. Do I like this situation? Hell no, but it's too late now. The United States as the world's leading industrial powers' time has long past. I don't see it ever coming back.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

tony pasley:


> The Electoral College was to protect the office from The popular vote then as now if the Pres. was elected by popular vote only the cities would decide not the whole country.


Exactly! Which would be a disaster. Just look at New York State. New York City runs the state. The Hell with the rest of the state. The rest of whom "Ill Duce" Cuomo declared are "not welcome in New York". The "takers" rule over the "makers".


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

Maybe we should have licensed voters. Able to pass a simple back round check. Take a mandatory training course. Funny, the left would consider that an abomination to require a voter to even produce a voter ID let alone have some type of proof the are intelligent enough to make a sound decision but to suggest it for someone to own a firearm is OK.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

The Constitution, to include the Bill of Rights, was never intended to be a "living document". That's a fabrication of the 20th century. If you don't believe this, just ask Jefferson or Madison as a start. And as proof, the Framers made the act of altering the Constitution pretty difficult. As for the Bill of Rights, that was never intended to be amended and for 223 and a half years, it hasn't.

I would caution anyone who believes those who lay claim that the Constitution is outdated and antiquated that they are hitching their lines to disaster.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

rustygun said:


> Maybe we should have licensed voters. Able to pass a simple back round check. Take a mandatory training course. Funny, the left would consider that an abomination to require a voter to even produce a voter ID let alone have some type of proof the are intelligent enough to make a sound decision but to suggest it for someone to own a firearm is OK.


As has already been proven in the Jim Crow days, that scheme is much too open to uncontrollable abuse.

No similar abuse is possible, if you only have to show an income-tax return or receipt in order to vote.
Show the federally-supplied paper, and you get to vote. Period.

Of course, that having been said, some yahoo is going to find an abuse, and make it work. For a while.
Think, for instance, of the Black Panthers with big sticks who tried to intimidate some White voters, a few years back.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> <snip>
> 
> I would caution anyone who believes those who lay claim that the Constitution is outdated and antiquated that they are hitching their lines to disaster.


So you never, ever see the Constitution needing amendment - ever?

Boy, I'm glad SOMEONE did, or we'd have no guns, or free speech, or any of the other things that the current crop of Amendments offer. Should it be hard to amend? You betcha!! hould it be graven in stone like an idol? no - it should be able to move with the times when (important word there) it HAS to.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:


> it should be able to move with the times when (important word there) it HAS to.


Who determines when or for what "it HAS to"? Yes, the "Bill of Rights"should be graven in stone like an idol. And yes it should be idolized. Politicians shouldn't.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> 
> Who determines when or for what "it HAS to"? Yes, the "Bill of Rights"should be graven in stone like an idol. And yes it should be idolized. Politicians shouldn't.


In order:

1. Good question - I have no answer for you there. But it should be do-able.
2. True - but (correct me if I'm wrong) the BoR is different from the Constitution.....
3 (and 3.5) Nothing should be idolised (graven images and all that) but you're right, CERTAINLY NOT politicians of any stripe.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> In order:
> 
> 1. Good question - I have no answer for you there. But it should be do-able.
> 2. True - but (correct me if I'm wrong) the BoR is different from the Constitution.....
> 3 (and 3.5) Nothing should be idolised (graven images and all that) but you're right, CERTAINLY NOT politicians of any stripe.


The "Bill of Rights" was the forerunner to the 1st ten amendments in the Constitution. The amendments are not 'different from the Constitution' being part of it.

The 'avenue for changing' the Constitution runs through the amendment process. It sure ain't easy going -the 19th for example - but a slew of new republics that went for an easily amendable constitution ended up being dictatorships. Our neighbors to the south of us went through that (with some help from US plutocrats of yore). If SCOTUS was clean, instead of being slathered over with politics, and did the 'checks & balances' work it was intended to do, I wonder what we'd be going on about here; or in Vermont for that matter.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

hillman said:


> The "Bill of Rights" was the forerunner to the 1st ten amendments in the Constitution. The amendments are not 'different from the Constitution' being part of it.
> 
> <snip good thinking>


And THERE we see the disadvantage of being born a US-er and moving to the UK at the age of 5...... I came back at 30, but never had any civics classes as i was already a citizen.  
Should have audited my kids' Jr High Civics (or whatever-the-heck it's called these days).


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> And THERE we see the disadvantage of being born a US-er and moving to the UK at the age of 5...... I came back at 30, but never had any civics classes as i was already a citizen.
> Should have audited my kids' Jr High Civics (or whatever-the-heck it's called these days).


Staying here for school may not have helped. The civics classes in my school didn't delve into the Constitution that I remember; Town Meeting, yeah. I was egged on into investigating the document by a guvmint lawyer correspondent who got to Philadelphia by way of Australia and England. He was dismayed by the hearsay quality of my gun arguments with a fellow classical music board member - who was an Aussie migrated from England. Jeez, life is strange.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:


> 2. True - but (correct me if I'm wrong) the BoR is different from the Constitution.....


"hillman" beat me to it, did a great job I might add along with his follow up.



> I came back at 30, but never had any civics classes as i was already a citizen.


Well I hope you're getting a good civics lesson from reading the many fine posts on this forum.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> 
> "hillman" beat me to it, did a great job I might add along with his follow up.
> 
> Well I hope you're getting a good civics lesson from reading the many fine posts on this forum.


Getting there.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

hillman said:


> The "Bill of Rights" was the forerunner to the 1st ten amendments in the Constitution. The amendments are not 'different from the Constitution' being part of it.
> 
> The 'avenue for changing' the Constitution runs through the amendment process. It sure ain't easy going -the 19th for example - but a slew of new republics that went for an easily amendable constitution ended up being dictatorships. Our neighbors to the south of us went through that (with some help from US plutocrats of yore). If SCOTUS was clean, instead of being slathered over with politics, and did the 'checks & balances' work it was intended to do, I wonder what we'd be going on about here; or in Vermont for that matter.


I would submit that if all our branches did their jobs, as intended, we'd be in very good shape right now all the way around.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> Getting there.


Ahem. Sail, I'm sure you realize that, if you want the straight 'founders' poop, you need to go to the original documents, or at least straight-forward analyses of them, not the interpretations of the interpretations. Born-here Americans are apt to believe that we know this stuff through some sort of osmosis. The US history we got from schoolbooks was full of gloss-overs, factual errors and occasional downright lies. [Hah. Some folks blame the Texas Board of Education (whatever it's called) for that. They are letting themselves off too easy.]


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

hillman said:


> Ahem. Sail, I'm sure you realize that, if you want the straight 'founders' poop, you need to go to the original documents, or at least straight-forward analyses of them, not the interpretations of the interpretations. Born-here Americans are apt to believe that we know this stuff through some sort of osmosis. The US history we got from schoolbooks was full of gloss-overs, factual errors and occasional downright lies. [Hah. Some folks blame the Texas Board of Education (whatever it's called) for that. They are letting themselves off too easy.]


I feel the founder's poop is not as relevant as what the country feels it needs. The founders, though undoubtedly great men, are long gone, and their times are gone with them. There are many things I love about this place, and would like to preserve, but they have to be preserved in the light of current times and technology.

We still have a law here in RI that says if you are not wearing hoes in a car that also contains a girl under the age of 16, then you are guilty of Statutory Rape. While it would never be used "in anger", it is still there, and times have changed to the point where it should be removed. Heck, even our Motor Vehicle code needs changing- already! RIGL 31-15-4 Part 1 states "The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall give a timely, audible signal and shall pass to the left at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle." Freaking dying to have a State cop going slowly enough for me to do that to....

Point is, times have changed. It should be possible for laws to change when they have to. Anyone who resists such change is, frankly, living in the past.

I'm not calling for slash-and-burn here, just an acknowledgement that things change, and governance needs to be able to change with them.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> I feel the founder's poop is not as relevant as what the country feels it needs. The founders, though undoubtedly great men, are long gone, and their times are gone with them. There are many things I love about this place, and would like to preserve, but they have to be preserved in the light of current times and technology.
> 
> We still have a law here in RI that says if you are not wearing hoes in a car that also contains a girl under the age of 16, then you are guilty of Statutory Rape. While it would never be used "in anger", it is still there, and times have changed to the point where it should be removed. Heck, even our Motor Vehicle code needs changing- already! RIGL 31-15-4 Part 1 states "The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall give a timely, audible signal and shall pass to the left at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle." Freaking dying to have a State cop going slowly enough for me to do that to....
> 
> ...


This is exactly the mindset that has gotten this country to where it is today; in shambles. Sure, things change, but the more things change, the more they stay the same. The only thing that changes is change itself. Some things do not need to change, and that is the fundamental bedrock of this nation. Liberty.

The more government grows, the more it takes which is exactly the tyranny our founders sought to defeat. You don't just change for the sake of change, or on the whim of some nut who comes along to say in order to make this a safer country, we need to ban guns. Guns are what helped to make us free, and it is what will keep us that way, unless we stupidly decide they are right...let's turn in our guns boys...the government will keep us safe and take care of us.

Ask the Indians how that worked out.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Hey Sail, that's the whole point of the amendment process; if it needs changing, there's a way to do it.

Re the hoes, how does one wear them? When driving on a two-lane highway, it is still a good idea to toot before passing, or at night to flick the high beams. The way I drive nowadays though, I'm not the one passing very often. I haven't got to the point where I've got the wheel in a two-handed death grip and I'm leaning into it... but maybe soon.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

hillman said:


> Hey Sail, that's the whole point of the amendment process; if it needs changing, there's a way to do it.
> 
> Re the hoes, how does one wear them? When driving on a two-lane highway, it is still a good idea to toot before passing, or at night to flick the high beams. The way I drive nowadays though, I'm not the one passing very often. I haven't got to the point where I've got the wheel in a two-handed death grip and I'm leaning into it... but maybe soon.


There is a way to do it, for sure, but some would say it should never be touched. I feel that's a bit like having an OS that doesn't recognise numbers over 2000 - short-sighted....

As for the hoes - you usually wear them on your feet (points downward if on dirt) with an "S" on the front. 

Edit: Typoes, coz I can't spell for crud today....


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> So you never, ever see the Constitution needing amendment - ever?
> 
> Boy, I'm glad SOMEONE did, or we'd have no guns, or free speech, or any of the other things that the current crop of Amendments offer. Should it be hard to amend? You betcha!! hould it be graven in stone like an idol? no - it should be able to move with the times when (important word there) it HAS to.


I neither said nor inferred that. I stated a fact that several of the Founders believed these documents to be steadfast and pretty darned rigid. Had they not believed that amending the Constitution from time to time might be needed, they never would have included that provision within.

Their stand was that of interpretation, I would surmise. One can interpret something to the point of it losing the essence of its purpose and reason for being. I think this is what really concerned them more than the amending process. And thank God, they made that rather difficult, lest all manner of evil might find its way into the supreme law of the land.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> 
> Who determines when or for what "it HAS to"? *Yes, the "Bill of Rights"should be graven in stone like an idol.* And yes it should be idolized. Politicians shouldn't.


Several of the Founders also believed this to be so; that the Bill of Rights was NOT amendable under any circumstances. And the reason for this is individual liberty. They believed that liberty was so precious that any attempt to amend the Bill of Rights was surely an attempt to usurp individual liberty.

Personally, I go with the Founders... as usual.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> I neither said nor inferred that. I stated a fact that several of the Founders believed these documents to be steadfast and pretty darned rigid. Had they not believed that amending the Constitution from time to time might be needed, they never would have included that provision within.
> 
> Their stand was that of interpretation, I would surmise. One can interpret something to the point of it losing the essence of its purpose and reason for being. I think this is what really concerned them more than the amending process. And thank God, they made that rather difficult, lest all manner of evil might find its way into the supreme law of the land.


I think you'll find a question mark at the end of my post, indicating that I was asking you the question. That does not infer or suggest that I think you feel that way, merely that I wish to know if you do.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> I think you'll find a question mark at the end of my post, indicating that I was asking you the question. That does not infer or suggest that I think you feel that way, merely that I wish to know if you do.


My first paragraph would suffice an answer to either a question mark or a period, but yes, I had missed that.

I believe that the Constitution is as relevant today as it was in 1787, if not more. We all tend to get a little crossed up when we speak of the Constitution at its creation and adoption. It's intent was two-fold; to define a system of government and to then go about describing how it would work. There were no amendments and no Bill of Rights at this time. It was simply a document that laid out a new and unique system. The Bill of Rights came later.

So the Constitution was right then and it is right now... certainly not antiquated by any stretch. Very modern, in fact. A constitutional republic. Great concept.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

The US constitution may be unique in that it laid out a plan for a federated republic of several newly independent states, whose leaders realized that they were individually too weak to survive in the world. Most (all?) other constitutional republics have been the result of _one_ established state or colony throwing off another form of government. The relative inflexibility for change may be the _fortunate_ result of interstate bickering, as much as the philosophical conflict - democracy versus oligarchy - between the Jeffersonians and the Hamiltonians.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

It is not a living document It is the rules and limitations on our government It set the formation of the 3 branches and their duties and limits. The B.O.R. Set forth the natural rights on paper with phrases like Congress shall pass no laws, or shall not be infringed and finally what is powers NOT grant to the government shall remain with the states or the PEOPLE.
The founding fathers were vastly smarter than any one in government today or for along time. They created our form of government which was and is unlike any other on earth. Is it prefect no but I believe better than any other. Apathy and greed have helped corrupted our for of government. Progressivism started to infiltrate in the 1850s and snowballed in the 1930s under F.D.R. the SCOTUS was corrupted by F.D.R. when it was going to overturn him he added 2 more seats to the court and placed his judges on the court. The next big slam against the Republic was L.B.J.s Great Society and openly buying votes was legal. Thomas Jefferson said back in the founding "That when the people start voting themselves money it will be the end of the republic."


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:


> We still have a law here in RI that says if you are not wearing hoes in a car that also contains a girl under the age of 16, then you are guilty of Statutory Rape. While it would never be used "in anger", it is still there, and times have changed to the point where it should be removed.


I think you're confusing laws with the "Bill of Rights". Two different animals for two different purposes. A lot of laws are just plain stupid whose only purpose is to criminalize the innocent while providing a steady stream of revenue for the trial lawyers. Who just so happen to be politicians. Some were written for circumstances that were prevalent for the times for which they were written and are no longer relevant today, yet still on the books. Many are probably downright unconstitutional but remain unchallenged. The "Bill of Rights" are laws that are there to constrain government and to preserve individual liberties. I can't think of any amendments in the "Bill of Rights" that need to be changed or eliminated.

Hoes? Please enlighten me. But how do you wear a prostitute?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> 
> <snippage>
> 
> Hoes? Please enlighten me. But how do you wear a prostitute?


If you have to ask THAT then you aren't doing it right.....


----------



## TonySS (Nov 13, 2012)

We have forced voting in Australia and it goes completely against what a democracy stands for.



> A government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.


*
I believe our fine is now up to $50 for not voting.*

It just leads to a lot of idiots casting invalid votes or "donkey" votes (marking from the top of the ballot without caring who is on it)

I thought the USA was a Republic? No my mistake - that good idea got thrown out years ago......


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

TonySS said:


> We have forced voting in Australia and it goes completely against what a democracy stands for.
> 
> *
> I believe our fine is now up to $50 for not voting.*
> ...


The result you describe (for compulsory voting) seems inevitable; your co-Australian 'robo-voters' are acting like normal mentally lazy human beings.

The ideal of representative government wasn't 'thrown out'; it was _trashed_ by widespread irresponsibility. That irresponsibility is SOP for civilizations on the way down.


----------

