Rubio: Amend the U.S. Constitution

[naturalmwa]

I'm for preventing religious organizations from having to perform gay marriages if that is not in their belief structure.

Gay marriage can be as civil as it want's to be, but don't force it to become sacramental.

Or, start a church that recognizes gay marriage as sacramental and profit. Win/Win.

Everyone with any credibility agrees with this. Name one place of worship that has ever been forced to marry people outside of its belief structure. One time where a Christian went to a Hindu temple and forced the Vedic to marry the Christian couple before Jesus. You can't do it, because this isn't a real argument.

 

[22*43*51]

Everyone with any credibility agrees with this. Name one place of worship that has ever been forced to marry people outside of its belief structure. One time where a Christian went to a Hindu temple and forced the Vedic to marry the Christian couple before Jesus. You can't do it, because this isn't a real argument.

I've seen the "law of the land" argument made on this very board.

 

[The Tradition]

Everyone with any credibility agrees with this. Name one place of worship that has ever been forced to marry people outside of its belief structure. One time where a Christian went to a Hindu temple and forced the Vedic to marry the Christian couple before Jesus. You can't do it, because this isn't a real argument.

But you can force the owner of "Christ's Loaves Bakery" to make you a gay wedding cake for some reason I can't really figure out.

 

[naturalmwa]

The gay marriage debate is simply an EXAMPLE of why the government shouldn't be involved.

The way Mormon polygamists had their religious rights stomped all over is another example.

That's all fine, but it's beside the point and is just a cop out to sidestep the real issues present in reality.

 

[lawsonhawk]

I assume you will be voting the Clinton team back in office if this is your priority. That was the last fiscally responsible administration. Rubio has already told you he will break the bank on subs and bombers. Ready to vote D now?

"D" doesn't stand for what you think it does.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I'm not so sure.

Republicans control 33 state legislatures. ALEC will have a preferred package of corporate-approved amendments ready to roll - and those corporations will be many of the same ones who have contributed to the coffers of the state legislators.

Personally, I like the idea of a constitutional convention. But I'm afraid I wouldn't like the results with the deck stacked this way. And I'm also afraid that you are wrong, and the convention would produce results that would be ratified.

Last time I checked 33 was just a few short of 38.

Also I have several questions with that. Those 33 states, do Republicans control both houses or just 1. I know some states have just 1 house but most have 2.

Also the issue is it doesn't provide the depth of the control nor does it indicate just how conservative those Republicans are. Not every Republican state rep may be of the mindset to just pass the conservative's dream constitution.

As far as a constitutional convention, everyone likes the idea if they think they can control the results. Honestly I don't think we could pass any major changes. If one was called they might at the end be able to come up with some minor changes just so the whole thing doesn't look like a big waste of time.

The biggest thing I could see being ratified and I really doubt you could even get this would be popular election of the president and VP as opposed to electorial college. But I have strong doubts they could pass that AND there would be a technical difficulty in that Pres. and VP are two different offices. The way we have things with the electorial college since we elect our electors to choose both it turns out to be nice and neat with the VP always being from the same party as the Pres. If you make it a popular vote then the Pres and VP could be from different parties.

 

[The Tradition]

That's all fine, but it's beside the point and is just a cop out to sidestep the real issues present in reality.

I disagree. Marriage is between you, your partner(s) and your God(s). Our government should treat us as individuals unless there's some sort of dispute involving the partnership you want the government to resolve for you.

 

[naturalmwa]

I've seen the "law of the land" argument made on this very board.

Well there are lots of HROT posters with little credibility, so I think my point stands. Its been the law of the land to treat genders, religion and races the same for some time in this country. Yet individual churches still discriminate legally against all of them today. The right of your local church to call me a sinner and refuse me a ceremony is on firm ground. This has nothing to do with gay marriage laws.

Now your local religious high school's ability to deny spousal benefits to their gay teacher is a whole other issue.

 

[naturalmwa]

But you can force the owner of "Christ's Loaves Bakery" to make you a gay wedding cake for some reason I can't really figure out.

Public accommodation laws. It isn't a hard concept, look it up, I've explained it numerous times over the years. If they were actually a church selling baked goods, they would be protected. But you see they aren't really a religious institution, they just play one when the TV crew shows up.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

My take on gay marriage is that the government shouldn't be in the mix at all. Why the hell do you need a license to get married? Why do you need a government certification that you're married? The government should have nothing to do with it.

Tax issues, inheritance, death benefits, rights of visitation, rights to avoid testifying against your spouse, recognition of paternity

The state has been recognizing marriages for a long time because there are a lot of legal issues that go with marriage.

The idea of divorcing the state from it sounds nice at first but there are far too many details that go into it.

For example forcing my wife and I to file our taxes separately (because apparently marriage is no longer state recognized) would be an adventure to say the least. Our finances are entirely merged.

 

[naturalmwa]

I disagree. Marriage is between you, your partner(s) and your God(s). Our government should treat us as individuals unless there's some sort of dispute involving the partnership you want the government to resolve for you.

I understand that's how you wish marriage was, but this isn't what marriage is in America today. You are not dealing with reality when you make these sorts of aspirational statements in answer to a real concrete issue.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Amendments I'd like to see:

1) Add referendum to the constitution.
2) Add recall to the constitution.
3) Clarify that money is not speech and that political spending can be regulated through normal legislative processes.
4) Clarify that corporations are not persons.
5) Replace the 2nd amendment with a modern self-defense/home-defense/defense-of others amendment.
6) Get rid of the "natural born" criterion to be president.
7) Establish one-person-one vote as the law of the land.
8) Eliminate the Senate.
9. Eliminate the Electoral College.
10. Require sunset provisions for all laws and regulations with a 2-year max between votes.
11. Hold an up-down referendum on Supreme Court Justices. Perhaps a third of the court every non-presidential election.
12. Hold an up-down referendum on the constitution every 10 years or so.
13. Make voting mandatory.

I'm sure I'm forgetting several more, but that's a start.

 

[KitingHigh]

Amendments I'd like to see:

1) Add referendum to the constitution.
2) Add recall to the constitution.
3) Clarify that money is not speech and that political spending can be regulated through normal legislative processes.
4) Clarify that corporations are not persons.
5) Replace the 2nd amendment with a modern self-defense/home-defense/defense-of others amendment.
6) Get rid of the "natural born" criterion to be president.
7) Establish one-person-one vote as the law of the land.
8) Eliminate the Senate.
9. Eliminate the Electoral College.
10. Require sunset provisions for all laws and regulations with a 2-year max between votes.
11. Hold an up-down referendum on Supreme Court Justices. Perhaps a third of the court every non-presidential election.
12. Hold an up-down referendum on the constitution every 10 years or so.
13. Make voting mandatory.

I'm sure I'm forgetting several more, but that's a start.

Those are mostly horrible ideas. I really like number 10 though.

 

[naturalmwa]

Amendments I'd like to see:

1) Add referendum to the constitution.
2) Add recall to the constitution.
3) Clarify that money is not speech and that political spending can be regulated through normal legislative processes.
4) Clarify that corporations are not persons.
5) Replace the 2nd amendment with a modern self-defense/home-defense/defense-of others amendment.
6) Get rid of the "natural born" criterion to be president.
7) Establish one-person-one vote as the law of the land.
8) Eliminate the Senate.
9. Eliminate the Electoral College.
10. Require sunset provisions for all laws and regulations with a 2-year max between votes.
11. Hold an up-down referendum on Supreme Court Justices. Perhaps a third of the court every non-presidential election.
12. Hold an up-down referendum on the constitution every 10 years or so.
13. Make voting mandatory.

I'm sure I'm forgetting several more, but that's a start.

Do I understand #10 to mean that you want to re-vote on all existing laws every 2 years? I think you might need many additional Senates if you want to get that much work done.

 

[The Tradition]

I understand that's how you wish marriage was, but this isn't what marriage is in America today. You are not dealing with reality when you make these sorts of aspirational statements in answer to a real concrete issue.

There's a whole lot more stuff I'd like the government out of, not just marriage.

The government is too big and it costs too damn much!

 

[naturalmwa]

Those are mostly horrible ideas. I really like number 10 though.

Naturally that's the one that's the most unworkable.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

My take on gay marriage is that the government shouldn't be in the mix at all. Why the hell do you need a license to get married? Why do you need a government certification that you're married? The government should have nothing to do with it.

The reason we need a secular marriage is because secular marriage imposes burdens on the society (inheritance, survivor benefits, and so on). Society gets to say who qualifies for those benefits or under those laws and rules.

There is no need for a sectarian marriage, but if people want to have them (without imposing any burden on society) I'm OK with that. It would be like joining a club. You can join all the clubs you want if that doesn't impose any burdens on me.

 

[The Tradition]

The reason we need a secular marriage is because secular marriage imposes burdens on the society (inheritance, survivor benefits, and so on). Society gets to say who qualifies for those benefits or under those laws and rules.

There is no need for a sectarian marriage, but if people want to have them (without imposing any burden on society) I'm OK with that. It would be like joining a club. You can join all the clubs you want if that doesn't impose any burdens on me.

All of those societal issues could be addressed through a marital contract drafted at your local attorney's office.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I agree. I mean it can go on forever, but it's probably a bad idea.

The problem with crafting a balanced budget amendment is building in enough flexibility that you don't screw yourself in case of genuine emergencies, yet don't let pseudo-emergencies and politics undermine the intended fiscal soundness.

At a very minimum, I think you would have to give the Executive branch some temporary authority to declare an emergency. Which would have to be ratified by Congress within a sensible interval or terminate. Sort of like we do with the use of military force.

Thereafter, I suppose we could rely upon the Congress to authorize an extension of borrowing by a supermajority. But perhaps only if that same Congressional action either raises revenues, cuts programs, or both to quickly end the imbalance.

The problem is, how do we keep this from turning into exactly the same sort of circus we see with raising the debt limit? If we require a supermajority, we make it too easy to shut down government for good or bad reasons. Yet if we don't we risk making it too easy to declare emergencies willy nilly.

I question if any party worth it's salt would hold things up during a true emergency.

For example Japan attacks Pearl Harbor and FDR declares a state of emergency to go to war. Would the Republican party exist today if they held up that state of emergency and made it harder to prosecute the war? It's not like anyone was trying to hold up the declaration of war, that took like 15 min to pass, there was almost no debate and the only no vote came from a woman who clearly had over the top pacifist ideals and almost everyone else was begging her to just abstain from the vote.

I'm not sure we should have to go through all that so I'm not entirely convinced of a balanced budget amendment. But I'm not terribly afraid of the government being held up over true national emergencies.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Do I understand #10 to mean that you want to re-vote on all existing laws every 2 years? I think you might need many additional Senates if you want to get that much work done.

Or . . . maybe they could stick to what's important and actually show up for work most days.

Think of it this way: why should we be subject to laws passed by reps we have voted out? Why should we be subject to laws passed before any of us were even alive?

That's the point of revoting on the constitution, too. No one alive today voted to approve the constitution. For all the good ideas in the constitution, it was still written by men who thought women were chattel, blacks and indians were subhuman, and that it made sense to let states decide whether and which people should have rights. Sure, we've corrected some of those flaws, but plenty remain.

 

[The Tradition]

I prefer this alternative to sunsetting: If you want to pass a new law, you need to find two outdated, unenforced, useless or irrelevant laws to repeal first.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I question if any party worth it's salt would hold things up during a true emergency.

For example Japan attacks Pearl Harbor and FDR declares a state of emergency to go to war. Would the Republican party exist today if they held up that state of emergency and made it harder to prosecute the war? It's not like anyone was trying to hold up the declaration of war, that took like 15 min to pass, there was almost no debate and the only no vote came from a woman who clearly had over the top pacifist ideals and almost everyone else was begging her to just abstain from the vote.

I'm not sure we should have to go through all that so I'm not entirely convinced of a balanced budget amendment. But I'm not terribly afraid of the government being held up over true national emergencies.

I'm more worried about emergencies being declared and extended when they really aren't emergencies, just so our elected reps don't have to make the hard choices of raising taxes and/or cutting programs. Borrowing is obviously not a hard choice for them - but most of us think it should be.

As for whether our reps would hold things up in a true emergency, I guess it depends on what you call a true emergency. Would we have invaded Iraq if we had to pay for it by raising taxes? Would we have passed the Bush tax cuts if we had to cut programs to free up the need for those revenues?

Clearly America would be better off if we had done neither of those budget busters. Would Congress have had the balls (or the cravenness) to call them "emergencies?" I honestly don't know.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

All of those societal issues could be addressed through a marital contract drafted at your local attorney's office.

No they couldn't. The most obvious example is Social Security survivor benefits. You don't get to go to an attorney and sign over your SS benefits to your 20-year-old mistress after you die - committing workers and tax payers to another 60 years of payments.

 

[KitingHigh]

Naturally that's the one that's the most unworkable.

It wouldn't be if we had less laws and we should.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Amendments I'd like to see:

1) Add referendum to the constitution.
2) Add recall to the constitution.
3) Clarify that money is not speech and that political spending can be regulated through normal legislative processes.
4) Clarify that corporations are not persons.
5) Replace the 2nd amendment with a modern self-defense/home-defense/defense-of others amendment.
6) Get rid of the "natural born" criterion to be president.
7) Establish one-person-one vote as the law of the land.
8) Eliminate the Senate.
9. Eliminate the Electoral College.
10. Require sunset provisions for all laws and regulations with a 2-year max between votes.
11. Hold an up-down referendum on Supreme Court Justices. Perhaps a third of the court every non-presidential election.
12. Hold an up-down referendum on the constitution every 10 years or so.
13. Make voting mandatory.

I'm sure I'm forgetting several more, but that's a start.

1. I like it as a way of passing laws, but not as the only way of passing laws.
2. Pass on that. Do you realize there would like 4 recall elections on the president every single year. How could such a president get anything done, he'd be constantly campaigning to keep his job.
3 & 4. Somewhat like the idea if it's done the right way. However I'd want the rules to apply to all organizations.
5. That sounds more open ended then the current 2nd amendment. I would say something more like the congress and the states may not revoke the right of citizens of sound mind with no criminal convictions to keep and bear firearms and other small arms but may provide for reasonable restrictions so as to prevent said firearms from coming into the possession of those with criminal convictions or persons not of sound mind.
6. Fair enough as long as you establish a length of time one must have been a citizen and resided in the United States.
7. ??? How is it not that now?
8. Disagree entirely
9. How do you prevent the POTUS and VPOTUS from being of different parties. Or do you think such an arrangement would work out in modern times.
10 ??
11 Fair enough I suppose
12. No, if you get a down vote what do you replace it with?? Maybe a constitutional amendment convention every 10 years with a specific length of time such a convention can run. (So as to focus on what can pass and not endless debates)
13. Pass . . . if someone doesn't care to vote then they likely have no idea what they are voting for.

I have one. . . RANKED CHOICE VOTING or RUN-OFF ELECTIONS. For all elected offices from local to federal.

 

[The Tradition]

No they couldn't. The most obvious example is Social Security survivor benefits. You don't get to go to an attorney and sign over your SS benefits to your 20-year-old mistress after you die - committing workers and tax payers to another 60 years of payments.

What's the difference between doing that at an attorney's office or doing it at the county clerk's office? Either way, the 20-year-old bride of the guy who's getting ready to kick the bucket would get survivor benefits.

Or, since women are allowed in the workforce now days, we could scrap Social Security spousal benefits altogether.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

[1) Add referendum to the constitution.]

1. I like it as a way of passing laws, but not as the only way of passing laws.

Oh, no - just as an additional avenue for the people to propose (or cancel) laws. Like what some states have.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Oh, no - just as an additional avenue for the people to propose (or cancel) laws. Like what some states have.

I'm ok with that. The only issue is that I feel like it would have to be something that would have to be a little bit harder then just a petition to get on the ballot. Otherwise you might see some crazy things on the ballot.

I mean didn't a petition to expel Texas from the United States get quite a few signatures not too long ago.

I think there needs to be some sort of procedure to prevent the stupid stuff from reaching the ballot.

I'm against the recall thing. . . every president would be constantly facing recall.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

What's the difference between doing that at an attorney's office or doing it at the county clerk's office? Either way, the 20-year-old bride of the guy who's getting ready to kick the bucket would get survivor benefits.

Or, since women are allowed in the workforce now days, we could scrap Social Security spousal benefits altogether.

Because the guy doesn't usually marry the 20 year old because his kids want their inheritance to go to them and not some 20 year old bimbo their dad liked to mash genitals with.

 

[The Tradition]

I'm ok with that. The only issue is that I feel like it would have to be something that would have to be a little bit harder then just a petition to get on the ballot. Otherwise you might see some crazy things on the ballot.

I mean didn't a petition to expel Texas from the United States get quite a few signatures not too long ago.

I think there needs to be some sort of procedure to prevent the stupid stuff from reaching the ballot.

I'm against the recall thing. . . every president would be constantly facing recall.

Florida has an amendment protecting the rights of pregnant pigs. After that the state made getting an amendment passed a bit harder.

 

[The Tradition]

Because the guy doesn't marry the 20 year old because his kids want their inheritance to go to them and not some 20 year old bimbo their dad liked to mash genitals with.

All that stuff happens now.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

[5) Replace the 2nd amendment with a modern self-defense/home-defense/defense-of others amendment.]

5. That sounds more open ended then the current 2nd amendment. I would say something more like the congress and the states may not revoke the right of citizens of sound mind with no criminal convictions to keep and bear firearms and other small arms but may provide for reasonable restrictions so as to prevent said firearms from coming into the possession of those with criminal convictions or persons not of sound mind.

My point was to focus on what I think the reasonable intent of 2A was - private defense. But 2A's narrow focus on "arms" and it's conflation with militias has made it unworkable and a source of intense conflict.

It makes sense to me that people should have their right of private defense guaranteed, but to let contemporary legislatures decide the details. That's the way we handle most other things.

Even criminals and the mentally ill have the right to protect themselves and their families. But they may not have the right to stockpile AK47s in today's world. I think it makes more sense to let our elected reps decide those details than to lock them into the constitution.

 

[dbq hawk 32]

Haven't read the thread. I was planning on voting for Rubio, but term limits for congress/supreme court and a balanced budget amendment are both bad ideas imo.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

[6) Get rid of the "natural born" criterion to be president.]

6. Fair enough as long as you establish a length of time one must have been a citizen and resided in the United States.

That's the thing . . . The constitution already says you have to be a citizen and to have resided here for at least 14 years. We could tweak that if we wanted to, but that sounds good enough to me.

I may not want Ted Cruz within 3 states of the White House, but there shouldn't be any issue about his eligibility to run for that office.

If Bibi Netanyahu moves here, gets naturalized, and lives here for 14 years, he could be the GOP nominee, as far as I'm concerned. Not that I would vote for him.

 

[moral_victory]

3 & 4. Somewhat like the idea if it's done the right way. However I'd want the rules to apply to all organizations.

I'm curious what you are driving at.

Maybe add a line? 3 and 4 on their own make too much sense. What an abomination we are currently dealing with. I don't care how hard I am tripping balls I don't think you could make me believe that corporations are people and their money is speech.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

My point was to focus on what I think the reasonable intent of 2A was - private defense. But 2A's narrow focus on "arms" and it's conflation with militias has made it unworkable and a source of intense conflict.

It makes sense to me that people should have their right of private defense guaranteed, but to let contemporary legislatures decide the details. That's the way we handle most other things.

Even criminals and the mentally ill have the right to protect themselves and their families. But they may not have the right to stockpile AK47s in today's world. I think it makes more sense to let our elected reps decide those details than to lock them into the constitution.

See I still disagree because I don't trust elected reps to be making all the decisions as to what's appropriate or not for my individual self and home defense.

Also think ownership of firearms can be for more legal reasons then just self/home defense.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I'm curious what you are driving at.

Maybe add a line? 3 and 4 on their own make too much sense. What an abomination we are currently dealing with. I don't care how hard I am tripping balls I don't think you could make me believe that corporations are people and their money is speech.

I'm mostly looking at labor unions and other organizations that may be in opposition to those companies.

I don't want a situation where a labor union can put out political ads saying that certain companies are screwing over their workers and that we should make laws to force them to pay and to punish them while leaving that company completely unable to respond.

Several years ago the glaziers union went on strike from my company (I'm not a glazier) and they where outside our offices holding up signs about how they where not getting paid enough. It made me mad because those guys all made $30 an hour or more. In fact if it wasn't for their high pay the rest of us would likely be making more.

So I don't like the idea that a labor union could get on TV and talk about how they are being mistreated but the company would not be allowed to respond. If the company can't politically advertise, neither can the union.

 

[moral_victory]

I'm mostly looking at labor unions and other organizations that may be in opposition to those companies.

I don't want a situation where a labor union can put out political ads saying that certain companies are screwing over their workers and that we should make laws to force them to pay and to punish them while leaving that company completely unable to respond.

Works for me. I am for moving to public funded elections.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Works for me. I am for moving to public funded elections.

I wouldn't mind that but it presents a enormous set of problems in terms of who gets the funding. Can't just give it to any yahoo who wants to run for president and I'd oppose entrenching the 2 parties even further by only allowing the money to go to them.

 

[The Tradition]

If the state is funding elections then the state decides who we get to vote for.

Bad, bad idea.