Obama 2016

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

What's so heinous about returning to the founder's vision?

I sure hope you would only support this idea in jest to tweak conservatives. Reagan could have stayed President until he died, and that would have been a better President, and frankly better human being, to try a stunt like this with. Did anyone try, though? Whole thing has a grotesque, "Star Wars Episode III" vibe to it.

[TheGator]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Reagan probably would have gotten a 3rd term had this been done 30 years ago.

I think Clinton would have easily beaten Bush in 2000. For all we know if this bill passed during Clinton's term, he might still be President.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

I sure hope you would only support this idea in jest to tweak conservatives. Reagan could have stayed President until he died, and that would have been a better President, and frankly better human being, to try a stunt like this with. Did anyone try, though? Whole thing has a grotesque, "Star Wars Episode III" vibe to it.

Of course it was in jest. But I do feel like if you support the repeal of 17th Amendment, then you should support the repeal of the 22nd as well. A little consistency would be nice, whether that's Mr. Serrano or conservatives who want the 17th repealed.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Of course it was in jest. But I do feel like if you support the repeal of 17th Amendment, then you should support the repeal of the 22nd as well. A little consistency would be nice, whether that's Mr. Serrano or conservatives who want the 17th repealed.

Why? Every amendment stands on its own merits as an argument for repeal. The 17th Amendment, it is like this -- if you are an optimist and idealist, the heightened scrutiny and 24 hour media make it almost impossible to pull off the kind of graft it was meant to address. Or if you are a cynic, you might point put the Senate is as corrupt as its ever been even with it. In either event, it has run its course for its stated purpose and has also had bad collateral effects.

I don't think the 22nd Amendment has even been a bad idea, and certainly hasn't been shown detrimental to the good of the nation.

It is fallacious to say that if you think one amendment should be repealed, then you should think any amendment should be repealed.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Why? Every amendment stands on its own merits as an argument for repeal. The 17th Amendment, it is like this -- if you are an optimist and idealist, the heightened scrutiny and 24 hour media make it almost impossible to pull off the kind of graft it was meant to address. Or if you are a cynic, you might point put the Senate is as corrupt as its ever been even with it. In either event, it has run its course for its stated purpose and has also had bad collateral effects.

I don't think the 22nd Amendment has even been a bad idea, and certainly hasn't been shown detrimental to the good of the nation.

It is fallacious to say that if you think one amendment should be repealed, then you should think any amendment should be repealed.

Well, they are more related than juxtaposing it with more random amendments as far as the original intent of the Founders WRT elections & term considerations. But mostly it was just a personal opinion about something that is mostly irrelevant, because the people that tend to adopt repeal of the 22nd or 17th (or almost any ammendment) are deadender cranks for the most part.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Well, they are more related than juxtaposing it with more random amendments as far as the original intent of the Founders WRT elections & term considerations. But mostly it was just a personal opinion about something that is mostly irrelevant, because the people that tend to adopt repeal of the 22nd or 17th (or almost any ammendment) are deadender cranks for the most part.

I would repeal the 17th Amendment for mootness and the 16th Amendment for the gross, demonstrated malfeasance of the federal government in handling that much power.

In an essay as a kid, I surprised my teacher by arguing that the most important amendment is the 21st Amendment. I won't explain why because... really it should be intuitive. The Amendment process is the real instrumentality of the "living Constitution", because anything that so obviously needs change can get the necessary support.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by DaveFla

How so? Did this guy not propose a bill to abolish the 22nd amendment?

Or, does the mere fact that a bill is heinous gets to committee not disturb you?

You realize sending a bill to committee is actually the least active thing the leadership can do when a bill is introduced, right? So why would it disturb me that the leadership took the slowest route with the least likelihood of any actual consideration that is available to them?

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

I would repeal the 17th Amendment for mootness and the 16th Amendment for the gross, demonstrated malfeasance of the federal government in handling that much power.

In an essay as a kid, I surprised my teacher by arguing that the most important amendment is the 21st Amendment. I won't explain why because... really it should be intuitive. The Amendment process is the real instrumentality of the "living Constitution", because anything that so obviously needs change can get the necessary support.

Seems like your thesis WRT the 21st is challenged by your views on 16 & 17. If said mootness or malfeasance was as obvious as you say, then garnering the necessary support should be a cinch.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Seems like your thesis WRT the 21st is challenged by your views on 16 & 17. If said mootness or malfeasance was as obvious as you say, then garnering the necessary support should be a cinch.

Well, it isn't like there are much in the way of organized formal campaigns going on, i.e. as formal agenda of a major political party with its machinery deployed, so we don't really know how much support. I guarantee it would be much more likely to get both through the state ratification than it would be to get through Congress.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Well, it isn't like there are much in the way of organized formal campaigns going on, i.e. as formal agenda of a major political party with its machinery deployed, so we don't really know how much support. I guarantee it would be much more likely to get both through the state ratification than it would be to get through Congress.

I dont know. I think the amendment process repeal/or ratification is more or less obsolete now, hopelessly byzantine for the most part, as the country's and state's interests have niche-ified. It shouldnt be easy to change the Constitution of course (see state referendums for that at work), but I'm not sure it should be exceedingly difficult either. When I think of the sort of bullying and graft needed to pass even the 13th (not to mention that the states most likely to be against it had no say because they were in rebellion/not readmitted), I wonder about the wisdom of the process.

[MichiGator2002]

It is Byzantine on purpose -- although clearly not so Byzantine that it hasn't happened 27 times, or even if you don't count the Bill of Rights, we average one a generation of so -- because the supreme law of the land should require a supermajority par excellence to change.

What do you think would be a greater reflection of the popular will -- a single payer bill out of Congress, or a constitutional amendment that formally expresses to Congress legislative authority to create one? Do you think abortion would be nearly as divisive if America's pro-life movement had so little influence as to prevent ratification of a constitutional amendment protecting it textually? The only reason to get to "penumbras" is because they are a great place to stash constitutional authority for positions that could never gain enough support for constitutional ratification.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

It is Byzantine on purpose -- although clearly not so Byzantine that it hasn't happened 27 times, or even if you don't count the Bill of Rights, we average one a generation of so -- because the supreme law of the land should require a supermajority par excellence to change.

What do you think would be a greater reflection of the popular will -- a single payer bill out of Congress, or a constitutional amendment that formally expresses to Congress legislative authority to create one? Do you think abortion would be nearly as divisive if America's pro-life movement had so little influence as to prevent ratification of a constitutional amendment protecting it textually? The only reason to get to "penumbras" is because they are a great place to stash constitutional authority for positions that could never gain enough support for constitutional ratification.

Well, I think the Constitution as conceived was a document that reflects an excessive fear of the idea of "popular will" and the democratic impulses of the people, especially with the added power of judicial review. Fortunately, that has been softened by subsequent amendments (many passed in times of crisis or social upheaval, often to circumvent a hostile SCOTUS), but the fundamental anti-democratic impulse of the document still remains inbedded within. The idea that any "big" law like national healthcare or an abortion ban should be done via Constitutional supermajority, is itself, anti-democratic. If we had a judiciary that didnt have the power to strike down laws via judicial review, then the Amendment process end-around the courts would be unnessessary. So, if we had simply enacted an income tax via legislative action (which we did, but it was thrown out by a hostile supreme court, making the 16th necessary), the fair-taxers would have a much easier path to replacing the income tax. To me, this seems more in keeping with the "experiment" in self-rule, in which we arent bound by the past so much. So, while a Constitutional amendment on healthcare may reflect some kind of popular will in the time it is enacted, will it 50 years later, or 100 years? So, I think you can make an argument that a law passed or repealed by Congress is a greater reflection of popular will. Amendments seem suited for big questions to be answered more or less conclusively, for all time. That is what I would call a consensus, not popular will.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

I would repeal the 17th Amendment for mootness and the 16th Amendment for the gross, demonstrated malfeasance of the federal government in handling that much power.

In an essay as a kid, I surprised my teacher by arguing that the most important amendment is the 21st Amendment. I won't explain why because... really it should be intuitive. The Amendment process is the real instrumentality of the "living Constitution", because anything that so obviously needs change can get the necessary support.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

I was wondering how long it was going to take before someone brought up the Holy Grail of the Right-Wing, the repeal of the of 16th Amendment.

[MichiGator2002]

And I was wondering how long it would take for there to be a bombastically self-congratulatory but nonetheless completely off-topic post on the thread. Everybody is happy now.

[HudsonGator]

Indeed

[VAg8r1]

Originally Posted by theorangebluewinagain

I believe Roosevelt was a US citizen, they were mistaken on that.

So is Obama for that matter.

[mdgator05]

While I agree with the Amendment, I would point out that this is one of the most severe limitations of individual rights found within the Constitution. It says both that a person does not have the right to seek the job of the President if they have been so for two complete terms and takes away the right of individuals to attempt to reelect the person they might feel is best for the job.

In addition, the amendment also monotonically lowers the quality of people in that job, as every restriction on an employer on who they may hire does. In this case, it is a restriction on who the employer, the US people, hire to perform the job of the Head of the Executive.

While I agree with the idea that it helps to reign in a variety of potentially socially negative outcomes, such as the use of the office to consolidate long-term power in multiple elections, it is interesting how much of a loss of freedom this amendment entails. ON aggregate, I am in favor due to the ability to restrict the socially negative outcomes, but I can certainly see the position of why somebody would oppose this, especially if they found the likelihood of the socially negative outcome less likely.

[JerseyGator01]

You never know what will happen in this age of media brainwashing in which 30% of the age-eligible voting population re-elected their messiah. The media may consider this their next challenge to bring advocacy journalism to a whole new level.

[GatorAvatar]

Originally Posted by Emmitto

Meh. This is about the 10th time it's been introduced by the same dude. And it'll be the 10th time it does nothing more than fuel paranoia.

But but but Obama yada yada communist/socialist/hates America BS BS lol

[GatorAvatar]

Originally Posted by CalSFGator

Another post of indignation with no research or thought behind it.

As long as it spreads lies about Obama, its worth it.