Are we at a Constitutional tipping point?
#1
I think so. We have Obama attempting to rule by fiat. NSA spying on us. The president targeting and killing American citizens without due process. An attempt to place monitors in newsrooms. Using the IRS as a political tool the threaten and coerce opponents. We even just had the 9th circuit court order GOOGLE to remove the video 'Innocence of Muslims' from Youtube. 'Innocence of Muslims' you may recall was the video Obama and Company tried to blame the Benghazi attack on. The list goes on and on. Here's what constitutional law professor told congress yesterday:

Video of testimony: The Moment a Prof. Warned that America Is at a 'Constitutional Tipping Point'

Quote:A constitutional law expert warned Congress during a hearing Wednesday that America has reached a “constitutional tipping point” under the watch of President Barack Obama.

Jonathan Turley, professor of public interest law at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., said the legislative branch of the U.S. government is in danger of becoming irrelevant in the face of continued executive overreach.

“My view [is] that the president, has in fact, exceeded his authority in a way that is creating a destabilizing influence in a three branch system,” Turley said. “I want to emphasize, of course, this problem didn’t begin with President Obama, I was critical of his predecessor President Bush as well, but the rate at which executive power has been concentrated in our system is accelerating. And frankly, I am very alarmed by the implications of that aggregation of power.”

“What also alarms me, however, is that the two other branches appear not just simply passive, but inert in the face of this concentration of authority,” he added.

Interestingly enough, Turley said he actually agrees with many of the president’s policies and positions — just not the way the White House has gone about implementing them.

“The fact that I happen to think the president is right on many of these policies does not alter the fact that I believe the means he is doing [it] is wrong, and that this can be a dangerous change in our system,” he said. “And our system is changing in a very fundamental way. And it’s changing without a whimper of regret or opposition.”

Turley stressed that Congress must take action if it wants to hold onto its power as the “thumping heart of our system.”

“We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system. If balance is to be reestablished, it must begin before this president leaves office and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority,” he said.

“No one in our system can ‘go it alone’ – not Congress , not the courts , and not the president. We are stuck with each other in a system of shared powers — for better or worse. We may deadlock or even despise each other. The framers clearly foresaw such periods. They lived in such a period. Whatever problems we are facing today in politics, they are problems of our own making. They should not be used to take from future generations a system that has safeguarded our freedoms for over 250 years,” he added.

Also present at Wednesday’s hearing, titled “Enforcing the President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws,” was Price Foley, a law professor at Florida International University College of Law. She agreed with Turley, adding that Congress in in danger of becoming “superfluous.”

“Situations like this, these benevolent suspensions as they get more and more frequent and more and more aggressive, they’re eroding our citizens’ respect for the rule of law,” she said. “We are a country of law and not men. It’s going to render Congress superfluous.”

She said Congress hasn’t bothered with any meaningful legislation recently because it’s afraid the president would “simply benevolently suspend portions of the law he doesn’t like.”

“If you want to stay relevant as an institution, I would suggest that you not stand idly by and let the president take your power away,” she said.

The hearing spent a good deal of time discussing possible courses of action that could be taken to keep Obama’s so-called “imperial presidency,” as Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.) called it, in check. The idea of filing articles of impeachment against the president was briefly discussed, but quickly replaced in favor of talk of lawsuits that could be brought against the White House.

Impeachment would “surely be extremely divisive within the Congress and the nation generally, and would divert the attention of Congress from other important issues of the day,” said Gerlach, who along with four other members of the House offered testimony on legislation that has been drafted to keep the president in check.

Gerlach is responsible for H.R. 857, the “Enforce the Take Care Clause Act,” which would make it easier and faster for federal courts to challenge executive actions.

“Given the growing number of examples where this President has clearly failed to faithfully execute all laws, I believe it is time for Congress to put in place a procedure for a fast-track, independent review of those executive actions,” he said.

Gerlach said he proposed the bill in response to the numerous Obamacare delays enacted by the White House.

“(T)he president, through his actions on the [Affordable Care Act], as well as in other areas of executive action, is fundamentally altering the delicate constitutional balance among the three branches of our federal system, and the concept of an ‘imperial presidency’ has reentered our national dialogue,” he said.
The Moment a Prof. Warned That America Is at a ‘Constitutional Tipping Point’
Reply
#2
Short answer: No.
Long answer: No.

Look, Turley is right that "the legislative branch of the U.S. government is in danger of becoming irrelevant," but not because of executive branch overreach. It's because Boehner & Co. have decided that Legislative Season is over. They've decided to stick their collective thumb up their collective butt and start politicking for more power. They don't want to govern. They are afraid that getting anything done at this point will benefit their political opposition/enemies. There are majorities in the House right now to pass an increased minimum wage, immigration reform, tax reform, trade reform, infrastructure investment, energy, defense spending, even corrections to the ACA. Right now. They could happen tomorrow. The President is ready to work with them. But they won't because Reps are afraid that any kind of achievement will benefit the Democrats. So they do nothing, becoming the do-nothingest Congress of all time -- for two consecutive sessions.

Actually, Turley is wrong. Congress is not becoming irrelevant. It IS irrelevant. And it is its own damn fault. Someone has to step up and actually govern this nation. And I applaud the President for doing so.

Yeah, we have a Constitutional Crisis alright. One branch is AWOL.
Reply
#3
(02-27-2014, 03:45 PM)MarkM Wrote: Short answer: No.
Long answer: No.

Look, Turley is right that "the legislative branch of the U.S. government is in danger of becoming irrelevant," but not because of executive branch overreach. It's because Boehner & Co. have decided that Legislative Season is over. They've decided to stick their collective thumb up their collective butt and start politicking for more power. They don't want to govern. They are afraid that getting anything done at this point will benefit their political opposition/enemies. There are majorities in the House right now to pass an increased minimum wage, immigration reform, tax reform, trade reform, infrastructure investment, energy, defense spending, even corrections to the ACA. Right now. They could happen tomorrow. The President is ready to work with them. But they won't because Reps are afraid that any kind of achievement will benefit the Democrats. So they do nothing, becoming the do-nothingest Congress of all time -- for two consecutive sessions.

Actually, Turley is wrong. Congress is not becoming irrelevant. It IS irrelevant. And it is its own damn fault. Someone has to step up and actually govern this nation. And I applaud the President for doing so.

Yeah, we have a Constitutional Crisis alright. One branch is AWOL.

Well said.
Cool
Reply
#4
(02-27-2014, 03:45 PM)MarkM Wrote: Short answer: No.
Long answer: No.

So , what are you saying?Razz
Reply
#5
Don't forget Common Core...the indoctrination of our children, the data-mining, the cookie-cutter education model.
Taking control away from the states and local districts, making education in essence, a federal program.
Reply
#6
(02-27-2014, 05:21 PM)broadzilla Wrote: Don't forget Common Core...the indoctrination of our children, the data-mining, the cookie-cutter education model.
Taking control away from the states and local districts, making education in essence, a federal program.

You don't HAVE to send your kids to school do you? What does whether or not public schools provide a good education have to do with the constitution?
Reply
#7
(02-27-2014, 05:23 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 05:21 PM)broadzilla Wrote: Don't forget Common Core...the indoctrination of our children, the data-mining, the cookie-cutter education model.
Taking control away from the states and local districts, making education in essence, a federal program.

You don't HAVE to send your kids to school do you? What does whether or not public schools provide a good education have to do with the constitution?

The 10th Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” No where in the Constitution is the federal government given a role in education, therefore the states have control. With Common Core, the federal government is taking over education, albeit by bribing the states with extra funds to accept it...but in essence the feds are overstepping the Constitution.

In many states now, the children who are home-schooled and in private schools are also mandated to Common Core testing. Of course, there are many parents who are fighting it. Smiling
Reply
#8
(02-27-2014, 05:39 PM)broadzilla Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 05:23 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 05:21 PM)broadzilla Wrote: Don't forget Common Core...the indoctrination of our children, the data-mining, the cookie-cutter education model.
Taking control away from the states and local districts, making education in essence, a federal program.

You don't HAVE to send your kids to school do you? What does whether or not public schools provide a good education have to do with the constitution?

The 10th Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” No where in the Constitution is the federal government given a role in education, therefore the states have control. With Common Core, the federal government is taking over education, albeit by bribing the states with extra funds to accept it...but in essence the feds are overstepping the Constitution.

In many states now, the children who are home-schooled and in private schools are also mandated to Common Core testing. Of course, there are many parents who are fighting it. Smiling

The Preamble affords the People the right to do anything they want to in order "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." If the People want to create a Dept of Education to make the Union more perfect for their Posterity and/or their Welfare more promoted, then they can darn well do it.

Likewise, it a state wants to say no thanks to federal educational monies, it can darn well do that too. Just as people are free to home school their kids (but not free to leave them uneducated.)

The Common Core is certainly controversial, but it doesn't even approach a Constitutional crisis.
Reply
#9
(02-27-2014, 04:06 PM)gapper Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 03:45 PM)MarkM Wrote: Short answer: No.
Long answer: No.

Look, Turley is right that "the legislative branch of the U.S. government is in danger of becoming irrelevant," but not because of executive branch overreach. It's because Boehner & Co. have decided that Legislative Season is over. They've decided to stick their collective thumb up their collective butt and start politicking for more power. They don't want to govern. They are afraid that getting anything done at this point will benefit their political opposition/enemies. There are majorities in the House right now to pass an increased minimum wage, immigration reform, tax reform, trade reform, infrastructure investment, energy, defense spending, even corrections to the ACA. Right now. They could happen tomorrow. The President is ready to work with them. But they won't because Reps are afraid that any kind of achievement will benefit the Democrats. So they do nothing, becoming the do-nothingest Congress of all time -- for two consecutive sessions.

Actually, Turley is wrong. Congress is not becoming irrelevant. It IS irrelevant. And it is its own damn fault. Someone has to step up and actually govern this nation. And I applaud the President for doing so.

Yeah, we have a Constitutional Crisis alright. One branch is AWOL.

Well said.
Cool

I agree it's well said. (As if if matters that I agree. Embarrassed)

But not completely said. It galls me to have to admit that SF Lib has a valid point, but he does. To a point. As usual he overstates his case, lacing it with hyperbole and half truths.
But, the executive has been "over reaching" and it's true that this administration has ordered the killing of of enemies using intelligence operatives (and drones operated by non-military) when it should have been our military executing these missions with the full search and destroy protocols. …for instance.

Other examples listed are at least too close to the truth for comfort.

However, I don't' think we are anywhere near a "constitutional crisis". We've weathered these kind of storms before and I have faith we will survive this. In the end, it's THE PEOPLE we can count on. When push comes to shove and our system is truly threatened, we will rise up and demand the necessary changes. Sad that it requires near collapse before we become fully engaged.
Reply
#10
I heard a discussion of the constitution today on NPR. Here are some points from the program with my input mixed in. There are 3 article and 27 amendments in the US constitution. One way to look the document is that there were 27 mistakes in the original document that had to be fixed.

In any case, the document has undergone lots a revisions and is a work in progress. The self described strict constitutionalists (usually the same folks that would repeal the 14th amendment and insert another amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman) have a strange understanding of the document in my opinion. They want the parts they agree with followed and the parts they don't repealed.

Anyway, Mark dealt with the accusation that Obama is usurping the responsibilities of the legislative nicely; so I have nothing to add.

I will cut to the end of the NPR program where the host asked callers to come up with the 28th amendment. There were plenty of good responses. For example: an equal rights amendment, term limits for congress and others, but the one that was presented best was one by a person that seemed rather non partisan. He suggested an amendment to prohibit large financial contributions by corporations and wealthy individuals in all elections.
Reply
#11
I like the idea of a very low cap on campaign donations for everyone. Say $1000. Now some people will claim that you're infringing on free speech, because money is equivalent to speech in this case. But when money equals speech, a rich man has more freedom of speech than a poor man, when you're in a world without campaign contribution caps. But if there's a low dollar amount cap, there's a more equal freedom of speech. It'll still be tough for the poorer person to scrape together $1000, but it might be doable.

Of course, the rich man can still do other things with his money to support his chosen candidate, like paying a talk show host to do a special, or funding a non profit that promotes the same political values of his favorite candidate, or all sorts of other things.

Businesses shouldn't be able to make campaign contributions at all. Let them spend their money promoting candidates if they want, but force them to put their logos on it.
Reply
#12
(02-27-2014, 10:48 PM)csrowan Wrote: I like the idea of a very low cap on campaign donations for everyone. Say $1000. Now some people will claim that you're infringing on free speech, because money is equivalent to speech in this case. But when money equals speech, a rich man has more freedom of speech than a poor man, when you're in a world without campaign contribution caps. But if there's a low dollar amount cap, there's a more equal freedom of speech. It'll still be tough for the poorer person to scrape together $1000, but it might be doable.

Of course, the rich man can still do other things with his money to support his chosen candidate, like paying a talk show host to do a special, or funding a non profit that promotes the same political values of his favorite candidate, or all sorts of other things.

Businesses shouldn't be able to make campaign contributions at all. Let them spend their money promoting candidates if they want, but force them to put their logos on it.

I agree. They discussed the idea that money is speech, but the consensus was that lots of money enables the wealthy to shout and drowned out other speech. Its not free speech when you pay for it by the minute and can buy most of the minutes. It's about fairness and right now elections can be bought.
Reply
#13
(02-27-2014, 11:27 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 10:48 PM)csrowan Wrote: I like the idea of a very low cap on campaign donations for everyone. Say $1000. Now some people will claim that you're infringing on free speech, because money is equivalent to speech in this case. But when money equals speech, a rich man has more freedom of speech than a poor man, when you're in a world without campaign contribution caps. But if there's a low dollar amount cap, there's a more equal freedom of speech. It'll still be tough for the poorer person to scrape together $1000, but it might be doable.

Of course, the rich man can still do other things with his money to support his chosen candidate, like paying a talk show host to do a special, or funding a non profit that promotes the same political values of his favorite candidate, or all sorts of other things.

Businesses shouldn't be able to make campaign contributions at all. Let them spend their money promoting candidates if they want, but force them to put their logos on it.

I agree. They discussed the idea that money is speech, but the consensus was that lots of money enables the wealthy to shout and drowned out other speech. Its not free speech when you pay for it by the minute and can buy most of the minutes. It's about fairness and right now elections can be bought.

Agreed , AARP , unions and the nra etc.. should not be allowed to influence elections.
Reply
#14
(02-28-2014, 06:25 AM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 11:27 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 10:48 PM)csrowan Wrote: I like the idea of a very low cap on campaign donations for everyone. Say $1000. Now some people will claim that you're infringing on free speech, because money is equivalent to speech in this case. But when money equals speech, a rich man has more freedom of speech than a poor man, when you're in a world without campaign contribution caps. But if there's a low dollar amount cap, there's a more equal freedom of speech. It'll still be tough for the poorer person to scrape together $1000, but it might be doable.

Of course, the rich man can still do other things with his money to support his chosen candidate, like paying a talk show host to do a special, or funding a non profit that promotes the same political values of his favorite candidate, or all sorts of other things.

Businesses shouldn't be able to make campaign contributions at all. Let them spend their money promoting candidates if they want, but force them to put their logos on it.

I agree. They discussed the idea that money is speech, but the consensus was that lots of money enables the wealthy to shout and drowned out other speech. Its not free speech when you pay for it by the minute and can buy most of the minutes. It's about fairness and right now elections can be bought.

Agreed , AARP , unions and the nra etc.. should not be allowed to influence elections.

Agreed again. Those groups along with the Koch brothers, George Soros and a lot of other wealthy individuals. Smiling
Reply
#15
(02-28-2014, 07:09 AM)cletus1 Wrote:
(02-28-2014, 06:25 AM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 11:27 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 10:48 PM)csrowan Wrote: I like the idea of a very low cap on campaign donations for everyone. Say $1000. Now some people will claim that you're infringing on free speech, because money is equivalent to speech in this case. But when money equals speech, a rich man has more freedom of speech than a poor man, when you're in a world without campaign contribution caps. But if there's a low dollar amount cap, there's a more equal freedom of speech. It'll still be tough for the poorer person to scrape together $1000, but it might be doable.

Of course, the rich man can still do other things with his money to support his chosen candidate, like paying a talk show host to do a special, or funding a non profit that promotes the same political values of his favorite candidate, or all sorts of other things.

Businesses shouldn't be able to make campaign contributions at all. Let them spend their money promoting candidates if they want, but force them to put their logos on it.

I agree. They discussed the idea that money is speech, but the consensus was that lots of money enables the wealthy to shout and drowned out other speech. Its not free speech when you pay for it by the minute and can buy most of the minutes. It's about fairness and right now elections can be bought.

Agreed , AARP , unions and the nra etc.. should not be allowed to influence elections.

Agreed again. Those groups along with the Koch brothers, George Soros and a lot of other wealthy individuals. Smiling
like: simple responce. I'm late for work. Oh, well
Reply
#16
(02-28-2014, 07:09 AM)cletus1 Wrote:
(02-28-2014, 06:25 AM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 11:27 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 10:48 PM)csrowan Wrote: I like the idea of a very low cap on campaign donations for everyone. Say $1000. Now some people will claim that you're infringing on free speech, because money is equivalent to speech in this case. But when money equals speech, a rich man has more freedom of speech than a poor man, when you're in a world without campaign contribution caps. But if there's a low dollar amount cap, there's a more equal freedom of speech. It'll still be tough for the poorer person to scrape together $1000, but it might be doable.

Of course, the rich man can still do other things with his money to support his chosen candidate, like paying a talk show host to do a special, or funding a non profit that promotes the same political values of his favorite candidate, or all sorts of other things.

Businesses shouldn't be able to make campaign contributions at all. Let them spend their money promoting candidates if they want, but force them to put their logos on it.

I agree. They discussed the idea that money is speech, but the consensus was that lots of money enables the wealthy to shout and drowned out other speech. Its not free speech when you pay for it by the minute and can buy most of the minutes. It's about fairness and right now elections can be bought.

Agreed , AARP , unions and the nra etc.. should not be allowed to influence elections.

Agreed again. Those groups along with the Koch brothers, George Soros and a lot of other wealthy individuals. Smiling
like: simple responce. I'm late for work. Oh, well
Reply
#17
(02-27-2014, 10:31 PM)cletus1 Wrote: I heard a discussion of the constitution today on NPR. Here are some points from the program with my input mixed in. There are 3 article and 27 amendments in the US constitution. One way to look the document is that there were 27 mistakes in the original document that had to be fixed.

In any case, the document has undergone lots a revisions and is a work in progress. The self described strict constitutionalists (usually the same folks that would repeal the 14th amendment and insert another amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman) have a strange understanding of the document in my opinion. They want the parts they agree with followed and the parts they don't repealed.

Anyway, Mark dealt with the accusation that Obama is usurping the responsibilities of the legislative nicely; so I have nothing to add.

I will cut to the end of the NPR program where the host asked callers to come up with the 28th amendment. There were plenty of good responses. For example: an equal rights amendment, term limits for congress and others, but the one that was presented best was one by a person that seemed rather non partisan. He suggested an amendment to prohibit large financial contributions by corporations and wealthy individuals in all elections.

I missed the NPR program you mention. If you can remember which one, please post it. NPR makes available a lot of their stuff as archives.
Reply
#18
(02-28-2014, 08:26 AM)Wonky Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 10:31 PM)cletus1 Wrote: I heard a discussion of the constitution today on NPR. Here are some points from the program with my input mixed in. There are 3 article and 27 amendments in the US constitution. One way to look the document is that there were 27 mistakes in the original document that had to be fixed.

In any case, the document has undergone lots a revisions and is a work in progress. The self described strict constitutionalists (usually the same folks that would repeal the 14th amendment and insert another amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman) have a strange understanding of the document in my opinion. They want the parts they agree with followed and the parts they don't repealed.

Anyway, Mark dealt with the accusation that Obama is usurping the responsibilities of the legislative nicely; so I have nothing to add.

I will cut to the end of the NPR program where the host asked callers to come up with the 28th amendment. There were plenty of good responses. For example: an equal rights amendment, term limits for congress and others, but the one that was presented best was one by a person that seemed rather non partisan. He suggested an amendment to prohibit large financial contributions by corporations and wealthy individuals in all elections.

I missed the NPR program you mention. If you can remember which one, please post it. NPR makes available a lot of their stuff as archives.
I heard it on the Eugene public radio station yesterday. It was produced by WFAE.

Friday, February 28, 2014 10:27am

Your Take: How Would You Amend the Constitution?
The Constitution's 27 Amendments read like a tour through American history.

Many of our foundational freedoms are described in The Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, which were required by many states before they agreed to ratify our Constitution in the first place.

Amendments 13, 14 and 15 outlawed slavery, mandated equal protection and extended voting rights to African-Americans—a right that Amendment 19 also extended to women.

Prohibition began with the 18th Amendment, in 1919, a grand experiment that ended with the 21st Amendment, in 1933. And the 26th Amendment extended voting rights to Americans between the ages of 18 and 21, just as many of those citizens were getting drafted for Vietnam.

Our friends at the National Constitution Center spent the month of February celebrating the Amendments, with the 27 Amendments in 27 Days project. On this 28th day of February, they asked their visitors, and we've asked you—our listeners—what should be the 28th Amendment to the Constitution?

Kerry Sautner, vice president of visitor experience and education the National Constitution Center, has the results. She explains what it takes to get an Amendment ratified, and what a 28th Amendment might look like.

http://wfae.org/programs/takeaway-wfae

I guess its on today. I am not sure what I heard. Perhaps just a teaser version. Smiling
Reply
#19
(02-28-2014, 08:48 AM)cletus1 Wrote:
(02-28-2014, 08:26 AM)Wonky Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 10:31 PM)cletus1 Wrote: I heard a discussion of the constitution today on NPR. Here are some points from the program with my input mixed in. There are 3 article and 27 amendments in the US constitution. One way to look the document is that there were 27 mistakes in the original document that had to be fixed.

In any case, the document has undergone lots a revisions and is a work in progress. The self described strict constitutionalists (usually the same folks that would repeal the 14th amendment and insert another amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman) have a strange understanding of the document in my opinion. They want the parts they agree with followed and the parts they don't repealed.

Anyway, Mark dealt with the accusation that Obama is usurping the responsibilities of the legislative nicely; so I have nothing to add.

I will cut to the end of the NPR program where the host asked callers to come up with the 28th amendment. There were plenty of good responses. For example: an equal rights amendment, term limits for congress and others, but the one that was presented best was one by a person that seemed rather non partisan. He suggested an amendment to prohibit large financial contributions by corporations and wealthy individuals in all elections.

I missed the NPR program you mention. If you can remember which one, please post it. NPR makes available a lot of their stuff as archives.
I heard it on the Eugene public radio station yesterday. It was produced by WFAE.

Friday, February 28, 2014 10:27am

Your Take: How Would You Amend the Constitution?
The Constitution's 27 Amendments read like a tour through American history.

Many of our foundational freedoms are described in The Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, which were required by many states before they agreed to ratify our Constitution in the first place.

Amendments 13, 14 and 15 outlawed slavery, mandated equal protection and extended voting rights to African-Americans—a right that Amendment 19 also extended to women.

Prohibition began with the 18th Amendment, in 1919, a grand experiment that ended with the 21st Amendment, in 1933. And the 26th Amendment extended voting rights to Americans between the ages of 18 and 21, just as many of those citizens were getting drafted for Vietnam.

Our friends at the National Constitution Center spent the month of February celebrating the Amendments, with the 27 Amendments in 27 Days project. On this 28th day of February, they asked their visitors, and we've asked you—our listeners—what should be the 28th Amendment to the Constitution?

Kerry Sautner, vice president of visitor experience and education the National Constitution Center, has the results. She explains what it takes to get an Amendment ratified, and what a 28th Amendment might look like.

http://wfae.org/programs/takeaway-wfae

I guess its on today. I am not sure what I heard. Perhaps just a teaser version. Smiling

You didn't mention which one you would amend. I'm guessing the 1st, 2nd, and 4th.
Reply
#20
(02-28-2014, 10:44 AM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(02-28-2014, 08:48 AM)cletus1 Wrote:
(02-28-2014, 08:26 AM)Wonky Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 10:31 PM)cletus1 Wrote: I heard a discussion of the constitution today on NPR. Here are some points from the program with my input mixed in. There are 3 article and 27 amendments in the US constitution. One way to look the document is that there were 27 mistakes in the original document that had to be fixed.

In any case, the document has undergone lots a revisions and is a work in progress. The self described strict constitutionalists (usually the same folks that would repeal the 14th amendment and insert another amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman) have a strange understanding of the document in my opinion. They want the parts they agree with followed and the parts they don't repealed.

Anyway, Mark dealt with the accusation that Obama is usurping the responsibilities of the legislative nicely; so I have nothing to add.

I will cut to the end of the NPR program where the host asked callers to come up with the 28th amendment. There were plenty of good responses. For example: an equal rights amendment, term limits for congress and others, but the one that was presented best was one by a person that seemed rather non partisan. He suggested an amendment to prohibit large financial contributions by corporations and wealthy individuals in all elections.

I missed the NPR program you mention. If you can remember which one, please post it. NPR makes available a lot of their stuff as archives.
I heard it on the Eugene public radio station yesterday. It was produced by WFAE.

Friday, February 28, 2014 10:27am

Your Take: How Would You Amend the Constitution?
The Constitution's 27 Amendments read like a tour through American history.

Many of our foundational freedoms are described in The Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, which were required by many states before they agreed to ratify our Constitution in the first place.

Amendments 13, 14 and 15 outlawed slavery, mandated equal protection and extended voting rights to African-Americans—a right that Amendment 19 also extended to women.

Prohibition began with the 18th Amendment, in 1919, a grand experiment that ended with the 21st Amendment, in 1933. And the 26th Amendment extended voting rights to Americans between the ages of 18 and 21, just as many of those citizens were getting drafted for Vietnam.

Our friends at the National Constitution Center spent the month of February celebrating the Amendments, with the 27 Amendments in 27 Days project. On this 28th day of February, they asked their visitors, and we've asked you—our listeners—what should be the 28th Amendment to the Constitution?

Kerry Sautner, vice president of visitor experience and education the National Constitution Center, has the results. She explains what it takes to get an Amendment ratified, and what a 28th Amendment might look like.

http://wfae.org/programs/takeaway-wfae

I guess its on today. I am not sure what I heard. Perhaps just a teaser version. Smiling

You didn't mention which one you would amend. I'm guessing the 1st, 2nd, and 4th.
Nope, you guessed wrong as usual. I would amend none, but would adopt the 28th amendment that bans unlimited political contributions.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)