Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-10-2011, 07:09 PM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
Tell me...if the constitution was perfect...why would it need ammendments...and...can they still ammend it today?

I mean...what body can ammend it? surely only the Federal Government...but they should not be touching it...because the whole idea of it, is to keep the Federal Government small and confined...as soon as the Federal Government can change the constitution...well...it defeats the object.

So...I am not certain about these "ammendments" not certain of their legitamacy, not in favour of anyone having the ability to do that....I mean look at the House of Lords

Originally the House of Lords was a completely independant body of citizens who were important historcially, unchanging, unellected. They had to approve anything passed by the Commons for law.

What did the Commons do? it decided to "reform" the House of Lords...kicked out most of the oldies...and allowed successive Governments to appoint members to the House...so what did each Government do?? well appoint people who they knew would approve their policies...thus...what the is the point of having an independant house to stop an ellected dictatorship from doing whatever it wants?

So now they dont usually have to worry, because at the start of each new Government, the House begins to fill with the appropriate political peers, and bobs ya bumcheek! all their laws, approved by their own hand selected Lords.

Checks and Ballences...Commons and Lords...have become Commons, and Commons mark Two.

You dont want your Federal Government to be allowed to touch the constitution or they will change it in their favour....What? Not allowed to make State Policy on Education...I know, Mr President...why not write a new ammendment, saying Federal Government allowed to make State policy on Education....and suddenly...the consitution is not what it was

To have stuck by an unshifting constitution for nearly three and a half centuries has never truely been done before...do you realize that?
Because nothing is perfect. They new society would change and new issues would arrise. This is why they put into the constitution the ability to ammend. People like Madison and Jefferson thought it was perfect as is and if the the Federalist would stop trying to make a central gov it would be great. The federalist like (Adams, John Jay, Hamilton) thought one day they might need to adapt it. There plan was to later introduce the federal reserve and some other things. This is why Adams and Jefferson never got along very well. They were on 2 ends of the spectrum. That split is alive even today. The North wants the GOV to run everyones lives, the South wants people to mind their own business and come together when someone threatens us.

So is it perfect? As it is today no way. We should not have federal taxes. We should not let the popular vote decide senators that way lobbyist cannot buy them off. Should we go back to states running their own gov YES!!!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-10-2011, 08:11 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
they put into the constitution the ability to ammend. !
Ohhh...so could Obama ammend it if he was so inclined
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-10-2011, 11:24 PM
rockdawg21's Avatar
rockdawg21 rockdawg21 is offline
I'm kind of a big deal
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 5,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
Exactly the fed have put their nose in it since Jimmy Carter started the dept of ed in the 60's and ever since then our nations test scores and status in the world has went down the crapper. The feds have no constitutional right doing anything outside the bounds of the US Constitution. I am open to see where in the Constitution you think they do have the right. I am curious.
As far as I know, there is nothing that forces the states to take the money. However, if a state chooses to accept, they must abide by the rules of the funding. It IS still the states' choice to accept the money. So, where in the Constitution does it say the Federal government may not offer aid to states whom are willing to accept it?

If this is the case, then why do we have groups such as FEMA for AND states ASKING the Feds for their help when they need it? Does the Federal government not have the power/right to give aid? That's exactly why the Dept. of Ed., FEMA, etc. were created, to give aid to needed programs.

As far as I know in the ESEA (and the continuing programs), nothing is forced because they definitely do not have the right to do so.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-11-2011, 01:29 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
Ohhh...so could Obama ammend it if he was so inclined
I don't think the President is even directly involved in the Constitutional amendment process. Which is a good thing no matter which side of the political fence we sit on.

From http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgov...amendments.htm

Quote:
How to Amend the Constitution

Article V of the Constitution outlines how to amend (modify) the document. It consists of two steps: proposal and ratification.

1. Propose An Amendment
Either Congress or the States can propose an amendment ot the Constitution.

Both Houses of Congress must propose the amendment with a two-thirds vote. This is how all current amendments have been offered.
Two-thirds of the State legislatures must call on Congress to hold a Constitutional Convention.

2. Ratify An Admendment
Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the States.

Three-fourths of the State legislatures must approve of the amendment proposed by Congress, or
Three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. This method has only been used once, to repeal Prohibition (21st Amendment).

Is there a timeline for ratification? The US Supreme Court has held that ratification must happen within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Since the 18th Amendment, Congress has set a term of seven years for ratification.

Only 33 amendments have received a two-thirds vote from both Houses of Congress. Of those, only 27 have been ratified by the States. Perhaps the most visible failure is the Equal Rights Amendment.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-11-2011, 06:47 AM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
Ohhh...so could Obama ammend it if he was so inclined
no it would have to pass a majority of both house and senate and be a majority of states

Last edited by Chris F; 09-11-2011 at 06:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-11-2011, 06:56 AM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockdawg21 View Post
As far as I know, there is nothing that forces the states to take the money. However, if a state chooses to accept, they must abide by the rules of the funding. It IS still the states' choice to accept the money. So, where in the Constitution does it say the Federal government may not offer aid to states whom are willing to accept it?No they do not have to take and in fact some states even refuse. Alsaka has refused GOV money and Florida reject some GOV money when Obama did his last stimulus. What makes it wrong is it is unconstitutional and it is called socialism. If you want to live in a welfare state and have your pay check pillaged than by all means enjoy the status quo

If this is the case, then why do we have groups such as FEMA for AND states ASKING the Feds for their help when they need it? Does the Federal government not have the power/right to give aid? That's exactly why the Dept. of Ed., FEMA, etc. were created, to give aid to needed programs.Nol the fed do not have the constitutional auhority to give money to anyone. This is a new idea that was birthed in 1865 during hte reconstruction and then really got out of hand with the New Deal. But if we were to act as the republic we were founded the answer is no way

As far as I know in the ESEA (and the continuing programs), nothing is forced because they definitely do not have the right to do so.
answers above in red
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-11-2011, 01:23 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockdawg21 View Post
As far as I know, there is nothing that forces the states to take the money. However, if a state chooses to accept, they must abide by the rules of the funding. It IS still the states' choice to accept the money. So, where in the Constitution does it say the Federal government may not offer aid to states whom are willing to accept it?

If this is the case, then why do we have groups such as FEMA for AND states ASKING the Feds for their help when they need it? Does the Federal government not have the power/right to give aid? That's exactly why the Dept. of Ed., FEMA, etc. were created, to give aid to needed programs.

As far as I know in the ESEA (and the continuing programs), nothing is forced because they definitely do not have the right to do so.
The biggest problem is that if the states refuse to accept the money, it's not like it gets refunded back to the taxpayers. That money gets funneled into some other project.

The federal government has no business funding public schools. The best evidence is the Department of Education's track record since its founding in 1979. Have public schools across the country improved in the last 32 years? No, in fact, things have gotten dramatically worse in our schools and they continue to get worse every year.

Our federal government is clearly incompetent when it comes to handling our public schools, thus they need to be permanently relieved of the responsibility.

It's just common sense. Let's say you hire a private tutor for your child because he is B-/C average student and you would like to get his GPA raised up some so he can get into a good college. After the first semester with this new tutor, your son's grades are now in the C- and D range. By the end of the first year, he's failing every course and has to repeat that grade. So, what would your conclusion be? Well, if you're the average American taxpayer, then I guess your conclusion would be to just sit back and do nothing, hoping that the situation improves by itself. If you are a Liberal then your conclusion would be that you're not paying your son's tutor enough money. So you need to give her a raise in order for her to start actually teaching your son.

Of course, common sense would tell any parent that the tutor is incompetent and she's actually making things worse; so they would fire the tutor and work to undo the damage. So, why would the situation with our federal government be any different?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-11-2011, 02:15 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
I don't think the President is even directly involved in the Constitutional amendment process. Which is a good thing no matter which side of the political fence we sit on.

From http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgov...amendments.htm
Yes...thats a good thing...infact the way its written...its a completely A-Political process...you'd either have to have one of the Parties so dominant as to have a single party Government...or you wouldnt get the changes aggreed by like three quarters of the entire Legal and Judicial politicians of Fifty one different Soverignties in less then a decade.

I am pleased with this...because...it basically means that although you can change it...in this day and age...you realistically dont stand a chance
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-11-2011, 02:19 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post

Our federal government is clearly incompetent when it comes to handling our public schools, thus they need to be permanently relieved of the responsibility.



Of course, common sense would tell any parent that the tutor is incompetent and she's actually making things worse; so they would fire the tutor and work to undo the damage.


if the stats are right I aggree with you...its just a very Military Minded way of dealing with incompetance I hope you apply that to every single person and structure and institution, regardless of political set up though.. Infact its something that ought maybe applied to all situations, even non political ones like in your generic example

Supposing its got nothing to do with the government...supposing its a matter of entropy and the younger people are actually more dumb then before? I'm not saying thats true...but a project failing isnt always the fault of the administration running it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-11-2011, 04:53 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post


if the stats are right I aggree with you...its just a very Military Minded way of dealing with incompetance I hope you apply that to every single person and structure and institution, regardless of political set up though.. Infact its something that ought maybe applied to all situations, even non political ones like in your generic example

Supposing its got nothing to do with the government...supposing its a matter of entropy and the younger people are actually more dumb then before? I'm not saying thats true...but a project failing isnt always the fault of the administration running it.
Well, I do agree that each successive generation of humanity is getting stupider and more intellectually incompetent, but that should be able to be measured as a slow, steady decline. Not the downhill rocket-slide that it's been in this country for the last 3 decades.

I know people will also complain that we're just not putting enough money into public schools and (the favorite mantra) if we dedicated as much money to education that we do to national defense, then all of our education problems would be solved. Well, first of all, we now spend 4 times more on education in this country than we did in the 200 years prior to 1979 and our country's education system is failing faster than ever. So, money is not the problem.

Secondly, the national defense comparison is ridiculous because we NEED to spend money on national defense. Today of all days should prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Here are some stats showing just how poor the US public education system really is:
Source: http://www.readfaster.com/education_...tionstatistics

44 million adults in the U.S. can't read well enough to read a simple story to a child.

Nearly half of America's adults are poor readers, or "functionally illiterate." They can't carry out simply tasks like balancing check books, reading drug labels or writing essays for a job.

21 million Americans can't read at all, 45 million are marginally illiterate and one-fifth of high school graduates can't read their diplomas.

46% of American adults cannot understand the label on their prescription medicine.

Forty-four percent of American 4th grade students cannot read fluently, even when they read grade-level stories aloud under supportive testing conditions.

50 percent of American adults are unable to read an eighth grade level book.

According to the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 37 percent of fourth graders and 26 percent of eighth graders cannot read at the basic level; and on the 2002 NAEP 26 percent of twelfth graders cannot read at the basic level. That is, when reading grade appropriate text these students cannot extract the general meaning or make obvious connections between the text and their own experiences or make simple inferences from the text. In other words, they cannot understand what they have read.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.