Amend The Constitution

Amend The Constitution

There are 45 comments on the Hartford Courant story from Feb 18, 2009, titled Amend The Constitution. In it, Hartford Courant reports that:

Have we seen enough of governors filling vacancies in U.S. Senate seats since the November election? The allegedly corrupt governor of Illinois picking Roland Burris - who's now facing ethics investigations of ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hartford Courant.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Illegitimi non carborundum”

Since: Jan 09

Scenic Manitowoc County WI

#43 Feb 21, 2009
Albee Darned wrote:
<quoted text>
The founding fathers wanted the senators to truly represent their individual states - and as the goernor is their de facto 'president', it was left to have the governor represent their interests. They forsaw the potential for the current abuse we see in the 'elected for life' senators we now have and felt that governors appointing them - making them work at the pleasure of the governor and they stae they represent - would dilute the power.
I think it would not dilute power, it would instead concentrate more power to governors.
How about a constitutional amnendment for term limits. That would diluite power.

Minneapolis, MN

#44 Feb 24, 2009
William Costigan wrote:
I fear in a short time the "progressives" will have the Constitution trashed in favor of their socialist agenda. I truly hope our President posseses the wisdon to not venture in their direction and do what he was elected to do ..... preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States of America
Were I you, I wouldn't bet the farm...I'm sure as hell not.

Minneapolis, MN

#45 Feb 24, 2009
Yes wrote:
They should amend the constitution. Anyone who has actually read it can tell you the same thing. For instance, gun ownership. The right to own a firearm. Biggest mistake ever was letting people have guns according to the constitution. We live in a different time now, then we did when it was written. Look at the mess that we have gotten into with that. Anyone that wants to use the constitution as their backing should also be aware that it also states that people are allowed to employ slaves, and how many they may keep, what the pay should be, living conditions for your slaves, the right to trade them, etc.
Funny what a "little knowledge" will do to you.

Had you taken the time to study more completely the history of the United States, you would have been shocked to learn that documents like the Emancipation Proclamation were, in fact, legal and binding legislation that supercedes and renders null and void any and all wording relative to the slavery clauses found in our Constitution.

You would be wise as well to not spend all your free time wishing for an amendment abolishing our Second Amendment. Seeing as how it is the indisputable champion in enforcing all the other amendments, as well as the final measure in stopping the tyranny of a government gone mad.

It would also be wise of you to actually look up the correlation between gun ownership and rights in this country and in the role those rights have played in our violent crime rate.

With any luck, you will come to the same conclusion that thousands of other statisticians and studies have revealed over the course of our history.

That 'there is no connection' and there never has been...

As I said earlier. Be very careful what you wish for.

Minneapolis, MN

#46 Feb 24, 2009
Read your history books and learn a thing or two. There is a REASON why the Constitution was formulated the way it that NO ONE branch of government was able to exercise complete rule over the other and that all could hold the others in a checks and balances system.
It says NOTHING about the current Presidents status as to citizenship, nothing about the current bailout and who gets that money (why no drama when Pres. Bush poured 500B down a black hole?).
While I agree with you on the first part, I have to take exception to the area where you start to take George Bush to task. For there is a difference between what Barack and the Democratically led Congress just did (to the tune of $787 billion), and what Bush did with the $500 billion.

In Bush's case, we brought freedom, civil rights, and great hope and renewed confidence in their place in history, to a people that didn't have any for most of the last 500 years. Had it cost another $500 million to bring that to them, it would have been worth the cost.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has given us a great many sound bites, a decidedly liberally oriented social and financial agenda, and a myriad of "future' plans that he 'hopes' will work.

In alot of ways, we're starting to see similarities between what George Bush did in his "country building" exercises and the hope he held forth for nations like Iraq and Afghanistan, and the 'hope' that Barack brings to us in the form of economic stimulus and societal change.

Both had a vision and a dream. Yet both have approached their dreams differently.

Ones dream has had mixed reviews, depending on which side of the ideological divide one finds oneself on - while for the other - the jury is still out.

In short: Let's not give victory to the new President until such time as he is truly victorious, and the naysayers on both sides have been quieted. Okay?

Flower Mound, TX

#47 Aug 14, 2012
Just passiing through. Now is it not the responsibility of the people to unelect thsoe that are corrupt, both parites , if an elected person is found to be corrupt. But the people that does the electing always reelects thsoe they have put in office and want the other people to put their corrup people out of office. It has to start in your district and the other people should also look closesly at their elected officials. the same thing has been happpening on walll street pertaining to the fraud committed on Wall STreet in the financial industry that put us in a deep recession--Bush never done a thing about itand he was advised of the situation in 2004-yet the bankstwrs kept on committing fraud. One thought to leave with you folks--ask yourslef why the interest rate was lowered so low--to keep the damaged financial industry afloat.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hillary Clinton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump claims witch hunt, says he's most hounded... 2 min old_moose 1,040
News Prince William hits DC; Kate joins NYC first lady (Dec '14) 10 hr The Bronx Cheer-Lady 23
News Wal-Mart heir, Hollywood director among Clinton... (Feb '14) Jun 21 Jared Soros 60
News Peter Lucas: Whack Mueller before Mueller whack... Jun 20 Funny Thing 8
News If Sanders run for president, can anyone stop him? Jun 18 Julia 13
News NY road sign defaced to duplicate Trump's slam ... Jun 16 slick willie expl... 2
News The Sessions hearing shows who's really colludi... Jun 15 joe 6
More from around the web