Obamamania

#21
Handsome ....:eek: ... you have to be joking! But yes, I have to agree with you, his strong suit is being a salesman, he is good at marketing. I still have to see whether he is a leader though. The verdict is still out on that.
I didn't say he is handsom, its the ones that voted for him. As a leader, the verdict will always be out. he couldn't lead a goat to grass
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#25
I like your thinking David. Maybe that is the only way "starting over", like the guys did a few centuries ago when they first started out. Good idea. If people follow the British OLD system of never having sat down to completely overhaul anything (start from scratch again), that is a good example for the US to take a look into the mirror, for "what not to do":
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.
Problem is, will two thirds of Congress have enough courage to tackle something as radical as that? Or would it only be possible through a revolution of a kind as what took the Americans to get rid of the yoke of the British? Ditto the French a few centuries ago.
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#26
I like your thinking David. Maybe that is the only way "starting over", like the guys did a few centuries ago when they first started out. Good idea. If people follow the British OLD system of never having sat down to completely overhaul anything (start from scratch again), that is a good example for the US to take a look into the mirror, for "what not to do":


Problem is, will two thirds of Congress have enough courage to tackle something as radical as that? Or would it only be possible through a revolution of a kind as what took the Americans to get rid of the yoke of the British? Ditto the French a few centuries ago.
This congress has zero courage in my opinion. And it makes me sad to feel that way.:(
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#27
This congress has zero courage in my opinion. And it makes me sad to feel that way.:(
Not only in the United States though. This is prevalent everywhere. Fat cats, living comfortably on whatever allowances and sponsorships they are getting, and enjoying power, where the game is more about the individual trying to survive in his position and try to look good, rather than working for the good of the whole.:(
 
Jul 2009
5,844
449
Port St. Lucie
#29
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.
Don't need Congress to have any backbone. The gov't can be reformed or disbanded by popular acclaim if 3/4 of the people call for it.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#34
Three fourths is the same as 3/4 or three quarters.
Do you read my messages? I completely understood what 3/4 was, I was asking whether it should be TWO THIRDS !
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.

http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#37
:p Oh, no. That last part is for citizens, not gov't.

2/3 for gov't born changes, 3/4 for citizen born changes.
OK, got it. Except now I forgot what you intended with the changes. Where do you want to go with them, raise them down to the ground and start fresh?:)
 
Jul 2009
5,844
449
Port St. Lucie
#38
Replace the Constitution. It stipulates a federation, I want a confederation of autonomous commonwealths. The Constitution provides for it's amendment/replacement. I wish to exercise that right.