Ideas for Constitutional Ammendments

[saxman]

Idea #1: Deployment of the Military must be approved by both the Senate and the Congress.(not exactly the best wording)
Idea #2: The Government shall not actively terminate human life except through its military during times of war.

 

[cxim]

It would probably be a good idea if you learned a little history & law before you proposed new law, (that is not new, BTW).

<< not exactly the best wording >>

How about, sounds like a dufus ?

 

[saxman]

There have been many military deployments not approved by the House.

 

[Ladi]

1) Military deployments can be ordered by the President of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, for up to 60 days (I may have this # off...it's early and I'm pre-caffeine) before the approval of Congress is required. This is necessary especially in times of emergency when an imminent threat exists to the nation's land and peoples. After this time, the approval of Congress is indeed necessary in order to declare war and continue it.

If you're really interested, I'll go dig out where this is Constitutionally, but I believe it's an Article 2 Presidential power.

[edit]The '60 days' is, I believe, set in Supreme Court precedent or federal law. The power of the President as Commander-in-Chief is set in Article 2, Section 2, Part a. Congress's power to declare war and to provide for the support of the armed forces is in Article 1, Section 8, Parts k-p. For more information, find the War Powers Act of 1973.[/edit]

As a side note, Senate is a part of Congress, as the House of Representatives is.

2) Considering the current Supreme Court stance on capital punishment and the States'/public opinion on it, it is doubtful if this could possibly pass. Even if it did, it might become about as successful as the 18th Amendment.

~Ladi

 

[Tiger]

Raise the voting age to 21.

 

[Ladi]

Tiger...

Are you proposing also to raise the minimum age for the armed forces to 21?

The argument for the 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18, centered around the injustice of allowing 18-21-year-olds to serve in the armed forces and die for the country, but not having the ability/privilege of voting for national-level executives and legislators.

~Ladi

 

[Tiger]

Nope,
Since we have an all volunteer armed force that's the individual's choice.
If we had mandatory military service like the Israeli's do then yes.
Having some 18yr old &quot;w00t, w00t, hax0r dude&quot; voting for anything makes the hair on my neck stand up.

I give you as an example the debates that raged on this board during the election.
To give credit, some of the kids around here have an excellent grasp of the political process. Others couldn't form a complete sentence.

 

[GaryTcs]

Tiger, we do not have an all volunteer armed forces. Conscription is used whwnever the gov't deems necessary. If an 18 year old dumbass ia expected to give his life for your freedom when necessary, you can extend him the courtesy of being allowed to vote. (Does this mean women can't vote until ther're 21?!!)

 

[Ladi]

But 18-y-o males are still required to sign up for the draft. Women of the same age are given the option of registering.

While many 18-year-olds may be 'too immature' or 'too uninformed' to make &quot;good&quot; voting choices, does that mean we should exclude them from the process? There are many people twice and three times their age who are as ignorant about &quot;proper english,&quot; let alone candidates, politics, and the basic Constitutional/legal principles that the US is founded upon who are allowed to vote.

~Ladi

 

[Tiger]

It's not about &quot;proper english&quot;, it's about maturity.
We haven't had an active draft in this country in 25 yrs.
I suspect if the congress ever decides to do another, voting age will be the least of our worries.
How about this, we let those under 21 in the military vote?

 

[MajesticMoose]

Also, voting rates of ppl 18-21 are very low, especially among the &quot;w00t w00t hax0r dude&quot; crowd. I suppose that you were a very serious and well informed person when you were at that age. By your logic we should exclude everyone with an IQ below 100.

here's my idea: no more electoral college so ppl aren't allowed to steal an election from the candidate with the majority

w00t w00t,
Moose

 

[Tiger]

When I think back to all of the stupid, irresponible things I did when I was that age, I wouldn't have let me vote either. Too much peer pressure, too much going along with the crowd to be cool. As I said, not all under 21 are as immature and naive as most.




<< By your logic we should exclude everyone with an IQ below 100 >>



Where did I say anything even remotely resembling that?
I'm not expecting all voters to be the brightest bulbs on the planet, but I would like them to at least have a taste of &quot;The real world&quot;, not the MTV kind, before they make such decisions.

 

[bigbootydaddy]

<< To give credit, some of the kids around here have an excellent grasp of the political process. Others couldn't form a complete sentence. >>



now thats comedy

 

[AndrewR]

Ladi: The 60 day &quot;limit&quot; on military deployments without the approval of Congress is from the War Powers Act (that doesn't sound right -- think the name is slightly different), which was passed partially with the experience of Vietnam in mind.

HOWEVER, and that's a big &quot;however&quot;, the constitutionality of the War Powers Act has never been challenged, and it is highly questionable as to whether or not the Act would pass muster before the Supreme Court. Presidents since its passing have essentially maintained compliance with it, but neither the Executive nor Legislative branches has maintained strict compliance with the law. It has acted more as a &quot;gentlemen's agreement&quot; between the branches.

I wouldn't be adverse to raising the voting age (we don't trust them to drink but do trust them to vote -- cute). The proposed &quot;Ammendments&quot; [sic] are fairly silly and needlessly clutter the Constitution. The proposal about doing away with the Electoral College is also misguided -- if the popular vote had mattered, Bush would have won that, too.

 

[MajesticMoose]

Andrew: how do you figure that bush would have gotten the majority? He won all the places that are vast expanses of nothing.On another point, I sincerely doubt that the war powers act would come to the supreme court because presidents know that challenging it would amount to political suicide.

Moose

 

[Thorn]

How about we not allow people to vote unless they've served in the military (or some type of armed forces)? Like they did in Starship Troopers.

This isn't my opinion, just a comment.

 

[Ladi]

My personal feeling is that if someone between 18-21 votes, chances are that s/he is well-informed enough to vote with as much or more 'competence' than somebody older. Having a 'taste of the real world' is debateable even among older people...I know many 18-year-olds who have suffered more and learned more about the way the world works at 18 than some sheltered people ever will. Be very careful when you make sweeping judgements about an age group.

HOWEVER, and that's a big &quot;however&quot;, the constitutionality of the War Powers Act has never been challenged, and it is highly questionable as to whether or not the Act would pass muster before the Supreme Court. Presidents since its passing have essentially maintained compliance with it, but neither the Executive nor Legislative branches has maintained strict compliance with the law. It has acted more as a &quot;gentlemen's agreement&quot; between the branches.

Presidents even before its passing have also arguably overreached their powers. A great example is Lincoln during the Civil War. Laws often take on a different meaning in 'times of emergency' and may even be ignored for expediency. That doesn't make them right, but often, they will not be debated until after such action has been completed, if then (and the success of such actions can color the debate about legality and Constitutionality).

how do you figure that bush would have gotten the majority?

Without speaking for or against Bush...keep in mind that Gore's 'overwhelming majority' amounted to a number approximately 0.5% of the total popular vote. As we all know, that's a slim margin and a recount in Florida (as well as many other states/municipalities).

On another point, I sincerely doubt that the war powers act would come to the supreme court because presidents know that challenging it would amount to political suicide.


Supreme Court Justices are not subject to 'political suicide' -- their appointments are for life and they cannot be removed from the court except by the relatively rare instrument of impeachment by Congress. A lawyer who would bring such a case before the Supreme Court may or may not have political aspirations in any case.

How about we not allow people to vote unless they've served in the military (or some type of armed forces)?

My concern with this would be about the people who are not qualified, for one reason or another, to serve in the military. Ability to serve can be and is based on physical qualifications (those bum joints of mine could seriously hinder running a few miles to pass basic training) and mental qualifications (sucks for you if you can't pass the general exams to get in and be assigned a job). Are you willing to restrict the vote from people who are willing to serve, but unable, for reasons not within their control, to do so?

Just playing devil's advocate

~Ladi

 

[rahvin]

<<It's not about &quot;proper english&quot;, it's about maturity.>>

If we based voting rights on &quot;maturity&quot; or intelligence, 75% of this country wouldn't be voting.

 

[AndrewR]

<< how do you figure that bush would have gotten the majority? >>


Simple -- there would have been a lot more Republican activity in areas that were heavily populated but less strongly Republican. Also, if the election hadn't been declared so early, the Florida panhandle voters, who are strongly Republican, would have gone out in greater numbers. Texans would have shown up in greater numbers. Ditto for Republicans in California who didn't believe that their vote would make a difference in a sea of idiocy...er, Democrats. The campaigns were run with the electoral vote in mind, not the popular one. The popular vote is meaningless.

As for the War Powers Act, it will likely stay in its current form until some crisis forces reevaluation of its effectiveness. The Constitutional regime of a declaration of war from Congress is outdated -- the current likelihood of a formal declaration of war is minimal since most of the conflicts in the foreseeable future are low key/low intensity conflicts against insurgents and not against nations. The only nation-opponent facing us currently is China, and the likelihood of war with them is not all that great given the nuclear implications. Vietnam put an indelible mark on the exercise of the Commander-in-Chief power of the President, and it will be awhile, if ever, before a President can ignore the War Powers Act or its basic tenets and survive the aftermath.


<< If we based voting rights on &quot;maturity&quot; or intelligence, 75% of this country wouldn't be voting. >>


We could kiss the Democratic Party goodbye!

 

[yakko]

<< here's my idea: no more electoral college so ppl aren't allowed to steal an election from the candidate with the majority >>


No. If it was based on popular vote only you could win Florida, Texas, New York and California and be the winner. 4 states should not determine who runs the all 50. Also until everyone votes for candidates for reasons other than he was the best looking one the electoral college should stay right where it is.

 

[reitz]

<< Raise the voting age to 21. >>

Why? Because most 18 to 20 year olds are immature? Newsflash: the young men and women of that demographic have the lowest level of voter turnout. Those that you feel are too immature to vote are the ones that can't be bothered anyway.

I can't even begin to count the number of people I've met over 30 who are too lazy or 'immature' to make an informed choice at the polls. Why should they have the privilage of voting, using your logic? FYI, I'm 23, and I have voted in every election since I turned 18. I always made it a point to know the candidates and make an informed decision. No one has the right to tell an 18 year old that he is too immature to vote.