I'm going to have to say Amendment 12 is the wordiest/most precise and as such can't be fucked with by activist judges. It was the only one to correct a flaw in the Original Constitution; it was framed by the Classic Republican Party (rather than by the Hamiltonian Party). Adding the popular vote at that time wasn't right because Clement Vallandagham's proposal was better anyway. Gore may not have been as bad as Bush, but Gore's pop vote victory wasn't by that much and if it hadn't been for Ralph Nader, then Bush may have come closer to winning the popular vote anyway. Bush signed what Congress asked for anyway in his first term, even if not for any reason (I don't know when the line-item vetoes started whether he did those in his first term or not; but he sure didn't line-item veto much funding). And Al Gore wouldn't have been much different anyway because he seemed as angry as Bush seemed to be. Al Gore would've taken no advice because he was always convinced there was only one right way whereas Bush was easily fooled like me and mitt romney. Obama is like Bush in that he doesn't see anything as it physically is, but at least Obama doesn't take many risks. He was like Madison letting the white house get farted on but being against domination like me. Obama didn't even say that he wanted Zimmerman smashed like most Presidents would have (he let Eric Holder and the MSM try to do it).
Neo-Republicans and Democrats don't seem to be very careful what they wish for really. Obama is not a bad President compared to half of all the others because he doesn't enforce anything personally. He has a VERY high IQ (excellent inductive reasoning, verbally fluid, good sense of humor, free of worry, more liberal personality than any president after James Madison) and he may even be good at math given his interpretation abilities (Clinton was smart with accurate interpretations too, but Clinton couldn't foresee that Osama Bin Laden was a fighter for freedom and that the latter could not mastermind anything). Didn't McAuliffe even snub Obama like many others have and like I have (perhaps he didn't but I thought he did)? Did Obama absolutely know and retain all the info about fast and furious and the arming of the drug cartels? Was Romney actually competent? Anyone remember Herman Cain and how absolutist he and I could be? Anyone see how much local and State revenues and spending have gone up under the party of Lincoln and under New Democrat governors? I don't want a job funded by tax-payers. And I don't ever want medicaid but i could be forced on to it when private charity sure wouldn't work worse in the absence of the ruling class. My dad's savings wouldn't have been sucked dry without chain shots, prescribed meth (ritalin then desoxyn when I was 4-6 years old), and "anti-depressants"; my fluid intelligence would've been not quite so low had it not been for all those toxins going into my body during brain formation then reducing cells; they made the anti-psychotics necessary because they SRIs and desoxyn made me hyper and angry (and my parents wouldn't have had to pay for mandatory education for me; it didn't even help get me a real job). I hope that wasn't too off topic. But...
The 13th Amendment didn't define slavery or bondage; it didn't decentralize slavery policy; it disallowed voluntary slavery; it tried to get the blacks dependent on the u.s.g; I don't think any popular sovereignty men voted for it; it took away the right of the abolitionists and the blacks to help free the blacks. It should've said that slavery was wrong but that the u.s.g. couldn't protect slaveholders and it also should've been pro-trade (mercantilism is one-sided and manufacturing empires aren't everything anyway as it overlooks comparative advantage; the Neo-Republican Party has always been absolutist).
14th amendment is the Angry Amendment and showed how angry and militaristic the GOP intended to be. It was unnecessary for blacks; the framers of it only wanted it to profit themselves, for irrational revenge, and to keep blacks in the south rather than welcome them up north. It was hypocritical (some of the Northern States had codes against blacks that they didn't repeal). It took away liberty. It corroded society by allowing people like me into the country. It is nationalist because citizenship feels more natural when you get it locally rather than from some far-away govt.
And the early GOP hated immigrants just as much as their warvangelical descendants and ideological heirs do today.
Amendment XXI wasn't written in Jeffersonian or even in mosaic style; it should've had 3 or 4 sections. It could've been written more like the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom by talking about natural rights and putting a wall between the U.S.G. and alcohol policy.
19th amendment wasn't all that bad, but it pretty much nationalized voting and basically said it was okay for voting to be more centralized.
Poll fees are okay.
The capitol shouldn't have electoral votes since it is closer to the Executive, Congress, and the supreme court than anyone else.
Congressional pay should've been decentralized.
The 16th amendment is bad and allowed the govt boost its revenue.
15th amendment-based legislation took away property rights by forcing the States to change around. It is for one party rule by the GOP.
22nd amendment allowed consecutive presidential terms and by doing so it perpetuated the 5th party system.
The bill of rights didn't do a whole lot. The 11th amendment was okay but I don't know how much it limited the U.S.G.
Neo-Republicans and Democrats don't seem to be very careful what they wish for really. Obama is not a bad President compared to half of all the others because he doesn't enforce anything personally. He has a VERY high IQ (excellent inductive reasoning, verbally fluid, good sense of humor, free of worry, more liberal personality than any president after James Madison) and he may even be good at math given his interpretation abilities (Clinton was smart with accurate interpretations too, but Clinton couldn't foresee that Osama Bin Laden was a fighter for freedom and that the latter could not mastermind anything). Didn't McAuliffe even snub Obama like many others have and like I have (perhaps he didn't but I thought he did)? Did Obama absolutely know and retain all the info about fast and furious and the arming of the drug cartels? Was Romney actually competent? Anyone remember Herman Cain and how absolutist he and I could be? Anyone see how much local and State revenues and spending have gone up under the party of Lincoln and under New Democrat governors? I don't want a job funded by tax-payers. And I don't ever want medicaid but i could be forced on to it when private charity sure wouldn't work worse in the absence of the ruling class. My dad's savings wouldn't have been sucked dry without chain shots, prescribed meth (ritalin then desoxyn when I was 4-6 years old), and "anti-depressants"; my fluid intelligence would've been not quite so low had it not been for all those toxins going into my body during brain formation then reducing cells; they made the anti-psychotics necessary because they SRIs and desoxyn made me hyper and angry (and my parents wouldn't have had to pay for mandatory education for me; it didn't even help get me a real job). I hope that wasn't too off topic. But...
The 13th Amendment didn't define slavery or bondage; it didn't decentralize slavery policy; it disallowed voluntary slavery; it tried to get the blacks dependent on the u.s.g; I don't think any popular sovereignty men voted for it; it took away the right of the abolitionists and the blacks to help free the blacks. It should've said that slavery was wrong but that the u.s.g. couldn't protect slaveholders and it also should've been pro-trade (mercantilism is one-sided and manufacturing empires aren't everything anyway as it overlooks comparative advantage; the Neo-Republican Party has always been absolutist).
14th amendment is the Angry Amendment and showed how angry and militaristic the GOP intended to be. It was unnecessary for blacks; the framers of it only wanted it to profit themselves, for irrational revenge, and to keep blacks in the south rather than welcome them up north. It was hypocritical (some of the Northern States had codes against blacks that they didn't repeal). It took away liberty. It corroded society by allowing people like me into the country. It is nationalist because citizenship feels more natural when you get it locally rather than from some far-away govt.
And the early GOP hated immigrants just as much as their warvangelical descendants and ideological heirs do today.
Amendment XXI wasn't written in Jeffersonian or even in mosaic style; it should've had 3 or 4 sections. It could've been written more like the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom by talking about natural rights and putting a wall between the U.S.G. and alcohol policy.
19th amendment wasn't all that bad, but it pretty much nationalized voting and basically said it was okay for voting to be more centralized.
Poll fees are okay.
The capitol shouldn't have electoral votes since it is closer to the Executive, Congress, and the supreme court than anyone else.
Congressional pay should've been decentralized.
The 16th amendment is bad and allowed the govt boost its revenue.
15th amendment-based legislation took away property rights by forcing the States to change around. It is for one party rule by the GOP.
22nd amendment allowed consecutive presidential terms and by doing so it perpetuated the 5th party system.
The bill of rights didn't do a whole lot. The 11th amendment was okay but I don't know how much it limited the U.S.G.
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter