States need to start their own volunteer militia's!!

[fj1200]

I agree with you about the 17th.

That means the system is in need of minor repairs. it is not broken.

Personally to, I would like to return to a time where the runner up in the Presidential race became VP, that gives you more of a balanced view in the executive IMHO.

Broken can take a lot of time to show the breakage.

Meh on the VP, there's no sense in that view IMO. I think more importantly we need to require a run-off for every Federal election, even POTUS electors, where the winner doesn't get 50% +1. That would encourage third parties and virtually guarantee a FL won't happen again.

[ConHog]

Broken can take a lot of time to show the breakage.

Meh on the VP, there's no sense in that view IMO. I think more importantly we need to require a run-off for every Federal election, even POTUS electors, where the winner doesn't get 50% +1. That would encourage third parties and virtually guarantee a FL won't happen again.

Okay, if were going to go that route.

Let's dump the electoral college and go with a straight vote.

If America can directly and instantaneously elect America's Next Idol, I think we can safely assume the technology is there to do the same with the President.

Of course I would also send Congressmen home to their home states and have them do everything via teleconference as well, including voting.

And the reason I say that about the VP is b/c for one thing I believe that we consistently get VPs who shouldn't be in charge of anything b/c its largely a ceremonial position that no one with any brains wants. The VP should be more involved with the administration than they are and have been currently and having the "top guy" from the opposing "team" helping shape the administration certainly couldn't be a bad thing.

[fj1200]

Okay, if were going to go that route.

Let's dump the electoral college and go with a straight vote.

If America can directly and instantaneously elect America's Next Idol, I think we can safely assume the technology is there to do the same with the President.

Of course I would also send Congressmen home to their home states and have them do everything via teleconference as well, including voting.

And the reason I say that about the VP is b/c for one thing I believe that we consistently get VPs who shouldn't be in charge of anything b/c its largely a ceremonial position that no one with any brains wants. The VP should be more involved with the administration than they are and have been currently and having the "top guy" from the opposing "team" helping shape the administration certainly couldn't be a bad thing.

Well we did have to make something out of this thread.

I completely disagree about ditching the EC. The people do not elect the POTUS, the States elect the POTUS and removing it has the same effect of the 17th. Whether the technology exists to do it the question becomes SHOULD we and I state emphatically that we should not.

I agree on the Congress except that the Federal government has grown so large that they should probably take back some of what they have delegated to the Executive and move from oversight and towards managing.

There is no Constitutional role for the VEEP other than to remain a sentient being.

My crazy thought has been to eliminate the Unitary Executive and split into a domestic POTUS and a foreign Minister POTUS; an elected Secretary of State if you will who would be the CiC for the military and a few of the cabinets. Staggered elections of course.

[ConHog]

Well we did have to make something out of this thread.

I completely disagree about ditching the EC. The people do not elect the POTUS, the States elect the POTUS and removing it has the same effect of the 17th. Whether the technology exists to do it the question becomes SHOULD we and I state emphatically that we should not.

I agree on the Congress except that the Federal government has grown so large that they should probably take back some of what they have delegated to the Executive and move from oversight and towards managing.

There is no Constitutional role for the VEEP other than to remain a sentient being.

My crazy thought has been to eliminate the Unitary Executive and split into a domestic POTUS and a foreign Minister POTUS; an elected Secretary of State if you will who would be the CiC for the military and a few of the cabinets. Staggered elections of course.

you are wrong about the constitutional powers of the veep. He is the President of the US Senate and therefor votes in the case of a tie. Among other duties.

[fj1200]

you are wrong about the constitutional powers of the veep. He is the President of the US Senate and therefor votes in the case of a tie. Among other duties.

That and certify electors. My mistake.

[ConHog]

That and certify electors. My mistake.

indeed. and in fact some, and I'm not sure how I feel about this one, argue that the VP isn't even part of the executive branch instead it is part of the legislative branch, and THAT is why originally the second vote getter for POTUS became Veep. Because the Veep is the President of the Senate. In which case makes you wonder why they didn't have two separate elections, but certainly that bolsters my argument that we should return to that method.

[fj1200]

^For a ceremonial role in case of a tie? too much thought wasted on that. It more speaks to the original role of the States appointing Senators IMO.

EDIT:

Of course giving the voters a choice to NOT vote for an idiot like Biden does have its advantages. I rate your idea a :thumbsup:

[ConHog]

^For a ceremonial role in case of a tie? too much thought wasted on that. It more speaks to the original role of the States appointing Senators IMO.

His role isn't ceremonial, he is SUPPOSED to be the President of the Senate, which probably requires him you know being there when the Senate meets rather than be running around nodding his head and saying "fuck yeah" every time the POTUS so much as farts.

We're agreed about the original role of the Senate. They need to be reverted back to speaking for the states rather than for the people.

or more precisely rather than for fat cats.

That's another thing I'd eliminate campaign contributions as we know them. Want to contribute, great put it in the pot and money will be doled out evenly.

[fj1200]

His role isn't ceremonial, he is SUPPOSED to be the President of the Senate, which probably requires him you know being there when the Senate meets rather than be running around nodding his head and saying "fuck yeah" every time the POTUS so much as farts.

We're agreed about the original role of the Senate. They need to be reverted back to speaking for the states rather than for the people.

or more precisely rather than for fat cats.

That's another thing I'd eliminate campaign contributions as we know them. Want to contribute, great put it in the pot and money will be doled out evenly.

"Bucket of warm spit." :gavel:

Apparently fat cats and state corruption were the original impetus for the 17th. Another populist movement that results in more of what they were against in the first place.

And no. Money is speech and shouldn't be stifled. I posted a Scalia bit on the Citizens United decision a while back and he defended it against the specter of unlimited speech of corporate owned media, as example. I'll see if I can find it.

[logroller]

His role isn't ceremonial, he is SUPPOSED to be the President of the Senate, which probably requires him you know being there when the Senate meets rather than be running around nodding his head and saying "fuck yeah" every time the POTUS so much as farts.

We're agreed about the original role of the Senate. They need to be reverted back to speaking for the states rather than for the people.

or more precisely rather than for fat cats.

That's another thing I'd eliminate campaign contributions as we know them. Want to contribute, great put it in the pot and money will be doled out evenly.

Besides the fact we'd need a constitutional amendment to override the citizens united ruling; this has some potential-- but what constitutes evenly? Perhaps it could be based on state returns on primaries? Where the electoral value of each state constitutes a share of the sum. Would still give a hefty advantage to the incumbant, ESP where they run unopposed. I'd have to look at the numbers more closely.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well we did have to make something out of this thread.

This thread is about the need for state militias, not your blatherings or your attempts to not only derail the thread but brag about doing so as well. It was doing fine until you guys decided to ff it up.
State militia's are needed to be independent of the Federal government because it , the FED, is most likely the power that will have to be opposed by the states.
Back on topic or is that too much to ask?
You want to start a thread on how our government should be reorganized go ahead but this isn't it.--Tyr

[fj1200]

This thread is about the need for state militias, not your blatherings or your attempts to not only derail the thread but brag about doing so as well. It was doing fine until you guys decided to ff it up.
State militia's are needed to be independent of the Federal government because it , the FED, is most likely the power that will have to be opposed by the states.
Back on topic or is that too much to ask?
You want to start a thread on how our government should be reorganized go ahead but this isn't it.--Tyr

This from someone who brings BO into practically every thread.

Besides, IMO we debunked militias challenging the Feds and moved on to actual solutions.

[mundame]

I like this idea. Form state militias, and collect all the citizens' assault rifles for its armory. The original militias DID have central armories: that's what they defended at Concord-Lexington.

Then lock the armory door so teen psychos can't use them in school and mall shootings. In the case of the State needing defense, they can assemble all the 70-year-old men who own these assault rifles and march them out.

This could work! It could stop the rampage shootings!

[red states rule]

I like this idea. Form state militias, and collect all the citizens' assault rifles for its armory. The original militias DID have central armories: that's what they defended at Concord-Lexington.

Then lock the armory door so teen psychos can't use them in school and mall shootings. In the case of the State needing defense, they can assemble all the 70-year-old men who own these assault rifles and march them out.

This could work! It could stop the rampage shootings!

Now if you would please tell me how you would ensure criminals would turn in their guns for storage? Your idea would be as effective a "Gun Free Zones" are

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

https://unitedstatesmilitia.com/foru...ead.php?t=9553

Matthew Davis sent the email moments after the Supreme Court ruling to numerous new media outlets and limited government activists with the headline: “Is Armed Rebellion Now Justified?”

He stressed that he wasn't calling for armed rebellion but added his own personal note to the email, saying, “… here’s my response. And yes, I mean it.”

He said he was writing with an "eye toward asking at what point the Republic is in peril."

“There are times government has to do things to get what it wants and holds a gun to your head," Davis said. "I’m saying at some point, we have to ask the question when do we turn that gun around and say no and resist.

"Was the American Revolution justified?”

Davis said the key word was “justified,” adding that a peaceful resolution toward changing the law is the goal. He said rebellion often is the end result of people who get backed against a wall and wondered when that might occur when it comes to the Obamacare ruling.

"If government can mandate that I pay for something I don't want, then what is beyond its power?" he wrote. "If the Supreme Court's decision Thursday paves the way for unprecedented intrusion into personal decisions, than has the Republic all but ceased to exist? If so, then is armed rebellion today justified? God willing, this oppression will be lifted and America free again before the first shot is fired."

Davis said he wasn't calling for violence, rather he was pointing out that historically that is what has occurred at times in America. He compared armed rebellion to a situation where the government cannot get your money by way of liens or seizure of bank accounts is coming to arrest you for not paying an unconstitutional tax.

“You can’t have people walking with lattes and signs and think the object of your opposition is going to take you seriously,” Davis said. “Armed rebellion is the end point of that physical confrontation.”

Here’s his email:

Is Armed Rebellion Now Justified?

Implicit in Benjamin Franklin's fabled response at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention was a dire warning: That the Republic would one day devolve into tyranny unless we the people prevented it.

In 2008, we the people elected Barack Obama as president, and the 100-year progressive trek to tyranny begun in 1912 with Woodrow Wilson's election was complete. It cannot be said too many times — for the purposes of emphasis and clarity — that the Constitution was possible ONLY AFTER the American Revolution; and that the war itself would not have been possible without the collective agreement, as so eloquently articulated in the Declaration of Independence, that the course of human events will sometimes justify one group of people to sever themselves from their oppressors.

In other words, America itself was possible only after its people summoned the will to risk their lives and their futures — as well as those of their children — for a freedom they did not enjoy but knew was their gift from God. Along with their desire to be free came their willingness to engaged in armed rebellion for their freedom.

If government can mandate that I pay for something I don't want, then what is beyond its power? If the Supreme Court's decision Thursday paves the way for unprecedented intrusion into personal decisions, then has the Republic all but ceased to exist? If so, then is armed rebellion today justified?

God willing, this oppression will be lifted and America free again before the first shot is fired.


Continued.
http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/17151