- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How would you change the Constitution to keep us from getting here?
Posted on 1/2/26 at 10:25 am to weagle1999
Posted on 1/2/26 at 10:25 am to weagle1999
Allow vigilante justice
1
Posted on 1/2/26 at 10:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:This is the obvious answer to anyone with a belief in limited government and a functioning brain, yet we see the knee-jerk downvotes pouring in.
Redefining the commerce clause to its originally-intended meaning (reversing Wickard and its progeny)
SCOTUS upholds 90% or more of the instances of clear central government overreach ... under the Commerce Clause.
Rage-bait topics like "birthright citizenship" are the shiny penny to small minds, but the Commerce Clause (post Wickard) is the root of far, far more systemic problems.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 10:26 am to TigahTeeth
quote:
Allow vigilante justice
Remember the riots in 2020? Naw, I don't want to legalize them
Posted on 1/2/26 at 10:26 am to weagle1999
Must own land to vote
Posted on 1/2/26 at 10:27 am to weagle1999
An orderly process for secession.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 10:28 am to TrueTiger
quote:
An orderly process for secession.
Not really possible when taking into account the people involved and how to distribute federal property back to the US from the seceding areas.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 10:28 am to wallowinit
quote:Goody. THIS facile discussion again.
This isn’t a democracy you fricking dumb arse.
Let's save some time.
Trumpists: "Not a democracy. A republic."
English speakers: "Our republic is a form of democracy."
Trumpists: "Dumb arse. I saw it in a meme. It is true."
English speakers: "Sad."
This post was edited on 1/2/26 at 11:37 am
Posted on 1/2/26 at 10:29 am to weagle1999
Can’t vote unless you’re a net taxpayer
Posted on 1/2/26 at 10:29 am to SlowFlowPro
The EU Constitution has one. It's possible.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 10:30 am to FluffyBunnyFeet
quote:
My son’s government class this semester is “educating” the kids on accepting the idea of popular vote and repealing citizenship requirement for president.quote:
I'd go full secessionist if this ever came to pass.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 10:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Politicians are elected by citizens. How do you propose regulating them out of government?
Repeal the 17th would be a start…
quote:
To put this another way, how do you avoid giving DEMs the power to make Trump ineligible?
I don’t fully understand your question- I think you’re meaning how to avoid a double edged sword…
The solution to that, as far as the presidency goes, is rooting out and preventing fraud at all levels of the election process.
To that end, separate federal election from lesser elections- make it a weekend/day off thing like France, in person voting, one man, one vote, no harvesting, no mail in.
I’m even down for eliminating or revising the secret ballot… kind of makes it hard to trace your own vote.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 10:32 am to TrueTiger
quote:
The EU Constitution has one. It's possible.
When you secede from the EU, you're still a country.
And the money spread via the EU is nothing in comparison to that spent via fedgov.
National spending v. EU spending is dominated by national spending
State spending v. Federal spending is dominated by federal spending
And there isn't like an EU army or military bases that would have to be given back to the EU, like we have in the US.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 10:32 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
English speakers: "A republic is a form of democracy."
Not true. Not all republics are democracies. They're separate concepts.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 10:35 am to weagle1999
quote:
How would you change the Constitution to keep us from getting here?
If this is a retroactive question, then let’s start with abolishing slavery on July 4, 1776.
The human rights aspect is obvious. The unintended (but predictable) consequences were not worth the perceived benefit. We would have been better off embracing economic lessons that the quality of labor is commensurate with freedom to negotiate rate of compensation.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 10:35 am to SallysHuman
quote:
I don’t fully understand your question-
Think about this objectively and not from a binary-partisan mindset.
He said
quote:
You need to figure out how to keep rotten motherfrickers out of government.
I think we would all agree Trump is "a rotten motherfricker" to many DEMs.
If we create a policy to exclude "rotten motherfrickers", then it could be used by DEMs, too. It's not a one-way street.
How do you avoid giving DEMs the power to make Trump ineligible?
quote:
The solution to that, as far as the presidency goes, is rooting out and preventing fraud at all levels of the election process.
This is more along the lines of my comment about the US being a democracy. Tightening up the voting rules in that democracy would definitely help the results to reflect the will of the electorate.
But that's not what his policy was discussing I don't think. He's trying to exclude people from being able to run outside of the democratic processes you and I are discussing.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 10:38 am to Willie Stroker
quote:Which of the thirteen colonies would have joined this proposed nation of yours?
let’s start with abolishing slavery on July 4, 1776.
The human rights aspect is obvious. The unintended (but predictable) consequences were not worth the perceived benefit. We would have been better off embracing economic lessons that the quality of labor is commensurate with freedom to negotiate rate of compensation.
This post was edited on 1/2/26 at 11:33 am
Posted on 1/2/26 at 10:40 am to weagle1999
The root cause is the federal government getting involved with social programs and/or a drift towards socialist babysitter state. The consitututional root to that is the "general welfare" clause. Addressing the welfare state and it being permitted by the constitution is the only real solution.
some of the items you suggested would however go a long way towards mitigation:
- citizens only? YEP
- Term Limits? Absolutfrickinglutely. This is a fraud prevention and would return us to a more representative govt instead of on the Peterloo track we are on.
- Allow secession? maybe. But if the Fed govt gets out of this buisness then the states aren't stealing from all of us, just their own citizens of that state, which makes such an action moot. They will vote with their feet, ballots, or molotovs while the rest of us can rest easy that at least we aren't getting ripped off which has the side benefit of drastically reducing the federal judiciary in usurping powers of the executive because the fed executive has no role any longer.
some of the items you suggested would however go a long way towards mitigation:
- citizens only? YEP
- Term Limits? Absolutfrickinglutely. This is a fraud prevention and would return us to a more representative govt instead of on the Peterloo track we are on.
- Allow secession? maybe. But if the Fed govt gets out of this buisness then the states aren't stealing from all of us, just their own citizens of that state, which makes such an action moot. They will vote with their feet, ballots, or molotovs while the rest of us can rest easy that at least we aren't getting ripped off which has the side benefit of drastically reducing the federal judiciary in usurping powers of the executive because the fed executive has no role any longer.
This post was edited on 1/2/26 at 10:41 am
Posted on 1/2/26 at 10:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
He's trying to exclude people from being able to run outside of the democratic processes you and I are discussing.
Well… yeah, any sword is going to cut both ways. I think the difference is most on the right would be okay with and even welcome that.. whereas most on the left would revolt.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 10:42 am to SallysHuman
quote:
I think the difference is most on the right would be okay with and even welcome that.
You think they'd support a way to permit DEMs to have made Trump ineligible during the Biden admin?
We literally saw that attempt happen and MAGA was NOT OK with it. Making the process easier would lead to an amplification of that response I reckon
Posted on 1/2/26 at 10:43 am to Snipe
quote:
It's the very nature of government. The system is broken.
Between invidious becoming cropped and rogue actors looking for our downfall seems entirely unavoidable, doesn’t it?
Those are also willing to say whatever they need to in order to get elected rather than stand on principle and the electorate will eat it up every time
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News