If the Conservative Movement succeeds then What? My response!

reply to post by Someone336


I have said it before and I will say it again.

Our government has divided us by not letting us focus on the real issue of governmental corruption.

The very basic stand of freedom of the individual is usually very close to both sides.

I like to remember that when debating but sometimes our emotions get the better of us.

reply to post by endisnighe


I personally like the idea of citizen participation as much as possible in the government. A good counterbalance. Of course, people can be persuaded to things so easily...

A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national election.

-Bill Vaughan

reply to post by Someone336


I really like that quote.

I guess it has to do with our feeling that in our own country, all we want is peace and tranquility to do our own thing, but at the same time want others to have the same existence that we feel we have here.

Kind of lopsided logic if you ask me but who am I to judge.

reply to post by endisnighe


Income Tax is illegal, period. Reread the original constitution and the 1928 Supreme Court Ruling on the 16th Amendment. So why keep an illegal law? It does not add to or pay for anything but interest debt to the crown. I would say that anything that is mandatory is unconstitutional......without a giant standing army we wouldn't need much to operate the small efficient and effective government.

Regarding the whole issue of national defence....limited standing Army, Navy and Air Force. Reserve units of up to 2 times the amount of standing military branches. Merge Coast Guard, Boarder Patrol & US Customs into one Department. Eliminate the CIA, NSA, DEA, ATF and downsize/limit the FBI to only assisting State & Local Police (eliminate the term Law Enforcement). No military type equipment to be used by Police Agencies.

I didn't mention it before, I agree with the withdraw of all troops throughout the world. No Armies shall be in any country, regardless of the need or request of other countries. With the exception of an act of war against an allied nation and the approval of Congress and Senate.

I will ponder this some more and get back to you later.

"Removal of all our troops from all foreign soil except where they want us to stay. If they want us to stay, they will pay us 75% of all operational costs. This to be phased out over a 5 year period. We will draw back to a defensible perimeter and we will quit our Empire type control of the world.edit add-a non interference treaty to be signed by our government and any country that wants to join in can, not necessary"

the ability to project force is the only reason the united states is safe from foreign governments. by removing our troops from foreign soil you are in fact limiting your own safety a defense perimeter is worthless look at the Maginot line, or 1940's Normandy the ability to strike hard and fast is the most important aspect of defense. the best defense is a good offense

reply to post by Dillion


I did not mean the perimeter of the US.

We still own islands and other parts throughout the world.

Do you know how many foreign bases we have?

Would it surprise you that it is over 800 bases?

A defensive perimeter for us, not the world is what I was speaking of. Our generals know what needs to be protected if something was to happen. I am sure they have 100's of think tanks all set up for the contingency of this if our government ever feels like quitting Empire.

By the way, when was the last time the US was directly attacked?

Just asking questions.

Do you have any other ideas, agreements, complaints or adjustments to my list?

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by abecedarian

 

edit to add-sorry that was you

Damn I need some sleep, came home after a long day and have not left the terminal for many hours. Sometimes my brain does not want to shut down though.

[edit on 1/2/2010 by endisnighe]

Lol, it's okay.

Anyhow, I know you don't know me from dirt so I don't expect to carry much weight with your writings here. I'm still mulling around the rest of your ideas.

Originally posted by hellfrozeover
reply to post by endisnighe

 

Income Tax is illegal, period. Reread the original constitution and the 1928 Supreme Court Ruling on the 16th Amendment. So why keep an illegal law? It does not add to or pay for anything but interest debt to the crown. I would say that anything that is mandatory is unconstitutional......without a giant standing army we wouldn't need much to operate the small efficient and effective government.

Yes, the income tax would be removed. But as I stated to someone else we need to clear that debt as we were changing from a fiat money system to a commodity based one.

Regarding the whole issue of national defence....limited standing Army, Navy and Air Force. Reserve units of up to 2 times the amount of standing military branches. Merge Coast Guard, Boarder Patrol & US Customs into one Department. Eliminate the CIA, NSA, DEA, ATF and downsize/limit the FBI to only assisting State & Local Police (eliminate the term Law Enforcement). No military type equipment to be used by Police Agencies.

I didn't mention it before, I agree with the withdraw of all troops throughout the world. No Armies shall be in any country, regardless of the need or request of other countries. With the exception of an act of war against an allied nation and the approval of Congress and Senate.

I will ponder this some more and get back to you later.

Yes, a military that is mobile and sufficient enough to hold off an initial attack. A war declaration requirement of a draft would be a good idea also. I always thought that if we are to be at war, we should have a draft type military. How can only the poor that have no other alternative be the only ones to be on the frontlines? The military component needs to be a fluid idea and must be cussed and discussed.

reply to post by endisnighe


In regards to the military issue and foreign bases. I think we should maintain bases, if we were to have foreign bases, in Nations that are our strongest and staunch allies. Even if we were to reduce it to just one base in England and one base in Japan, our global reach is massive.

The ability to deploy basically an army to any point in the world in 24-hours is impressive. Most countries only have the ability to strike via missiles, navy or air force like that, whereas deploying vast amounts of ground forces in that short of notice is not within their capabilities.

Keeping up a highly mobile armed force along with a sphere of influence in both Asia and Europe would ensure a strong defense of the homeland. That is my take on it.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Great minds and all that.

I was thinking the same thing.

I just wanted someone else to suggest it before I did any modifications.

One stipulation I would like to propose in that condition, is still the non-interference clause without a direct written and confirmable request by the country involved if a request is postulated.

Meaning if a country requests are help, they give us a courier delivered request that then would need to be approved of by an emergency meeting, of a congressional committee. Thereby eliminating any misconceived notion we are sticking our nose in where it does not belong.

Of course a necessary provision for emergency situations would need to be cussed and discussed. For actions such as terrorist problems.

Still, this component would have to be above reproach.

reply to post by endisnighe


May I suggest also the complete pullout of the UN? Please? As there interests have shown to be completely against our own and really a World Body that holds little to no authority.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I might catch some flack for this, but I dare propose keeping the UN - only after a rigorous reformation in the organization.

The idea of a World Court consisting of various nations of the world is somewhat appealing to me, something to properly deal with war criminals and the like.

However, such a thing could be a double edge sword, and prove to be just as corruptible as any other organization.



[edit on 2-1-2010 by Someone336]

reply to post by Someone336


I agree actually as I was premature and didn't expand my line of thinking when I called for the exit of the U.N.

A complete retool would be needed, but as it is now, who retools it? We do not own it, nor does any other country for that matter. I think us exiting that stage would weaken the U.N. IF and only IF we make a good case on why it is defunct and why we are leaving.

Otherwise it would just signal to the world that we don't care anymore and we are still following the "Go it alone" mantra.

War Criminals are already covered through the Hague and other International treaties...Geneva Convention and all that jazz.

Overall, all treaties need to be looked at and examined.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

A complete retool would be needed, but as it is now, who retools it? We do not own it, nor does any other country for that matter. I think us exiting that stage would weaken the U.N. IF and only IF we make a good case on why it is defunct and why we are leaving.

Good question on who retools it. Wishful thinking, but it would need a global movement calling for action to do it. The only way to achieve such a thing would be to make the masses aware of the negative attributes of the current U.N., much the way the anti-globalization movement's voice erupted into the Battle for Seattle. Of course, that didn't exactly working either...

War Criminals are already covered through the Hague and other International treaties...Geneva Convention and all that jazz.

Yes, but take for example the Goldstone report. (regardless of how one feels about it). There is need for an international panel to review such things and determine action based on that.

Of course, we (not just America, any country) walk an extremely find line of infringing on another countries sovereignty, so we should begin with working out our own problems first.

reply to post by Someone336


reply to post by ownbestenemy


Okay, sweet I get to answer the question with a double reply.

My answer to this is I will not add anything to the existing list because it would not be necessary. Our Constitution already covers this.

Sorry Someone, I believe the UN is against the Constitution. Any organization cannot be included or involved in any shape or form in our Sovereign country.

Now saying that, first thing is first, this does not mean we would still not be involved with it. I say we remove ourselves as one of the High Ranking members and act as just another one of the low end members. Like I said, I want out of the Empire Business.

Our dues would therefore fall to a lower amount and also rent will be collected for the use of that there building.

Can you feel the absolute disdain I feel for the Organization.

Part of my military plan would have to include that in no way shape or form would ANY American EVER take an order from ANY UN member.

In my eyes the UN is the center of the Global Governance Cabal.

We do need to be a member but in no way shape or form would they be allowed to dictate to us what our country does within our own borders.

That being said, I do believe we need to listen to the countries of the world.

reply to post by endisnighe


True indeed, it wasn't a suggestion for the list as I believe your list as you have stated would cover that. More of a passing thought that I know is a continual thorn in the side of our sovereignty.

Someone- you are correct that we walk that fine line and it is something that we need correct as a nation. My only contention is sometimes we must do things we do not like for the sake of a bigger picture.

John Adams couldn't grasp how we were fighting for freedom and yet holding onto slavery. He penned to his wife these concerns but knew that the battle for that would be in the future and not at the moment of the creation of the country. Sadly, it took longer than I believe he ever thought it would.

Alright peeps, I am beginning to get double vision.

I believe it is time for a SS and S. Than a nice meal and then I will be back.

Hopefully I get some more visits and some more ideas.

I have an idea for this thread when we are done.

This year is very important. I believe a certain party requires a specific platform and agenda, to be written up and used as a basis for their push to help reform and make this country great again.

I have no idea if our ideas can spread.

But one can always be wishful.

I will talk to you all later.

Originally posted by endisnighe

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by endisnighe

Any and all future laws will be required to be posted on line 7 days prior to any vote. All laws will be required to be in final form and will be required to written in common sense and common law verbiage. No pork will be allowed to be attached to any bill. Pork will be voted on on a per case basis period.edit add-constitutional justification necessary also, if no justification-no law

Suggest:
All laws are required to be 25 pages or less and shall include no items that are not directly related to the primary subject matter of the law.

Good call on the subject matter. Will add that a new law will pertain only to the main subject matter of the submitted bill. Will leave out the page limit, just noticed I had place a dollar value in my tax component. I need to tie that to a real value.

This would be a mistake. The average bill in Congress is 1000 pages. Certainly, the last two important bills to be passed were the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (the stimulus bill) which was around 1100 pages and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Healthcare) which was 1234 pages. Now, you've stated previously that you believe in average citizens becoming more involved in the governing of their country. Do you honestly believe that the average citizen will even read a proposed bill that is over 1000 pages or do you think that they will just take what is reported to them to be in the bill? I say they will do exactly what they are doing now - relying on what others tell them is there. Is that participation?

Granted, 25 pages may be too limiting but 200 – 250 is certainly within reason. After all, isn’t the whole premise that the majority of the legislating will be done at the state level anyway?

This may seem to you as a small detail but it is one that will have great impact because it will not only give the reader (citizen or member of Congress) the ability to comprehend everything in the bill but it will also greatly limit the scope contained within bills in general (and thus, limit the ability to hide “pork”).

It has always been my contention that the bills citizens should pay particular attention to are the very large ones because, in my experience, they have always been the ones that contain the most “concessions”.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


You make a correct assessment in regards to the bill lengths. One thing noted in those bills is the vast amounts of cross-referencing that occurs. I do not think a bill slated for X should amend a previous bill that has to do with Y. If you wish to amend a bill, then bring forth a new bill that amends said bill.

Instead this is where all the back-door concessions find their way in. Loop-holes are created in lengthy legislation on purpose, nothing is there by accident.

Bring the bills down to a manageable size is highly favorable and should be as transparent as a window. Ambiguity is a lover of a politician and we have allowed them to be in bed together for far too long

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


I know, I know. But I believe the restrictions we are putting on the wording and not allowing riders to be placed on it would be a good enough limit.

Tell you what, let me think about over my shower and meal and I will get back to you.

God, I love spirited discussion.

One very important point you are making and I have made in the past-How many pages are in the Constitution? And how many years did it take the asshats to dismember it?

I may have just made up my mind.

Damn you are persuasive. Using my own logic against me.

I would love it if we got over 50 people in here discussing this just like in the original building of either the Declaration or the Constitution.

Could you imagine though the stress they must have felt at the Declaration drafting with an imminant war? Or the Constitution drafting with the birth of a nation to be ironed out?

Makes me kind of wistful.