It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by BiggyMcBigPants
reply to post by beezzer
I hate this particular topic. I go back and forth between wanting regulation and wanting a "free market". There should be a middle ground because I think both full regulation and a fully "free market" are both ideas that have the potential to backfire greatly. But what kind of middle ground could there be between these two polar opposites?
Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by bozzchem
You are incorrect and certainly were not alive apparently when the Vietnam draft was in place. In any event:
"The Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit the government from compelling citizens to perform certain civic duties, such as serving on a jury (Hurtado v. United States, 410 U.S. 578, 93 S. Ct. 1157, 35 L. Ed. 2d 508 [1973]) or participating in the military draft (Selective Draft Law cases, 245 U.S. 366, 38 S. Ct. 159, 62 L. Ed. 349 [1918])."
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Originally posted by pajoly
1. MANDATORY TWO YEAR DRAFT FOR NATIONAL SERVICE FOR ALL, INCLUDING CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS...BUT NOT NECESSARILY FOR MILITARY SERVICE
Originally posted by pajoly
2. FULL REPEAL OF THE PATRIOT ACT
Originally posted by pajoly
3. TAX ALL CHURCHES THAT ENGAGE IN OVERT POLITICS
Originally posted by pajoly
4. CONSITUTIONALLY ELIMINATE CORPORATE PERSONHOOD
Originally posted by pajoly
So friends, these are my concrete things I think need to change and if are changed will take America back to a nation that is both prosperous and just, where its people see themselves as fellows and not adversaries.
Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by bozzchem
So if you won't listen to people in black robes, you must have little to no respect for that same Constitution. You cannot have it both ways. And if you won't listen to the Judiciary, I would hope you'd not expect anyone to listen to you, who I presume is far less qualified to know the law -- ergo, you are an anarchist, right? I mean anything else makes zero logical sense in terms of your position.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!” - Samuel Adams
You are right, I must admit this... it's true we would first half to vote the standing out before we can put in people who will actually consider stuff like this.
Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
Some interesting ideas, here, but it sort of sounds like wanting the government to set rules to save us from the government.
Jeb Bush = justification
The restrictions you propose assume a priori that the family members of anyone who has served in politics are corrupt, as are the people themselves.
And given the current state of affairs, there is some justification in this assumption.
That is exactly where I am going with this concept.
ETA: Your #9 has some merit, especially if combined with the dissolution of the Electoral College and the president and vice are elected by pure popular vote.
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
Son, and I say that because I feel that you are young, . . . the problems that we face with regulation in our food/water/energy/healthcare ARE A RESULT OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.
Whenever the government pokes it's ugly head into an industry, we are scroomed!!!!