Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/4/2002 12:22:59 PM EDT
Section 1: Any congressperson, legislator, or other govenment official or officer who knowingly proposes, knowingly votes in favor of, or knowingly fails to veto any bill that violates the constitution, in violation of their oath to uphold the constitution shall be punished as provided below. Section 2: Any congressperson, legislator, or other government official who knowingly proposes any bill that violates a constitutional right, shall be punished by death or imprisonment at hard labor for any term of years. Section 3: Any congressperson, legislator, or other government official who knowingly proposes any bill that otherwise violates the constitution, shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labor for any term of years. Section 4: Any congressperson, legislator, or other government official who knowingly votes in favor of any bill that violates a constitutional right, shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labor for any term of years. Section 5: Any congressperson, legislator, or other government official who knowingly votes in favor of any bill that otherwise violates the constitution, shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labor for no less than 20 years. Section 6: Any president, governor, or other executive officer who having the ability to so do, fails to veto any bill that violates a constitutional right, shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labor for any term of years. Section 7: Any president, governor, or other executive officer who having the ability to so do, fails to veto any bill that otherwise violates the constituion, shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labor for no less than 20 years.
Link Posted: 4/4/2002 12:44:29 PM EDT
Sounds good to me!
Link Posted: 4/4/2002 12:49:22 PM EDT
It's funny how something as completely rational as this, would sound so ridiculous to those who could make it happen.
Link Posted: 4/4/2002 12:51:56 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/4/2002 1:07:02 PM EDT
cc48510: You are crazier than a S**t house rat. So when the courts decide that something is unconstitutional, we just start walking down the aisle of the Senate and start capping everybody that voted for the bill in the back of the head. It's nut jobs like this that give this site a bad name. I'll bet that cc48510, can hardly wait to be a part of a Nazi style firing squad and to march all American law makers, who do not agree with his Taliban interpitation of the U.S. Constitution into the mass grave. The only thing in this world, that scares me more for the future of this country than liberals, with their goofy ideas, are Neo Nazi nut cases, who wish for a chance to begin wholesale mass exicutions of all those, who oppose their twisted and perverted version of the conservative cause.
Link Posted: 4/4/2002 1:42:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/4/2002 1:43:56 PM EDT by cc48510]
Fearand loathing, I put the word "knowingly" in there for a reason. Basically, if Senator A votes for a bill he never read or a bill he did not know was unconstitutional, he would be fine. It would only affect those that knowingly write and pass unconstitutional laws. Also, you will notice that the only section that mandates the death penalty is the one coverign congresspersons who propose/create laws that violate constitutional rights (McCain, Boxer, Feinstein all come to mind). And, I have no problem with these 3 facing a firing squad. it is too long overdue.
Link Posted: 4/4/2002 2:10:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Fearandloathing37: cc48510: You are crazier than a S**t house rat. So when the courts decide that something is unconstitutional, we just start walking down the aisle of the Senate and start capping everybody that voted for the bill in the back of the head. It's nut jobs like this that give this site a bad name. I'll bet that cc48510, can hardly wait to be a part of a Nazi style firing squad and to march all American law makers, who do not agree with his Taliban interpitation of the U.S. Constitution into the mass grave. The only thing in this world, that scares me more for the future of this country than liberals, with their goofy ideas, are Neo Nazi nut cases, who wish for a chance to begin wholesale mass exicutions of all those, who oppose their twisted and perverted version of the conservative cause.
View Quote
I don't necessarily agree with this amendment, especially since the courts would probably have to determine what is a violation of the Constitution and we know how liberal they are, but I noticed the only person mentioning Nazis is you. It sounds like [b]you[/b] are the person with the agenda, my friend.
Link Posted: 4/4/2002 3:58:07 PM EDT
Why yes, I do have an agenda, it's to make sure total maniac's are never able to carry out their twisted plans to institute a state where we put our elected representatives up agaist a wall and shoot them. And yes, I did call 48510 a Nazi, a Ultra Right Wing Fanatic, who wishes to engage in mass murder of his political rivals...Is a Nazi. 48510 wishes for a Amendment that could never be, in order to give a facade of legality to his Turner Diaries fantisy of murdering all Americans with left or moderate veiws. The Fact that he wishes to murder McCain as well as the liberal representatives, shows that 48510 is so far off on the Right Wing, that maybe all of 10% of the American people could pass his Extremist Constitutional Loyalty Test. With people like 48510 the killing and murder would never end. The 48510's of the world want to interpit the Constitution into a Murder pact and will not be happy until they cover the American flag in buckets of the blood of her citizens. 48510 is no better then a serial killer sitting in a dark room naked, grinning, Fantisizing about killing and killing and killing, tens, hundreds, millions, until he has out done Hitler and become the greatest serial killer of all. The serial killer that convinced Americans to start marching their fellow Americans in to ditchs to the stuttering pops of AR15 rifle fire. Yeah, I have a Agenda all right...
Link Posted: 4/4/2002 4:49:44 PM EDT
FearandLoathing = [:K] And apparently: Nazi = person who wants politicians to enforce the constitution If you like laws that violate the constitution so much, I hear Feinstein is looking for some new aides.
Link Posted: 4/4/2002 5:32:13 PM EDT
You forgot the part about: Section 8: Any congressperson, legislator, or other govenment official or officer who knowingly proposes, knowingly votes in favor of, or knowingly excludes himself or a defined class of individuals from accountability under such laws shall suffer same.
Link Posted: 4/4/2002 11:56:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cc48510: Fearand loathing, I put the word "knowingly" in there for a reason. Basically, if Senator A votes for a bill he never read or a bill he did not know was unconstitutional, he would be fine. It would only affect those that knowingly write and pass unconstitutional laws.
View Quote
That would lead to senators deliberately refusing to read bills so they can't be punished for knowingly doing something that would fall afoul of this amendment.
Link Posted: 4/4/2002 11:56:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cc48510: Fearand loathing, I put the word "knowingly" in there for a reason. Basically, if Senator A votes for a bill he never read or a bill he did not know was unconstitutional, he would be fine. It would only affect those that knowingly write and pass unconstitutional laws.
View Quote
Remember a bill called GATT??? Only 2 Reps read the monstrosity, yet it still passed. Both voted against it's passage, 1 being in support of it BEFORE reading the text. I guess no one else cared or knew about the sections with the text "NOT OPEN FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW". I would remove the "knowingly" clause. They want to vote on something, they better damn well know what it is in the bill. Would it reduce the lawmaking process to a crawl? HELL YES! They are passing too many stupid ass useless laws as it is, just to justify their own jobs. Throw in a clause that the U.S. legislative branch only meets for 30 days per calendar year and it would be a very good Amendment.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 12:05:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2002 12:07:27 AM EDT by IMHO]
A cute suggestion, cc48510 but, I wonder: Don't you think that it is the role of the Judicial Branch, and, ultimately, the Supreme Court to determine Constitutional legality? Do you have any concept of how amendments are made? Is this just venting? I think that it's odd. . . so many seem to support the amendments (the 2nd), but so few have a true understanding of our government.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 6:36:26 AM EDT
Sounds good to me. I would also remove "knowingly". Fear and loathing:[rolleyes]
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 7:33:21 AM EDT
How about, first, "No *** shall be allowed to cast a vote for or against any bill they have not [i]personally[/i] read in its entirety, including all amendments". Then, each and every bill shall include the quoted citation of the Constitution authorizing the power to authorize the bill. Those in direct conflict with the plain reading of any part of the Constitution, including all of its amendmants, shall be immediatly discarded by the lowest clerk of the Congress. Bills so discarded may be used as evidence at the trial of the writer for treason.
Top Top