The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

U.S. Constitution under attack Options
Listening . . .
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2013 4:36:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 956
Neurons: 3,912
The U.S. Constitution is under attack. Jose Serrano of New York proposed on January 4th the repeal of the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. The 22nd amendment says there is a two term limit for the position of the President of theUnited States. This is a serious step towards a dictatorship, in my opinion. Gun control, out-of-control debt, and a dictatorship - Are best years of the United States ahead of us or behind us? What do you think?

For your reference - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hjres15
Epiphileon
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2013 5:05:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 3,948
Neurons: 59,639
Listening, I think this has been going on for a long time, perhaps every two years?
Besides that the Patriot Act and subsequent revisions have already decimated the Constitution.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Listening . . .
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2013 5:35:33 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 956
Neurons: 3,912
Epi, I appreciate your viewpoint in that the US PATRIOT Act has infringed on some of our freedoms. Mostly, it endangers the anonymity of some of our activities. I am sure you are aware, the PATRIOT Act was in direct response to the acts of terrorists in 2001. There are many changes that have come in response to the terrorists' acts. For example, there is also the REAL ID Act of 2005 that intends to standardize ID requirements throughout the states. Without a REAL ID Act compliant driver license (ID), you will not be able to fly or enter a federal building.
I don't connect the changes that have come in response to terror to the repeal of the term limit of the President. This change, along with all the other changes forthcoming and in place, tell the story of a new United States being born. I am very worried for our future.
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2013 5:54:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 40,345
Neurons: 321,062
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
how long did Roosevelt rule, and by what authority?


In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
Listening . . .
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2013 6:05:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 956
Neurons: 3,912
JJ, Roosevelt was President for 12 yrs (or 3 terms). The 22nd amendment was put in place as a direct response to FDRs time in office.
martyg
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2013 7:37:33 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 327
Neurons: 2,386
small correction: 4 term president

fdr was elected in november 1932. he died, while in office,
on april 12, 1945. possibly of cereberal hemorrhage
Listening . . .
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2013 8:17:40 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 956
Neurons: 3,912
Good catch, Marty. Thank you for the correction. I knew he died in office but didn't realize he'd hit the 4th term yet.
dusty
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2013 9:18:44 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/13/2012
Posts: 1,769
Neurons: 5,755
Epiphileon wrote:
Listening, I think this has been going on for a long time, perhaps every two years?
Besides that the Patriot Act and subsequent revisions have already decimated the Constitution.


You are right about how it decimated the Constitution, but I don't think everyone who allowed it understood the seriousness of making legal the things that had already been going on for quite some time. The problem with making what is wrong, legal, occurs when that power is abused, which is what I believe has happened.

Doing the wrong thing doesn't necessarily create an absolute line that separates Good from Evil, that line is drawn with far more authority once we can observe the actions of those who did wrong after realization

These are the times when honesty and it's practice, is more powerful than any disseminated stories of fallacy

To be concerned of the fate of the world is not bad, but bearing false witness is to not be
jgalt
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2013 9:24:01 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 11/17/2012
Posts: 21
Neurons: 63
Location: United States, DC
Hello Listening,

I agree,the constitution is under attack,as is our liberty. The sixties ushered in immoral behavior,disregard for family,marriage,God,and innocent unborn. Our economy is in shambles from out of control government spending.Our politicians are corrupt and care only for power. The media,likewise,are agenda and power hungry elitists. So too,the Hollywood celebs. They are constantly lowering the bar for civil,moral behavior. It may take a generation or more of firm intent to restore our republic,or slide into stateism,and unbelievable poverty and decay.

E
excaelis
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2013 10:11:54 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2010
Posts: 10,981
Neurons: 32,652
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
jqalt, do you really believe that ' immoral behaviour ', the decline of church attendance and abortion started in the sixties ? How moral was denying black people equality ? How moral was denying women equal rights ? How moral was Hollywood ? Your own banking elite ( heroes of fee enterprise ), aided and abetted by political cronyism, precipitated the 2008 financial meltdown. And to whom did they cry like spoilt little girls for help ? Yes, the government. And don't you think there's already unbelievable poverty ? Take a drive through metro Detroit or rural Mississipi if you doubt that. Running to some mythical good old days fantasy is just ridiculous. Address the issues in front of you without resorting to Capra-esque nostalgia and you may see a solution. Whatever it may be it resides in the future, not the past.

Sanity is not statistical
jgalt
Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013 8:10:58 AM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 11/17/2012
Posts: 21
Neurons: 63
Location: United States, DC
Ex,

You really like to throw stones. Is your world so flawless,so perfect,that seeing a trend towards social chaos in the USA requires you to attack the nation? You serve up a bitter retort. Why?
excaelis
Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013 10:25:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2010
Posts: 10,981
Neurons: 32,652
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Sorry jqalt. On further review I agree that, yes, my response was harsh. My intent was not to attack the U.S. - God knows my birthplace has had its share of atrocities - but rather a reaction against nostalgic thinking which gets us nowhere in the here and now. The point being ( more calmly expressed ) that wherever we're from, looking to the past for answers to current questions is not generally helpful and may be a dangerous distraction. Again, my apologies for being rude.

Sanity is not statistical
jgalt
Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013 3:30:59 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 11/17/2012
Posts: 21
Neurons: 63
Location: United States, DC
Thanks Excaelis,
Do you believe history repeats? What about great civilizations that soared and then failed in decadence,corruption? I think I am witness to the fall of the Republic. I agree with much of what you say, but I have seen courage, virtue, and greatness personally, in everyday people,because of who we were as a people/nation. They were doing the right thing, because that is what you do. I see the change and reflect on the why. Is this nostalgia?












Seeker
Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013 4:52:37 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/20/2009
Posts: 257
Neurons: 1,456
The question began with "two term limit for the position of the President of the United States", and fear of a dictatorship. IMHO, the question should be the validity of lifetime terms for Supreme Court appointees, and multiple terms for Congresspeople.
Listening . . .
Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013 6:09:44 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 956
Neurons: 3,912
Seeker, I take issue with the term (non) limits for Supreme Court and Congressmen, as well. We could certainly discuss the unfairness of their benefit packages and their ability to put laws in place without having the requirement to follow the laws (i.e. recent Health Care law), too.
The position of the President is the highest position in the United States. I do not support repealing a two term limit for this position. Eight years is long enough to control the direction the country takes. For those out there who would like a dictator, there are other places to live. I like my freedoms. I respect the men and women who have bravely fought to give them to me. Any change that takes place that could result in removal of what has been hard fought to put in place, I completely oppose.
LostinSC
Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013 6:44:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/30/2012
Posts: 400
Neurons: 1,328
Listening - Rep. Serrano's proposed amendment has been referred to Committee. Historically, it will die there as most Constutional amendments do. Too, it takes 75% approval of both houses of congress then 75% states approval for ratification. It Ain't easy and it Ain't gonna happen. What we are witnessing is political chicanery which, IMHO, has been prevelant since 1787.

Seeker - I agree with you on lifetime appointees and, seemingly, lifelong congressional representation. (Re: Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd, Dan Inoue, Charlie Rangle and on and on and on.) A term limits bill is destined to defeat, since the very politicians who would pass such legislation would be putting the noose around the neck of their own political ambition.

The answer lies, I think, in a well informed electorate, unbiased media and open government.

All I can say about that is, "Good luck America, and goodbye".

Sad, huh?

Losty





The older I grow the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom. H. L. Mencken
Verbatim
Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013 7:17:56 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/3/2012
Posts: 2,042
Neurons: 242,484
To: Listening...

You have a valid concern and the issue is worth discussing, not dismissing. Many of us are torn between "tradition and progress".
It is very easy to fall for the readily available excuse: what about such and such? Why not this or that, too?

There are those who will say that democracy is not perfect, so there you have it, cheer up! What if it gets a bit more bastardized?
And our society, what if we let it slip a bit more?

The secret to how to dismiss a serious concern--some of us will have you know-- can be found in the excuse that the "Founding Fathers" did it too.
The political infighting, the discord, the hypocrisy, they used slave labor you know.

So, the argument goes, what if we go back a little on their ideals? What if we do as they did, not as they preached?

Seeker
Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013 11:27:08 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/20/2009
Posts: 257
Neurons: 1,456
Listening . . . wrote:
Seeker, I take issue with the term (non) limits for Supreme Court and Congressmen, as well. We could certainly discuss the unfairness of their benefit packages and their ability to put laws in place without having the requirement to follow the laws (i.e. recent Health Care law), too.
The position of the President is the highest position in the United States. I do not support repealing a two term limit for this position. Eight years is long enough to control the direction the country takes. For those out there who would like a dictator, there are other places to live. I like my freedoms. I respect the men and women who have bravely fought to give them to me. Any change that takes place that could result in removal of what has been hard fought to put in place, I completely oppose.


Listening, I made no comment for or against a longer term for the Presidency. I addressed the overly long terms of the Supreme Court nominees and Congresspeople. I stand by my comment. I do question why you think the President would be a dictator, when he clearly has been held back by Congress. The President cannot arbitrarily make decisions without others being involved.
Seeker
Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013 11:28:34 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/20/2009
Posts: 257
Neurons: 1,456
LostinSC wrote:
Listening - Rep. Serrano's proposed amendment has been referred to Committee. Historically, it will die there as most Constutional amendments do. Too, it takes 75% approval of both houses of congress then 75% states approval for ratification. It Ain't easy and it Ain't gonna happen. What we are witnessing is political chicanery which, IMHO, has been prevelant since 1787.

Seeker - I agree with you on lifetime appointees and, seemingly, lifelong congressional representation. (Re: Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd, Dan Inoue, Charlie Rangle and on and on and on.) A term limits bill is destined to defeat, since the very politicians who would pass such legislation would be putting the noose around the neck of their own political ambition.

The answer lies, I think, in a well informed electorate, unbiased media and open government.

All I can say about that is, "Good luck America, and goodbye".

Sad, huh?

Losty





Very sad indeed.
Maggie
Posted: Sunday, January 13, 2013 9:27:47 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2009
Posts: 730
Neurons: 2,128
excaelis wrote:
The point being ( more calmly expressed ) that wherever we're from, looking to the past for answers to current questions is not generally helpful and may be a dangerous distraction. Again, my apologies for being rude.


"..... when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program." - Ronald Reagan
TheParser
Posted: Sunday, January 13, 2013 10:27:38 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2012
Posts: 4,674
Neurons: 22,062
I have just read that the newly elected prime minister of Japan is also proposing changes to that country's constitution (which was written for them by the United States).

Reportedly, freedom of speech would still be allowed so long as it did not disrupt the social order.



Maggie
Posted: Sunday, January 13, 2013 10:46:21 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2009
Posts: 730
Neurons: 2,128
TheParser wrote:
I have just read that the newly elected prime minister of Japan is also proposing changes to that country's constitution (which was written for them by the United States).

Reportedly, freedom of speech would still be allowed so long as it did not disrupt the social order.





And the government can then decide WHAT speech is disruptive - like anything that disagrees with government.
(See the thread "Democracy's road to Tyranny" and how easy this happens.)

Yeah, yeah, I know - you can't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater. Common sense should prevail, but using 'common sense' and 'government' in the same sentence is an oxymoron.


"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program." - Ronald Reagan
niblick
Posted: Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:12:51 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/30/2010
Posts: 190
Neurons: 562
Location: United States
Maggie wrote:
excaelis wrote:
The point being ( more calmly expressed ) that wherever we're from, looking to the past for answers to current questions is not generally helpful and may be a dangerous distraction. Again, my apologies for being rude.


"..... when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana


Well, yes. For me, the main point is that the qualitites which enobled people thousands
of years ago still do. Should our values be as transient as the blink of an eye which
represents our individual time on earth?
Listening . . .
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2013 5:47:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 956
Neurons: 3,912
Many thanks to all of you for your contribution of thought. Upon closer research, I now see what Epi and Lost already knew. The junior representative from New York that put forth this proposal is not the first to request the repeal of the 22nd amendment. Apparently this happens often (as Epi and Lost point out in their comments) and, sadly, nobody really expects it to pass. It is for "show." There is so much (REAL) work to be done; why in the world this is acceptable by any stretch of the imagination . . . is dumbfounding to me.

Seeker, I did not intend to imply that you shared my thoughts on the two term limit of the President. I responded to your statement in only the first part of my response. The thread was not about the Supreme Court or Congressmen but I wanted to respond because I agreed with your perspective on that point. I apologize if I did not make my thoughts clear.

To my fellow forum authors, I very much appreciate each and every one of you for your honest and thoughtful perspectives. Together, we can write the world a better place! Right?
excaelis
Posted: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:52:13 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2010
Posts: 10,981
Neurons: 32,652
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
niblick wrote:
Maggie wrote:
excaelis wrote:
The point being ( more calmly expressed ) that wherever we're from, looking to the past for answers to current questions is not generally helpful and may be a dangerous distraction. Again, my apologies for being rude.


"..... when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana


Well, yes. For me, the main point is that the qualitites which enobled people thousands
of years ago still do. Should our values be as transient as the blink of an eye which
represents our individual time on earth?



Sadly, niblick, human mores are fairly mutable. 200 years ago slave-ownership was perfectly acceptable. Now ? Not so much. There are qualities that humanity at its best must retain, but I still believe we should be wary of nostalgic yearnings for ' the good old days '. One could pick any decade of the twentieth century that contained both the best and the worst of human behaviour. In an ideal world all children would have two loving parents ; unfortunately that doesn't always work out, so we have to figure out a way to do the best we can. That's not always going to make everyone happy. Society is a process that should be constantly examining itself.

Sanity is not statistical
niblick
Posted: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 7:00:35 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/30/2010
Posts: 190
Neurons: 562
Location: United States
excaelis wrote:
niblick wrote:
Maggie wrote:
excaelis wrote:
The point being ( more calmly expressed ) that wherever we're from, looking to the past for answers to current questions is not generally helpful and may be a dangerous distraction. Again, my apologies for being rude.


"..... when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana


Well, yes. For me, the main point is that the qualitites which enobled people thousands
of years ago still do. Should our values be as transient as the blink of an eye which
represents our individual time on earth?



Sadly, niblick, human mores are fairly mutable. 200 years ago slave-ownership was perfectly acceptable. Now ? Not so much. There are qualities that humanity at its best must retain, but I still believe we should be wary of nostalgic yearnings for ' the good old days '. One could pick any decade of the twentieth century that contained both the best and the worst of human behaviour. In an ideal world all children would have two loving parents ; unfortunately that doesn't always work out, so we have to figure out a way to do the best we can. That's not always going to make everyone happy. Society is a process that should be constantly examining itself.


There are many examples of disgusting mores, some of them contemporary. I said nothing
of mores but rather addressed the qualities which enobled people thousands of years ago
and still do: love, honor, trust, faithfulness, self-sacrifice, empathy and courage to
name some.

Generally speaking, it is not considered gentlemanly to put words in someone's mouth. I shall
do all in my power to avoid responding to your future posts.
excaelis
Posted: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 12:04:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2010
Posts: 10,981
Neurons: 32,652
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Sorry, niblick, that wasn't my intention at all. I apparently misunderstood 'values' in your post.

Sanity is not statistical
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.