Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
RavenHawk

29th Amendment

148 posts in this topic

So the first thing you will say, “but what happened to the 28th?” I think everyone will agree that we need to ensure a balanced budget every year, with the stipulation to first cut spending before raising taxes. That’s the 28th, simply called the Balanced Budget Amendment.

The fiasco of the monstrosity known as Obamacare being crammed down our throats needs to be addressed. The Socialists are crying, trying to blame the Republicans as being extremists and holding this nation hostage. Hello? If everyone was truly represented in this matter and this bill had passed via bipartisanship, we wouldn’t be having this problem in the first place. This law *WAS* passed by the extremists! But being conservative (a word that Socialists hate), *at least* half of the American people did not want this abhorrence to the American Republic. No Republican voted for it so again, at least half of the people were ignored. That half should march on Washington and take the government back. There is nothing to stop them but themselves. It is well within their rights to do so. The Socialists are playing on the civility (also read Ignorance and Apathy) of most Americans in hopes to enslave the population (or nanny if you wish). I can’t imagine any American wanting either situation. This is afterall, not Europe and neither should it be. The point is, is that this is coming to a head. And after it has settled, life will go on.

The 29th Amendment should concern itself with preventing such a usurpation of power from ever happening again. Whenever a bill is presented for a vote that forces or coerces the people to purchase goods or services under pain of penalty (tax), then a majority of each party must be achieved for passage (not just an overall majority). Everyone will be equally represented. It could be known as the anti-Socialist Amendment to ensure that our Republic stays a Republic. The one drawback I see is if we have more than two major parties. This only works with a two party system if just to prevent coalitions of parties. Our party system has changed 5 times already and perhaps it’s time to change again? We would have a Libertarian/TEA and the Socialist parties. And have this Amendment apply retroactively to past laws. Of course such laws would be defunded as extreme spending. One thing to mention here is that the government has obligations and defunding should not result in straight forward cuts, but a responsible phase out.

Throw in repealing the 16th Amendment with these 2 new Amendments and I think you will see us pay down the debt and bring back economic prosperity and a government constrained to its proper place.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it includes the provision that those who cannot pay for medical services will not get any I agree.

Cause this is not about coercion, it is about healthcare.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it includes the provision that those who cannot pay for medical services will not get any I agree.

I’m not necessarily raging on Obamacare but merely using it as an example. I want to get into adding some precautions to prevent this kind of a mess from happening again. We need a government that works for the people and doesn’t try to setup a dictatorship.

I’ll just make this one comment on your statement and that is that is too much of another extreme and I think there is a happy medium. If you want to delve further then start another thread.

Cause this is not about coercion, it is about healthcare.

It is all about coercion. If it wasn’t then we wouldn’t be at this point. What do you call extending the employer mandate and not the individual?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*at least* half of the American people did not want this abhorrence to the American Republic.

So why doesn't President Romney just repeal it?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why doesn't President Romney just repeal it?

It doesn’t work that way. People that voted for Obama didn’t vote for him because they loved Obamacare. You are misinterpreting the reelection of celebrity.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn’t work that way. People that voted for Obama didn’t vote for him because they loved Obamacare. You are misinterpreting the reelection of celebrity.

No, They voted for him because they hated Obamacare. Obviously.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, They voted for him because they hated Obamacare. Obviously.

And did not vote for Romney cause he wanted to repeal it.

Face it, about 24% want no healthcare system, the rest want a single payer system (the minority of those who do) or are satisfied with Obamacare.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because Obama won the election does not mean the majority of people "voted for Obamacare". I've never heard such baloney....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because Obama won the election does not mean the majority of people "voted for Obamacare". I've never heard such baloney....

Would you like a right-wing talking point with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, They voted for him because they hated Obamacare. Obviously.

I would guess that, much as it is now, a great majority of the voters hadn't a clue about the pros or cons of the ACA. I agree with the celebrity sentiment. And Romney lost because he had no real conservative appeal. Several million conservative voters just said to hell with it last election. I still don't know that he'd have won but the country is still easily conservative by half. Democrat voters are a mutt mix made of liberals, independents, middle ground democrats and a crap load of people who have no solid values or understanding of what they vote for or in other words, the pop culture obsessed mush brain crowd.

I like the idea behind this op but an amendment regarding any acceptance whatsoever of laws forcing US to pay for anything just for being a living breathing person with a job is unconstitutional from the start.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess that, much as it is now, a great majority of the voters hadn't a clue about the pros or cons of the ACA. I agree with the celebrity sentiment. And Romney lost because he had no real conservative appeal. Several million conservative voters just said to hell with it last election. I still don't know that he'd have won but the country is still easily conservative by half. Democrat voters are a mutt mix made of liberals, independents, middle ground democrats and a crap load of people who have no solid values or understanding of what they vote for or in other words, the pop culture obsessed mush brain crowd.

I like the idea behind this op but an amendment regarding any acceptance whatsoever of laws forcing US to pay for anything just for being a living breathing person with a job is unconstitutional from the start.

The Supreme Court, who gets to say in last instance what is constitutional and what not, does not seem to agree with you. Much to the shock of the Tea Party and the rest of the 24%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court, who gets to say in last instance what is constitutional and what not, does not seem to agree with you. Much to the shock of the Tea Party and the rest of the 24%.

It was a crappy decision and you know it. With a precedent like that, the sky's the limit on what they decide to force US into buying next.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrat voters are a mutt mix made of liberals, independents, middle ground democrats and a crap load of people who have no solid values or understanding of what they vote for or in other words, the pop culture obsessed mush brain crowd.

Well, God forbid that there would be any independents who voted Republican. Or Moderate Republicans, or a crap load of Republicans who have no solid values or understanding of what they vote for.

Republicans are, after all, the Master Party of Purity.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea behind this op but an amendment regarding any acceptance whatsoever of laws forcing US to pay for anything just for being a living breathing person with a job is unconstitutional from the start.

I agree with your statement but the focus is less about what the government can force us to do as it is a limitation of what it can do to us. That is a concept in keeping with the first 10 Amendments. The premise is that as long as we have a healthy two-party system, no such law would be passed in the first place. It would require such an overwhelming acceptance among the people before such a bipartisan vote would take place.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Purity comes from viewpoints, not party affiliations. Conservative, liberal, libertarian are viewpoints. You can't deny that democrats are the masters of reeling in zombie voters. You probably will but it doesn't matter. We don't need to go on about how much we disagree with each other, again.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your statement but the focus is less about what the government can force us to do as it is a limitation of what it can do to us. That is a concept in keeping with the first 10 Amendments. The premise is that as long as we have a healthy two-party system, no such law would be passed in the first place. It would require such an overwhelming acceptance among the people before such a bipartisan vote would take place.

I get it. Considering that they can enact such laws, regardless of our righteous viewpoint on the unconstitutionality of it, such an amendment does indeed sound like a reasonable idea.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Purity comes from viewpoints, not party affiliations. Conservative, liberal, libertarian are viewpoints. You can't deny that democrats are the masters of reeling in zombie voters. You probably will but it doesn't matter. We don't need to go on about how much we disagree with each other, again.

I think it's just a given that we disagree with each other, politically.

I don't recall me insulting Republicans by calling them mutts or Zombies, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court, who gets to say in last instance what is constitutional and what not, does not seem to agree with you. Much to the shock of the Tea Party and the rest of the 24%.

Considering that the SC has a track record to find *ANY* reason to support something that is already “Law of the Land”. If they had made a judgment before it became a law, I’m sure it would have been struck down. But Roberts gave us the next course of action. He put it into the people’s hand and that’s where it should be. Roberts stated that taxing (penalty) people for not purchasing insurance is indeed unconstitutional. But at that time, no one had been taxed. It is a long way to 1 Jan 2014. There would be many chances to defund or repeal it, which is happening now. The voice of opposition is continually growing. When someone refuses to purchase insurance and they get taxed violates the Anti Injunction Act. At that point, it will go before the SC again for this reason. And it’ll be hard for the SC to let it slip by. They should have waited until this point to bring the challenge instead going right away.

And it’s 70% of the American people that do not want Obamacare. But people also have to deal with it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also recall after the supreme court ruling that to rule a tax unconstitutional the tax first has to take effect and that only after a tax is implemented and the effects on the people are known can that tax be challenged. In short, after its implermentation the law can be brought back to be challenged in the USSC. So, looking forward to 2015-16ish.

I think it's just a given that we disagree with each other, politically.

I don't recall me insulting Republicans by calling them mutts or Zombies, however.

Not exactly. I said that zombies vote democrat but that doesn't mean they are principled democrats. They are the know-nothing voters. They just do what the tv says to do. I also said the Democrat party pulls in a mutt mix (as a whole) but didn't label anyone a mutt. Rest easy though Tiggs. The insult isn't directed at you. I'm positive whatever votes you cast are cast by informed decisions.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why doesn't President Romney just repeal it?

Romney is a lameduck.

The American Republic needs educated voters.

Why should government provide healthcare?

Government exists to:

  • Protect and secure the natural rights of its constituents; not say what rights its constituents can and cannot have
  • Pass a budget, create a currency, maintain commerce, build the infrastructure of the country, wage war...
  • Review laws, uphold just laws, defend the people with legal precedents
  • Be a voice for the people - to bend to their will and to serve them

Government exists to allow people to take responsibility for themselves.

Not to take responsibility for the people like some mean teenage babysitter.

We are a Republic first and foremost.

While I think Republicans are a joke, you should do well to remember that fact.

I don't want my government to provide me healthcare.

I want to work hard and get healthcare on my own.

I don't want to be babysat and given a pacifier by the state.

That's not their job; the state isn't my nanny.

I'm the state's nanny.

Edited by Hatake Kakashi
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly. I said that zombies vote democrat but that doesn't mean they are principled democrats. They are the know-nothing voters. They just do what the tv says to do.

Because only Principled Republicans with PhD's watch Fox.

I also said the Democrat party pulls in a mutt mix (as a whole) but didn't label anyone a mutt.

Because the three Religious, Social and Economic wings of the Republican party aren't at all heterogeneous.

Rest easy though Tiggs. The insult isn't directed at you. I'm positive whatever votes you cast are cast by informed decisions.

I'm glad to see that you're at least aware enough to realize that it is an insult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fiasco of the monstrosity known as Obamacare being crammed down our throats needs to be addressed. The Socialists are crying, trying to blame the Republicans as being extremists and holding this nation hostage. Hello? If everyone was truly represented in this matter and this bill had passed via bipartisanship, we wouldn’t be having this problem in the first place. This law *WAS* passed by the extremists!

No. It was passed by the majority. You do understand how laws are made, right? did you miss civics class? Laws do not require that everyone agree. Certainly, the CR has nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. It was passed by the majority. You do understand how laws are made, right? did you miss civics class? Laws do not require that everyone agree. Certainly, the CR has nothing to do with it.

You should first work on comprehending what is being said. Yes, it was passed by the majority. That’s how it became law. But how was it done? Was it representative of the wishes of the majority of the people? Absolutely not! This was rammed through without the consent of the people. That makes this law invalid. That makes it a bad law. Bad laws usually get repealed.

When the POTUS refuses, to talk to Republicans, these issues find ways to come up. If the POTUS was not intent in harming this nation with his-way-or-the-highway tactics, we wouldn’t be in this predicament.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. It was passed by the majority. You do understand how laws are made, right? did you miss civics class? Laws do not require that everyone agree. Certainly, the CR has nothing to do with it.

The problem with politicians is they try to make themselves exempt from laws.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Purity comes from viewpoints, not party affiliations. Conservative, liberal, libertarian are viewpoints. You can't deny that democrats are the masters of reeling in zombie voters. You probably will but it doesn't matter. We don't need to go on about how much we disagree with each other, again.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Repubs reel in just as many 'zombie' voters.

I think they call them Ditto heads....and they are proud of the moniker. It's no different. Villifying one side over the other is an age old tired tactic.

People voted Obama in PERIOD.. If they don't like it, then do better next time.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.