If you could pass three pieces of federal legislation what would they be?

i don't really have a top 3, i just posted what came to mind. how would it violate the 10th, unless you're saying that all the 14th amendment court decisions are invalid.
Maybe it doesn't, but the fact that States have powers not delegated to the Feds carries a lot of weight. In light of recent decisions this doesn't give them the power on outright gun bans but it does give them significant power nonetheless. Personally I don't care much about restricting State and local power because I still have the freedom to move around and choose the State that gives me the freedoms that are important to me, and that in essence is the true power of the American system of government.
 
1. This gives cause for the Executive to request a declaration, you could include in the amendment a declaration clause. "If war is legally declared", etc.
2. We can, but we do not. It is something that I would enact.
We haven't legally declared war since the early 1940's.
 
Surely the electoral college only applies to Presidential elections?

You don't need a PR system to elect a President as simple majority would suffice. *shrug*

Yes it does. It gives small States a bit more representation and prevents complete domination from large States.
 
#1. Create a constitutional ammendment to ban the designated hitter rule from baseball. While were at it, aluminum bats have to go too.
#2. A bill making it a felony punishable by 10 years of hard labor for waking your husband/boyfriend up from a nap just because you can't stand to see him sleeping.
#3. Declare that Tuesdays shall henceforth and forever more be national pork chop night.
I think baseball should be completely deregulated on the federal level. What we do now is dumb, but it doesn't rank even close to the top three issues fucking up this country.
 
And it is a mistake.
I suppose it is but its not an issue on my radar. I suspect that the reason we do what we do has something to do with the UN and NATO and international treaties and such and its simply beyond my area of interest. When some foreign butthead needs a bloody nose we should be able to do so without having to get permission from half the weenies in Congress.*shrug*
 
Yes it does. It gives small States a bit more representation and prevents complete domination from large States.

Wouldn't it be easier to elect a President by counting the total number of votes received from, say, the entire American electorate?

PR would be applied to the legislature, making Republican votes in New York and Democrat votes in Utah actually count for something.
 
Wouldn't it be easier to elect a President by counting the total number of votes received from, say, the entire American electorate?

PR would be applied to the legislature, making Republican votes in New York and Democrat votes in Utah actually count for something.
And Libertarian votes everywhere...
 
Wouldn't it be easier to elect a President by counting the total number of votes received from, say, the entire American electorate?

PR would be applied to the legislature, making Republican votes in New York and Democrat votes in Utah actually count for something.
Just because something's easy doesn't mean that it is advantageous. Again, the Electoral College is an important part of the American political process; we are a system of individual States, each clamoring for their own best interests, sort of a "capitalist" model that promotes competition.
 
Just because something's easy doesn't mean that it is advantageous. Again, the Electoral College is an important part of the American political process; we are a system of individual States, each clamoring for their own best interests, sort of a "capitalist" model that promotes competition.

If it means that much to you, then you can keep your electoral college for Presidential elections as my PR masterstroke only applies to the legislature anyway.

Christ, i may be turning into Barack Obamas with this conciliatory attitude.
 
Maybe it doesn't, but the fact that States have powers not delegated to the Feds carries a lot of weight. In light of recent decisions this doesn't give them the power on outright gun bans but it does give them significant power nonetheless. Personally I don't care much about restricting State and local power because I still have the freedom to move around and choose the State that gives me the freedoms that are important to me, and that in essence is the true power of the American system of government.

valid point. for me, there are some rights that i believe should not be left up to the states willy nilly. for instance the right to vote, the right to a speedy trial, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment...a state could deny you these rights and in some instances, you won't be able to move (after arrest).
 
If it means that much to you, then you can keep your electoral college for Presidential elections as my PR masterstroke only applies to the legislature anyway.

Christ, i may be turning into Barack Obamas with this conciliatory attitude.
Works for me. It seems that people would be more open to PR in Congress than the Senate as well... So change your mind again! :tongout:
 
Works for me. It seems that people would be more open to PR in Congress than the Senate as well... So change your mind again! :tongout:

Psst...don't tell anyone but my overtly socialistic 'free hats for poor dogs' policy has snuck in through the back door while everyone was distracted by the PR thing.

In your face Karl Roves.
 
1. Abolish the death penalty and mandatory minimums.
2. Abolish the payroll tax and replace it with a more progressive income tax.
3. Introduce proportional representation/abolish electoral college.
 
Back
Top