XXIX Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Public funding of elections seem to work well in France. It's really not that complicated - an independent commission would be established to enforce those rules.

Yes, it is NOT that complicated IN FRANCE!! Are you saying, that if something works well in another country, that it will also work well in the States? Then why don't we have Universal Healthcare? Works well in many European countries(Russia, UK, Greece, Denmark, etc.).

Actually, I wish candidates did have only a 3 month election campaign period. That all forms of paid commercial advertisements through the press or by any other audiovisual means, would be prohibited during the three months preceding the election. But we don't. I wish that all political advertisements were also aired FREE of charge on an equal basis, for all the candidates on national television, print, and radio outlets, during the candidates campaign. But we don't. I wish media outlets would be held accountable for their actions in interfering in any candidates campaign. But they aren't.

Again, it is not about who dishes out the money, monitors compliance, or makes up the campaign rules. It is about the abuses to the system, that must be addressed(blacklisting candidates, smearing candidates with lies and innuendoes, media blackout of candidates, stereotyping candidates, demonizing and trivializing candidates, changing election rules to favor some candidates, etc.). These are the things that really threaten the free election process. No matter how equal the playing field is.

As I have said before, we already have an election commission(FEC), that monitors and enforces election and campaign rules. Elections should be free from any direct government intervention. And directly funding candidates can't be anymore direct.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
stop being an idiot, and I'll stop calling you an idiot. What else do you expect me to call you when you in effect edit my comment than complain about what your version says?

Do any of your thoughts go through filters, before they reach your mouth? YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS. NOT THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS!!!. In other words, don't use the actions of others as an excuse for your own actions. That is the mindset of a child, not an adult. Instead of hiding behind my idiocy, you might just try answering the questions that I have asked for clarity and for evidence.

I expect you to point out the factual errors, or the inconsistencies in my argument. I expect you to back-up your own argument. I expect you to stop misrepresenting, or deflecting anything that I say. I expect you to own up to your own words, when they are challenged, and quoted back to you. Instead of all the blatant denials, profanities, and playground, "and you too" silliness.

If you are willing to at least act civil, regardless of your judgement of others, then fine. If not, then you ain't seen nothing yet! I will bury you in insults!! So, it is up to you.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
So, in my proposal, Congress still has to approve the Bill with a simple majority - it just can't AMEND the estimates proposed by the President.
Your statement was,

"Congress shall not pass a bill appropriating money from the Treasury except with the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses, unless such appropriations have first been recommended by the President, and estimated for by the executive departments of Government and submitted to Congress by the President. Congress shall not amend any such appropriations recommended by the President except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses. But, the Houses of Congress may at any time make recommendations for the amendment of any such appropriations and the President may consider any or all such recommendations and may, according to his discretion, resubmit estimates or refuse any of the recommendations proposed by Congress.".

Where does it say anywhere about a simple majority? What this DOES say, is that ALL appropriations bills must receive a two-thirds majority from both houses to pass. What this DOES say is that only the President's appropriation's bill does not require a two-thirds majority vote, nor that congress can effectively amend any such bill. And, to add insult to misery, the President can chose to ignore any recommendations by congress.

And, when you add to this, that congress MUST approve all Executive Branch appropriations bills by Oct 1st, or all members will lose their benefits, pay, and allowances, it amounts to coercion and blackmail. Or, that the old appropriations will continue to be in effect, regardless of congressional actions. This is exactly what our founding fathers were protecting us against. Too much power in the hands of one Branch of government.

Congress should not decide where the money goes - the President, representing a national constituency should decide where the money goes, along with the executive agencies.
No! Unless you want to ignore the Constitution and the Separation of Powers. The President represent his party, the Executive Branch, and is the Commander in Chief. He also has some informal powers as well. It is Congress that represents the People. One man can't represent the interests of 330M people. But the 535 representatives in Congress can.


California have implemented this provision in their Constitution. It's designed to disincentivise shutting down the Government, and if you do, then you lose your wages like all the public servants who lose theirs.
Sorry, what is this new provision to the California Constitution, that protects against shutting down "State or Federal" governments? Can you provide more information, please?


Clearly I disagree with your proposal. All Branches of government should have equal power. All branches should have the same checks and balances, to protect society against Authoritarian rule. Or, a dictatorship. We are NOT N. Korea.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
What about CNN.............. the Clinton News Network


Bitching because the Right has one Network, Fox News, that is to the Right/Conservative.....while ALL the other Networks & most all print media leans solidly to the Left/Liberal-Progressive.

No, the USA will not spread it's ASS CHEEKS & become a Socialist bastion like Australia........"Big Government"..........Where the government is the answer to everything.....Every Human Need........government owned media......government owned utilities.....government owned healthcare........government owned education (propaganda camps).........ETC.....ETC........the government who spends our THEIR money on & for us, & so-so wisely for us, because left on our own, we common people pee-ons don't know what's in our own best interests.....the government knows best.....& what to spend OUR THEIR money on.....

You clearly don't have a clue what Socialism is, do you? If we did changed from a Social Democracy to just a Democracy, we would all be up shits creek without a paddle. You would have to work until you literally dropped dead. Hundreds of social, housing, transportation, educational, shelter, daycare, healthcare, workers comp., government insurance, job programs, and food supplement programs, would all end in a heart beat. I'm thankful that most people can think past the stereotypic socialist, created by 70 years of fear-mongering to protect Capitalism.

But, if you do have an hour and a half to improve your understanding of Socialism, you might want to watch this video. Enlightenment is always free.

 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS. NOT THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS!!!. In other words, don't use the actions of others as an excuse for your own actions
no one is complaining about my actions... It's YOUR actions that are being questioned you fucken idiot
I expect you to point out the factual errors, or the inconsistencies in my argument. I expect you to back-up your own argument. I expect you to stop misrepresenting, or deflecting anything that I say. I expect you to own up to your own words, when they are challenged, and quoted back to you. Instead of all the blatant denials, profanities, and playground, "and you too" silliness.
blah blah blah ... your expectations are your problem not mine. Next time don't edit my comment and then whinge that it says something other than what I said.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
no one is complaining about my actions... It's YOUR actions that are being questioned you fucken idiot


blah blah blah ... your expectations are your problem not mine. Next time don't edit my comment and then whinge that it says something other than what I said.
You have called me a "fucken idiot" three times now. All unprovoked. And, no one has done anything about it. Please, for the last time, stop calling me derogatory names.

Now since you also keep claiming that I edit your own words, Please give me an example! Where have I misquoted you, misrepresented you, or lied about anything that you've said? Since you claim that I have done these things, it shouldn't be very hard to prove it, right? Just a couple of examples will do.

Donations are not banned in Australia.
My question was, "What is the current system being used in Australia(Election campaign funding system)?". My question was in response to your comments, "I would rather ban donations altogether, with possibly the exemption of a 'fund' controlled by the electoral office, where anyone still feeling altruistic even if they can't bribe for policy, however the electoral office decdes how it splits the money between candidates, not the donor.". And, "Elections should be funded by govt. With every candidate to receive the same amount in funds, and every candidate to receive access to the same level of govt owned media for advertising.".

I didn't ask you if individual donations were banned in Australia or not. I asked if you could explain, what the current system of funding candidate's campaigns is here in Australia? Never mind, I have already found the information. The AEC(like the FEC in the US), basically does what you suggest. And, this system seems pretty fair to me.


Again, the problem is with the abuses to the system, and not the system itself.
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
You have called me a "fucken idiot" three times now. All unprovoked. And, no one has done anything about it. Please, for the last time, stop calling me derogatory names
Sure, if you stop acting like an idiot I'll be happy to stop calling you an idiot.


Now since you also keep claiming that I edit your own words, Please give me an example! Where have I misquoted you, misrepresented you, or lied about anything that you've said?
As you wish:

He said, dumb-dumb,

"I would rather ban donations altogether, with possibly the exemption of a 'fund' controlled by the electoral office,...". And,

"The politicians don't even know who donated the money(lie). Limiting donations doesn't work(why not?)."

He then back-peddles with,
why leave out the middle bit? are you worried the context might make your argument look foolish?

The AEC(like the FEC in the US), basically does what you suggest.
It does not such thing.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
I don't care for letting government spend our money on their own election campaigns. To my mind, that is like giving the fox the keys to the hen house.

I would rather limit contributions to any one candidate to $100, and maybe $500 for Political Action Committees.

The Senate wouldn't need campaign contributions at all if we went back to having state legislatures pick the senators for their states.

If we term limited the Representatives to the House to two terms, the contribution limits I suggested would work for them.

And people could choose their president based upon information about them learned through the news, the traditional media, and the electronic media. The huge amounts of money these politicians think they need is corrosive to our system.
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
I don't care for letting government spend our money on their own election campaigns. To my mind, that is like giving the fox the keys to the hen house.
You're not giving control of the funds to the politicians. The electoral commission, or your American equivalent, would have control of the money and decide where it is spent.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
You're not giving control of the funds to the politicians. The electoral commission, or your American equivalent, would have control of the money and decide where it is spent.
Is that how it's done in Australia?

I see all kinds of problems with this idea. I like the idea of strict contribution limits better.
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
Is that how it's done in Australia?
No, this is part of my proposal. Ban donations except those to a pool controlled by the electoral commission, for them to disperse to candidates under their own guidelines. That way no politician receives donations from anyone directly, and can't be bought by anyone directly. (not by using donations at least, there are other ways corporations buy politicians but thats a different topic)


I see all kinds of problems with this idea. I like the idea of strict contribution limits better
You find a limit, politicians will find a work around. Nothing as immoral as a politician looking to enrich himself. NSW here has some of the toughest donation laws as they apply to property developers, and still politicians find ways around it. The latest scam was to sell developers tickets to attend a part fundraising function ... Technically, they're not donations so they fall within the guidelines. But if 'Trump Property Developments' for example, buys 100 tickets for it's staff and board to attend at $3000 a ticket, how is that different from donating $300 000 directly? The political party is still beholding to Trump Property Developments ... from what I've seen, limits simply won't work. The pigs will always find a way to fill their trough.
 

Auggie

Active member
Your statement was,

"Congress shall not pass a bill appropriating money from the Treasury except with the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses, unless such appropriations have first been recommended by the President, and estimated for by the executive departments of Government and submitted to Congress by the President. Congress shall not amend any such appropriations recommended by the President except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses. But, the Houses of Congress may at any time make recommendations for the amendment of any such appropriations and the President may consider any or all such recommendations and may, according to his discretion, resubmit estimates or refuse any of the recommendations proposed by Congress.".

Where does it say anywhere about a simple majority? What this DOES say, is that ALL appropriations bills must receive a two-thirds majority from both houses to pass. What this DOES say is that only the President's appropriation's bill does not require a two-thirds majority vote, nor that congress can effectively amend any such bill. And, to add insult to misery, the President can chose to ignore any recommendations by congress.

And, when you add to this, that congress MUST approve all Executive Branch appropriations bills by Oct 1st, or all members will lose their benefits, pay, and allowances, it amounts to coercion and blackmail. Or, that the old appropriations will continue to be in effect, regardless of congressional actions. This is exactly what our founding fathers were protecting us against. Too much power in the hands of one Branch of government.



No! Unless you want to ignore the Constitution and the Separation of Powers. The President represent his party, the Executive Branch, and is the Commander in Chief. He also has some informal powers as well. It is Congress that represents the People. One man can't represent the interests of 330M people. But the 535 representatives in Congress can.




Sorry, what is this new provision to the California Constitution, that protects against shutting down "State or Federal" governments? Can you provide more information, please?


Clearly I disagree with your proposal. All Branches of government should have equal power. All branches should have the same checks and balances, to protect society against Authoritarian rule. Or, a dictatorship. We are NOT N. Korea.
Ok, I take your point about the coercion and blackmail concerns. How about we make this simple and give the President line-item veto? Would you support this?

Or, if you don't line-item veto, would you at least support an amendment that made it so that all revenue and appropriations bill had to deal only with with those items? This would prevent riders in Bills and ensure that each bill is assessed on its own merits?
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
No, this is part of my proposal. Ban donations except those to a pool controlled by the electoral commission, for them to disperse to candidates under their own guidelines. That way no politician receives donations from anyone directly, and can't be bought by anyone directly. (not by using donations at least, there are other ways corporations buy politicians but thats a different topic)




You find a limit, politicians will find a work around. Nothing as immoral as a politician looking to enrich himself. NSW here has some of the toughest donation laws as they apply to property developers, and still politicians find ways around it. The latest scam was to sell developers tickets to attend a part fundraising function ... Technically, they're not donations so they fall within the guidelines. But if 'Trump Property Developments' for example, buys 100 tickets for it's staff and board to attend at $3000 a ticket, how is that different from donating $300 000 directly? The political party is still beholding to Trump Property Developments ... from what I've seen, limits simply won't work. The pigs will always find a way to fill their trough.
But you know how I feel about Hillary, right? There is no chance that I would donate to a commission that was going to share my money with her. I would expect that there are people in this country who would not donate to an election commission if they knew their money was going to be shared with Trump.

I think people should be able to donate to the party or candidate of their choice, but that those donations should be limited to an amount that puts all people on an equal footing - like about $100. This would go for corporate donations as well. And that limit would apply to donations to national parties as well.

I also think laws could be written to apply to the "Trump Property Developments" example you gave. We already have laws against certain types of financial shenanigans that people try in order to work around financial laws. Money laundering to conceal income is illegal, for example, and I think similar laws could be enacted and enforced upon political candidates and parties. It might not be too easy to get people to donate to something illegal that could land them a jail sentence.
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
There is no chance that I would donate to a commission that was going to share my money with her. I would expect that there are people in this country who would not donate to an election commission if they knew their money was going to be shared with Trump

That's fine. I agree that most people would cease to donate if there was nothing in it to be gained for them personally. However, for the few remaining that are truly altruistic, there is that option. There is absolutely no need for donations if govt's fund elections. I'd suggest any money you wish to donate to Trump or Hillary you instead donate to an animal shelter or the homeless. It would be better used.


. It might not be too easy to get people to donate to something illegal that could land them a jail sentence.
THAT is the other part of the problem .. You rarely, if ever, see any politician, or their donor, go to jail for breaching rules that enrich politicians. And it happens far to regularly for my liking. On the odd occasion where someone goes to jail, it's usually when they get greedy and stupid at the same time. The politicians (from all sides) make the laws and they simply won't allow it.

I'll give you another example of what I find wrong with our political system. If you use your employers credit card illegally, you go to jail. If a politician uses the govt's credit card to pay for their own persoanl crap and they are caught (usually years later) they simply pay it back with no punishment. They should be made to pay back 10x the amount as a fine, plus a prison term. Even if only for a few weeks.

We already have laws against certain types of financial shenanigans that people try in order to work around financial laws. Money laundering to conceal income is illegal, for example, and I think similar laws could be enacted and enforced upon political candidates and parties.

And yet money laundering still occurs. Unless you ban them altogether, No legal expert will ever think of a law that will cover every possible scenario. But you can guarantee that at some point, some politician will think of a way around whatever laws exist.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Ok, I take your point about the coercion and blackmail concerns. How about we make this simple and give the President line-item veto? Would you support this?

Or, if you don't line-item veto, would you at least support an amendment that made it so that all revenue and appropriations bill had to deal only with with those items? This would prevent riders in Bills and ensure that each bill is assessed on its own merits?

Our founding fathers drafted the New Constitution, which specifically gave Congress(Senators and Representatives), the power over the purse for good reason. To protect our nation against a Monarchs, an Authoritarians, and a Dictators controlling the purse. Congress represents the interests of all the people. No other branch of government does this. Not the Executive or the Judicial branches. Our founding fathers made sure that a checks and balance system was maintained, so that no one branch could have more power over the other(separate but equal). The executive branch had the power to VETO any bills. The legislative branch could override the president's veto. And, the judicial branch could make unconstitutional, any laws passed by the President.

The "Line Item Veto Act", was signed into law by Clinton in 1996(he used it 82 times). It originally gave the President the power to remove/veto any part of a bill passed by congress(pork barreling, line items, etc.). And, to decrease federal expenditures and combat wasteful spending. Without having to veto the entire bill. In 1998, the Supreme Court struct down the Line Item Veto Act, as being unconstitutional. So, unless you want to add a new amendment to the Constitution, a "Line Item Veto", is a dead subject. The constitution had intended the President to have the power only to veto the entire bill, NOT simply part of the bill. Otherwise, IT WOULD BE THE PRESIDENT LEGISLATING THE BILL, AND NOT CONGRESS. The President can already veto a bill, and then suggest to congress the changes he wants.

I would NOT support a Line Item Veto for the President, because it violates the intent of the Constitution, and changes the balance of power between the 3 branches. Think about it! Giving one person the power to trim the fat off of all federal expenditure bills proposed by Congress, no matter how good the intentions are, will be open to partisan abuse. And, then sending it back to be approved, or disapprove with a two-thirds majority vote? Remember, since Washington, overriding a presidential veto has only happened 111 times out of 2,582 vetoes(4% of the time).


Also, if I don't support an unconstitutional line item veto act, I would not support a line item veto amendment. And, good luck with getting the two-thirds votes in Congress, or in two thirds of the states, in passing anything that has already been ruled as unconstitutional. Do you even know why the Line Item Veto Act was declared unconstitutional?
 
Top