CSNbbs
Would you support this Constitutional Amendment? - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Would you support this Constitutional Amendment? (/thread-501661.html)

Pages: 1 2

Would you support this Constitutional Amendment? - chargeradio - 06-26-2011 01:45 PM

Section 1.
The President, Vice President, and Members of each house of the Congress of the United States shall be held personally responsible for lawful expenditures in excess of revenues incurred by the Government of the United States, on a basis not to exceed every 12 months. Payment shall be made within 120 days of the close of each fiscal year. Each Member of Congress, the President, and Vice President shall bear equal responsibility for the repayment of excess expenditures. A person who served as a Member of Congress, President, or Vice President for less than a full year will have their repsonsibility pro rated in accordance with the length of their service.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have the right to adopt similar requirements of any civil Officers of the United States for expenditures and revenues performed in accordance with their official duties, and to use these requirements to offset the liability of its members, the President, and Vice President. In no case shall the Congress construct legislation completely removing financial responsibility for its members, the President, or Vice President, except as an Article of Amendment to this Constitution.

Section 3.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 4.
This Article shall not take effect until the first fiscal year commencing after both an election of representatives and an election of the President have intervened.

RE: Would you support this Constitutional Amendment? - RobertN - 06-26-2011 01:52 PM

Why do tea baggers always want to chage the Constitution?

RE: Would you support this Constitutional Amendment? - RaiderATO - 06-26-2011 02:17 PM

no

RE: Would you support this Constitutional Amendment? - Smaug - 06-26-2011 02:19 PM

(06-26-2011 01:52 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Why do tea baggers always want to chage the Constitution?

You mean "amend" it, as opposed to "ignore" it?

And no, I wouldn't support such an amendment.

RE: Would you support this Constitutional Amendment? - miko33 - 06-26-2011 02:28 PM

There is no way that such an amendment could be ratified. There are a number of legitimate reasons why a country would go into deficit spending for any given year (or years). I believe the gov't ran deficits during WWII.

RE: Would you support this Constitutional Amendment? - RobertN - 06-26-2011 02:28 PM

(06-26-2011 02:19 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 01:52 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Why do tea baggers always want to chage the Constitution?

You mean "amend" it, as opposed to "ignore" it?

And no, I wouldn't support such an amendment.
No. I mean that the tea baggers don't like certain parts and feel parts are left out so the Constitution needs to be changed to fit their/your beliefs.

RE: Would you support this Constitutional Amendment? - Smaug - 06-26-2011 02:33 PM

(06-26-2011 02:28 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:19 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 01:52 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Why do tea baggers always want to chage the Constitution?

You mean "amend" it, as opposed to "ignore" it?

And no, I wouldn't support such an amendment.
No. I mean that the tea baggers don't like certain parts and feel parts are left out so the Constitution needs to be changed to fit their/your beliefs.

And the left doesn't?

RE: Would you support this Constitutional Amendment? - SumOfAllFears - 06-26-2011 02:36 PM

(06-26-2011 02:33 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:28 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:19 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 01:52 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Why do tea baggers always want to chage the Constitution?

You mean "amend" it, as opposed to "ignore" it?

And no, I wouldn't support such an amendment.
No. I mean that the tea baggers don't like certain parts and feel parts are left out so the Constitution needs to be changed to fit their/your beliefs.

And the left doesn't?

Just more of the same Roberta mindless drivel.

RE: Would you support this Constitutional Amendment? - RobertN - 06-26-2011 02:39 PM

(06-26-2011 02:33 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:28 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:19 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 01:52 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Why do tea baggers always want to chage the Constitution?

You mean "amend" it, as opposed to "ignore" it?

And no, I wouldn't support such an amendment.
No. I mean that the tea baggers don't like certain parts and feel parts are left out so the Constitution needs to be changed to fit their/your beliefs.

And the left doesn't?
When did I ever say they didn't? THe point is it is YOU guys that make a point of "following the Constitution", yet you continually want to change it.

RE: Would you support this Constitutional Amendment? - Smaug - 06-26-2011 02:41 PM

(06-26-2011 02:39 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:33 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:28 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:19 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 01:52 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Why do tea baggers always want to chage the Constitution?

You mean "amend" it, as opposed to "ignore" it?

And no, I wouldn't support such an amendment.
No. I mean that the tea baggers don't like certain parts and feel parts are left out so the Constitution needs to be changed to fit their/your beliefs.

And the left doesn't?
When did I ever say they didn't? THe point is it is YOU guys that make a point of "following the Constitution", yet you continually want to change it.

1. Who the hell is "you guys?"

2. Did you fail to notice I said I wouldn't support it?

RE: Would you support this Constitutional Amendment? - Paul M - 06-26-2011 02:43 PM

(06-26-2011 02:28 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:19 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 01:52 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Why do tea baggers always want to chage the Constitution?

You mean "amend" it, as opposed to "ignore" it?

And no, I wouldn't support such an amendment.
No. I mean that the tea baggers don't like certain parts and feel parts are left out so the Constitution needs to be changed to fit their/your beliefs.

What parts don't we like? What do we feel was left out?

RE: Would you support this Constitutional Amendment? - smn1256 - 06-26-2011 02:47 PM

(06-26-2011 02:39 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:33 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:28 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:19 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 01:52 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Why do tea baggers always want to chage the Constitution?

You mean "amend" it, as opposed to "ignore" it?

And no, I wouldn't support such an amendment.
No. I mean that the tea baggers don't like certain parts and feel parts are left out so the Constitution needs to be changed to fit their/your beliefs.

And the left doesn't?
When did I ever say they didn't? THe point is it is YOU guys that make a point of "following the Constitution", yet you continually want to change it.

Changing the Constitution is far different than ignoring it.

RE: Would you support this Constitutional Amendment? - SumOfAllFears - 06-26-2011 02:51 PM

According to the lefters the constitution is a living, breathing document, with grey area to change at a moments notice. This fact is not disputable.

RE: Would you support this Constitutional Amendment? - RobertN - 06-26-2011 02:54 PM

(06-26-2011 02:47 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:39 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:33 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:28 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:19 PM)Smaug Wrote:  You mean "amend" it, as opposed to "ignore" it?

And no, I wouldn't support such an amendment.
No. I mean that the tea baggers don't like certain parts and feel parts are left out so the Constitution needs to be changed to fit their/your beliefs.

And the left doesn't?
When did I ever say they didn't? THe point is it is YOU guys that make a point of "following the Constitution", yet you continually want to change it.

Changing the Constitution is far different than ignoring it.
Who ignores it?

RE: Would you support this Constitutional Amendment? - Smaug - 06-26-2011 02:55 PM

(06-26-2011 02:54 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:47 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:39 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:33 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:28 PM)RobertN Wrote:  No. I mean that the tea baggers don't like certain parts and feel parts are left out so the Constitution needs to be changed to fit their/your beliefs.

And the left doesn't?
When did I ever say they didn't? THe point is it is YOU guys that make a point of "following the Constitution", yet you continually want to change it.

Changing the Constitution is far different than ignoring it.
Who ignores it?

Familiar with the Patriot Act?

Yes, I know who kick-started it. I also know who's embraced it.

The 4th Amendment has taken a righteous ass-kicking in the last 10 years.

RE: Would you support this Constitutional Amendment? - SumOfAllFears - 06-26-2011 02:56 PM

(06-26-2011 02:54 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:47 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:39 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:33 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:28 PM)RobertN Wrote:  No. I mean that the tea baggers don't like certain parts and feel parts are left out so the Constitution needs to be changed to fit their/your beliefs.

And the left doesn't?
When did I ever say they didn't? THe point is it is YOU guys that make a point of "following the Constitution", yet you continually want to change it.

Changing the Constitution is far different than ignoring it.
Who ignores it?

Obabba

RE: Would you support this Constitutional Amendment? - Fo Shizzle - 06-26-2011 02:58 PM

No. I would prefer that those in power simply go by what we have already.

RE: Would you support this Constitutional Amendment? - RobertN - 06-26-2011 03:09 PM

(06-26-2011 02:41 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:39 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:33 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:28 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:19 PM)Smaug Wrote:  You mean "amend" it, as opposed to "ignore" it?

And no, I wouldn't support such an amendment.
No. I mean that the tea baggers don't like certain parts and feel parts are left out so the Constitution needs to be changed to fit their/your beliefs.

And the left doesn't?
When did I ever say they didn't? THe point is it is YOU guys that make a point of "following the Constitution", yet you continually want to change it.

1. Who the hell is "you guys?"

2. Did you fail to notice I said I wouldn't support it?
1. Tea baggers like yourself 2. Yes. I saw that you wouldn't support HIS proposal for a balanced budget amendment. Most tea baggers ARE for one-maybe not this one but one nonetheless.

RE: Would you support this Constitutional Amendment? - Smaug - 06-26-2011 03:12 PM

(06-26-2011 03:09 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:41 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:39 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:33 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:28 PM)RobertN Wrote:  No. I mean that the tea baggers don't like certain parts and feel parts are left out so the Constitution needs to be changed to fit their/your beliefs.

And the left doesn't?
When did I ever say they didn't? THe point is it is YOU guys that make a point of "following the Constitution", yet you continually want to change it.

1. Who the hell is "you guys?"

2. Did you fail to notice I said I wouldn't support it?
1. Tea baggers like yourself 2. Yes. I saw that you wouldn't support HIS proposal for a balanced budget amendment. Most tea baggers ARE for one-maybe not this one but one nonetheless.

Heh, you think I'm a tea party guy. That's funny. I guess everyone looks like a right-winger when you're dangling off the far left edge of any issue.

RE: Would you support this Constitutional Amendment? - RobertN - 06-26-2011 03:24 PM

(06-26-2011 03:12 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 03:09 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:41 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:39 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(06-26-2011 02:33 PM)Smaug Wrote:  And the left doesn't?
When did I ever say they didn't? THe point is it is YOU guys that make a point of "following the Constitution", yet you continually want to change it.

1. Who the hell is "you guys?"

2. Did you fail to notice I said I wouldn't support it?
1. Tea baggers like yourself 2. Yes. I saw that you wouldn't support HIS proposal for a balanced budget amendment. Most tea baggers ARE for one-maybe not this one but one nonetheless.

Heh, you think I'm a tea party guy. That's funny. I guess everyone looks like a right-winger when you're dangling off the far left edge of any issue.
You aren't as far right as most tea baggers but you are right of center.