News Laws you would like enacted, repealed or changed

[Galteeth]

All of them.

 

[Galteeth]

Law #1- No person may base their happiness or sadness on the actions of others.
Law #2- There is no crime unless someone/something is physically hurt or damaged.
Law #3- The US constitution has to be followed word for word, not what the government wants it to say, since it is the constitution that tells the national government what they can do not vice versa. (They already take an oath, if they violate it it is treason.)
Law #4- Drivers will insure themselves, if they so choose, not everyone else.
Law #5- If a consitutional governmental program causes side effects you must end the program not take away more peoples rights to "fix" it. You can always try restructure the program but if you can't get rid of the side effect, its over.
Law #6- If a politician votes to help themselves over the objections of their constituents its treason.
Law #7- No more hipocracy, If a drug is bad a drug is bad, no more banning a natural substance only to sell and profit off of a synthetic version of it. If opiates are bad, opiates are bad(no more pain pills), if speed is bad(no more ritilan), if weed is bad(no more vallium and zanex). If we truly want to be a drug free society maybe remove every other commercial from TV(Drug ads if I needed to explain)).
Law #8- No one can make a law that pulls up the ladder from someone trying to follow, if you did it so can everyone else.
Law #9- A corporation can no longer be given personhood, only the people that work for it are people and have a say in government.
Law #10- Close to i it think was Jimmy's earlier post, for every law you add, you have to remove all related that you are replacing.
Law #11- A law can only be made to punish an action(if it meets the criteria of a crime above), not to prevent it, since according to law #2 above it is not a criminal.

There are already way too many laws "controlling" the people, we need some to control the government since they have forgotten that there already is one, its called the constitution.

Those laws contradict each other.

 

[Char. Limit]

Hippocracy? Who advocated rule by horses?

Get rid of affirmative action, and begin divorce negotiations at split custody, not mother custody.

You know, sometimes fathers like to see their children more than once every two weeks.

Also, require paternity tests for every child in every divorce. If the husband isn't the father, no child support. In fact, if the husband isn't the father, give him the kids and send the wife (and her lover, if he's married) to jail for five years for perjury of the wedding vows.

 

[MotoH]

-Eliminate and destroy any form of threat to the United States and its protectorates.

-Increase the number of ICBM launch facilities and number of missiles on hand.

-Strengthen diplomatic ties with Russia

-Try anyone for treason who wishes to defame US soldiers and monuments.

-Legalize all forms of torture for terrorists.

-Remove the authorization needed before engaging an enemy in combat.

-Increase the production of all military assets (tanks, fighter jets, et cetera)

-Increase the Defense budget

-Increase the Space budget

-Increase the Education budget (repeal the no child left behind act)

-Completely remove welfare.

-make military service mandatory for 4 years after graduating from High School.

-Reduce tuition costs dramatically

there are many others but I am to tired to type them all out.

 

[edpell]

End the federal income tax.

 

[edpell]

In order to enforce the 10th amendment all states will have nuclear weapons and delivery systems under the control of the state government. All adults will have a military grade rifle in their homes and at the ready at all time and have sufficient yearly practice to use it well. Likewise each county will have a well practiced militia (all adults) well trained in war fighting and well equipped (with equipment in place with the county i.e. artillery, tanks, anti-tank, anti-aircraft, communications, food, etc...).

 

[Galteeth]

-Eliminate and destroy any form of threat to the United States and its protectorates.

-Increase the number of ICBM launch facilities and number of missiles on hand.

-Strengthen diplomatic ties with Russia

-Try anyone for treason who wishes to defame US soldiers and monuments.

-Legalize all forms of torture for terrorists.

-Remove the authorization needed before engaging an enemy in combat.

-Increase the production of all military assets (tanks, fighter jets, et cetera)

-Increase the Defense budget

-Increase the Space budget

-Increase the Education budget (repeal the no child left behind act)

-Completely remove welfare.

-make military service mandatory for 4 years after graduating from High School.

-Reduce tuition costs dramatically

there are many others but I am to tired to type them all out.

Ok, obviously we come from very different ideological viewpoints. I am curious, what do you feel would be the advantage of this hyper-militarization of the US?

 

[Char. Limit]

In order to enforce the 10th amendment all states will have nuclear weapons and delivery systems under the control of the state government. All adults will have a military grade rifle in their homes and at the ready at all time and have sufficient yearly practice to use it well. Likewise each county will have a well practiced militia (all adults) well trained in war fighting and well equipped (with equipment in place with the county i.e. artillery, tanks, anti-tank, anti-aircraft, communications, food, etc...).

I hope to God you're joking.

 

[edpell]

what do you feel

I think it is important to think in terms of an evolutionary point of view. For three billion years there has been someone or something that wants to eat us. The genome and its resultant thought patterns of the surviving descendants will have experience strong selection pressure.

One persons paranoia is another persons prudent planning. One persons prudent planning is another persons paranoia.

Only the unfolding of history will show in each particular case who was right and who was wrong.

But since American are not even able to reproduce (have on average 2.1 children per completed family) and must rely on immigration to constantly restore the population why do we care if America survives or not?

 

[edpell]

I hope to God you're joking.

How would you enforce the 10th amendment?

 

[mgb_phys]

How would you enforce the 10th amendment?

Fences around each state?

 

[edpell]

Fences around each state?

Have you tried to drive into California? They already have the fences and border check points.

 

[mgb_phys]

Yes but there are miles of undefended border.
Tree huggers from Oregon could sneak into Northern California and wipeout the local tree-hugging population by taking anti-logging protesting sites from native Northern Californians.

 

[MotoH]

Ok, obviously we come from very different ideological viewpoints. I am curious, what do you feel would be the advantage of this hyper-militarization of the US?

To put it in simplest terms, Wouldn't you rather have the neccesary weapons to protect the United States in the event of an act of aggression? I for one would rather have something and not need it, than need something and not have it. Kind of like carrying a pistol. You never hope to use it on someone, but it is there if the deed is called upon.

And the mandatory military service I believe is a great idea because its really the least you can do for the country you live in. If I were in power I would take the same concept Israel has, although they are a mandatory 3 years I believe.

 

[edpell]

Yes but there are miles of undefended border.
Tree huggers from Oregon could sneak into Northern California and wipeout the local tree-hugging population by taking anti-logging protesting sites from native Northern Californians.

You are right clearly California needs to beef up its borders to stop illegal immigration from the north or whatever direction it may come from. ;)

 

[edpell]

To put it in simplest terms, Wouldn't you rather have the neccesary weapons to protect the United States in the event of an act of aggression? I for one would rather have something and not need it, than need something and not have it. Kind of like carrying a pistol. You never hope to use it on someone, but it is there if the deed is called upon.

And the mandatory military service I believe is a great idea because its really the least you can do for the country you live in. If I were in power I would take the same concept Israel has, although they are a mandatory 3 years I believe.

Two points.

Forced service is slavery which is prohibited under the Constitution.

The federal government borrows more than 50% of every dollar it spends. So how do you propose increasing spending? Will the Chinese work harder in order to buy more US debt paper?

 

[Char. Limit]

How would you enforce the 10th amendment?

Not with nukes, I'll tell you that much right now.

 

[edpell]

Yes but there are miles of undefended border.
Tree huggers from Oregon could sneak into Northern California and wipeout the local tree-hugging population by taking anti-logging protesting sites from native Northern Californians.

I think it would be more a question of the cash rich marijuana growing fields of northern California.

 

[mgb_phys]

And protect the US from Canadian frisbees

Beltran said he instructs his agents to use discretion and "common sense." It goes like this: "If a kid [on the Canada side] throws a Frisbee over here, he can come and get it. But if he got the Frisbee and kept walking down to the Arby's to get a soda, we're going to stop you."

http://proinmigrant.blogspot.com/2008/08/border-fence-between-canada-and-us.html

 

[edpell]

And protect the US from Canadian frisbees

http://proinmigrant.blogspot.com/2008/08/border-fence-between-canada-and-us.html

Clearly you misunderstand. It is not the frisbee threat they are dealing with it is the scarcity of soda that is at issue.

 

[edpell]

Not with nukes, I'll tell you that much right now.

The only sovereign entities are those that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems. All others entities are clients to a patron that does have nukes. So if the fifty states wish to be sovereign they must have nukes.

 

[Char. Limit]

The only sovereign entities are those that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems. All others entities are clients to a patron that does have nukes. So if the fifty states wish to be sovereign they must have nukes.

The tenth amendment states that the powers given to the states are all those that are neither given to the federal government nor explicitly prohibited the states by the constitution. The military (and nukes) are a power given to the federal government under the Constitution (you don't see people fighting on the NYS Enterprise or joining the Marine Corps of Idaho, do you?) What you are suggesting is unconstitutional.

Also, everyone who says "make this or that considered treason" is also suggesting something unconstitutional. Treason is the one crime defined in the Constitution, defined as "only in levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

 

[MotoH]

Two points.

Forced service is slavery which is prohibited under the Constitution.

The federal government borrows more than 50% of every dollar it spends. So how do you propose increasing spending? Will the Chinese work harder in order to buy more US debt paper?

Forced service slavery? Maybe for those who want to "steal" from the US. If you honestly can't give four years of your life (which isn't active duty mind you) to the United States, how do you deserve to live here?

Quit buying oil from OPEC to start with, drill drill drill in northern Alaska. We are too far in debt to get out of it instantly (7 trillion didn't help either.) but it will take time, and if we start using our own resources and stop buying from others we will eventually start making up that debt.

 

[Char. Limit]

Not active duty? Please. The generals in Washington will say "look at all these able-bodied troops we're wasting! Let's send them off to war to die!"

There's a reason I oppose the draft, and why I'm not joining up.
Also, why should I have to die for my country in order to live there?

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Most European countries have a mandatory service system. Either a stint in the military or the same time in a community service organization similar to the Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) program. Hey if European socialism programs is good enough to have here in the USA let's have their requirements to serve the community as well.

 

[Char. Limit]

For the last time...

I'm... not... a... socialist.

I'm also 17, so I'd be the one affected by the law, unlike most of the people on this board.

Plus, Europeans aren't fighting two wars and being short on troops and all.

Also, it's been shown that morale is higher in an all-volunteer army.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I would like to see the laws against murder and theft repealed as they are an unfunded mandate to small business.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Ah, I remember being 17 and knowing everything.

Please. The generals in Washington will say "look at all these able-bodied troops we're wasting! Let's send them off to war to die!"

I think you might want to review how wars are declared under the US Constitution. You'll discover that "generals in Washington" aren't able to declare war on their own. Also, the idea that they want the men and women under their command to die is rather offensive - do you have any evidence for this claim of yours? Or were you just makin' stuff up?

 

[ThomasEdison]

All vehicles with an empty GVW over 4000 Lbs [would include most SUVs] are treated as tractor-trailers - required to drive in the right-most lanes, never to exceed 55 mph, and subject to stiffer penalties for moving violations.

I like this.

 

[dotman]

Please. The generals in Washington will say "look at all these able-bodied troops we're wasting! Let's send them off to war to die!"

I think you might want to review how wars are declared under the US Constitution. You'll discover that "generals in Washington" aren't able to declare war on their own. Also, the idea that they want the men and women under their command to die is rather offensive - do you have any evidence for this claim of yours? Or were you just makin' stuff up?

While he certainly phrased it poorly, the intent of his post is not without merit. The US armed services is stretched right now, with guard units routinely being activated for multiple tours, and regular service men and women having their tours lengthened, etc.

There is absolutely no question that if there were mandatory service requirements, many of those young people would be sent to foreign theaters. A sizeable portion would see combat.

In today's day and age, this also would beg the question-- would women also be required to serve? How would that go over, do you think?

Ah, I remember being 17 and knowing everything.

Come on now, you don't have to patronize him.