#amendments

[fuckyeahinternetcomments]

We are witnessing firsthand the collapse of a democracy.

[allthecanadianpolitics]

Major projects bill amended to remove cabinet power to sidestep Indian Act - National | Globalnews.ca

Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Nepinak Woodhouse said Thursday the "limited changes" made to the bill don't go far enough.

The federal government’s major projects legislation was amended by opposition parties on Wednesday to withdraw the power the bill gave cabinet to sidestep the Indian Act, following weeks of criticism from First Nations leaders. But Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Nepinak Woodhouse said Thursday the “limited changes” made to the bill don’t go far enough. She still wants the government to give members of Parliament more time to study the legislation.

Continue reading

Tagging: @newsfromstolenland

[todaysdocument]

Arizona's Ratification of the 26th Amendment

Record Group 11: General Records of the United States GovernmentSeries: Ratified Amendments 

STATE OF ARIZONA

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA}

STATE OF ARIZONA} SS.

I WESLEY BOLIN, Secretary of State, do hereby certify that ~~ THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT IS A TRUE, CORRECT AND COMPLETE COPY OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 2, THIRTHIETH LEGISLATURE, FIRST REGULAR SESSION: THAT I AM THE OFFICIAL OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA HAVING CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF THE ORIGINAL OF SAID COPY AND THE LEGAL KEEPER THEREOF.

[SEAL - ILLEGIBLE]

In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Great Seal of the State of Arizona. Done at Phoenix the capital, this 26th day of May A.D. 1971

Wesley Bolin [signature] 

1 "Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce

2 this article by appropriate legislation."

3 Therefore

4 Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

5 1. That such proposed amendment to the constitution of

6 the United States of America be and the same is hereby ratified.

7 2. The Governor is requested to transmit certified copies

8 of this Resolution to the Administrator of general Services,

9 Washington, D.C., and the President of the Senate and the

10 Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the

11 United States.

[the following is crossed out] -

Passed the House April 20, 1971 by the following vote: 38 Ayes, 18 Nays, 4 Not Voting.

Passed the Senate May 14, 1971 by the following vote: 24 Ayes, 3 Nays, 3 Not Voting.

Approved by the Governor - May 17, 1971

Filed in the Office of the Secretary of State - May 17, 1971

COMPILED AND ISSUED BY

WESLEY BOLIN

SECRETARY OF STATE

for use until Session Laws are printed

State of Arizona

House of Representatives

Thirtieth Legislature

First Regular Session

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 2

A JOINT RESOLUTION

RATIFYING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES; PROVIDING THAT THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, WHO ARE EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER, TO VOTE SHALL NOT BE DENIED OR ABRIDGED BY THE UNITED STATES OR BY ANY STATE ON ACCOUNT OF AGE.

Whereas, the Ninety-second Congress of the United States of America at its First Session, in both Houses, by a Constitutional majority of two-thirds thereof, adopted the following proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States of America in the following words, to wit:

JOINT RESOLUTION

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), that the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

ARTICLE XXVI

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. 

[thingstrumperssay]

Tennessee Republican proposes amendment to allow Trump to serve third term

Republicans: "You can't do anything about the second amendment! It's an amendment!"

Also republicans: "Of course we can change the 22nd amendment to the constitution! That's what an amendment is!"

Edit: I forgot to mention that this was written in a way to make sure that Obama can't run again because he got two consecutive terms.

[wtfnameisavailable]

The Last Line of Defense?

Between Oligarchy and our Constitutional Republic

The Last Line of Defense?

Will the Supreme Court defend the U.S. Constitution against the barrage of attacks that Donald Trump is preparing to throw it's way?

Will they happily take more bribes?

Will they fold under pressure form Trump's pardoned army?

Will they keep our republic?

[orangejulii]

Additional Constitutional Amendments

-Universal Healthcare -Water - waterways, lakes, and rivers cannot be owned by private entities and shall remain clean and inhabitable for all creatures -Food - Farms will remain subsidized by the government and all foreign trade related to food will not be tariffed - this food will be regulated to insure it is clean at every level of preparation -Home Owners Associations are no longer legal. The regulation of neighborhoods will be enforced by local codes only. - Timeshares can be renegotiated every 5 years giving people the opportunity to walk away from contracts -No more single use plastic and the use of plastic will be severely limited -A person's body is their own and that person is free to do what they will to it as long as it does not physically harm others (abortion is not harm) - Birth control is a human right and any person over 18 can decide to permanently sterilize themselves chemically or by the removal of reproductive organs without obstacles from their doctor or government -There will be term limits to every government office -Corporations are NOT people -Limits on how many media outlets can be owned by a single entity (you cannot create shell corporations to loop hole into owning more) -Corporations cannot own residential property and there are limits to how much property can be owned by a private citizen -Attendance of at least 90% is required for all persons employed to public office unless for medical reason -There will be an audit of the department of defense every 5 years -Social Security is a human right and cannot be taken away -a person of sound mind and no history of violence can own three guns. They can choose between a two cartridge shotgun, a hunting rifle with a maximum capacity of 15 bullets, or a handgun with a magazine not exceeding 10 rounds. There will be limits to how many bullets a person can own and it will be regulated the same way sudafed is. -abolish the electoral college -no more private for-profit prisons - all labor done by prisoners will be compensated at the same rate as the federal minimum wage and all labor is voluntary by the prisoner -felons have the power to vote -felons do not have the power to be a president/senator/congressman/judge -police departments and military cannot have funding that exceeds the funding for fire prevention, health, education, and other public works -tax payer money cannot be reallocated to private education -education is a human right -Government officials cannot take money from private entities once in office. Limits to how much money can be raised per campaign - Pharmaceuticals cannot be advertised. - Doctors in individual practices have limits on how many patients they can see per day and they have to have a one on one conversation with the patient for at least 20 minutes.

Feel free to add more. These are just all things floating around in my head and I needed to get them out. I believe our country would be a better place if we did these. It's open for discussion but I will not entertain people with straw man arguments, "whataboutism" or the easily offended. I will not engage with trash - I will block. (Also there's probably spelling or grammar errors - it was written in a stream of consciousness cathartically.)

[eddiraymond]

The Justice Amendment - an imperfect amendment that is reasonable given an imperfect system of government

"c1. Judges of the Supreme Court appointed by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate will not serve until the end of the presidential term, or the president is removed from office by Death, Resignation, or Inability to serve

c2. The number of Justices on the Supreme Court will increase from eight Associate Justices and the Chief Justice to twelve Associate Justices and the Chief Justice

c3. Judges may only serve one term at a maximum of 12 years."

C1: The Supreme Court will always have an adequate number of Justices to make decisions from multiple viewpoints, which reflects the growing population, increased education, and diversity of thought that occurs in the United States

C1: This will also prevent judges from being appointed for the sole purpose of pushing a policy agenda, as we have seen numerous times in incredibly radical ways like FDR and Donald Trump

- C1: FLAW: There may be moments where there are fewer judges than usual, but this is circumvented by the increased number of judges.

- C1 FLAW: Presidents serve 2 terms, so it may give the incumbent something to run on for their second term, but regardless it makes it harder to run a campaign on the premise of packing the courts in a certain way to push a policy through so I still believe that the Amendment will be effective.

C2: Something to note is that while the Supreme Court should represent some diversity of thought, I would not recommend increasing the total number of Justices past thirteen, as it may become easier to pack. Too many judges may begin to make decision-making more inefficient instead of more thoughtful. 

C3: The Hamiltonian approach is flawed (Federalist 78). Hamilton proposes that judges need life appointments because there are very few people who are qualified to be judges of such a high standard; therefore, it's important to keep them for as long as possible, rather than replace them with someone underqualified. I don't completely agree with Hamilton’s proposal. I think that judges serving a single lengthy term may be permissible, but their service being tenured permits one judge’s opinion to be more powerful than another’s because of the length of their tenure.

C3: Instead, we have to increase the standard of general education and provide that education to more people from diverse communities (as we already have, especially since the late 18th century), so that we can have more competent judges who can replace them

C3: We need people moving in and out of the government to keep it energetic as Hamilton himself writes in Fed 70 however, I understand the idea that he wants judges with more wisdom, but I don't think Hamilton was thinking about the fact that they could have old senile men dying in the Chief Justice Chair (although maybe he did, he wasn't the greatest guy when it came to moral political philosophy)

DEBATING: What is the right length of time for one to serve on the Supreme Court? Perhaps make it 10-12 years, but any less than that feels unnecessary and we may actually run into the Hamilton problem of beginning to pull in inexperienced judges, I simply think there is some balancing that needs to be done and perhaps the part of the Amendment determining the term length and number of Justices serving on the court should remain the duty of Congress creating legislation. Still, frankly, it's not a responsibility an ever-changing and corrupt Congress can be trusted with.

Eddit: Changed eleven associate justices to twelve for a total of thirteen justices so that the number remains odd. Also changed 16 year terms to 12.