Originally Posted by Molly

Inasmuch as many of our elected officials are apparently unaware of the provisions in the Constitution of the United states of America, and particularly of provisions of the Bill of Rights, I hereby propose a new Constitutional Amendment requiring that all newly elected federal, state and local officials be required to satisfactorily complete a class on said Constitution and Bill of rights, and the original meanings of the provisions thereof, before being permitted to begin their term of office.

Now whether you are in favor of or opposed to any particular issue like gun control or abortion, (I am strongly pro-gun and anti-abortion.), it can only improve the overall quality of our governance to assure that the officials of our nation are educated, rather than leave them in ignorance of the very subject they are supposed to use to control their decisions.

Now I invite your comments. If you agree, write your legislators. If not, please tell me why.

Molly

Originally Posted by Teak

Making sure that our elected officials are knowledgeable is the voters responsibility. Leave the constitution alone. Such testing would only lead to additional problems, and most likely a testing requirement for voters.

Originally Posted by Molly

The historical record suggests that voters do not have a particularly good record in this respect. Shall I recount the instance of a dead mule having voted in a statewide election, and being upheld in court? And please note that in the current election process, we are presented with three candidates who are self avowed enemies of the Bill of Rights - and thus the Constitution, having anounced that they favor one form or another of further infringing on the Second Ammendment, 'which shall not be infringed'! Which enemy of the Constitution do you favor? Clinton, Obama, or McCain? And why have you failed to make sure that at least one of them is knowledgable?

The very purpose of the Constitution - and particularly the Bill of Rights - is to draw a line in the sand beyond which Government is not permitted to go. Trouble is, who can deny Government that authority? I suggest that you stand up with your rifle in hand and announce that you are taking over the government that is out of control. I suspect that you will quickly discover that you don't have that authority. The idea of a militia defending the Constitution is considerably less attractive when the militia - armed with handguns and rifles - goes up against artillery and napalm. To say the least, a modern militia is considerably less practical than when the militia were up against similarly armed Redcoats. Granted, a suburban warfare movement could be sustained, but Iraq - painful as it is - is proof that this won't stand up against a modern army either.

On the other hand, violation of a Constitutional Amendment could at least be cited by political antagonists in persuasion of citizens to vote 'right', or for the antagonists. And if our legislators and officials were educated enough to understand the constitution, such violations could be sharply curtailed by the lack of support from true patriots in the party. At the very least, they'd know enough to raise the alarm, which would be an effective curtailment in itself.

Molly

Originally Posted by Molly

Inasmuch as many of our elected officials are apparently unaware of the provisions in the Constitution of the United states of America, and particularly of provisions of the Bill of Rights, I hereby propose a new Constitutional Amendment requiring that all newly elected federal, state and local officials be required to satisfactorily complete a class on said Constitution and Bill of rights, why it will cost money and it won't make them give a shit more and the original meanings of the provisions thereof, before being permitted to begin their term of office.

Now whether you are in favor of or opposed to any particular issue like gun control or abortion, (I am strongly pro-gun and anti-abortion.), its dumb to be anti-abortion since u can't stop it, you might as well be anti-sun and try to stop it from shining, what u are proposing with that is to waste more taxpayer money which I think our government is stealing quite fine by itself. it can only improve the overall quality of our governance to assure that the officials of our nation are educated, rather than leave them in ignorance of the very subject they are supposed to use to control their decisions. They are not ignorant they are greedy, you think too positively of people.

Now I invite your comments. If you agree, write your legislators. If not, please tell me why.

Molly

Originally Posted by Teak

Making sure that our elected officials are knowledgeable is the voters responsibility. and what are voters supposed to do when all our choices are corrupt but knowledgeable? Leave the constitution alone. Such testing would only lead to additional problems, and most likely a testing requirement for voters.

Originally Posted by Molly

The historical record suggests that voters do not have a particularly good record in this respect. Shall I recount the instance of a dead mule having voted in a statewide election, and being upheld in court? And please note that in the current election process, we are presented with three candidates who are self avowed enemies of the Bill of Rights - and thus the Constitution, having anounced that they favor one form or another of further infringing on the Second Ammendment, 'which shall not be infringed'! Which enemy of the Constitution do you favor? Clinton, Obama, or McCain? And why have you failed to make sure that at least one of them is knowledgable?

The very purpose of the Constitution - and particularly the Bill of Rights - is to draw a line in the sand beyond which Government is not permitted to go. and they are already well over the line, the problem is u can't do anything about it Trouble is, who can deny Government that authority? I suggest that you stand up with your rifle in hand and announce that you are taking over the government that is out of control. I suspect that you will quickly discover that you don't have that authority. The idea of a militia defending the Constitution is considerably less attractive when the militia - armed with handguns and rifles - goes up against artillery and napalm. To say the least, a modern militia is considerably less practical than when the militia were up against similarly armed Redcoats. Granted, a suburban warfare movement could be sustained, but Iraq - painful as it is - is proof that this won't stand up against a modern army either.

On the other hand, violation of a Constitutional Amendment could at least be cited by political antagonists in persuasion of citizens to vote 'right', or for the antagonists. And if our legislators and officials were educated enough to understand the constitution, they do understand they just don't care about anything but themselves such violations could be sharply curtailed by the lack of support from true patriots in the party. you mean the voters LOL At the very least, they'd know enough to raise the alarm, which would be an effective curtailment in itself. No it

Molly

Originally Posted by Teak

All of which means that getting a constitutional amendment added is next to impossible, no politician would allow the one you propose.

Its the responsibility of the voter to elect the qualified people. I've lived in America my whole life and have not seen one of these. If they fail to take note of the candidates, THEY GET WHAT THEY DESERVE. Thats dumb, your saying its the voters fault the candidates are dishonest. Fucking dumb

If you are going to limit candidacy to those passing a test, lets just do away with the voting. ok its just a farce anyways then we at least appear to be the slaves we really are We'll test everyone, interested in serving in the government, then appoint them to specific offices based on the results of that test. The one with the highest score becomes president, next highest VP, etc.