Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 1/3/2015 11:00:27 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
As for your first statement Betty Ford said the same thing.
And it isn't relevant because Ford was ok to run in76.
I believe that Andrew Johnson also served in Congress after being President.

The way I remember it (and I was young but, I looked it up, at the time), because Ford served less than two years of Tricky Dick's term, he could have been elected to two full terms of his own. I can't swear to this but, I'd be willing to bet ... oh ... 50¢.
Michael


PAY UP!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford

He was in office from 9 Aug 1974 to 20 Jan 1977; 895 days.

Little tidbits from the wiki...

His 895 day presidency is the shortest presidency for anyone not killed in office.

He was the "first and to date only person to have served as both Vice President and President of the United States without being elected by the Electoral College" (he was appointed VP after Agnew resigned (and was the first to be appointed this way), and then assumed Presidency when Nixon resigned).

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 121
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 1/3/2015 11:15:58 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

Yeah, I got fucked up with the election year ('76) versus when the actual new term starts (Jan '77). I guess it was: "IF he had served less than two years ..."

For example: I remember (I think it was hearing) Johnson saying that he wouldn't seek a second term as President (He took over the last 14 months [?] of Kennedy's first term and was elected in '64). He could have run in '68 and I seem to remember his announcement to not run was a bit of a big deal.

A first class stamp is 43¢ so, I'll send to a check for 7¢. Are we square?



Michael


_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 122
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 1/3/2015 11:21:55 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
It was a huge deal, but it had nothing to do with term limits. He was fed up over being beaten up repeatedly over Vietnam. <--not the greatest sentence, but I'm sure you can take my meaning

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 1/3/2015 11:22:32 AM >

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 123
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 1/3/2015 1:11:18 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


Yeah, I got fucked up with the election year ('76) versus when the actual new term starts (Jan '77). I guess it was: "IF he had served less than two years ..."

For example: I remember (I think it was hearing) Johnson saying that he wouldn't seek a second term as President (He took over the last 14 months [?] of Kennedy's first term and was elected in '64). He could have run in '68 and I seem to remember his announcement to not run was a bit of a big deal.

A first class stamp is 43¢ so, I'll send to a check for 7¢. Are we square?



Michael


Right again.
The joke at the time
If nominated I will not run
If elected I will not serve

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 124
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 1/3/2015 2:29:25 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Yeah, I got fucked up with the election year ('76) versus when the actual new term starts (Jan '77). I guess it was: "IF he had served less than two years ..."
For example: I remember (I think it was hearing) Johnson saying that he wouldn't seek a second term as President (He took over the last 14 months [?] of Kennedy's first term and was elected in '64). He could have run in '68 and I seem to remember his announcement to not run was a bit of a big deal.
A first class stamp is 43¢ so, I'll send to a check for 7¢. Are we square?
Michael


The envelope is likely to cost you some, so we'll just call it square as is.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 125
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 1/5/2015 1:33:29 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I have been told that we should chip away "objectionable" parts of the Constitution.
What parts should we chip away at?
It seems to me that stop and search chips away at the fourth.
Pretending that it is freedom from religion not freedom of religion hits the first.
Hate speech law hit the first.



the whole damn thing since no debtor-corporation-contract was authorized by the people in the first place and henry knew it. Yesterday like today no one listens when there is money to be skimmed.

states and estates has the same meaning btw

quote:



Patrick Henry, June 4, 1788

Henry's statesmanship did not end with the Revolution and the achievement of independence. While recognizing the need to augment the financial resources of the confederation congress, he was critical of the extensive of powers given to the central government by the Constitution of 1787. Patrick Henry's speech on June 4, 1788, was Henry's opening speech to the Virginia Convention that was debating whether to ratify the proposed new Constitution of the United States. This Convention met in Richmond from June 2 to June 27, 1788. By a vote of 79 to 88 on June 26 the Convention ratified the Constitution and recommended twenty amendments and a bill of rights based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, the public mind, as well as my own, is extremely uneasy at the proposed change of government.

snip

I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them--a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives. But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor [George Washington], I would have a reason for his conduct: that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason; and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen here, who can give us this information.
The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference of opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country, which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation. The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration.



_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 126
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.063