Ah but see that ain't the point.

The only place it comes into play is IF you have BOTH:

1. A false entry there

AND

2. The false entry IS AN ILLEGAL INVADER (non-citizen/permanent resident.)

Unless BOTH #1 and #2 are true then it doesn't matter; said person is still qualified. That's very rare. Not impossible to be sure, but quite rare.

It's an 0.1% or even 1% problem at worst, and further, actually solving it is not possible without destroying the intent, so no, you don't do that. It is going down that road that causes you to LOSE.

----------

While were at it how about an amendment that only US citizens can vote. And that states must check voter id in presidential elections. And absentee ballots can only be voted at county courthouses in the presence of officials of the two parties who collected the most votes in the prior presidential election. Any exceptions to this must be approved by officials of both parties.

----------

I think its time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that our founding fathers intended for us. Ronald Reagan 1964

Maybe I have lost and maybe I have not. If a significant percentage of certificates have a false entry and there are 30 million illegals in the country then there must be plenty of bastards out there who will someday seek high office. Again how do you PROOVE every candidate for high office is not the son or daughter of an illegal? So the bar for proof has to be at a reasonable height.
But as you rightly point out it is the intent that matters. I mean if you didnt know you were adopted and sought high office who here would say you are an unfit or unpatriotic candidate because your biological father might be a Canuck or whatever?
Plus what happens to those in high office who later find out they are eligible in theory to obtain foreign nationality? Happened here in Australia where a bunch of politicians fell foul of a High Court ruling and were expelled from parliament.

Corner cases make for bad law.

Perhaps weeding out people with sketchy credentials is a larger win than loss. Yes, in all of life, things are not always 100% clean. Avoiding hard cases is an infrequent injustice, but often the greater benefit.

The consequences of an invalid candidate is catastrophic enough to justify the infrequent injustice.


Obama
Harris

----------

Diversity + proximity = WAR

-They wanted camps; I want ropes.

I'd suggest some other additions.

No new Law takes effect until SCOTUS review to determine if it is Constitutional.


Let's get rid of the insanely expensive cost of having any statute declared Unconstitutional via enactment followed by a long, drawn out, and costly route through every level of the Federal Courts. Have it reviewed BEFORE it takes effect.

The added bonus is that this will limit the number of new laws put into effect. Passing more laws won't speed up the review process. If anything it will slow it down or drag it out further into the future.


Another thought would be an Amendment to enable the Citizens and/or States to charge and convict Federal government folk of Unconstitutional nonsense outside the court system. Those convictions would not only lose the guilty party their position in the Federal government, but would also come with financial penalties and jail time.

I'm sure those could be polished up, but that's the gist of it.

----------

"War is when the Government tells you who the bad guy is. Revolution is when you decide that for yourself." - Benjamin Franklin

@Eleua - Except in that case the EXISTING law was clear and ignored.

You can pass all the Amendments you want but until people will take heads for violating them it makes no difference; they're just words on paper.

Let me know when bowling gains new currency in this regard.

----------

I like it overall.

The situation is a representative democracy. It is actually a 2 layer representative democracy, especially with what you propose - the reps elect reps.

I'm of the opinion that 3 layers are required for meaningful accountability with the sheer number of people we have these days.

----------

The Government Inequality: Total Wealth before Government Intervention > Total Wealth after Government Intervention
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Diversity is our strength.

@Lamarth - The founders envisioned a US House with about 20-30,000 people per representative. The 435 "fixing" of course destroyed that, and the 17th destroyed the second leg of that stool, which was to give the States effective veto power (and the capacity to decide how and with what limits to use it individually) over the Senators from each state.

A larger-scale US House was unreasonable 100 years ago simply on logistics. Today it isn't.

Note that the UK, which has ~68 million people in it, has a House of Commons numbering 650. That's awfully close to one in 100,000, isn't it? So for those who say "you can't" oh yes you can, and proof of it is that Britain does.

----------

Here's some background on the Permanent Apportionment Act that fixed The House at 435 members, https://history.house.gov/Historical-Hig.....

Consequently the individual power/influence of House members has grown over time and they have no incentive to want to dilute that.

Lines up with the attitude of the directly elected Senators quite well.

Yep @Capcomp, and that's a STATUTE. This fixes that problem.

We would have likely seen multiple active parties by now given more-granular representation; for example, in the "Boys Town" part of Chicago said representative would ALMOST CERTAINLY be gay, male, and likely part of a third party which would have similar representation in other large cities such as NY.

----------

I do not believe modifying Amendments is the correct way. It sets a precedent for modifying amendments in the future, a future with it's own deep state.

Abolishing amendments and introduction of new ones, though more difficult perhaps, would be more sustainable.

Even Sulla intended to return the Republic to it's original statues, but he set a precedent for upending that return by using brute force. Altering amendments does the same, with pen and not a sword.

Probably one of your best articles and proposals.

One modest and serious suggestion that it include prohibiting dual citizenship for all. Countries are cultures and require loyalty and commitment.

Even though there are things which we have done, do and must do in the future as a world, it should be based in individual, autonomous cultures meeting and agreeing as sovereign groups with the approval of their own people. People need to feel and ought to feel secure in their culture and traditions to be willing to fairly and openly deal with other countries and their cultures.

I has been said that for a child to learn how to share, he must know what it is to possess. By extension adults who feel no rooted sense, fear and hate the influences of other cultures who do not respect boundaries. This whole one world crowd rightfully rubs people the wrong way for this reason.

Make people decide where they want to commit their loyalties and progeny, and they will respect others' lands and sense of same.

Too many Americans and other whites of the world have this mentality that it is just a matter of where one pays rent, thus a tenant mentality. Rather, there should be a sense that one is a guest at sufferance in another culture and trepidation to tread there. Perhaps Americans would not be so hated abroad (and let's not forget that other foreign travelers from white Anglo lands are equally despised for good reason on numerous occasions, Australians anyone?) if they have the mentality that they are visiting the equivalent of someone else's home.

The world is not your oyster goes a long way towards better relations and understandings as to why one's way of life has its benefits and appropriateness. It would stop this mentality that we should be one great big socialist world where we can all live like traveling Euro-trash and demand to have it as "good" as other countries.

We need a lot less world travel and a lot more home commitment. In our unique culture it actually gets more granular in that one's state, down to county and town are to feel unique and autonomous and not feel required to accept the influences of the outsider for the sake of it.

What do you think?

----------

Mission Complete

The truth is just too powerful to know. Those who hold the truth suffer more than those who believe the lie. -The Hall of Tears

That used to be basically "The Way It Was" @Whitehat; my uncle, as I've previously related, held dual nationality (US and British) but he had to be EXTREMELY careful because it was VERY possible to lose one of them accidentally. This basically "went away" in the last 30 years or so, but it was absolutely a factor all the way well into the 1970s.

----------

Yep, i understand that in the past it was possible for a mistake to lose it.

My issue is that it should have been clearly prohibited back then and of course, now.

I remember in the 80s it was all the rage for my cohort with more money were all talking about getting this or that passport and how it would be an out in case of a draft and then of course travel and when one world Euro came to be they and later the Millennials (whose parents often got their little darlings the dual passport) would have the world as their oyster ... and see where we are today.

There is a difference as in committing a federal criminal act, says something.

It is funny to note that most second and third world countries actually clearly prohibit their citizens from doing this.

Guess that it also goes in the same bin as these countries have much harder immigration policies and prohibitions regarding illegal residency.

Ah fuck it; it's over for us anyway.

----------

Mission Complete

The truth is just too powerful to know. Those who hold the truth suffer more than those who believe the lie. -The Hall of Tears

@Whitehat, many third world countries do permit dual nationality (my wife has Egyptian and Australian, a sister in law Lebanese and Australian).
Also it is quite common now for children to be born in one country from parents from different countries so should they have to give up their heritage?
Yes I understand the concerns many have about dual loyalty, disloyalty, the enemy within, military service etc. But are we not libertarians? Do we believe that our body and hearts belong to the individual or do we believe that we belong to the State?
Is there a right answer to that?

It doesn't include "and we really mean it."

Simple addition:

No person may assume office as a Representative, Senator, or President past their 70th birthday.

This produces an automatic retirement age of 72 for Representatives, 74 for Presidents, and 76 for Senators. The founders were wise enough to put a lower limit of age on these offices (25, 30, and 35 respectively), but didn't foresee the issue we have with obviously senile politicians, and I don't just mean #FJB. We've seen that in Congress and the Senate as well at times.

----------

@TG and Jackamok. TG is right, it doesnt matter if you include the words about really meaning it. Shouldnt that be a given with every amendment, law and ruling? But nobody enforces it.
Obummer was ineligible, but some black robe ignored the constitution and swore him in. Why wasnt that black robe disbarred, arrested and tried for treason? Why did the electoral college voters not deny any votes for Obummer? Etc, etc.
So make a 28th amendment, put whatever is necessary in it and they will still ignore enforcing it as it is written.
At best the only chance you have is at the grass roots level. Get in sherriffs, DAs and governors who respect your rights and ignore federal meddling (and willing to pass on federal money). Not a great chance of success but better than the road to destruction your now on.

@Neal - You cannot expect a "black robe" to do shit if the people will not stand behind it.

When you get down to it the old saying "all power comes from the barrel of a gun -- or the blade of a machete" -- is accurate. Unless the people charged with enforcing the law believe their head will be used as a bowling ball if they don't nothing will change.

----------

One for every 100,000? Thats likely a good idea. Getting rid of the emergency bullshit is maybe the most important thing that could be put in. The Democrats have used emergency to pull all kinds of nonsense.

Executive Orders are done under war or emergency. There had never been an executive order prior to the Civil war. FDR was Secretary of War during World War I and he brought the moral equivalent to war into peace. It just might be time we start reading these orders to find the authority used to violate US law and often the constitution. Where does the President get the authorization?

Biden is declaring emergency on everything then doing nothing or screwing it up worse. Climate scam could open the door to dictatorship. These people are dangerous.

----------

The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.---John Kenneth Galbraith

@Uwe wrote..

No person may assume office as a Representative, Senator, or President past their 70th birthday.

Maybe even lower. We have got to get rid of these decrepit assholes who cling to power via their staffs. Piglosi, FeinStain, Maxine, Mitch the Bitch, Chucky, etc.

@Capcomp: I would raise the age on the bottom before I would cap it on the top. If we had a press instead of media. Biden wouldn't be in there, because it was known he often didn't know where he was. I think a lot more people pushing 80 have their wits and sense than under 40 have good sense or experience. The worst thing that ever happened in the US was the Bar and the thousands of professional politician lawyers bred by it. THe truth is a member of the Bar aka an officer of the Court shouldn't be allowed in the other 2 branches. At a minimum, they should be required to surrender their Bar card for 10 years in order to run.

Speaking of 28h Amendments, you might have heard Michael Moore, the totalitarian whore, proposed one. I guess as long as you can butcher hogs with a chainsaw, that might work.

I echo Karl. Until Americans realize these criminals are going to strip us of everything, including our freedom, nothing is going to stop them. Guns are pretty safe in the hands of non criminals, sans negligence. In the hands of criminals, including State criminals, they are dangerous. I suspect we are stuck with people they will brand as lone nuts. That might work, if there are a whole bunch of lone nuts. The rest of the population will either surrender or join them. Lets see what happens when people get hungry.

As far as Obama? They brought out a fake birth certificate in 2001 and the swamp changed the narrative by supposedly killing Bin Laden, a convenient figure. Perkins Coi is a group of criminal lawyers who never defend criminals, just aid and abet them. One more thing Karl's 28th would do is put a bunch of these extortionists out of business. The key is to reduce what they and their assistants can steal.

----------

The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.---John Kenneth Galbraith

Id upvote TG a hundred times if it was possible for the truth that the black robes etc dont fear the public for them not enforcing the constitution.
Unfortunately with all the BLM, Antifa, tear down statue crowd doing the doxxing and picketing of black robes I fear that if the black robes do act out of fear they will not make rulings in favour of the constitution but in favour of the purple haired mob.
Capcomp and others: no to specified age limits, do you think justice Clarence is too old to make wise decisions? What about Sowell? is he too old to make a rational argument if he wasnt just a great historian but had chosen public office?
Also there may (or may not) be advances in geriatric healthcare that might make living past 120 possible with both a sound mind and healthy body. If that happens you will end up with the majority of voters being over 65 and they will hardly want someone their grandkids age telling what to do.
As for expanding the representatives to fewer constituents per representative the problem will be you will need a massive building to house 4 thousand or whatever number would be elected. Unwieldy, most will never get to make a maiden speech or get on committees or be able to do anything but vote according to their block. Better would be fewer representatives with less to do as the federal government would be tiny and concerned with little but defence and foreign affairs. Then at the state level have a member for every 20,000 or whatever and they do healthcare, education and all the things that currently DC does. Yeah, I know, it wont happen as DC will never give up power.

Quote:

t doesnt matter if you include the words about really meaning it.

And my point is we don't need a whole bunch of rules if we have a system that puts decent people in power, and no amount of rules will do a damn bit of good if we don't.

Frankly the biggest problem we have right now is that the decent people try to follow the rules and the shitheads don't. We'd be better off with no rules at the moment.

@Karl "Note that the UK, which has ~68 million people in it"

Pff, maybe the 'official' figures say that. The reality is it's more likely closer to 80M at this point, thanks to all the illegal scum.

----------

So long, and thanks for all the fish.