 |
05-21-2009, 10:59 AM
|
#1 | ||
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North Carolina
|
Bill of Federalism/States Rights
We have been bemoaning here and elsewhere the nadir of the intellectual right. So, maybe because I miss it, I present 10 amendments proposed by Randy Barnett, a Georgetown law professor. He is serious about this--he knows that they won't all be passed, and he does not even think that you would get to the point of a Constitutional Convention. But, if a few states managed to get to the point of calling for a convention, it might actually make Congress pay some attention. In any event, it is better than states passing non-binding resolutions talking about how much they don't like the President.
I will post the amendments here, with his commentary in italics, and my thoughts in bold. The Volokh Conspiracy - Bill of Federalism 2.0: Article [of Amendment 1] -- [Restrictions on Tax Powers of Congress] Section 1. Congress shall make no law laying or collecting taxes upon incomes, gifts, or estates, or upon aggregate consumption or expenditures; but Congress shall have power to levy a uniform tax on the sale of goods or services. Section 2. Any imposition of or increase in a tax, duty, impost or excise shall require the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately be presented to the president of the United States. Section 3. This article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the 16th Article of amendment is repealed. Proposal 1: The income tax has vastly increased the power and the intrusiveness of the federal government, far beyond what the framers of the 16th Amendment ever imagined. The first proposed amendment restores the original taxing power of Congress by denying it the power to enact income estate or gift taxes, or to circumvent this restriction by levying an annual tax on net consumption or expenditures. Lest the prohibition on an aggregate consumption tax raises any doubt, the provision makes clear that Congress retains the power to impose a sales tax that is uniform. Sometimes called a "fair tax," a national sales tax would be paid by all persons residing in the U.S., whether legally or illegally, without the need for intrusive reporting of their activities. As people buy and consume more, they would pay more in taxes, but all their savings and investments would appreciate free of tax. And no longer will everyone have to file annual returns that expose their private actions to the government and give rise to liability for any errors. Detailed information on how a national sales tax can be implemented is available here. This proposal also increases the voting requirement for tax increases to three-fifths of each house, and requires that all tax increases be presented to the president for his signature. This preserves the effectiveness of the veto power lest a tax increase be buried in an "omnibus" bill that the president will feel compelled to sign. Finally, to give Congress ample time to fashion an alternative revenue system--and do away with the IRS--the implementation of this amendment is delayed for five years. Of course, Congress may end the income or estate tax sooner if it so chooses. My Take: In general, I think that a national sales tax has a strong possibility of being regressive. So I would not vote for this. I certainly would not want to constitutionalize a question about which we are still so divided. Basically, this is a change that, if it occurs, should come as legislation and not as an amendment. __________________________________________________________ Article [of Amendment 2] -- [Limits of Commerce Power] The power of Congress to make all laws which are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have power to regulate harmful emissions between one state and another, and to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States. Proposal 2: The original Constitution reserved powers to the states by specifically delegating powers to Congress. Consequently, as Congress has exercised powers beyond those delegated to it by the Constitution, the reserved powers of states have been usurped. The second proposed amendment restores the Commerce Clause to its original meaning, thereby leaving wholly intrastate activities to be prohibited or regulated by the several states, or be left completely free of any regulations as states may choose. And it negates three constructions adopted by the Supreme Court to expand the reach of Congress under the Necessary and Proper Clause--sometimes called the "Sweeping Clause"--of Article I: that Congress has power to regulate wholly interstate activity that either (a) "affects" interstate activity, (b) uses instrumentalities obtained from outside the state, or (c) is part of a comprehensive national regulatory scheme. This amendment makes clear that Congress retains the power to regulate interstate pollution and the power to define and punish acts of war and insurrection against the U.S., for example, the possession of weapons of mass destruction. This provision leaves untouched the delegated powers of Congress to regulate wholly intrastate activities to enforce civil rights as expressly authorized by, for example, the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments; it only restricts the improper construction of the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses to reach wholly intrastate activity. My Take: I'd support this. The Commerce Clause has been used to justify all manner of federal intervention into local affairs. In the mid/late-90s, the Rhenquist Court managed to get five votes for putting some limits on it, but those cases may end up being marginalized. If you are serious about limiting federal power, you need to do something about the Commerce Clause. ____________________________________________________________ Article [of Amendment 3] -- [Unfunded Mandates and Conditions on Spending] Congress shall not impose upon a State, or political subdivision thereof, any obligation or duty to make expenditures unless such expenditures shall be fully reimbursed by the United States; nor shall Congress place any condition on the expenditure or receipt of appropriated funds requiring a State, or political subdivision thereof, to enact a law or regulation restricting the liberties of its citizens. Proposal 3: The third proposed amendment addresses two sources of persistent federal intrusion into the powers of states. The first is federal laws mandating state action necessitating the expenditure of state funds without reimbursing the states for their expenditures. In this manner, the federal government can take credit for adopting measures without incurring the political cost of increasing taxes or borrowing. The second problem is the use of federal spending to restrict liberty for purposes not delegated to the U.S. For example, the 55 mph speed limit was imposed by the states by conditioning the receipt of federal highway funds upon compliance with this mandate. This amendment makes this type of condition on funding unconstitutional. My Take: I hate unfunded mandates, so I'd be all over this. I do, however, take issue with the second part of the amendment. If the fed gives states money to, say, clean up pollution, then I don't know if I have a problem with them saying that the states have to implement measures to keep people from polluting in the future if they take the money. Basically, I think that the link between the restrictions and the money should be a lot tighter than the Constitution allows it to be now--but I don't know if forbidding all restrictions isn't throwing the baby out with the bathwater. ___________________________________________________________________ Article [of Amendment 4] -- [No Abuse of the Treaty Power] No treaty or other international agreement may enlarge the legislative power of Congress granted by this Constitution, nor govern except by legislation any activity that is confined within the United States. Proposal 4: The framers of the Constitution were profoundly wary of entangling the U.S. in international legal commitments, so they required two-thirds of the Senate to ratify all treaties, and they assumed that treaties would only reach matters of truly international concern. These principles have been subverted by misinterpretations of the Constitution. First, the treaty power has been interpreted to reach every imaginable subject, including many subjects of purely local concern. Second, the treaty power has been interpreted as a mechanism to increase the legislative power of Congress, thus creating a doubly perverse incentive: an incentive to enter into new international legal obligations simply to attain increased domestic legislative power. This amendment would correct these errors and restore the original meaning of the Treaty Clause and the Supremacy Clause. My Take: I don't really know about the Treaty Power and how it has been abused. I would note that this would effectively limit the power of the United States to enter into treaties. I wish that he would have given some examples here. Basically, I'd need to know more before I came down one way or the other. ___________________________________________________________________ Article [of Amendment 5] -- [Freedom of Political Speech and Press] The freedom of speech and press includes any contribution to political campaigns or to candidates for public office; and shall be construed to extend equally to any medium of communication however scarce. Proposal 5: The fifth proposed amendment makes it clear that the freedom of speech and press now protected by the First Amendment extends equally to all media, including for example radio and television, as well as to financial contributions to political candidates and campaigns. My Take: What does this have to do with federalism? I am all for expanding the First Amendment. But I know nothing about campaign finance reform. So I'd probably sit this one out, too, until I learned more. If he took the campaign finance reform part out of it, I'd sign right up. ______________________________________________________________ Article [of Amendment 6] -- [Power of States to Check Federal Power] Upon the identically worded resolutions of the legislatures of three quarters of the states, any law or regulation of the United States, identified with specificity, is thereby rescinded. Proposal 6: At present, the only way for states to contest a federal law or regulation is to seek an amendment to the Constitution by applying for a constitutional convention to propose amendments that must then be ratified by three-quarters of the states. This proposed amendment provides an additional check on federal power by empowering the same number of states to rescind any law or regulation when they concur it is necessary. Such a power provides a targeted method to reverse particular Congressional acts and administrative regulations without the risk of permanently amending the text of the Constitution. My Take: Great idea. I love it. _______________________________________________________ Article [of Amendment 7] -- [Term Limits for Congress] No person who has served as a Senator for more than nine years, or as a Representative for more than eleven years, shall be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate or the House of Representatives respectively, excluding any time served prior to the enactment of this Article. Proposal 7: When the tradition of two presidential terms established by George Washington was broken by Franklin Roosevelt, the Congress and states responded with the 22nd Amendment limiting every president to two terms. The seventh proposed amendment establishes congressional term limits by allowing two full terms for Senators and six full terms for Representatives. This restores what the founders referred to as "rotation in office," which has been undermined by various forms of incumbent protection that are difficult to identify specifically and correct. More information on the merits of term limits can be found here. To reduce any disruption, it phases in these limits by exempting the time already served by incumbents from the calculation of the limits on their terms. My Take: I am a term limits agnostic. ______________________________________________________________ Article [of Amendment 8] -- [Balanced Budget Line Item Veto] Section 1. The budget of the United States shall be deemed unbalanced whenever the total amount of the public debt of the United States at the close of any fiscal year is greater than the total amount of such debt at the close of the preceding fiscal year. Section 2. Whenever the budget of the United States is unbalanced, the President may, during the next annual session of Congress, separately approve, reduce or disapprove any monetary amounts in any legislation that appropriates or authorizes the appropriation of any money drawn from the Treasury, other than money for the operation of the Congress and judiciary of the United States. Section 3. Any legislation that the President approves with changes pursuant to the second section of this Article shall become law as modified. The President shall return with objections those portions of the legislation containing reduced or disapproved monetary amounts to the House where such legislation originated, which may then, in the manner prescribed in the seventh section of the first Article of this Constitution, separately reconsider each reduced or disapproved monetary amount. Section 4. The Congress shall have power to implement this Article by appropriate legislation; and this Article shall take effect on the first day of the next annual session of Congress following its ratification. Proposal 8: The practice by Congress of aggregating thousands of lines of expenditures into "omnibus" appropriation bills has greatly diminished the veto power that the Constitution reposes in the president. Because of their reluctance to threaten a government shut down, Presidents are loath to veto such bills. Knowing this, Senators and Representatives can load spending bills with pork, knowing that Congress will never have to give an up or down floor vote to a particular line item and that the threat of a presidential veto is empty. While there is great demand for constitutional requirement of a balanced budget, mechanisms for this that have been devised to date are highly complex, typically contain numerous exceptions and loopholes, and lack effective means of enforcement. By linking the goal of a balanced budget with a temporary presidential line-item veto, the eighth proposed amendment provides a real incentive for Congress to devise a balance budget; if Congress fails to do so, the president would then have a temporary line item veto power over any appropriation in the budget. For example, should Congress enact a budget with a deficit, the president could veto Congressional earmarks and be held accountable for failing to do so. The amendment also ensures that Congress will retain the same power to override any presidential line item veto as it currently has for a traditional veto. The operation and advantages of this measure over other balance budget amendments is explained in detail. My Take: The President is too powerful as it is. Giving the President even a limited line-item-veto basically makes him/her able to write laws. A bad idea. And sometimes deficits are necessary. ______________________________________________________________ Article [of Amendment 9] -- [The Rights Retained by the People] Section 1. All persons are equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights which they retain when forming any government, amongst which are the enjoying, defending and preserving of their life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting real and personal property, making binding contracts of their choosing, and pursuing their happiness and safety. Section 2. The due process of law shall be construed to provide the opportunity to introduce evidence or otherwise show that a law, regulation or order is an infringement of such rights of any citizen or legal resident of the United States, and the party defending the challenged law, regulation, or order shall have the burden of establishing the basis in law and fact of its conformity with this Constitution. Proposal 9: The existing Ninth Amendment says that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Section 1 of this proposal elaborates on the original meaning of "rights ... retained by the people" with language that is adopted from the wording of amendments proposal to the first Congress by state ratification conventions and by James Madison, and from the very similar wording found in several state Constitutions at the time of the founding. For example, the constitution of Pennsylvania read: "That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending of life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." Likewise, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 protected the right of any citizen "to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property. ..." Section 2 corrects the current approach of the Supreme Court that precludes citizens and legal residents from contesting the necessity and propriety of restrictions on their retained rights unless the Court deems the right in question to be "fundamental" and provides all liberties with the same type of protection now accorded the rights of freedom of speech, press, and assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms. My Take: Even with his discussion, I still don't know what he means here. _________________________________________________________ Article [of Amendment 10] -- [Neither Foreign Law nor American Judges May Alter the Meaning of Constitution] The words and phrases of this Constitution shall be interpreted according to their meaning at the time of their enactment, which meaning shall remain the same until changed pursuant to Article V; nor shall such meaning be altered by reference to the law of nations or the laws of other nations. Proposal 10: The 10th proposed amendment ensures that the text of the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land by preventing judges from ignoring or changing the linguistic meaning of the text of the Constitution by "interpretation." It requires that judges obey the text of the Constitution until it is properly changed by a constitutional amendment. And it confirms that foreign law is relevant to constitutional interpretation only to the extent that it casts light on the original public meaning of the constitutional text. A constitution that is ignored or systematically misinterpreted is a dead constitution. Only if the Constitution is actually followed can it accurately be considered as a "living constitution." My Take: This has nothing to do with federalism. It's really just a bit of right wing intellectual masterbation that makes the other nine proposals seem weaker by its inclusion on the list. I could go on for a while, but here's the gist of my copious objections: (1) this is basically saying that if Randy Barnett agrees with a decision, then it is what the Constitution says, but if he does not, then the Constitution was "ignored" or "changed." (2) The way to interpret ambiguious and dense text is not to go to the even more ambiguious and dense thoughts of the people who drafted it. (3) And the assumption that the dozen or so people who you choose to declare as "framers" could have one unified thought on the subject is just stupid. All you do is pick and choose the quotes from the framers that, hey, happen to agree with Randy Barnett (4) And, God gave me soverignity over myself, which I have submitted in part to the Constitution (by remaining here). That's the Constitution as I read it. Just because I have not been dead 200 years does not mean that I can have no idea what "Cruel and Unusual" means. We have to rely on the text, not the framers. (5) Oh, and OF COURSE we interpret ambiguious language. We take tools to it, and we do the best we can to decode it. The ipse dixit assumption of the right wing that they got it right because they said so first is just silly. |
||
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 11:12 AM
|
#2 |
|
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
|
I mostly agree with you and wish I had more time to respond.
On his 9th proposed amendment, which I fully support and agree with, the language could be cleaned up. But the gist of it is that the burden of proof would be on the government to show where the Constitution grants them the power to enact the law instead of the plaintiff to show where the Constitution specifically protects their claimed right. Which is what the 9th Amendment is supposed to do now but the courts don't seem to understand that.
__________________
The one thing all your failed relationships have in common is you. The Barking Carnival (Longhorn-centered sports blog) College Football Adjusted Stats and Ratings |
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 11:29 AM
|
#3 |
|
Coordinator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: San Diego via Sausalito via San Jose via San Diego
|
I don't know, sounds more like, "OMG teh fedz suckzzz!!!".
__________________
I'm no longer a Chargers fan, they are dead to me Coming this summer to a movie theater near you: The Adventures of Jedikooter: Part 4 |
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 11:36 AM
|
#4 |
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
i think with
Article [of Amendment 5] -- [Freedom of Political Speech and Press] The freedom of speech and press includes any contribution to political campaigns or to candidates for public office; and shall be construed to extend equally to any medium of communication however scarce. Proposal 5: The fifth proposed amendment makes it clear that the freedom of speech and press now protected by the First Amendment extends equally to all media, including for example radio and television, as well as to financial contributions to political candidates and campaigns. My Take: What does this have to do with federalism? I am all for expanding the First Amendment. But I know nothing about campaign finance reform. So I'd probably sit this one out, too, until I learned more. If he took the campaign finance reform part out of it, I'd sign right up. ______________________________________________________________ he's talking about removing limitations or disclosures on how much people can contribute to politics?
__________________
If I've ever helped you and you'd like to buy me a coffee, or just to say thanks, I have my Bitcoin and Ethereum addressed listed below :) BTC: bc1qykhsfyn9vw4ntqfgr0svj4n9tjdgufryh2pxn5 ETH: 0x2AcdC5cd88EA537063553F5b240073bE067BaCa9 |
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 12:21 PM
|
#5 |
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Most of this is just fancy worded right-wing boiler plate. He manages to abolish the income tax, eliminate most federal regulations, overturn campaign finance laws, enact a national "nullification" system, and make Scalia the arbiter of constitutional meaning. There may be rational arguments for some of these ideas, but wrapping them as a new Bill of Rights doesn't make them new ideas.
And requiring a 3/5 majority for tax increases sounded a lot better to me before the California mess. A simple majority for spending and a 3/5 majority for taxation is a recipe for disaster.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 01:07 PM
|
#6 | |
|
College Prospect
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Boston, MA
|
Quote:
OT, but California's problems are from the near doubling of the size of their Government in the last decade, not from lack of income. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 01:23 PM
|
#7 | |
|
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Not too far away
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 01:31 PM
|
#8 | |
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
Quote:
 WTG!!!
__________________
If I've ever helped you and you'd like to buy me a coffee, or just to say thanks, I have my Bitcoin and Ethereum addressed listed below :) BTC: bc1qykhsfyn9vw4ntqfgr0svj4n9tjdgufryh2pxn5 ETH: 0x2AcdC5cd88EA537063553F5b240073bE067BaCa9 |
|
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 01:37 PM
|
#9 | |
|
College Prospect
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Boston, MA
|
Quote:
I'm fully aware of how a deficit is created. Thanks. CA's state budget has grown from $100B to $130B in the last 10 years. Their deficit is around $20B. The population is up two million people max. If their budget was at $110B like it should be, there wouldn't be any deficit. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 01:38 PM
|
#10 | |
|
College Prospect
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Boston, MA
|
Quote:
 ????? |
|
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 01:52 PM
|
#11 |
|
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
If you want to reassert states rights,
the easy solution would be to go back to state legislatures choosing senators.
__________________
“The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” United States Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis |
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 01:56 PM
|
#12 | |||||||||||
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
Quote:
I'm a little fuzzy, but I don't recall whether the states can call a Constitutional Convention without 2/3 of both Houses of Congress first voting in favor of an Amendment. I don't know how this one would ever get off the ground without the Republicans, or another fiscally conservative party, enjoying the sort of numerical domination over Capitol Hill that the Democrats have right now. Also, better make spending require the same supermajority. Otherwise, you get California on a national scale - one party enjoys enough control to pursue a particular fiscal agenda, but not enough control to pay for it. __________________________________________________________ Quote:
Sounds like what he wants here is a strict meaning of regulation of interstate commerce - prevent the states from, say, taxing every truck that crosses state borders, or from throwing up tariffs on goods from another state. The actual commerce, rather than its ramifications. I think the Supreme Court has sometimes gone a bit too far with its interpretation of the Commerce Clause, but I think this might be a bit of an overreaction. I don't know why, but my Second Amendment sense is tingling as I read the proposed text here. ____________________________________________________________ Quote:
I, uh, would take issue a little bit with the last clause there. How fast and loose are we playing with "liberties of its citizens"? Are we talking about specific, Constitutionally mandated liberties such as speech, the right to bear arms, and so forth, or more general liberties, like "anything the Constitution doesn't specifically forbid"? That sounds like it could become a mess, but the lawyers would love it. Another generation of "what the fuck does this mean?" in front of the courts. That's the other thing - it doesn't sound like this amendment forbids the Feds from attaching requirements, only that those requirements can't "restrict the liberties etc." And this is where I'm uncertain what they're getting at; they can provide environmental monies, but can't attach stricter regulations on chemical dumping to the receipt of that money, because it infringes on the freedom of business to dispose of harmful chemicals however they see fit? Or am I reading this too cynically? How is 'citizen' defined for the purposes of this amendment? ___________________________________________________________________ Quote:
That whooshing sound was this one going right over my head. Moving on. ___________________________________________________________________ Quote:
Give bloggers the same Constitutional protections as the traditional media is what this sounds like to me, outside of the obvious 'get rid of McCain-Feingold.' Interesting. ______________________________________________________________ Quote:
I dunno about this one. On the surface, it seems like a good idea - if enough states think something is a Really Bad Idea, maybe it ought to be revisited - but something about this doesn't sit right with me. Maybe it's the fact that the GOP tends to win ~30 states or so in any given national election, and this would require 37 or 38 states to sign on to nullify a law. Almost feels like "hey, here's an out for anything we don't like." I'm probably, again, being too cynical in my reading, but there you are. The other thing is, doesn't that infringe on the President's Constitutional veto power, as well as Congress' Constitutional power to override the veto? I'm not sure this isn't going too far back toward the Articles of Confederation. _______________________________________________________ Quote:
Great idea...if you can get rid of lobbyists, too. Law of unintended consequences there - if you put a limit on the experience your elected officials can have, you're going to increase the sway of the various lobbies, and you don't get to pick and choose which lobbies would gain influence there. Particularly if your particular political philosophy's power is on the wane in D.C. Yay, business has a bigger hand in writing legislation, but, oh look, the unions and environmental lobbies gained influence, too! Or vice versa. You decide. ______________________________________________________________ Quote:
I think this would actually be a pretty good idea, but take it beyond fiscal issues. One of the things that has long stuck in my craw is the idea that a rider of any kind can be attached to virtually any bill regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with the bill. Sometimes it's used as a poison pill, sometimes it's used to sneak stuff past the Congress that wouldn't ordinarily stand a chance on its own. My ideal implementation of the line-item would look something like, the President has the power to veto specific parts of a bill, but the bill doesn't immediately become law thereafter. No cherry-picking. Rather, once the President has exercised the line item veto, it goes back to both Houses for a straight, up-or-down vote. No procedural tactics, no new amendments or riders, nothing. In fact, mandate that in the Amendment just to be safe. Congress must, when presented with such a bill, immediately vote to accept or reject the changes made. If rejected, the bill fails, and you get to go back to square one. If accepted, then the bill, as amended, becomes law. I think that would be a great way to get rid of some of the hidden crap that finds its way into bills 900 pages long. But that's the balance you have to find - don't give the President the power to alter legislation on his own. Make it so that Congressional approval is still necessary. If Congress isn't willing to accede to the changes, they haven't lost the power to write legislation. They just need to find another approach. ______________________________________________________________ Quote:
This one is funny, in that while this is largely, as you later pointed out, an exercise in conservative mental masturbation, this particular amendment might be one that ends up opening the door for same-sex marriage on a national scale. Or maybe that's what his Tenth Amendment is supposed to prevent. _________________________________________________________ Quote:
Yeah, this one sounds like "It means what we say it means, and those pesky activist judges can't interpret it any other way." Kind of trying to require strict-constructionism by recursively embedding it in the Constitution. Quote:
And there's JPhillips basically saying the same things, but more concisely than I could. *tips hat* |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 02:02 PM
|
#13 | |
|
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Not too far away
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 02:06 PM
|
#14 | |
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
Quote:
The budget initiative system in CA flat sucks, because it allows state legislators to try to enact pet projects without facing any kind of political music ("I didn't vote for it! The people did!"), it requires a simple majority to get basically any kind of spending passed on that level (and is the same, I believe, at the State House level), and the initiative system has been responsible for sticking all kinds of spending requirements into the state Constitution. But where do you get the revenue to pay for it all? You need something like a 2/3 majority to raise income taxes at all, and Prop 13 caps property taxes, and trying to get that changed in CA is like touching the third rail. That state budget situation is a Gordian knot right now, and it got there mostly because of the initiative system plus the nonsensical "supermajority to raise revenue, but simple majority to raise spending" system. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 02:09 PM
|
#15 | |
|
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cary, NC
|
Quote:
Insert "NC" for "CA" and drop the budget numbers by 1/5 and you get what's happened here as well.
__________________
-- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities |
|
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 02:11 PM
|
#16 | |
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North Carolina
|
Quote:
I like this. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 02:12 PM
|
#17 | |
|
College Prospect
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Boston, MA
|
Quote:
I find it exceptionally hard to believe that taxes in total have decreased in any state over the last 10 years. CA also has the highest state income tax in the country. If that's not sufficient for whatever government they have, I don't know what is. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 02:14 PM
|
#18 | |
|
College Prospect
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Boston, MA
|
Quote:
Hopefully it will end with the scaling back of much of the government BS. Unfortunately, they'll probably cut the useful stuff and leave in the waste while coming up with some way to increase taxes to boot  EDIT: Here's an easy place to start cutting: http://projects.latimes.com/big-pensions/los-angeles/ Last edited by Fighter of Foo : 05-21-2009 at 02:17 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 02:17 PM
|
#19 | |
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
Quote:
What's interesting is, there's a proposition 'pending,' probably will show up on the next ballot, that basically says "you motherfuckers have until ____ to get a budget done. If the legislature doesn't pass a budget by Deadline A, every one of them gets thrown out on his or her ear and cannot seek election to statewide office for at least (I think) two years. If the Governor doesn't sign a budget by Deadline B, the same penalty applies." I think it's poorly worded, and sets the stage for shenanigans when the legislative apparatus and the governor's mansion are controlled by different parties (pass an unrealistic budget that the governor will never sign just to get him kicked out of office and hopefully replaced with one of 'our guys'), but I expect it to pass fairly handily when it comes before the people all the same. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 02:21 PM
|
#20 | |
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
Quote:
Problem with that is, the City of LA is paying those out. It's not the State. It's a feel-good solution that does nothing for California. Problem the second is, the Constitution says states can't pass ex post facto laws. If the size of the pension is mandated by state law, and if the pension were altered after the party has left the office he or she held, I have to think there would be a court challenge on those grounds by the affected parties. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 02:27 PM
|
#21 | |
|
Mascot
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
Quote:
It might be if there weren't a bunch of loopholes in the tax code that allow people to pay taxes on much, much less than they actually earned. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 02:34 PM
|
#22 | ||||||
|
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
|
Quote:
Yes, they can. It has also been upheld that Congress is required to call the convention upon the States' doing so. Quote:
What is the point of your second paragraph here? There are lots of rights that the people have that have been infringed upon via the overreaching interpretations of the commerce clause. Are you prepared to defend all of those rights except a certain Amendment that is not to your liking? Am I misreading your statement? Quote:
It's a proposed Constitutional Amendment. As such, it's not possible for it to infringe on a Constitutionally delegated power because it amends the Constitution and therefore that power. Quote:
Characterizing this one as an exercise in conservative mental masturbation is one of the more ignorant things I've read related to Constitutional law. This proposed amendment is actually a "do-nothing" amendment because it merely clarifies what the original document already says. The Federal government has no power except those granted it by the Constitution. That is not conservative mental masturbation, that's a fact. Furthermore, I am unsure what your same-sex marriage comment even means. Yes, it would reaffirm each State's right to determine the definition of marriage within their jurisdiction. I happen to think DOMA is dumb, but it is not preventing gay people from being married anywhere in the United States. It does affect their tax standing with the IRS, though. Which I think is ridiculous. If the State in which a married couple resides says they're married then I believe the IRS is obligated to consider them married (as well as all other federal agencies). I believe that DOMA is another in a long line of overreaches on the part of the Federal government. Quote:
Which is wrong, philosophically, why? (Meaning that if you want the Constitution interpreted strictly, what's philosophically wrong with including that instruction in the document itself?) Quote:
Except I'm not sure what his issue is with these not being new ideas. Who cares if they're new ideas? They are proposed Amendments, which don't have to be new ideas. I don't agree with all of them, but I fail to see the merit in that criticism.
__________________
The one thing all your failed relationships have in common is you. The Barking Carnival (Longhorn-centered sports blog) College Football Adjusted Stats and Ratings Last edited by Huckleberry : 05-21-2009 at 02:36 PM. |
||||||
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 02:34 PM
|
#23 | |
|
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SF
|
Quote:
However, I could see if there was a presdident of one party and a congress of another this being a mess. The president could line out that which goes against his policies knowing it would be voted down. there would be no need to veto, and congress would get the blame. nothing would get done (which might be a good thing) Last edited by AENeuman : 05-21-2009 at 02:34 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 02:34 PM
|
#24 | |
|
College Prospect
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Boston, MA
|
Quote:
It's just an example. I have no doubt that a) the state has similar liabilities and b) that's they're excessive and need to be cut for there to be any semblance of a balanced budget going forward. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 02:47 PM
|
#25 | |
|
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
They have the highest state sales taxes also. Idaho manages to balance their budget every year (per constituional requirement). It usually leads to some chaos (sudden tax increases and spending cuts), but they always get it done. Last edited by molson : 05-21-2009 at 02:47 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 02:49 PM
|
#26 | |||||||
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
Quote:
Thank you. Quote:
I think you might be, a little bit. I support the Second Amendment, and I think it's a critical part of the preservation of liberty, but I think what I'm reading into that particular amendment is maybe a little bit of backdoor defense. It just...I dunno, it feels like it was written with the Second Amendment in mind. I'm always a little leery of things like that, because they can have unpredictable consequences. Quote:
Well, yes, I take your meaning, but what I'm saying there is that, where's the equivalent check on the power of the states? You're giving the states new power, essentially, over two of the three branches of the Federal Government, but I don't see anything going the other way. Quote:
Would it help if I mentioned that I'm generally fairly conservative, politically, and I still see it that way? This ain't name calling, at least not from me. Quote:
Just that the clause about 'right to enter into contracts' would be an opening for proponents of same-sex marriage. It's right there in the Constitution, see? What is marriage if not an eternal contract between two people? The States can't infringe on the Constitution, so if you have that clause in there, states would have an awful tough time with the definition of marriage if the "Scalia Amendment" later on didn't also get passed. That's all. Not saying the guy is a social conservative, as I don't know him, but I could see some people getting behind that one and then, after the dust clears, saying "Well, shit." Quote:
Dunno that it's wrong philosophically, but again, law of unintended consequences. What you think you're getting and what you actually ARE getting aren't always the same thing. Quote:
Yeah, I didn't mean his criticism of them as 'new ideas' or not. Just in terms of the summation. |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 03:02 PM
|
#27 |
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North Carolina
|
One of the problems with government cuts is that it is the programs with the least powerful recipients rather than the programs with the most waste that acutally get cut.
Which isn't to say that cuts are not necessary--just that they don't work nearly as well as they could. And, let me get this straight: The people of California, through the initiative process, have basically said (1) you can't cut spending, and (2) you can't raise taxes. And now they are thinking of adding (3) you get fired if you can't balance the budget. Is that true? If so, my holy goodness is that a fucked up situation. Last edited by albionmoonlight : 05-21-2009 at 03:03 PM. |
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 03:12 PM
|
#28 | |
|
Coordinator
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
The initiative process is one of those things that, while good-intentioned in theory, tends to be the equivalent of political kudzu in practice.
__________________
We have always been at war with Eastasia. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 03:18 PM
|
#29 | |
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
Quote:
Sort of. It isn't that they've said you can't cut spending in general. It's more specific. Things like educational funding levels are mandated in the state Constitution. You CAN raise taxes, but you need a supermajority to do it, so you need either some pragmatic conservatives willing to hold their noses to keep the state from going bankrupt while they try to fix the other stuff, or...you get what you're seeing right now. I think 3) was intended to prevent a repeat of the last few years where the budget fight has gone on past the deadline and the governor has had to say "we're going to close the DMV, the state parks, send people on furlough, etc if we don't get a budget here." The problem is, it leaves the door open for political games, and I'm not sure how you fix that. It's one of those great symbolic things, but it gives the Legislature incentive to pass a budget that will never be signed, just to hit that deadline and stay in office, and puts the burden squarely on the shoulders of the Governor. Sign the unrealistic budget, or say "grow the fuck up" and get expelled from office because of it? |
|
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 03:32 PM
|
#30 | |||||
|
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
|
Quote:
Which I'm willing to accept in a practical matter when I agree with what will be the obvious unintended (by the author) consequences. Such as the absolutely ridiculous marijuana raids perpetrated in California by the Federal government. Raids that resulted in the arrests of people for marijuana that was planted in California, cultivated in California, harvested in California, prepared in California, sold in California, and used in California all legally under California law. Arrests that the Federal government argues are legal due to the commerce clause. That's 100% crap. Quote:
Why should there be a check on the States? That's not an inherent concept in the Constitution. The Constitution, as a document, grants powers to the Federal government and then specifically limits some of them. Checks on the States, which have been historically necessary, have taken place in Amendment form, such as the 14th. Article V outlines a mechanism to amend the Constitution in which the Federal government's only role is to call a Constitutional Convention, which it is obligated to. Therefore there is already a mechanism by which the States can change Federal law for which there is no reciprocal check on the States. Just like a basic principle of our system is that the government works for the people and not vice versa, the Federal government works for the States and the people, not vice versa. Quote:
Actually, yes. Quote:
Well, my current support for same-sex marriage is already based on its being a contract. Any law that says someone can't marry someone else because of their sex is essentially codifying sexual discrimination into contract law. That's illegal discrimination. If my State tells me that I can enter into a contract (marriage in this case) with Jane but not with Jack only because Jack is male then that is sexual discrimination and is therefore unconstitutional. Quote:
Like I said above, good. I have no problem seeing the nation benefit from some of her citizens' stupidity and lack of forethought. Usually it doesn't work out quite that well, but I'm not going to complain.
__________________
The one thing all your failed relationships have in common is you. The Barking Carnival (Longhorn-centered sports blog) College Football Adjusted Stats and Ratings |
|||||
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 03:57 PM
|
#31 |
|
High School Varsity
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Budapest
|
i could see a line-item veto in any shape or form leading to complete gridlock. I agree with those who say the president is too powerful already. I think watchdogging is the only real way to approach pork and corruption.
__________________
What the hell is Mike Brown diagramming for them during timeouts? Is he like the guy from "Memento" or something? Guys, I just thought of something … what if we ran a high screen for LeBron? |
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 04:17 PM
|
#32 |
|
College Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Bay Area
|
To add to the CA discussion
California has high income and sales taxes relative to the rest of the country; however, other taxes/fees are about average (or even lower). In aggregate, CA has a high tax burden, but other states (NY, Mass) have a significantly higher burden. With respect to tax revenue, CA problem is that revenue from income and sales tax are very volatile. Thus when the economy is in recession, sales and income taxes drop much more than other taxes (property in particular). California needs to make many fixes as others have already outline, but in addition, they need to broaden their tax base so that is more stable/predictable for any level of taxatation (repeal Prop 13?). |
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 05:07 PM
|
#33 |
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
To clarify, the new ideas remark was in response to the description of "intellectual right".
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 05:15 PM
|
#34 |
|
General Manager
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
You guys forget to mention that California only gets back $0.75 of every $1 they pay in to the federal government in taxes. If it wasn't for other states leeching of them, they would have no problem balancing their budget and offering everything they have now plus much more.
|
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 05:23 PM
|
#35 | |
|
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
The progressive income tax definitely does cause a lot of leeching. But I thought that's what it's intended to do. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 05:27 PM
|
#36 |
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Some of this (original post) is ridiculous.
#2 for one. That means that something that is grown and sold within one state, even if it is part of a massive multinational (think Walmart selling me GA peaches) wouldn't have to comply with federal regulations making sure the food is safe. Also being an economist (well at least having a degree in it) realize that even intrastate transactions have large effects on the national market. #1 is silly and would never happen. I hate sales taxes. #4 means no treaties ever (otherwise what's the point other than stop a war?) #6 is dumb. Why not just elect reps that'll vote something down? #8 is contrary to my belief that we should be enlarging the power of Congress at the expense of the President... not the other way around. #10 would guarantee Constitutional Conventions every 30 years. There is a reason we've had the same Constitution for 200+ years. It's flexibility was seen as a strength.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams Last edited by ISiddiqui : 05-21-2009 at 05:29 PM. |
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 06:41 PM
|
#37 | ||||
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
Quote:
No argument. I just wonder about an amendment where the obvious benefits are the ones below the surface. What's the ulterior motive? Quote:
Then what's the need for this new amendment? If states can already change the constitution by way of a 3/4 majority, how is allowing them to reverse federal law with that same majority any better or worse than leaving well enough alone? Especially if the Federal Government is obligated to call the Convention if requested. Quote:
Right. What I'm saying is that, again, I kind of feel like the expansion of civil rights is something that ought to happen because it's right, not because one group or another either outthought themselves or got hoodwinked. Think of it like kids playing a game. A kid who plays a straight game and loses, he'll grumble, but he'll deal with it. A kid who thinks he got cheated will never let it go, and that's a tougher mess to clean up. Same thing here. If they got their way with this amendment and then had the L.O.I.C. invoked in such a way that they felt betrayed, it ends up being a much, much bigger issue for them, even though they've lost, and the heels dig in on other, lesser issues. Not that I have an issue with that amendment. Only that this entire exercise is basically a conservative "wish-list" that would potentially have some nasty lumps of coal under the tree, and for some reason, I find that funny. Quote:
Sure. But then you have the aftermath to deal with, and that probably wouldn't work out quite as well as the "citizens' stupidity and lack of forethought." People who think they got cheated, even if they cheated themselves, can be some very angry and dangerous people to deal with. |
||||
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 07:01 PM
|
#38 | ||
|
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
|
Quote:
That's what the Georgia government is for in that situation. If you knew how shitty the FDA was at its job you wouldn't be quite so opposed to localizing this kind of control. Quote:
And what would be wrong with Constitutional Conventions every 30 years? I think that is a potentially great thing.
__________________
The one thing all your failed relationships have in common is you. The Barking Carnival (Longhorn-centered sports blog) College Football Adjusted Stats and Ratings Last edited by Huckleberry : 05-21-2009 at 07:02 PM. |
||
|
|
|
|
05-22-2009, 08:56 AM
|
#39 | ||
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
I have far less faith in state governments on this sort of thing. Far less faith. Quote:
You say that now... theoretically. Just imagine ONE Constitutional Convention today. It'd be a sprawling tangled fucked up mess.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
||
|
|
|
|
05-22-2009, 08:58 AM
|
#40 | |
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
It is also one of those things that shows that a fear of true democracy that most of the late 1700s crowd had was very good foresight.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
|
|
|
|
05-22-2009, 09:04 AM
|
#41 | |||
|
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
And on the flipside, if the President's party controls Congress (i.e., like now), it would give tremendous leeway for that party to just let any crap amendments from the other party sail through, knowing the President would just strip them from the bill, thereby making a lot of the "usual" parliamentary games completely irrelevant. Actually, now that I say it, it doesn't sound like such a bad idea. Quote:
The whole thing about deregulating interstate commerce seems like a non-starter for me. Allowing states to have differing rules on this sort of thing seems like it would hurt the national economy a good bit. Quote:
Oh god no. The FDA may have its issues, but making each state responsible for food and drug safety would create a regulatory nightmare. |
|||
|
|
|
|
05-22-2009, 09:11 AM
|
#42 | |
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Exactly. This is the sort of thing that Washington, Adams, and Hamilton figured out early on. Hell, its the sort of thing that led to the creation of the Constitution to begin with as the Articles of Confederation were threatening to destroy the union.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
|
|
|
|
05-22-2009, 03:46 PM
|
#43 | ||
|
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
|
Quote:
FDA Hasn't Intensified Inspections At Peanut Facilities, Despite Illness - washingtonpost.com It's amazing to me that people actually think the federal government is good at its many jobs. More importantly, do you think you have a better chance of affecting the federal government's behavior or your state government's behavior. The answer is always that the people have more control over a more local government. That is exactly why local control should always be the preferred option whenever possible. Quote:
If by fucked up mess you mean it would be chaotic, then okay. So what?
__________________
The one thing all your failed relationships have in common is you. The Barking Carnival (Longhorn-centered sports blog) College Football Adjusted Stats and Ratings |
||
|
|
|
|
05-22-2009, 04:02 PM
|
#44 | ||
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
I'll reiterate: I have FAR less faith in state governments. Look at California's state government for one. I'm sure people can tell you horror stories of how incompetant their own states are (Georgia is a basketcase that makes the feds look competant). City governments can be even worse, especially because of the relative lack of spotlight on the underhanded dealings that go on. And frankly, like I said above, sometimes being too close to the people is not the best of things. That's why the writers of the Constitution wanted to temper the democratic impulse. Quote:
If by chaotic, you mean it'd be an utterly ridiculous mess? Imagine, creating a governing document that 3/4ths of the states would have to ratify... I'd imagine there may end up being like 3 or 4 different countries and 20 years by the time its over. And I wouldn't bet on there being any lack of bloodshed.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
||
|
|
|
|
05-22-2009, 04:13 PM
|
#45 |
|
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
State governments aren't particularly important anymore, which I suspect is part of why they suck (to the extent that they suck - I think Idaho is run pretty well). The very best and the brightest aren't involved in state government, like they might be if that's a job that could make a difference.
There's that old "states as laboratories" ideal: "To stay experimentation in things social and economic is a grave responsibility. Denial of the right to experiment may be fraught with serious consequences to the Nation. It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." -Justice Brandeis. 1932 There's one theory that that the reason Europe prospered from the Middle Ages on while Asia and the Middle East fell behind was simply the social, political, and economic "laboratories" available in Europe, with its small nations and city-states. The East, to the contrary, had large empires with one rule of law over large amounts of people (like the federal government). Bad systems in Europe failed quickly, bad systems in the East ruined prosperity for generations. Last edited by molson : 05-22-2009 at 05:48 PM. |
|
|
|
|
05-22-2009, 04:14 PM
|
#46 | |
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
Quote:
I think you guys are using the same words but meaning different things. A Constitutional Convention in the context of the document we already have is generally one called to deal with amending the document. A Constitutional Convention in the context you seem to be thinking of is more along the lines of the original - throw out what came before (then, the Articles of Confederation) and come up with a new, more useful document to govern the nation. The former has happened before without bloodshed. The latter...yeah, if we were to try to start completely over from scratch in the current environment, I doubt if the resulting country would look much at all like the one we'd have started out with. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-22-2009, 06:18 PM
|
#47 | |
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
I believe the later is what we are talking about. If the document was that rigid that it wasn't open to future interpretation, there would be a mass call for scrapping it and starting anew to deal with something that the original writers didn't (or couldn't) think of.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
|
|
|
|
05-22-2009, 06:19 PM
|
#48 | |
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
And in certain areas they should be. But NOT in safety of American food and things like that. Somethings it is better for the states not to be laboratories and it makes far more economic sense (due to economies of scale) for the federal government to do it.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
|
|
|
|
05-22-2009, 10:14 PM
|
#49 | |
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
Quote:
You can't both be talking about an amending convention, not with talk of riots and bloodshed. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-22-2009, 11:08 PM
|
#50 |
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Yeah we can, because that's what an amending convention would turn into with such a rigid document
 .Either that, or he's got no clue how unworkable a rigid Constitution would be.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
|
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
