Posted on 06/07/2010 8:50:21 AM PDT by OneWingedShark
I didn’t see the part that says that congress has to live by the laws that they pass.
>It was a mistake to lower majority from 21.
I don’t think so; 18 year olds are perfectly capable, and IMO culpable for their actions.
I think what was/is a mistake is keeping so many age-groupings:
16 for driving,
17 for enlistment,
18 for tobacco,
21 for alcohol,
etc.
Legally-speaking if something is to be divided/differentiated based on age it should very likely be on majority/minority; the restrictions on ages of political positions s for EXACTLY the reason [immaturity] that it seems you are citing.
>I didnt see the part that says that congress has to live by the laws that they pass.
Interstate Rape covers that! ;)
LOL - Actually, I don’t see how Interstate Fraud wouldn’t be applicable in that case; remember that Section 2 is cutting out their ability to put loopholes into the income taxes in return for [any] payoff, and if it is a particularly egregious “do what I say and not what I do” chances are that they’ll be violating the Conspiracy Against Rights.
>You should be able to tell by the copyright date if something has expired.
That’s a good idea.
Fifteen would probably be a better number than fourteen though... unless you can give me a reason you chose fourteen, that is.
You would like an 18-year-old POTUS?
(Not that some would not be better than what we have now,
but what you would probably get is an 18-year-old Obama.)
Oh, also, and an 18-year-old may be capable of feeding and clothing him or herself and procreating, but making rational decisions about government before they have a few years of real life under their belt is another matter.
Simple is better.
This is way, way too complicated. I stopped reading when you started regulating local laws with constitutional amendments.
How about we just vote out the A-holes that are ruining our country.
You’re looking at the smaller part of the problem. Try www.webofdebt.com for the larger part.
I chose 14, because that was the original term, though they also gave you the ability to renew it once, for a total of 28 years. I think the renewability is a bad idea, because it generates uncertainty and fees for lawyers. One fixed term of definite length is better IMO. (This is one of the few things I'd second-guess the founders on.) :-)
hmmm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.