SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Charles Hughes who wrote (9634)10/15/1998 4:02:00 PM
From: Bill  Read Replies (2) of 67261
 
Would you support a national referendum process like that in the states?

We already have one. (See below.)

Would you support constitutional amendments that say, 75% of the people supported, provided that the process was drawn out enough to overcome the passions of the moment?

I prefer the process we have now. State by state. Passions of the moment fizzle with the current process.

Would you support an amendment to the constitution that made it a felony for any politician during and election campaign or while sitting in office to blatantly lie about affairs of state, with a court trial? With say, an automatic 2 year jail term. And the offense counting toward their three strikes?

No. Politicians' words can be mingled and/or misunderstood. But in a court of law, one has no choice but to tell the truth. Should a politician break a promise, people have a right to vote him/her out of office.

How about getting rid of the toothless ethics committees and putting review of congressional bribery cases into the regular court system?

All bribery cases should be remanded to the courts. In fact, I would be in favor of eliminating every exemption congressmen have to the laws that we all must obey. In particular, congress is exempted from many tax laws.

I would pay all congressmen and senators $1 per year and return meaning to the words "public service".

I would have all candidates fund their own campaigns (i.e., no public money) with a spending ceiling. I would require a fixed amount ($500 maybe) for every campaign contribution, no more no less. No soft money. No union dues confiscated to buy elections. No foriegn.

Although, the problem we have today is that the Dems don't obey the current laws. This needs to be enforced.

Enough for now...
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News