Proposed Amendment to the United States Constitution: "The Duh Provision"

[HopeHoops]

"All candidates seeking office for the United States Senate, United States House of Representatives, the United States Presidency, and the United States Vice Presidency shall be required to pass with at least an 80% score a lengthy test on the United States Constitution, including all Amendments having been ratified or in the process of ratification at the time at which the test is taken. This test must be developed and administered by an independent non-government body subject to inspection, review, and inquiry by any sitting member of Congress AND must be completed and passed prior to filing for the offices listed herein."

I left out the judicial branch because, at least so far, it has been safe to assume the appointees at least understand the Constitution, even if they don't rule as if they did.

Just to rub salt in the wounds, the test really should be a "number two pencil" fill-in-the-oval standardized test thing given in a room with noisy florescent lights, too little heat, and at 8:00 in the morning with an administrator who has major coffee breath.

[NC_Nurse]

1. I think they should be drug-tested just like the rest of us. I have to pee in a cup

every time.

And fingerprinted, don't forget that. Why should they be exempt from the police state they've created?

[HopeHoops]

2. They need to get the full TSA treatment too!!!

[T Wolf]

6. They need to be DRUGGED (with truth serum) whenever they do anything connected to

their office.

Make a speech.

Appear in the media.

Actually "work" on the floor of Congress.

Meet with constituents.

Aw hell - just keep them "truthed up" all the time. It would lead to a more honest government and we would at least know why they were really doing to us what they do to us. And it could not possibly lead to worse results than we now get.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. They should all go through waterboarding as is done when training...

members of the U.S. military.

(and)

if elected they and their families must live on the national minimum wage.

[kctim]

4. Just a basic test of what the Constitution actually says?

Or a test on how it has been "interpreted" and perverted in order to satisfy personal opinions and agendas?

[HopeHoops]

7. Hell, I'd be happy with one JUST on what it says. Most don't seem to have a fucking clue.

It is a lot of fun to hear them dance around why the 2nd Amendment means everyone should have semi-automatic handguns and high-powered sniper rifles but, "yeah, well, I guess rocket launchers aren't really included". But the same people will gladly submit to "search and seizure" without probably cause at the airport because it's protecting them against "terrists". How can these people swear to uphold the Constitution when they don't have a fucking clue what it says?

[kctim]

15. You say you would be happy with just on what it says

but then give examples of fear being used to interpret it from what it actually says?
I take that to mean you would be happy with either or and I do not believe that would work out. It would have to be over what it actually says in order to get the 2/3.

[Canuckistanian]

5. You'd trust them with a pencil?

Better make the first test an oral exam from behind a Plexiglas screen.

[HopeHoops]

8. Not in an airport. They might use it to scribble in the in-flight magazine.

[pinboy3niner]

9. LOL!

:toast:

[pinboy3niner]

10. I know you're being facetious here...

...(or at least, I hope you are), but I do like the TSA test idea. :thumbsup:

[HopeHoops]

11. I'm totally serious about the Amendment. A dumbfuck like Palin or the shrub...

...should never even come CLOSE to being elected. A test on the US Constitution would at least be a general screening that would weed out such idiots.

[pinboy3niner]

12. The problem with your test is, who designs it? Boehner? McConnel?

Or (God forbid) someone like Bachmann?

Your proposed amendment quickly gets into partisan territory. Should the prevailing Party of the moment really get to write the test?

[HopeHoops]

13. Read it again. Congress wouldn't design it, just have the power to question it - to AVOID that.

[pinboy3niner]

14. SOMEBODY has to design it

And the law (or amendment) has to provide for that. And if you go down that slippery slope, what IQ or other test will voters have to pass?

[HopeHoops]

16. Whoa, are you off base.

An independent body subject to oversight IS a "somebody". And the voter IQ thing is silly at best. We subject judicial nominees to scrutiny of their knowledge and opinions and yet the very people doing said scrutiny are often blatantly ignorant of the very document they expect the nominees to interpret. It is reasonable to expect that those making the laws of the country be at least reasonably knowledgeable of the Constitution and that is clearly not the case. When someone like the shrub can actually hold the office of president and a twit like Palin can come within range of becoming vice president, we've got a major problem. And here I thought Quayle was bad.

We already have different standards for those holding office and those who may cast votes. There's no "slope", slippery or otherwise.