AMA Oregon Progressive/ NoVA Green

[NOVA Green]

Favorite performance by Alec Guinness?

Will need to go with Alec Guinness in Kind Hearts and Coronets....

Main reason being as a stage actor, he had a massive break in the Ealing Film Studio flics in the UK, and although he performed extremely well in supporting roles in Hollywood Blockbusters, he never really had a chance to properly showcase his talents and acting abilities....

Although he was awesome as the Jedi Hero in the first Star Wars, it was a much less influential performance compared to his earlier film works....

[NOVA Green]

Favorite OR Governor in the past 40 years

Past (40) Years....

1.) Neil Goldschmidt was a bit crap....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Goldschmidt

Sure as Mayor of Portland he did a few good things. but essentially as Gov he not only was he sell-out to the MNCs that have owned Oregon from the Timber Industry, to High-Tech, and Nike, but also expanded mass incarceration in Oregon, became on the take with big money $$$, even without the whole deal about him potentially having been involved in romantic relationship with a Teenager.

Still he was cool when it came to LGBT Rights and all that....

2.) Barbara Roberts--- 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Roberts

Likely not only misunderstood, but also a victim as GOV when it came to a citizen voted property tax bill, which essentially primarily benefited the owners of the Downtown PDX Office Towers, as well as large Timber Owners in Downstate Oregon, while masquerading as property tax relief at the height of the Reagan/Bush Timber Recession and the "Timber Wars" of the early '90s....

She did play a major role in the ground-works to create the Oregon Health Plan (Closest think to "socialized medical treatment" of any state in the Union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Health_Plan

3.) John Kitzhaber

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kitzhaber

John seemed clean as whistle, and helped promote positive legislation in a wide variety of areas, until got term limited and came back for another round, where it appeared he was on the take....

Disappointing fall from a Man who actually wasn't corrupt at all, until it came decades later involving his Wife and some financial irregularities...

4.) Ted Kulongoski

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kulongoski

5.) Kate Brown

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Brown

Currently, at this point I will vote for Ted, although granted Kate's legacy has just started and is not yet finished by a long mile....

[MarkD]

I have drafted a proposal for a constitutional amendment and would like your reaction: Would you support or oppose this? Below is a summary of the proposal, not the full draft.

My proposal has a Preamble and four sections. The Preamble begins with a two-paragraph-long quotation from Justice James Iredell in the 1798 case of Calder v. Bull, then the Preamble concludes:
"The purpose of this article of the US Constitution is to give three previous amendments greater clarity and precision. The United States government and the respective states should have clear and precise guidelines about their legislative powers. This article will clarify two amendments that are binding on the United States, and it replaces a part of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is binding on the states."
Section 1: The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment shall henceforth be understood to only mean procedural due process, not substantive due process. In other words, government must not punish anyone without affording that person fair procedures, but the courts are not to second-guess the merits of the laws being enforced. But the federal government does have to treat everyone equally, the same way the states have to according to Section 3(b) of my proposal.
Section 2: The Ninth Amendment is only binding on the federal government, not on the states.
Section 3: The second sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and that sentence will be replaced with a new set of rules designed to be narrower and clearer.
3(a) The states have to obey enumerated rights in the first eight amendments, but the only un-enumerated right that states have to obey is the right to interstate travel. The Supreme Court has twice said "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, ..." but my proposal tells the Court, and the rest of the country, that statement was completely incorrect. The federal judiciary has neither an obligation nor a prerogative to define liberty. The judiciary's obligation is to expound on the rights that are in the Constitution, not to expand them. The federal judiciary is instructed to stop declaring that states have to obey "fundamental rights" and "basic civil rights" that are not in the Constitution (again, with the one exception being the right to interstate travel). Therefore the Court's decisions about abortion, using contraceptives, sodomy, and any other libertarian ideas not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, no matter how controversial or uncontroversial, will all be overturned.
3(b) The states are not allowed to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, or disability status (and because of Section 1 above, the same will go for the federal government). Other than those five kinds of discrimination, all other kinds of discrimination are allowed. The rulings made by federal courts in 2013-2015 about same-sex marriage will be preserved. There will be no such thing as a "fundamental right to marry," but bans on interracial marriage and same-sex marriage will still be unconstitutional.
3(c) The states still have to respect voting rights as established in nearly all precedents the Supreme Court has laid down on that subject so far. In order to avoid gerrymandering of congressional or state legislative districts, redistricting must be done by independent redistricting commissions.
Section 4: Bush v. Gore was the worst decision the Supreme Court has ever rendered, and nothing like it must ever occur again.

Here is a way I have thought of explaining the potential political appeal of my proposal; I have shared this before on Forum Community and asked whether others would consider supporting it.

I carefully designed my proposal to be a compromise between liberal and conservative points of view. Some specific elements will be appealing to conservatives but very much unappealing to liberals, while other elements will be appealing to liberals but very much unappealing to conservatives. 
Appealing to conservatives but repulsive to liberals.
 – Keep the McDonald v. Chicago precedent
 – Overturn Roe v. Wade
 – Overturn Plyler v. Doe
 – Allow states to discriminate based on a person’s status as a non-citizen   

Appealing to liberals but repulsive to conservatives.
 – Disallow states to discriminate based on sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation
 – Keep the Obergefell v. Hodges precedent (the decision, but not the Court's opinion)
 – Keep the Saenz v. Roe precedent
 – Condemn the Bush v. Gore decision and insist that it never be repeated   

Agreeable to both conservatives and liberals.
 – Continue imposing the Bill of Rights on the states
 – Continue protecting the equal right of all citizens to vote
 – Continue prohibiting state discrimination based on race and national origin
 – Start prohibiting state discrimination based on disability status
 – Require redistricting to be done by independent commissions

So, are you interested?

[NOVA Green]

I have drafted a proposal for a constitutional amendment and would like your reaction: Would you support or oppose this? Below is a summary of the proposal, not the full draft.

My proposal has a Preamble and four sections. The Preamble begins with a two-paragraph-long quotation from Justice James Iredell in the 1798 case of Calder v. Bull, then the Preamble concludes:
"The purpose of this article of the US Constitution is to give three previous amendments greater clarity and precision. The United States government and the respective states should have clear and precise guidelines about their legislative powers. This article will clarify two amendments that are binding on the United States, and it replaces a part of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is binding on the states."
Section 1: The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment shall henceforth be understood to only mean procedural due process, not substantive due process. In other words, government must not punish anyone without affording that person fair procedures, but the courts are not to second-guess the merits of the laws being enforced. But the federal government does have to treat everyone equally, the same way the states have to according to Section 3(b) of my proposal.
Section 2: The Ninth Amendment is only binding on the federal government, not on the states.
Section 3: The second sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and that sentence will be replaced with a new set of rules designed to be narrower and clearer.
3(a) The states have to obey enumerated rights in the first eight amendments, but the only un-enumerated right that states have to obey is the right to interstate travel. The Supreme Court has twice said "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, ..." but my proposal tells the Court, and the rest of the country, that statement was completely incorrect. The federal judiciary has neither an obligation nor a prerogative to define liberty. The judiciary's obligation is to expound on the rights that are in the Constitution, not to expand them. The federal judiciary is instructed to stop declaring that states have to obey "fundamental rights" and "basic civil rights" that are not in the Constitution (again, with the one exception being the right to interstate travel). Therefore the Court's decisions about abortion, using contraceptives, sodomy, and any other libertarian ideas not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, no matter how controversial or uncontroversial, will all be overturned.
3(b) The states are not allowed to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, or disability status (and because of Section 1 above, the same will go for the federal government). Other than those five kinds of discrimination, all other kinds of discrimination are allowed. The rulings made by federal courts in 2013-2015 about same-sex marriage will be preserved. There will be no such thing as a "fundamental right to marry," but bans on interracial marriage and same-sex marriage will still be unconstitutional.
3(c) The states still have to respect voting rights as established in nearly all precedents the Supreme Court has laid down on that subject so far. In order to avoid gerrymandering of congressional or state legislative districts, redistricting must be done by independent redistricting commissions.
Section 4: Bush v. Gore was the worst decision the Supreme Court has ever rendered, and nothing like it must ever occur again.

Here is a way I have thought of explaining the potential political appeal of my proposal; I have shared this before on Forum Community and asked whether others would consider supporting it.

I carefully designed my proposal to be a compromise between liberal and conservative points of view. Some specific elements will be appealing to conservatives but very much unappealing to liberals, while other elements will be appealing to liberals but very much unappealing to conservatives. 
Appealing to conservatives but repulsive to liberals.
 – Keep the McDonald v. Chicago precedent
 – Overturn Roe v. Wade
 – Overturn Plyler v. Doe
 – Allow states to discriminate based on a person’s status as a non-citizen   

Appealing to liberals but repulsive to conservatives.
 – Disallow states to discriminate based on sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation
 – Keep the Obergefell v. Hodges precedent (the decision, but not the Court's opinion)
 – Keep the Saenz v. Roe precedent
 – Condemn the Bush v. Gore decision and insist that it never be repeated   

Agreeable to both conservatives and liberals.
 – Continue imposing the Bill of Rights on the states
 – Continue protecting the equal right of all citizens to vote
 – Continue prohibiting state discrimination based on race and national origin
 – Start prohibiting state discrimination based on disability status
 – Require redistricting to be done by independent commissions

So, are you interested?

No--- I am not interested.

I am but a simple humble Factory Worker from Working-Class and Lower Middle-Class roots, who was able to get a College Degree, plus some work towards a Masters Degree some Years back...

Although I appreciate your legalistic attempts to modify various amendments of the US Constitution, this is something best directed towards your political representatives in the US Legislative Branch...

Personally, my belief is that if we can't get things done through legislative methods, then sometimes we need to take to streets...

I remember some (30) Years ago at a "Libertarian Picnic" when I was in my Teens discussing all sorts of political related issues, but even then it didn't sound like your proposed legal revision to various Constitutional Amendments....

Picnic was cool, food was fine at the BBQ, the herb provided a mellow vibe all around, kids are playing on the playground, artists are playing tunes on classical guitars without any electronic mics nor amps....

Always loved the "Outlaw" culture of Oregon in Downstate from the Biker Gangs, the Weed Farmers, to the mass marches in the streets against Neo-Nazis in places from Albany to Cottage Grove in the late '80s / early '90s, but still give me a good reason to massively modify various Amendments to the US-CON, and I might support you on certain items....

Still, regardless of the merits of your proposal, you're gonna have to sell it, and right now it sounds more like a bunch of legalistic mumbo-jumbo than a legit concept I can shop to my friends, family, and workers in the Plant....

[MarkD]

Well, my plan is to "sell" my proposal via a book that I call "Rewrite the 14th Amendment," which I have finished writing, but it still needs editing and needs to get published. Unfortunately, it is still just a lot of "legalistic mumbo-jumbo," made up mostly of quoting from the Supreme Court itself.

[NOVA Green]

Well, my plan is to "sell" my proposal via a book that I call "Rewrite the 14th Amendment," which I have finished writing, but it still needs editing and needs to get published. Unfortunately, it is still just a lot of "legalistic mumbo-jumbo," made up mostly of quoting from the Supreme Court itself.

Honestly need to review in further detail, and apologies if my response appeared flippant or dismissive...

Definitely not my intent, but considering you posted three pages out of the book, please forgive me for not providing a more detailed response yet...

Bit of a fight fire with fire, considering many of my posts are critiqued for being way too long and not concisely summarizing the data before a further detail for those that want to read further...

[morgankingsley]

Do you want to have 10 days off for thanksgiving

[NOVA Green]

Do you want to have 10 days off for thanksgiving

Hell yeah!     

Actually, I do get a total of (16) days off in a row for the December Holiday season, since they shut down the factory every year....

Granted, I need to use PTO to cover the non Holiday days off, but am used to saving enough so I'm never short a check since unemployment for the furlough isn't worth it with a waiting week and then 60% on the 2nd week, just in order to have more paid days off when the weather is nicer....

[NOVA Green]

Bump....

Since we are all suffering from the COVID-19 blues, time to take a break from looking at random precinct results in California...

I'll follow some of the others to create a more light-hearted approach to occasionally take a break from all of this craziness currently going on throughout the World, as well as within the USA.

[Continential]

If you could pass a bill what would it be?

[NOVA Green]

If you could pass a bill what would it be?

Hmm... that's an interesting question.

Instead of answering immediately, naturally I need to clarify the question further:

1.) What political jurisdiction are we talking about?

Meaning at a Federal Level at any State in the World?  (United States, Japan, Russia, El Salvador)

Let's say it's just the United States of America (are we talking Federal, State, Municipal)

2.) "Passing a bill" implies simply voting for an existing piece of legislation rather than crafting a piece of legislation.

Personally I would prefer to help write a piece of legislation, rather than simply vote for an existing bill out there....

3.) Naturally if I were President of the United States, I might have some ideas, but would still be dependent on the Legislative Branch, and then simply would have the choice of signing a Bill into Law vs a veto....

4.) It's a really good question, but I need more details before responding....

[Continential]

If you could pass a bill what would it be?

Hmm... that's an interesting question.

Instead of answering immediately, naturally I need to clarify the question further:

1.) What political jurisdiction are we talking about?

Meaning at a Federal Level at any State in the World?  (United States, Japan, Russia, El Salvador)

Let's say it's just the United States of America (are we talking Federal, State, Municipal)

2.) "Passing a bill" implies simply voting for an existing piece of legislation rather than crafting a piece of legislation.

Personally I would prefer to help write a piece of legislation, rather than simply vote for an existing bill out there....

3.) Naturally if I were President of the United States, I might have some ideas, but would still be dependent on the Legislative Branch, and then simply would have the choice of signing a Bill into Law vs a veto....

4.) It's a really good question, but I need more details before responding....

I mean making a bill, and it is in the US.

[NOVA Green]

If you could pass a bill what would it be?

Hmm... that's an interesting question.

Instead of answering immediately, naturally I need to clarify the question further:

1.) What political jurisdiction are we talking about?

Meaning at a Federal Level at any State in the World?  (United States, Japan, Russia, El Salvador)

Let's say it's just the United States of America (are we talking Federal, State, Municipal)

2.) "Passing a bill" implies simply voting for an existing piece of legislation rather than crafting a piece of legislation.

Personally I would prefer to help write a piece of legislation, rather than simply vote for an existing bill out there....

3.) Naturally if I were President of the United States, I might have some ideas, but would still be dependent on the Legislative Branch, and then simply would have the choice of signing a Bill into Law vs a veto....

4.) It's a really good question, but I need more details before responding....

I mean making a bill, and it is in the US.

I would naturally go for the path of least resistance.

1.) Legalize both recreational and medicinal Marijuana at a Federal level.

Naturally such a bill would expunge any prior convictions for non-violent offenders, and additionally make it illegal to discriminate against individuals convicted of MJ related offenses when it comes to hiring and employment, and also allow financial institutions to allow card transactions vs cash transactions in currently an economic agricultural harvesting, ag processing, not to mention retail services which combined account for some 340,000 Workers within the United States of America (Conservative Estimate from the "legal economy".

Not a big pot head, although sure I have smoked back in the dayz and still occasionally consume for recreational purposes.

2.) $15/Hr Min Wage

This would be yet another path of least resistance, and even in heavily Republican States, Min wage increases are extremely popular.

So at a Fed level $15/Hr means quite a bit of difference compared to various States, Counties, and Regions....

One option would be something similar to what Oregon did, which is modifying the MIN Wage increases based upon COLA and local economic conditions, rather than $15/Hr is the law of the land tomorrow throughout the entire USA.

Regardless, $17/Hr in many larger Metro areas with higher costs of housing and Food, seems realistic...

Should be based upon overall COLA numbers, but at the end of the day there are many places within the US (Even those not facing massive increases in RENT) where $15/Hr should be rolled out immediately.

How to stagger Min Wage increases between more expensive parts of States and Regions is where it gets complicated....

Here are a few basic common sense "bills" that I believe should and could and might well pass the House & Senate in 2020

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

have you ever heard of Gravity Falls? And if so, what are your thoughts on its overall setting and aestethic?

[NOVA Green]

have you ever heard of Gravity Falls? And if so, what are your thoughts on its overall setting and aestethic?

Never heard of it until you posted, and then I googled it....

Is it worth checking out?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

have you ever heard of Gravity Falls? And if so, what are your thoughts on its overall setting and aestethic?

Never heard of it until you posted, and then I googled it....

Is it worth checking out?

Depends, its set in Oregon so you might like it? Do you like mystery?