Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 12/5/2001 1:39:07 PM EDT
We all revere the U.S. Constitution, but just suppose [u][b]you[/b][/u] yourself had the power to make ONE unalterable change to it - what would you do? Our Founders took one step back after writing it, looked at it, and then quickly added TEN new amendments - so no, it's not perfect "as-is". If YOU could change any SINGLE part/phrase/amendment to the U.S. Constitution, what would you add or remove? "Clarify" 2nd Amendment [50] Term limits? [-!-!-] Qualifications of citizens to be able to vote? [stick] ERA? [puke] Inter-state commerce clause? [whacko] "High crimes & misdemeanors"? [sex] Repeal 16th Amendment? (oooh, if only...) [bounce]
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 1:44:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/5/2001 1:36:21 PM EDT by raven]
I'd repeal female sufferage. The wonderful women of the United States blessed us with Billy Jeff Clinton for 8 miserable years. They need to work on their critical thinking before I'd give it back.
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 1:45:05 PM EDT
Neither federal or local agencies shall create or maintaion paramilitary agencies for use withing the borders of the united states.
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 1:46:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: "Clarify" 2nd Amendment [50]
View Quote
Clarify the word "infringement", but as languages change, so would this definition.
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 1:53:26 PM EDT
Actualy I would like to change mine The new second amendment: Neither the federal or local goverment shall pass laws infringing on the sale, manufacture, and poseesion of arms with the exeption of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 1:58:44 PM EDT
I would simply shorten the second amendment to: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It'd be kind of hard to get a militia or national guard arguement out of that statement. Michael
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 2:00:40 PM EDT
The 2nd Amendment would read: "The Right of the People to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their homes, the state, the nation, and freedom itself, shall in no way be infringed at any level of government"
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 2:01:14 PM EDT
"The new second amendment: Neither the federal or local goverment shall pass laws infringing on the sale, manufacture, and poseesion of arms with the exeption of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. " And the liberal federal judges, under orders from their liberal masters, would rule: 1. That all material has atoms, and therefore all guns are "nuclear" and may be banned. 2. That all powder is made from some biomatter, and therefore all ammo is a bio weapon and may be banned. 3. That all guns and ammo work chemically, and therefore they can be banned. You have a good idea, but fail to realize that the liberals will twist any law or statement to 'mean' what they want, no matter how wrong it is obvious their ruling is on its face, because they simply don't care. They only care about ruling us and getting their way no matter what.
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 2:08:28 PM EDT
Happyshooter- The funny thing is that I was going to put 'weapons of mass destruction' but thought of the way they would run with that, so I changed it. I think that no matter what the language is they will be able to talk around it.
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 2:09:20 PM EDT
It's a tossup for me: Idea #1: Any gov't official that passes a law/bill/exec order MUST meet with their constituents in 1-5 years and demonstrate how this item bettered society. If it did not, the official should pay a fine (between $20,000 and $1,000,000, depending on the cost of implementation, enforcement and recovery) and have ability to pass laws/bills/exec orders eliminated. Note: I do not believe in exec orders, but am only allowed one item. Idea #2: Any gov't official found guilty of passing laws/bills/executive orders directly in violation of the Constitution can be charged with treason. Conviction will result is suspension of duties and appropriate criminal charges. Personally, I think #1 is more likely to work. Black Fox
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 2:11:05 PM EDT
I should add that my ideas include judge's rulings.... Black Fox
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 2:22:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: I would simply shorten the second amendment to: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Michael
View Quote
That's a good start but Happyshooter has a point. Liberal judges would have a field day parsing the meaning of who "the people" are. By "the people" do you mean that YOU as an individual can bear arms or do you mean "the people" as whole can bear arms through their elected representatives.
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 2:22:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BlackFox: Personally, I think #1 is more likely to work. Black Fox
View Quote
I don't know, #2 sounds good to me. [:)]
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 2:29:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 2:39:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2001 6:33:26 AM EDT by Major-Murphy]
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: We all revere the U.S. Constitution, but just suppose [u][b]you[/b][/u] yourself had the power to make ONE unalterable change to it - what would you do?
View Quote
If I were given that kind of power.... ...so much power that I could change the Constitution in any way.... I'd do what ever it it would take to maintain this new POWER of mine. I'd probably start by eliminating the 2nd Amendment. Then no one could stop me....
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 2:48:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 6:38:12 AM EDT
"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798. ME 10:64 I think I'll go with Thomas Jefferson on this one. Frisco
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 6:41:38 AM EDT
Give me this power. I promise, I'll make everything much better.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 6:50:34 AM EDT
My new version of the Second Amendment - "The gov't, at all branches, and at all levels, will keep its freakin hands off the individual citizens guns. Of all types. Completely off. Forever. Got it??"
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 8:58:40 AM EDT
Thanks, 1shot! I like guns as much as any of you. It's obvious we all take the second amendment seriously, too. The problem is that RKBA is just a [b]sign[/b] (or sypmtom, if you will) of Freedom. It is like fidelity is often found in healthy marriages. However, just because your wife isn't sleeping with the neighbor that does not mean you have a healthy relationship. I know a lot of faithful, miserable and abusive couples. We can't focus on just the guns - it's a bigger issue. What is the plan if RKBA is forever ingrained in our way of life? The socialists will still grow more babies than us because they don't have to go to work every day or be responsible for themselves. They will still own the media and pass insane laws - just not about guns (ammunition maybe?). What are you going to do - shoot them? In spite of how it may appear, I'm not taking the question too seriously. It's not just about guns, though. They're just an example of Freedom to us. Think bigger!!! (well, not as big as Major Murphy :) Black Fox
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 9:06:12 AM EDT
BlackFox - Ultimately, the ownership of firearms TRUMPS the legislative process. So the # of babies the Leftists cranks out is irrelevant. As long as we have the ability to "throw off an UnConstitutional gov't, via firearms, we are STILL free men. So, YES, ownership of firearms IS the most important goal.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 9:15:42 AM EDT
I'd change Article II, Section 4 to read as follows: Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, [i]ORAL SEX[/i] or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors
Top Top