If you make one amendment to the Constitution, - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - If you make one amendment to the Constitution, (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 4/9/2006 7:10:42 PM EDT

[#1]

line item veto.......or

bills must be limited in scope to the title of the bill.

Posted: 4/9/2006 7:11:37 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:
the 24th eliminates the poll tax, which was fairly common until 1964, the 26th allows 18 year olds to vote and the 27th prohibits Congress from raising their own salaries.

I'm all for have some type of test or requierment to be in place for people to vote. I mjust want to keep freeloading dumbasses (and corrporations too) from affecting public policey.

I'd also like a law regarding spell checking, or better, redo english so it is phonetic spelled only.

You are officially ineligible to vote.

Posted: 4/9/2006 7:15:05 PM EDT

[#3]

the President of the United States will be elected strictly by count of popular vote.

(I swear this has nothing to do with Bush or Rutherford Hayes or anyone else. Having said that, I'm prepared to get barbecued.)

Posted: 4/9/2006 7:16:09 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the 24th eliminates the poll tax, which was fairly common until 1964, the 26th allows 18 year olds to vote and the 27th prohibits Congress from raising their own salaries.

I'm all for have some type of test or requierment to be in place for people to vote. I mjust want to keep freeloading dumbasses (and corrporations too) from affecting public policey.

I'd also like a law regarding spell checking, or better, redo english so it is phonetic spelled only.

You are officially ineligible to vote.[/quote

thats funny

Posted: 4/9/2006 7:17:09 PM EDT

[#5]

I'd have to decide between a few biggies but I'm leaning towards term limits for Congressmen.

Posted: 4/9/2006 7:19:59 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
i would fix the FREAKING commerce clause!!!!

Amen. That POS is the most abused clause in the entire Constitution. Congress has used it to get their nasty hooks into everything, often with no other legitimate basis.

Posted: 4/9/2006 7:25:24 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
the President of the United States will be elected strictly by count of popular vote.

(I swear this has nothing to do with Bush or Rutherford Hayes or anyone else. Having said that, I'm prepared to get barbecued.)

That would turn control of this nation over to highly populated states and urban centers. It would result in these portions of the population taking an even bigger crap on us then they are now.

Posted: 4/9/2006 7:29:25 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the 24th eliminates the poll tax, which was fairly common until 1964, the 26th allows 18 year olds to vote and the 27th prohibits Congress from raising their own salaries.

I'm all for have some type of test or requierment to be in place for people to vote. I mjust want to keep freeloading dumbasses (and corrporations too) from affecting public policey.

I'd also like a law regarding spell checking, or better, redo english so it is phonetic spelled only.

You are officially ineligible to vote.

Meh.. so. I don't vote anyway.

Posted: 4/9/2006 7:31:18 PM EDT

[#9]

No law may infringe upon the legal right of the individual person to keep and bear arms, or the type of arms thereof.

Posted: 4/9/2006 7:33:12 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
So to put it more strongly: WTF?

You're right, I shouldn't have brought up religion. The argument struck me as coming from a pretty strongly religious base, so I would assume that a lib would yell "theocracy." Nothing more, nothing less.

I've not been one of the usual suspects of christian bashers and I don't plan on starting now. Sorry to anyone I offended.

Posted: 4/9/2006 7:35:10 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
what would it be?

That the original 14 Amendments , known as The Bill of Rights, cannot be altered, amended, or re-written in any way, shape, or form. And that these 14 Amendments will be the basis for the "Laws of the Land".

No one caught this???????? The first ten amendments are the bill of rights not the first 14. There were originally 12 but the last two were not ratified. One later became the 27th.

Edited to say sorry to Jarhead my fellow Ohioan. I did not want to ruffle your feathers.

Posted: 4/9/2006 7:41:03 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So to put it more strongly: WTF?

You're right, I shouldn't have brought up religion. The argument struck me as coming from a pretty strongly religious base, so I would assume that a lib would yell "theocracy." Nothing more, nothing less.

I've not been one of the usual suspects of christian bashers and I don't plan on starting now. Sorry to anyone I offended.

Roger, I understand now. No harm done.

BTW - you are quite likely correct, and my above post is aimed at any lib who objects.

Posted: 4/9/2006 7:42:25 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
what would it be?

That the original 14 Amendments , known as The Bill of Rights, cannot be altered, amended, or re-written in any way, shape, or form. And that these 14 Amendments will be the basis for the "Laws of the Land".

No one caught this???????? The first ten amendments are the bill of rights not the first 14. There were originally 12 but the last two were not ratified. One later became the 27th.

Edited to say sorry to Jarhead my fellow Ohioan. I did not want to ruffle your feathers.

I caught it but didn't pounce. To my understanding, it was the first two that were not passed, the last ten were. And for the bill of rights we can thank, primarily, Rep. James Madison.

Posted: 4/9/2006 7:44:19 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
the President of the United States will be elected strictly by count of popular vote.

(I swear this has nothing to do with Bush or Rutherford Hayes or anyone else. Having said that, I'm prepared to get barbecued.)

That would turn control of this nation over to highly populated states and urban centers. It would result in these portions of the population taking an even bigger crap on us then they are now.

Isn't the Electoral College based on states' populations anyway? So what gives? Cut out the middle man.

The results of a direct popular vote might not be savory, but I think it's the only right way.

Posted: 4/9/2006 7:47:24 PM EDT

[#15]

Leakycow, the electoral college is in fact based on states populations. However it is a very good thing. Without it, the population centers would choose the President again and again, leading to very serious issues as the small states struggled for some say in the presidential election.

Posted: 4/9/2006 7:48:14 PM EDT

[#16]

Jefferson proposed 15 Amendments, including a prohibition on monoplies, IIRC.

Posted: 4/9/2006 7:48:32 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
what would it be?

That the original 14 Amendments , known as The Bill of Rights, cannot be altered, amended, or re-written in any way, shape, or form. And that these 14 Amendments will be the basis for the "Laws of the Land".

No one caught this???????? The first ten amendments are the bill of rights not the first 14. There were originally 12 but the last two were not ratified. One later became the 27th.

Edited to say sorry to Jarhead my fellow Ohioan. I did not want to ruffle your feathers.

I caught it but didn't pounce. To my understanding, it was the first two that were not passed, the last ten were. And for the bill of rights we can thank, primarily, Rep. James Madison.

Ding Ding Ding you are correct sir!!!!! The Original first amendment dealt with representation and the second dealt with compensation.

Posted: 4/9/2006 7:51:43 PM EDT

[#18]

Here you go looked it up for everyone:

Article the first [Not Ratified]
After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article the second [27th Amendment - Ratified 1992]
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened

Posted: 4/9/2006 7:58:30 PM EDT

[#19]

Fix the # of justices of the Supreme Court. That way the next FDR can't threaten to stack the court and disempower it.

Posted: 4/9/2006 8:00:25 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
No law may be enacted nor enforced where no party other than the actor has suffered demonstrable grievances as a direct result of the action.

(In other words, no more victimless crimes)

w00t!

Posted: 4/9/2006 8:30:37 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the President of the United States will be elected strictly by count of popular vote.

(I swear this has nothing to do with Bush or Rutherford Hayes or anyone else. Having said that, I'm prepared to get barbecued.)

That would turn control of this nation over to highly populated states and urban centers. It would result in these portions of the population taking an even bigger crap on us then they are now.

Isn't the Electoral College based on states' populations anyway? So what gives? Cut out the middle man.

No, it is based on the total number of representatives, both House and Senate. Each state has 2 senators regardless of population.

The results of a direct popular vote might not be savory, but I think it's the only right way.

Your opinion is based on ignorance, and inexperience with the political process, as well as a lack of appreciation for the ramifications of the change you espouse.

Posted: 4/10/2006 4:55:56 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the President of the United States will be elected strictly by count of popular vote.

(I swear this has nothing to do with Bush or Rutherford Hayes or anyone else. Having said that, I'm prepared to get barbecued.)

That would turn control of this nation over to highly populated states and urban centers. It would result in these portions of the population taking an even bigger crap on us then they are now.

Isn't the Electoral College based on states' populations anyway? So what gives? Cut out the middle man.

No, it is based on the total number of representatives, both House and Senate. Each state has 2 senators regardless of population.

The results of a direct popular vote might not be savory, but I think it's the only right way.

Your opinion is based on ignorance, and inexperience with the political process, as well as a lack of appreciation for the ramifications of the change you espouse.

ignorance: very well could be

inexperience with the political process: what sort of experience do you espouse? Or if you're referring to my statement that the E.C. is based on states' populations, well, we're both right...the ratios aren't proportional to population, but North Dakota's getting fucked by Texas, regardless.

ramifications: and what would those be? here are some: republicans in California would get out to vote. democrats in Oklahoma would get out to vote. Everyone's vote would be equal in the ONE election where every citizen in the country participates. As it stands now with the skewed-population-based E.C. system, it's akin to 50 Missouri Compromises. Your vote in California is really worth 5/9 of what it should be (I'm just making up fractions for argument's sake). Your vote in Wyoming is likewise inflated in worth to 11/7 votes.

When it comes to the one job in the entire country that is selected by the general citizenry, leave it a direct vote. States don't need to play a role in it. If South Dakota feels its unfair to have such a small say in the presidency, tough fucking luck...you don't have nearly as many citizens as Ohio.

Flame suit back on in preparation for vague attacks on my lack of understanding of how the system works.

Posted: 4/10/2006 5:37:40 AM EDT

[#23]

Any elected servant of the people of the USofA will serve no more than two terms.

Posted: 4/10/2006 6:18:17 AM EDT

[#24]

The government, who is a government of the people, shall be subject to ALL laws which it creates.

This one amendment would clear up a whole lot of garbage. Think about taxes, firearms, land property ect.

-JTP

Posted: 4/10/2006 8:16:09 AM EDT

[#25]

Editd the 2nd amendment. The right of individual american citizens to keep and bear arms, Rifle or pistol, shall not be infringed or abridged by any part of the local, state, or federal government.

Posted: 4/10/2006 9:03:45 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
what would it be?

That the original 14 Amendments , known as The Bill of Rights, cannot be altered, amended, or re-written in any way, shape, or form. And that these 14 Amendments will be the basis for the "Laws of the Land".

That all residents should take civics until it sticks. And that they should know the difference between the Civil War Amendments and the Bill of Rights.

Shooter

Posted: 4/10/2006 12:26:14 PM EDT

[#27]

Amendment XXVIII

Congress shall not pass any legislation not found to be CONSTITUTIONAL
by a majority of the Supreme Court of the United States before the signature
of the President enacting the aforementioned legislation.
The Supreme Court shall have a maximum of thirty days to decide
the constitutionality of the legislation. If the Supreme Court cannot decide
constitutionality within thirty days, then the particular legislation shall be
considered null and void.

Posted: 4/10/2006 12:28:47 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Amendment XXVIII

Congress shall not pass any legislation not found to be CONSTITUTIONAL
by a majority of the Supreme Court of the United States before the signature
of the President enacting the aforementioned legislation.
The Supreme Court shall have a maximum of thirty days to decide
the constitutionality of the legislation. If the Supreme Court cannot decide
constitutionality within thirty days, then the particular legislation shall be
considered null and void.

so what happens when the president simply appoints justices to the supreme court which agree with his big-government unconstitutional views?

Posted: 4/10/2006 12:29:37 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Amendment XXVIII

Congress shall not pass any legislation not found to be CONSTITUTIONAL
by a majority of the Supreme Court of the United States before the signature
of the President enacting the aforementioned legislation.
The Supreme Court shall have a maximum of thirty days to decide
the constitutionality of the legislation. If the Supreme Court cannot decide
constitutionality within thirty days, then the particular legislation shall be
considered null and void.

so what happens when the president simply appoints justices to the supreme court which agree with his big-government unconstitutional views?

Filibuster.

Posted: 4/10/2006 12:31:09 PM EDT

[#30]

now that i think of it, if i could make another change to the constitution, it would have to do with appointing supreme court justices. each new justice should be appointed by the outgoing justice, not by the president. when the new justice takes power, s/he should designate an "heir" to the court seat in case s/he is incapacitated.

in this way, every judge on the supreme court today would have been a direct succession from the original justices. and i bet they would interpret the constitution a hell of a lot more strictly.

Posted: 4/10/2006 12:39:40 PM EDT

[#31]

Section 1.
The nineteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Posted: 4/10/2006 12:46:49 PM EDT

[#32]

All Federal laws will expire five years to the day after they are signed into law. Congress must reauthorize (subject to a Presidential veto) any extension to a Federal law, however all such reauthorizations must be specifically made and can not be part of any joint authorizations, and in no case may any reauthorization be for longer than five years.

And.

No bill shall be passed into law or reauthorized unless it receives at least a two thirds majority in both Houses of Congress, with the exception of tax or revenue bills which shall require at least a three fourths majority.

Posted: 4/10/2006 3:52:19 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
now that i think of it, if i could make another change to the constitution, it would have to do with appointing supreme court justices. each new justice should be appointed by the outgoing justice, not by the president. when the new justice takes power, s/he should designate an "heir" to the court seat in case s/he is incapacitated.

in this way, every judge on the supreme court today would have been a direct succession from the original justices. and i bet they would interpret the constitution a hell of a lot more strictly.

Would you still use the advice and consent of the Senate? Without vetting of the appointee (as opposed to skewering), the old justice might make a pick that is not even close to his own philosophy. Additionally, I see no check or balance here.

Posted: 4/10/2006 3:55:34 PM EDT

[#34]

I'd make it a hanging offense to mess with the original Bill of Rights.

Posted: 4/10/2006 3:55:44 PM EDT

[#35]

Just one? That's tough. I would consider repealing the 17th amendment, direct election of Senators.

www.articlev.com/repeal17.htm

As originally conceived, the Senate is the "upper" house, the one that is immune to the sways of public opinion ... and public dollar$.

Unfortunately, they are answerable to constituents now, just like the House, and they get votes directly proportional to how many dollars they bring into their state.

One of the things that helped ruin modern America.

Posted: 4/10/2006 4:11:06 PM EDT

[#36]

How about this:

No elected official shall have previously earned enough income in any given year to be in the top five percent of the population.

No elected official shall hold any collegiate degree beyond the rank of Master's degree.

No elected official shall be or have been a lawyer by trade or have attended more than four years of law school.

No elected official shall be or have been a member of the board of directors or held any high value position with any Fortune 500 company.

The idea is to keep the elected officials at a level where they are in touch with what the common man thinks. Academic knotheads aren't what we need and neither are lawyers or people in a position of power in the business world.

CJ

Posted: 4/10/2006 4:16:26 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
How about this:

No elected official shall have previously earned enough income in any given year to be in the top five percent of the population.

No elected official shall hold any collegiate degree beyond the rank of Master's degree.

No elected official shall be or have been a lawyer by trade or have attended more than four years of law school.

No elected official shall be or have been a member of the board of directors or held any high value position with any Fortune 500 company.

The idea is to keep the elected officials at a level where they are in touch with what the common man thinks. Academic knotheads aren't what we need and neither are lawyers or people in a position of power in the business world.

CJ

a champion of the people! I like.

Was Wilson our only Ph.D. pres?

Posted: 4/10/2006 4:16:41 PM EDT

[#38]

Line Item Veto.

Posted: 4/10/2006 4:21:58 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Editd the 2nd amendment. The right of individual american citizens to keep and bear arms, Rifle or pistol, shall not be infringed or abridged by any part of the local, state, or federal government.

you forgot MG's, rockets, cannons, and all that other good stuff

Posted: 4/10/2006 4:22:35 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
How about this:

No elected official shall have previously earned enough income in any given year to be in the top five percent of the population.

No elected official shall hold any collegiate degree beyond the rank of Master's degree.

No elected official shall be or have been a lawyer by trade or have attended more than four years of law school.

No elected official shall be or have been a member of the board of directors or held any high value position with any Fortune 500 company.

Yay! Class warfare!. By the way, law school is only 3 years. And you're going to shut out medical doctors who have WAY more contact with the population than any of the other aforementioned groups (lawyers, academic PhDs, business mucky-mucks).

The idea is to keep the elected officials at a level where they are in touch with what the common man thinks. Academic knotheads aren't what we need and neither are lawyers or people in a position of power in the business world.

Sounds noble, but really it's not very American.

Posted: 4/10/2006 4:30:29 PM EDT

[#41]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. And by people we mean each individual shall have the right to possess and bear, in public, such weapons as are necessary and appropriate for the defense of the citizen's person, property, state, and nation. And yes, Senator Kerry, we do mean weapons of war. And no Nagin, you cannot confiscate weapons because there has been a disaster.

Sometimes liberals are a little dense, so you have to be direct.

Posted: 4/10/2006 4:44:40 PM EDT

[#42]

The real problem is one of interpretation. The Founding Fathers, brilliant and prescient as they were, could not have dreamed of a world where the English language could be so parsed and perverted, where even a POTUS, under oath, would argue the finer points of the meaning of the word "is". We are no longer a nation of laws but rather one of lawyers.

So, if you rewrite the 2nd, it must be ironclad. Get rid of the militia stuff and define each term with no wiggle room. What are "arms"? What does "infringe" mean? I know to us these terms seem self evident, but to an attorney the permutations are many. Rest assured that some lawyer will try to "redefine" it to suit their agenda. Remember, even crystal clear water becomes opaque when a lawyer sets foot in it.

Posted: 4/10/2006 5:22:08 PM EDT

[#43]

I'd probably start by getting together with a bunch of Very Smart People and writing up a draft whose intent is to clearly define the working principles of our Democratic Republic and also to identify the mechanisms by socialism and communism operate in any form, with the goal being to write an amendment that provides for mandatory execution for anyone who actively attempts to impose any form of socialism or communism within the United States.

In essence, this would outlaw the Democratic Party

Trying to follow in the footsteps of the NSDAP, cmjohnson?

Outlawing and executing opposing political thought is one of the pillars of fascism and tyrrany, not America. You must be so proud to hold such ideas.

Wait, lemme guess--you're a fan of McCarthy, Liddy, Ollie North, and... Joesph Goebbels, right? Am I close?

Posted: 4/10/2006 5:30:47 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

I'd probably start by getting together with a bunch of Very Smart People and writing up a draft whose intent is to clearly define the working principles of our Democratic Republic and also to identify the mechanisms by socialism and communism operate in any form, with the goal being to write an amendment that provides for mandatory execution for anyone who actively attempts to impose any form of socialism or communism within the United States.

In essence, this would outlaw the Democratic Party

Trying to follow in the footsteps of the NSDAP, cmjohnson?

Outlawing and executing opposing political thought is one of the pillars of fascism and tyrrany, not America. You must be so proud to hold such ideas.

Wait, lemme guess--you're a fan of McCarthy, Liddy, Ollie North, and... Joesph Goebbels, right? Am I close?

I don't know cmjohnson, but I don't think that's where he's coming from.

Posted: 4/10/2006 5:39:58 PM EDT

[#45]

What he said is pretty damn clear, and completely indefensible.

Suggesting that the US would be better off executing everyone who doesn't follow one specific idea of how to do things is about as fucking un-American as you can get.

What're you going to do, round them up in the middle of the night and gas 'em all? Or are you going to make them wear armbands with a portrait of Marx first?

Posted: 4/10/2006 6:08:28 PM EDT

[#46]

No, it's totally defensible as the objective is to defend the fundamental structure of America as a deomocratic Republic. Any attempt by any party to try to subvert these fundamental values and substitute socialism or communism must be absolutely smashed.

If you want to be a damned socialist or commie, go to France or China. America was conceived as s a fundamentally democratic Republic and if I ran the zoo, that foundation would be defended VERY aggressively.

The limit of democracy would be found where socialism and communism begin. You would not find America to be a pleasant place if you held THOSE beliefs and tried to spread them.

A sane man realizes that there are always wars to be fought. A SMART man knows where the lines of battle are to be drawn, and he will patrol that line.

My line of battle is socialism and communism. If it were my zoo to run, freedoms end for you when you cross that line, and you become the enemy of all I hold most dear.

Just as the liberals are trying to make you accept homosexuality as normal and no big thing, they're trying to get you to accept socialist values and beliefs as well, and socialism is just one sure step down the path toward communism.

Fascist? What is fascism? If you think that it's to aggressively defend the foundation that your
own government was built on, then THAT sort of fascism would be a damned good thing!

Incidentally, while I have NOTHING positive to say about ANY Nazi, living or dead, I DO state
that, in spite of everything, Senator Edward McCarthy was RIGHT!

HE DID IN FACT ROOT OUT AND IDENTIFY MANY AUTHENTIC SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST ACTIVISTS AND AGENTS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES! Granted, what he started out to
do ended up as a witchhunt gone out of control, but his original purpose WAS A GOOD ONE.

I also don't have any problem with Oliver North. I'm neutral on that whole affair and never formed
a strong opinion on it one way or the other.

G. Gordon Liddy is often right, sometimes wrong, and ALWAYS entertaining. I don't listen to him
very often, though, so you can safely ignore what I may think of him as I really DON'T think of him.

I'd defend this country even against you.

If you think what I said is indefensible, you most probably hold the sort of beliefs that mark you as the sort of person I'd describe as an enemy of our Democratic Republic. DO YOU SUPPORT COMMUNISM OR SOCIALISM?

CJ

Posted: 4/10/2006 6:40:25 PM EDT

[#47]

Repeal of the 17th ammendment.

Posted: 4/10/2006 6:55:12 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
What he said is pretty damn clear, and completely indefensible.

Suggesting that the US would be better off executing everyone who doesn't follow one specific idea of how to do things is about as fucking un-American as you can get.

What're you going to do, round them up in the middle of the night and gas 'em all? Or are you going to make them wear armbands with a portrait of Marx first?

I'd like to hear your suggestions on what to do about a major political party who's primary activity seems to be spreading lies about the Constitution and about 2/3rds of the issue they have a stance on.