We have, individually and as a group, a long list of constitutional amendments to help restore the Republic. Clarifying the 2d Amendment; line-item vetoes; balanced budgets. They are big items and aren't likely to happen anytime soon. I have an idea for a logically unassailable amendment that would bring about a sea change in the power and reach of the Federal government.

The Florida Constitution has a provision called "The Single-Subject Clause." It says "Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title." If the Legislature adds Subsection 55 to a Highway Funding Bill, appropriating $3 Million for the Lawton Chiles Birthplace Memorial, the Memorial and the Highway Bill will be struck down by the Courts. No logrolling. No backscratching. No "I'll vote to buy body armor for the troops if you add a renewal of the mohair subsidy to the bill." No "I had to vote for a lifetime pension for the widow of the Dade County Director of Sewage Treatment in order to preserve the Greenbelt tax exemption."

No BS. Full accountability for every vote - and the courts here enforce it. What possible argument could there be against it at a national level? Let the bastards vote for what they support, against what they don't support, and live without the weasel's defense that horse trading is necessary to do good things.

You know, we really do have it better here in Florida than we think. This and several other things make Florida a good enough place to live.

Now I just wish we could outlaw those damn hurricanes.

Proposed second ammendment clarification:

No free man shall be barred the use of arms.

For the purpose of this Ammendment, the term Free Man shall mean any Enfranchised Citizen.

Arms shall be defined as all weapons with the exception of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

The sale and transfer of weapons may be regulated only to the extent that arms are not sold to minors or other persons who are ineligible, and to prohbit the diversion of weapons for sale or use by non-Citizens or foreigners, except as permitted by law.

This Ammendment shall supercede all state and federal laws, including state constitutions.



ETA: I like the idea of tying gun rights to voting rights. Also, consider substituting "person" for "man", in order to pick up the libtard feminist votes. Not that it makes any difference in how the Ammendment would work.

In ammending or changing the wording of the 2nd you would need to consider a miltitude of things.

The future, what attempts will be made by government to remove or weaken it.  This is idealistic though I never forsee the Gov. as a collective giving back what is taken.
What about criminals, legal possesion for them?  
What criminal offenses constitute loss of rights?  
How do you prevent gov. from passing an associated law that makes us all criminals and strips us through other means.

Interstate and international commerce of weapons and ammunition?
 1.  How to prevent Gov. from ceasing importation of ammunition?
 2.  State by state laws?
 3.  State law Vs. Federal Law?  Jurisdiction of?
 4.  Manufacturing bans?


This is just a start.
 

My one amendment:

Every law currently in force and all new laws added from this point forward will "sunset" - cease to be in force - ten years from today or from the date they are signed into law.

A two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress will be required to renew said laws, and upon renewal the ten-year "sunset" clause will be reset.  

Each law MUST be debated by a quorum of both houses for not less than 15 minutes before a formal recorded vote.

That ought to reduce the size of the U.S. Code pretty damned quickly, and return it to a manageable level.

Quoted: My one amendment: Every law currently in force and all new laws added from this point forward will "sunset" - cease to be in force - ten years from today or from the date they are signed into law. A two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress will be required to renew said laws, and upon renewal the ten-year "sunset" clause will be reset.   Each law MUST be debated by a quorum of both houses for not less than 15 minutes before a formal recorded vote. That ought to reduce the size of the U.S. Code pretty damned quickly, and return it to a manageable level.

I'm sure that you got the inspiration for this from the same place I did, the AWB

This concept is something that I think would help get rid of "fad of the day" laws. I think that all news laws should be forced to have a built in sunset provision. This would also keep congress in check because they would have to spend more time on dealing with old laws instead of putting forth their pet projects.

A couple things that I'd change from your amendment though:
A simple majority instead of two thirds because two thirds is really hard to get.
A much shorter time for the initial sunset clause followed by an increasing amount each time the law is renewed (ie first sunset is 2 yrs, 2nd is 4 yrs, 3rd is 8 yrs and so on...). This way laws that have proven their worth won't have to be fought over so often.

Quoted: Quoted: My one amendment: Every law currently in force and all new laws added from this point forward will "sunset" - cease to be in force - ten years from today or from the date they are signed into law. A two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress will be required to renew said laws, and upon renewal the ten-year "sunset" clause will be reset.   Each law MUST be debated by a quorum of both houses for not less than 15 minutes before a formal recorded vote. That ought to reduce the size of the U.S. Code pretty damned quickly, and return it to a manageable level. I'm sure that you got the inspiration for this from the same place I did, the AWB This concept is something that I think would help get rid of "fad of the day" laws. I think that all news laws should be forced to have a built in sunset provision. This would also keep congress in check because they would have to spend more time on dealing with old laws instead of putting forth their pet projects. A couple things that I'd change from your amendment though: A simple majority instead of two thirds because two thirds is really hard to get.

Then we don't need that law.

A much shorter time for the initial sunset clause followed by an increasing amount each time the law is renewed (ie first sunset is 2 yrs, 2nd is 4 yrs, 3rd is 8 yrs and so on...).

Nope.  That gives 'em more time to think up more laws.

This way laws that have proven their worth won't have to be fought over so often.

They need to fight over each and every one, every time.  Hey, the argument from the Left is that the Constitution is a "living document" that needs to change with changing times, right?  Well, how about we leave the Constitution alone, and adapt the damned U.S. Code to change with changing times instead?

Quoted: No BS. Full accountability for every vote - and the courts here enforce it. What possible argument could there be against it at a national level? Let the bastards vote for what they support, against what they don't support, and live without the weasel's defense that horse trading is necessary to do good things.

Horse trading done right can make good legislation, it just doesn't belong tied up as amendments to an original bill.  In other words, horse trading outside a bill can lead to compromises that improve a law because the only hope it has of passing is for broad support.  If this process leads to weak, inefficient laws that hinder government, that is my preference.

How about "The power of the Government of the United States to regulate interstate commerce shall not include the power to prohibit such commerce except where specifically authorized in the Constitution; nor shall such power extend to the regulation of any activity or object existing solely within a single state, nor to the taxation of any activity or object at a rate greater than ten percent of the value of the activity or object."

Quoted: How about "The power of the Government of the United States to regulate interstate commerce shall not include the power to prohibit such commerce except where specifically authorized in the Constitution; nor shall such power extend to the regulation of any activity or object existing solely within a single state, nor to the taxation of any activity or object at a rate greater than ten percent of the value of the activity or object."

Read the Constitution.  It pretty much says "you only have the power to do thus-and-so."  They've gone ahead and arrogated power that the Constitution does not support.

And the population has let them, because they we like our bread-and-circuses.

Give 'em a millimeter, they'll stretch it a mile.

Quoted: We have, individually and as a group, a long list of constitutional amendments to help restore the Republic. Clarifying the 2d Amendment; line-item vetoes; balanced budgets. They are big items and aren't likely to happen anytime soon. I have an idea for a logically unassailable amendment that would bring about a sea change in the power and reach of the Federal government. The Florida Constitution has a provision called "The Single-Subject Clause." It says "Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title." If the Legislature adds Subsection 55 to a Highway Funding Bill, appropriating $3 Million for the Lawton Chiles Birthplace Memorial, the Memorial and the Highway Bill will be struck down by the Courts. No logrolling. No backscratching. No "I'll vote to buy body armor for the troops if you add a renewal of the mohair subsidy to the bill." No "I had to vote for a lifetime pension for the widow of the Dade County Director of Sewage Treatment in order to preserve the Greenbelt tax exemption." No BS. Full accountability for every vote - and the courts here enforce it. What possible argument could there be against it at a national level? Let the bastards vote for what they support, against what they don't support, and live without the weasel's defense that horse trading is necessary to do good things.

sounds good to me

while we're at it, lets add more term limits too

Quoted: Quoted: How about "The power of the Government of the United States to regulate interstate commerce shall not include the power to prohibit such commerce except where specifically authorized in the Constitution; nor shall such power extend to the regulation of any activity or object existing solely within a single state, nor to the taxation of any activity or object at a rate greater than ten percent of the value of the activity or object." Read the Constitution.  It pretty much says "you only have the power to do thus-and-so."  They've gone ahead and arrogated power that the Constitution does not support. And the population has let them, because they we like our bread-and-circuses. Give 'em a millimeter, they'll stretch it a mile.

Then include a clause that states:  "The People of the United States restrict the Government of the United States to powers and activity specified in this Constitution or its amendments.  The Government can assume no power to be implicit now or at any time in the future."