How would you amend the United States Constitution?

If you remove the legal fiction of corporate personhood, you couldn't sue them.

 

The constitution was written in cursive so it needs to be typed up on the computer so younger generations can read it.

 

Free speech has a vital purpose related to protection of unalienable rights. It is abridged.

By ending the abridging, Americans will be enabled to unity adequate to defend all rights. Ending the abridging assures any further amendment needed, can and will be done, and done properly as the constitution intends, because the people are the only entity that can define constitutional intent.

We MUST have a way to do that, such IS the framers intent.

A draft.

REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the purpose of the unity of the people in order to alter or abolish government destructive to their unalienable rights, or with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.​

 

You sue the culpable individuals or those that should know who is culpable. That way the culpable have no veil to hide behind.

 

That's our job through Article V. We amend to specifically define recognition of all amendments in all federal courts, and state courts unless conflicting with state constitutions or laws duly legislated under them.

 

No, because by doing so, unalienable rights are protected.

 

Democracy depends on opinion, opinion depends on information, information depends on media. Oops!

The purpose of free speech is abridged. Parties use their power to get their speech heard and that is all the voting public basically knows.

After the abridging of the purpose of free speech is ended, party lines will not mean much. In fact parties might not mean much.

See a draft revision of the 1st amendment here.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=252432&page=8&p=1065795011#post1065795011

 

I like it, but our SC is so corrupt now, that such corruption existing there might be driving my approval rather than common sense.

The idea is that IF they are a problem, they need to go away .

What if there was a write-in aspect on federal election ballots for any judges the public wanted to see impeached? Then, over a set percentage of votes for impeachment of a given justice automatically triggered impeachment proceedings which invited information, evidence from the public relating to the justification for impeachment, or otherwise, if that's the case.

Judicial immunity seems to not be a good thing and something like that might offset it.
There of course can be excellent judges that are never corrupted and can be counted on to do the right thing for the people all of their lives.
Why let term limits get in the way of that?

Let excellence shine if it will, but if it goes bad, enable the end of the power.

 

Maybe amending it to say that stare decisis is not a valid replacement for the constitution. Except, it would just be ignored.

People don't realize how far away from the original intent that things have gotten. We find ourselves arguing about things like what the second amendment means, without realizing that if you took the second amendment out of the constitution entirely, states would be free to have whatever gun legislation they wanted.

The entire bill of rights was seen as an insurance policy by the federalists to make doubly sure that the executive branch didn't get too big for its panties. Instead, it's been taken to mean that anything not in the bill of rights is up for grabs by the federal government.

Sorry, but the constitution has been ignored since Lincoln decided that he had a right to war against the southern states.

 

This is just about what you are binging forth, the "The Countermand Amendment".

BTW, the main proponent is an elderly man who will be driving to 45 state capitals in the next 5 months introducing this to states legislations. I believe he has 14 states making an application to congress for an amendment right now, and another 10 that are close to adopting it.

He needs economic support. There is a link to their site, donate if you can. This has been carried by public donations for over two years and he is having good success. States like it!

 

I would like to see added that the government must live within there means, meaning income taxes collected must be sufficient to pay their bills. All money assigned to social security and Medicare must not be used to pay other bills. All politicians that no longer are actively employed should not receive any benefits that is above what corporations pay for employees that no longer work for them.

Also politicians once elected should not be allowed to investment in the stock market since they are privy to information that the general public is not allowed to see. Elected officials should be limited to a 4 year maximum term.

 

You could consider changing your Congress into a Parliamentary model. It's obscene how much is spent on those Presidential elections. Take the President's power away except for signing bills & greeting foreign heads of state and put the power in the legislature. Also, maybe consider four year terms, so your representatives govern instead of campaign. Also, look at impartial electoral commissions for drawing electoral districts. It's insane that you leave it with state governments that draw them for their party's advantage.

 

Good post, accurate perspective. But I can show Lincoln decided to hold power, and to do that he had to agree to war. He was trying for an Article V convention, and should have resigned if he couldn't get it. Why else would he say in an 1859 Illinois speech, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts, not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men that would pervert it" (as in wage war against the south) Instead he opted to remain a puppet president for the English financiers working through congress, financing the union army.

They wanted war to divide the country. They had an agenda about the south that is hidden from the world. The south is much older than our written history records. It's roots go back to the 1250's and refugees from the crusades of 1180.

The workforce was not all from France.

http://www.slideshare.net/mjgds/fort-caroline-the-first-french-settlement-in-the-new-world

 

What? This is insane. Why should people vote if they're not concerned about learning about politics? You don't want people who have to be forced to show up to a poll booth to be making very critical decisions about the direction of the country.

-

I would repeal the 17th Amendment and add an Amendment stating states have the right to nullify any federal law that does not fall within the confines of Article 1, Section 8's description of the very specific and delegated powers of Congress.

 

That "law" was put in place in the Nixon era and is non-binding. Obama I think submitted two budgets. AND the Presidents budget "request" isn't even worth the paper it's written on and they are routinely ignored by the Congress.

- - - Updated - - -

And our government become the messes we see in Europe? And the states will never get the 3/5's required to kill the electoral college, it is a beautiful solution to the election of the President who BTW is not elected by the People but by the States.

 

Well impeachment is not a legal measure but a political one and someone has to be elected first before they can be impeached. And impeachment should be a difficult task because of that else the majority party would just impeach everyone in the opposing party and remove them from office. Be that as it may that is the direct remedy for a President who does not enforce the law, and then not elect such a person in the first place and certainly not reelect him.

 

Drug test Congress and the president.

 

Let's drug test everyone in the country...

 

Are you serious when you only say that about Republicans? What a pathetic thing to try and convey. Both Republicans and Democrats sh*@ on the constitution and you know it.

 

Yes the legislature would become the judical also and review their own laws for constitutionality. Not my idea of good balanced government.

Oh it's a major part of it and you'd have to repeal it and start all over with it, you really want Congress to do that? And then there is the equal treatment under the law thingy and yes those business receive direct payment from the government.

An exception could be made for them.

It could be written to limit the exclusion to receivers of direct government payments.[/QUOTE]

 

Which brings us firmly back into fantasy land in which mere criminality or unconstitutional acts result in criminals and hacks being removed, which does not happen.

 

First, I'd have a few questions for the Founders, speaking to them on their own terms and in their own frame of reference-

1. If a very wealthy man could buy advertisements in every newspaper in the Several States....to support a political candidate, who would do that wealthy man favors once in office....would you consider that "free speech" or "buying an election" and subjugating our Republic to a plutocracy?

2. If a weapon could be built that killed 100 men in one shot....but was no larger than a musket...would that fall under the guarantee of "right to bear arms"....and on that 2nd Amendment, does it still apply if there is no Militia?

3. If a State held that a man could not legally marry a red-headed woman....would that violate the premise of individual liberty and freedom?

 

Everyone is already drug tested. That's why we need to test Congress and the president. Pass the cups around the Supreme Court, too.

 

Free speech of course, buy votes is buying an election, ever sold your vote to someone? If a person who does not working travels 5 days a week going to city after city after city speaking about the candidates he supports...............what do you call that influence on an election and how is that different?

Yes and there is always a militia until the government disarms the citizenry.

Since that would not violate the purpose and intent of legally sanctioned marriage or what is in fact marriage why would that be illegal?

 

Why would you want to do so?