Well, if you Americans have still some common sense, you would scratch the part about "legally carrying guns."

You guys are so blind about that horrible "freedom to kill each other."

__________________
They know... Saddam Hussein is no threat to the US. But at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel. Gen.W.Clark

That's ridiculous. The constitution is there to point out the rights which we have and ensure that we keep them, not to grant them to us and not to grant them only to U.S. citizens. Ever read the Declaration of Independence?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the their Creator with certain unalienable rights"

You can't grant certain rights to some people and others to other people because of their citizenship.

__________________
"Violence isn't always evil. What's evil is the infatuation with violence."
Jim Morrison

Well, MIC
I believe that the operative words in Tricky's post are "by unlawful methods". Surely, you realize that we take rights away from people all the time due to criminal behavior (not citizenship).

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

I believe that the most important parts of our constitution are those which restrict the federal government.

In fact, I'm much to lazy to read the whole thing in an effort to figure out what specifically I would change. Most of the problems I see are due to activist judges or interpretations of the law that I personally find disagreeable.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

While I was reading over the Constitution I was really surprised to see the lack of guidance with regards to the Judiciary Branch of government (which should be mentioned in Article 3). I guess it was designed by implied Constitutional powers and then run by precedent?

__________________
The Science of Brute Force......

Well, the passage you quoted specifically allowed congress to ordain other inferior federal courts and they did so in 1789 with the "The Judiciary Act of 1789."

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...democrac/8.htm

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

Are you suggesting that outstaying a visa is on par with a victim-crime? Furthermore, are you suggesting that even in your pathetically black-and-white world crimes of any sort warrant the destruction of every single one of the civil liberties expressed or implied within the constitution? Then again, I suppose you're all for the death penalty, despite being pro-life and Christian.*

*there's a good chance I'm wrong with that assertion, but I'll make it anyway and then have a note like this so if you prove me wrong I can just point that that I wrote this little bit. If I'm right in exposing your hypocrisy, then I get that satisfaction.

__________________
"Violence isn't always evil. What's evil is the infatuation with violence."
Jim Morrison

My brain is really on fire here with another question.

It appears as though the ability for the Judiciary Branch to determine the "Constitutionality" (Judicial Review?) of a law is a power which was given through The Judiciary Act of 1789 and not The Constitution at all? So, the actual power of the Judicial Branch is left up to Legislation and not The Constitution? That blows my mind........

So, all this "Judicial Activism" could be changed by a simple law and not require a Constitutional Amendment?!?!?!?!?!

LOL I can't claim to be an expert on The Constitution but apparently not many people in government are either

Do I have this right or is there something I am missing?

__________________
The Science of Brute Force......

The problem with restricting judicial activism lies in the person making the call as to what does and doesn't qualify as judicial activism.

__________________
"Violence isn't always evil. What's evil is the infatuation with violence."
Jim Morrison

I think what would commonly be referred to as "Judicial Activism" is pretty easy to define:

Judicial Activism is when a Judge uses his/her authority as a Judge to over rule the democratic will of the people in favor of advancing a personal ideology.

Nothing to controversial about that.

1. Lower (Inferior) Courts overturning laws on the basis of Un-Constitutionality only to be overturned by a higher Court or even the Supreme Court. The Court System is being used a Anti-Democratic prolonged "Stall Tactic" until ultimately The Supreme Court intervenes and gives the final word. I think the function of Judicial Review is actually very good but it needs to rest only in the hands of the Supreme Court and not the Inferior Courts.

2. At some point (Federal?) Judges have been given the ability to not only strike down laws but to change laws and even legislate from the bench. There is a case going on in Ohio right now about the ability for voters to vote from any Polling Place in their voting district. Unfortunately when reporters report on Judges they don't seem to really quantify what kind of Judge they are reporting on.

I am a firm believer in the ability for any group of people to rule themselves under a democratic system based on majority rule. Although Judicial Review has it's place I have a real problem of Judges with a political agenda subverting our democratic process.

In my opinion, this is the most significant problem facing our system of government.

__________________
The Science of Brute Force......