How would you amend the United States Constitution?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by thediplomat2.0, Jun 17, 2012.

  1. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Two of the changes I would make to the United States Constitution are as follows:

    1. An amendment affirming the power of judicial review, and the ability of the states to nullify or void a decision of the United States Supreme Court with three-fourths concurrence within seven years of a decision.

    2. An amendment delegating negotiation of Executive Agreements to the President of the United States, and the duty of the Senate to approve such laws.

    What Constitutional amendments do you favor?
     
  2. Shins

    Shins New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2012
    Messages:
    770
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Frankly it doesnt matter, politicians dont follow the constitution anyways.
     
  3. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A sunset requirement of 6 years on all legislation or executive order
     
  4. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    My main concern is the rights of the individual, especially where perceptions of morality are the greatest question.

    The gay marriage thing, the abortion thing, will primarily be dealt with on the individual level.

    Being RESPONSIBLE for the effects or consequences of one's own actions, is the key.

    Essentially, if something isn't proven to be absolutely dangerous or directly bound to negatively affect others... then it is permissible under the law.

    Of course that will all have to be fine-tuned, but that's the gist of the amendment as I would have it. Kind of a Libertarian/Golden Rule thing... with emphasis upon one's ultimate responsibility of watching how we affect other human beings.
     
  5. PatrickT

    PatrickT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    16,593
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Why write more amendments to be ignored? The Constitution is, according to the liberals, fatally flawed and can simply be ignored. The Constitution is, according to liberals, a "living document" and can be said to mean whatever they want it to mean. The Constitution is, according to liberals, too hard to understand so it's meaningless.

    I happen to believe that the current position on gay marriage violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Abortion is, obviously, not in the Constitution so it is properly a state issue and not federal. And, I have no desire to sit through a national debate on whether or not the predadory behavior of pedophiles has been "proven to be absolutely dangerous or directly bount to degatively affect others". Liberals are setting the stage now by lobbying to get pedophilia removed from the Diagnostic Manual as a disorder.

    So, we can either follow the Sonstitution or go with the liberal preference of dictatorship/
     
  6. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,177
    Likes Received:
    62,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    to republicans it's just a "God(*)(*)(*)(*)ed Piece Of Paper" it seems sadly, they do not understand it as is

    maybe to help republicans out we could add pictures


    .
     
  7. Kranes56

    Kranes56 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    29,311
    Likes Received:
    4,187
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    For the senate of House of Reps, make it so you can't serve two consecutive terms. Mandatory civics class in school, or in college. Mandatory voting. Everyone votes, if you don't vote, you face a fine.
     
  8. JIMV

    JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    25,440
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. I would repeal the 17th Amendment
    2. I would allow a super majority of state legislatures to over ride specific Supreme Court decisions.
    3. I would make a Supreme Court career a 15 year tour with 1 reappointment possible if confirmed by the Senate.
    4. I would remove the power of the President to appoint czars without congressional confirmation.
    5. I would require the Budget to be balanced every year. I would make government stop if a budget is not passed.
    6. I would remove the executive power to make recess appointments.
    7. I would term limit government service with a 20 year limit on government paychecks outside the military and civil service. I would couple that with a provision that no elected official can work for any organization that derives a substantial portion of its income from the Government for a decade after government service.
    8. I would make it possible for a private citizen to sue the government OR an elected or appointed official by name for deselection of duty.
    9. I would prohibit the President from refusal to enforce any law passed by Congress and would separate actual legislative law from regulation making regulation a lesser legal standard (like the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor).
    10. Finally, I would remove the right to vote or lobby from anyone or thing that derived income or received welfare from the government.
     
  9. Montoya

    Montoya Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    Messages:
    14,274
    Likes Received:
    455
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gotta love freedom right! lol.
     
  10. peoplevsmedia

    peoplevsmedia Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    6,765
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bribe the government and do what ever you want
     
  11. The Real American Thinker

    The Real American Thinker New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,167
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For starters, two amendments:

    1) Term limits on SCOTUS. It's obvious that since the President appoints them, we don't want their terms to be too short, because then we'd be recycling Justices every time we recycle Presidents, which would lead to the SCOTUS always being under the control and agenda of whichever President is in office. We also don't want to make their terms too long, as there's no point in giving them term limits if it's almost their entire life to begin with. So, I would say one twelve year term is an appropriate term limit for SCOTUS.

    2) Term limits on Congress. Like SCOTUS, we don't want to be recycling Congressmen/women every time we recycle Presidents, and we also don't want the Congress to have a minor two year or less term. So I would say we give Congress two six-year terms. That way they can outlast the President and have (about, if they are reelected for their second term) the same term period as SCOTUS.

    Then I'd make an amendment making separation of church and state EXPLICIT, so we can stop all these arguments about what the meaning of "no" is. That amendment would also make it clear that it extends to the states, too.

    I think that settles me for now.
     
  12. Dr. Righteous

    Dr. Righteous Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    10,545
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    /thread
     
  13. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,177
    Likes Received:
    62,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    so retired people that collect social security would not be able to vote?
     
  14. SpaceCricket79

    SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    12,934
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    An amendment clarifying what the 1st Amendment does and does not protect. Ex., slandering the US military or America in public would not, promoting child porn or pedophilia, murder, terrorism, etc online would not. Websites would have to be forced to make pornographic or perverse content hidden from search engines - that would not be protected, etc.

    The 1st Amendment has been made a mockery of and we need to stop abusing it to defend indefensible garbage like this - it's only meant to protect real cases of government censorship, not someone's "right" to be a pervert and promote child pornography online.
     
  15. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Proportional representation and voting as well as a 10 year limit on Executive and Legislative elected offices (total, meaning serving 2 terms as Senator invalidates one from every being President).
     
  16. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So the entire Department of Defense, the FBI, the CIA, etc would be banned from voting?
     
  17. The Real American Thinker

    The Real American Thinker New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,167
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, basically you don't want speech to be free and the government gets a HUGE open door to keep anyone from speaking against them.

    GREAT idea!
     
  18. Validation Boy

    Validation Boy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    3,748
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I wouldn't amend it.

    I would abolish it.

    It is a catalyst of Satanism and materialism.
     
  19. eathen lord

    eathen lord Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    28
    the question is irrelevant, who is the common person to try to wright the law? we pretend to live in a democratic society, governed by a constitution only it is the interpretation of such that is the real power behind the law not the actual document, not the basis, there is no change that can root out corruption, no found memories of benevolent law, only our power as yet free people, to do with our influence what we can despite all opposition.
     
  20. The Real American Thinker

    The Real American Thinker New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,167
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Uhm...how?
     
  21. SpaceCricket79

    SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    12,934
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have no problem with criticizing members of the govt, trying to restrict that would basically be dictatorial. But I don't believe that public displays of treason, such as burning the American flag, insulting America itself (ex. f- America) or slandering the military should be protected. Many countries in Europe have similar practice - none of this should be protected in public or allowed in public broadcasts. only America is so far-left in this area that we'll defend the rights of people to do this.
     
  22. The Real American Thinker

    The Real American Thinker New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,167
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    None of that is treason, though.

    I thought right-wingers DIDN'T want to be like Europe?

    Anyway, of course we do it differently. It's what sets us apart and gives us just that much more freedom than anyone else.
     
  23. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Repeal the 17th Amendment.
     
  24. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The Constitution itself is pretty much perfect, we just need people to follow it's letter, and to clarify a little.

    1. I would clarify the second amendment by referring to "the right of the individual", to clarify any silly confusions.
    2. I would amend the Constitution to only grant citizenship by naturalization or by birth to two citizen parents. It was never intended to encourage foreigners to violate the laws of our land in order to garner citizenship for their children. Amending this would solve at least one issue.
    3. Constitutional debt limit and balanced budget amendment.
     
  25. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,177
    Likes Received:
    62,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I use open DNS to block all that stuff and more, much easier then depending on the government to protect me

    http://www.opendns.com/
     

Share This Page