Poll: How should the US Constitution be ammended

[Random]

I would make the Congress a tri-cammeral body, with a third section populated by one eligible voter chosen from each congressional district at random every two years.

Clarify that the second amendment applies to weapons available in the 1780's. You have an absolute right to a muzzle-loading musket.

Get rid of the section on impeachment that talks about "high crimes and misdemeanors". We would like to be able to impeach a president for sheer incompetence thank you.

 

[EGarrett]

I'm willing to even include the women.

Yes, it should say "all people" instead of all men.

I don't want my rights to be "allowed" by anyone.

Note, the full wording is that people must be allowed certain inalienable rights. If the government can take rights away, which they obviously can...then I don't see what's wrong with stating that they must allow them. And that they're inalienable. I think it's very strong and proper wording.

 

[Texas]

Yes, it should say "all people" instead of all men.

Note, the full wording is that people must be allowed certain inalienable rights. If the government can take rights away, which they obviously can...then I don't see what's wrong with stating that they must allow them. And that they're inalienable. I think it's very strong and proper wording.

Allow and Inalienable are mutually exclusive. If they must be allowed then they are not inalienable. It is not worth arguing about though since the Constitution will not be changed in that way.

 

[Texas]

Clarify that the second amendment applies to weapons available in the 1780's. You have an absolute right to a muzzle-loading musket.

Then we should clarify that the 1st amendment be limited to owning a printing press and the 4th amendment clarified that you are only secure in your "papers" since digital media was not available at that time.

Get rid of the section on impeachment that talks about "high crimes and misdemeanors". We would like to be able to impeach a president for sheer incompetence thank you.

Yep and then every president elected would be removed within the first year of his first term.

 

[EGarrett]

Allow and Inalienable are mutually exclusive. If they must be allowed then they are not inalienable.

Then the word inalienable shouldn't be in the founding documents at all. Because the government does have the muscle to take away people's rights in certain situations, such as quarantine etc. If that is the case, then simply say "must allow certain rights."

It is not worth arguing about though since the Constitution will not be changed in that way.

If the thread is about how the founding documents should be changed, then of course we can argue about it.

(the thing about inalienable is in the Declaration though, afaik)

 

[gdnp]

My own pet change is to remove the reference to "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights," and instead include something along the lines of "in order to create a more perfect society, we hold that all men must be treated as equal and allowed certain inalienable rights."

That way it becomes purely reasonable and supportable instead of calling in a nonsense deity.

I think it is a little late to amend the Declaration of Independence, which contains the passage to which you refer. The constitution begins this way:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[gdnp]

Suddenly, at what point did citizens of the individual States become citizens of the United States?

June 21, 1788.

Any other questions?

 

[SezMe]

Well... I'm done with you now.

A conclusion most folks come to at one point or another. But don't put him on ignore; he's fascinating to watch. Like a booger hanging off some guy's nose, you just cannot avert staring at it and wondering, "OMG, when is it going to fall into his soup?"

 

[SezMe]

I don't want my rights to be "allowed" by anyone.

Just to keep Texas sharp, for once I'm going to agree with him. If rights are allowed, they can be unallowed, to coin a word. I like the inalienable part - though not connected to god - because it says exactly what I want, namely, that Congress or the President can't fiddle with them.

 

[SezMe]

Catching up on old biz ....

No, I don't think the issue of US Territories voting should be in the Constitution. Rather, I think there should be US States and their citizens or independent countries. The existence of US Territories creates something which, constitutionally, is neither fish nor fowl but sure is foul.

US territories have existed since the Louisiana Purchase at least. <snip>

In the rest of your post, you identified various US territories and problems associated with changing them to statehood. None of which I have any particular argument with. In the spirit of the thread topic, I was focuing purely on the constututionality of their existence. In that context, my point was that they should either be states or cut loose because, as far as I know, the constitution does not provide a basis for them.

As a minor aside:

The US Virgin Islands are too small to make a state: the total population is only about 100,000, not even a particularly large city. I suppose that they could be annexed by Puerto Rico if Puerto Rico were to becomes a state.

Consider Liechtenstein, a fully functional independent country. Total population (2000): 33,307

 

[gdnp]

Just to keep Texas sharp, for once I'm going to agree with him. If rights are allowed, they can be unallowed, to coin a word. I like the inalienable part - though not connected to god - because it says exactly what I want, namely, that Congress or the President can't fiddle with them.

Just to set the record straight, the Declaration of Independence calls them "unalienable rights", not "inalienable rights". There has been a debate over the years as to whether there is a distinction. I doubt it. Spelling was a bit looser back then.

What I like about this phrase is that it is useful in countering those who say that there is no right to X because the constitution does not promise one. The founding fathers clearly believed that there were unalienable rights, that these were given by the creator, that they were self-evident, and that they included (but were not limited to) life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So when I hear that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, I can't help but thinking: this is one of those self-evident, unalienable rights that was so basic that it didn't need to be stated. What is the philosophical basis for a protection against unreasonable search and seizure if not a right to privacy?

ETA: unfortunately, as I stated earlier, they put this statement in the Declaration of Independence. I wish they had repeated it in the Constitution.

 

[SezMe]

I would amend the 14th to put the word "natural" after the first word. My intent would be to disallow corporations from being "citizens" which, IMO, has caused untold damage to our nation.

Please elaborate.

I'll wing it here without cites. If it is a subject worth pursuing, we can start a new thread so as to not derail this one.

As noted by others, the 14th amendment was written to deal with the consequences of the civil war, slavery, etc. It had nothing to do with corporations.

Yet a later Supreme Court ruling brought corporations and the 14th into conjunction. The Supremes made no statement or ruling on the matter but giving corporations individual rights made it into a heading of a section written by a clerk.

Unfortunately, later SC rulings used that heading as a basis for giving corporations rights as citizens so that it is now established law.

I am adament that corporations are NOT citizens and do not deserve protections that citizens enjoy. They should guided by their charter and treated under the Commerce Clause.

 

[SezMe]

Just to set the record straight, the Declaration of Independence calls them "unalienable rights", not "inalienable rights". There has been a debate over the years as to whether there is a distinction. I doubt it. Spelling was a bit looser back then.

You are correct. My bad.

 

[gdnp]

Consider Liechtenstein, a fully functional independent country. Total population (2000): 33,307

Yikes. And they are not close to the smallest. They are only #22, according to Wikipedia. Consider Pitcairn Islands. Population: 50

 

[EGarrett]

The founding fathers clearly believed that there were unalienable rights, that these were given by the creator, that they were self-evident,

These are all unsupported assertions.

and that they included (but were not limited to) life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

They give no reason why these exist or are in/unalienable. It's a bit ironic that this argument from the Declaration of Independence, were it not a founding document of the country, would not hold up in a court of law.

So when I hear that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, I can't help but thinking: this is one of those self-evident, unalienable rights that was so basic that it didn't need to be stated. What is the philosophical basis for a protection against unreasonable search and seizure if not a right to privacy?

But how do you defend besides Appealing to the Authority of the Constitution? Do you just assert that the Constitution or Declaration are ALWAYS right? If you do that then how do you amend the constitution? You HAVE to bring in logic somewhere. Self-evident and unalienable aren't good enough. Without logical justification, it would be too easy for a smooth talking fascist or someone else with some reasoning that SOUNDS right to sweep them under the rug. Because how can you counter? By saying they're "self-evident?" That's not really convincing.

ETA: unfortunately, as I stated earlier, they put this statement in the Declaration of Independence. I wish they had repeated it in the Constitution.

Yes.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

June 21, 1788.

Any other questions?

I did not ask what date.

At what point did citizens of the individual States become citizens of the United States?

 

[Suddenly]

I am adament that corporations are NOT citizens and do not deserve protections that citizens enjoy. They should guided by their charter and treated under the Commerce Clause.

That a corporation is considered an entity in itself and a "person" as to most laws and forms of proceedure is something totally seperate from the 14th. It really is the only way to do things when you have something owned by various people an which has several layers of management. Considering a corporation as a person for the purpose of the legal system is the only practical way to do it.

I don't really see a problem for the most part in that most of these rights keep the government from acting in an arbitrary fashion against these entities.

Where I miss the boat is the degree of harm. There are aspects of it where it may go overboard, such as free speech issues, but I would maintain that the benefits of giving corporations basic rights like the right to due process far outweighs the glitches.

Even then, we could draw up an amendment making it clear that a corporation only has certain rights and not others rather than attack the idea as a whole, and I'm doubtful the 14th really changes things much. It just so happened that corporations started to become a big part of American life at that point, but this was a result of our economy transforming so that concentrations of capital became essential to harness emerging technology and so on...

 

[gdnp]

I did not ask what date.

At what point did citizens of the individual States become citizens of the United States?

You asked "what point." I assumed you meant "what point in time". If not, then perhaps you should restate the question instead of repeating it ad nauseum in a trollish fashion. Here are some web definitions of "point." Please indicate the one you are referring to. I chose the highlighted one:

# a geometric element that has position but no extension; "a point is defined by its coordinates"
# the precise location of something; a spatially limited location; "she walked to a point where she could survey the whole street"
# a brief version of the essential meaning of something; "get to the point"; "he missed the point of the joke"; "life has lost its point"
# detail: an isolated fact that is considered separately from the whole; "several of the details are similar"; "a point of information"
# degree: a specific identifiable position in a continuum or series or especially in a process; "a remarkable degree of frankness"; "at what stage are the social sciences?"
# an instant of time; "at that point I had to leave"# the object of an activity; "what is the point of discussing it?"
# a V shape; "the cannibal's teeth were filed to sharp points"
# a very small circular shape; "a row of points"; "draw lines between the dots"
# the unit of counting in scoring a game or contest; "he scored 20 points in the first half"; "a touchdown counts 6 points"
# a promontory extending out into a large body of water; "they sailed south around the point"
# item: a distinct part that can be specified separately in a group of things that could be enumerated on a list; "he noticed an item in the New York Times"; "she had several items on her shopping list"; "the main point on the agenda was taken up first"
# indicate: indicate a place, direction, person, or thing; either spatially or figuratively; "I showed the customer the glove section"; "He pointed to the empty parking space"; "he indicated his opponents"
# a style in speech or writing that arrests attention and has a penetrating or convincing quality or effect
# orient: be oriented; "The weather vane points North"; "the dancers toes pointed outward"
# an outstanding characteristic; "his acting was one of the high points of the movie"
# charge: direct into a position for use; "point a gun"; "He charged his weapon at me"
# sharp end; "he stuck the point of the knife into a tree"; "he broke the point of his pencil"
# steer: direct the course; determine the direction of travelling
# compass point: any of 32 horizontal directions indicated on the card of a compass; "he checked the point on his compass"
# bespeak: be a signal for or a symptom of; "These symptoms indicate a serious illness"; "Her behavior points to a severe neurosis"; "The economic indicators signal that the euro is undervalued"
# a linear unit used to measure the size of type; approximately 1/72 inch
# one percent of the total principal of a loan; it is paid at the time the loan is made and is independent of the interest on the loan
# luff: sail close to the wind
# period: a punctuation mark (.) placed at the end of a declarative sentence to indicate a full stop or after abbreviations; "in England they call a period a stop"
# mark (Hebrew words) with diacritics
# a V-shaped mark at one end of an arrow pointer; "the point of the arrow was due north"
# mark with diacritics; "point the letter"
# mark (a psalm text) to indicate the points at which the music changes
# decimal point: the dot at the left of a decimal fraction
# the property of a shape that tapers to a sharp tip
# be positionable in a specified manner; "The gun points with ease"
# a distinguishing or individuating characteristic; "he knows my bad points as well as my good points"
# target: intend (something) to move towards a certain goal; "He aimed his fists towards his opponent's face"; "criticism directed at her superior"; "direct your anger towards others, not towards yourself"
# indicate the presence of (game) by standing and pointing with the muzzle; "the dog pointed the dead duck"
# the gun muzzle's direction; "he held me up at the point of a gun"
# sharpen: give a point to; "The candles are tapered"
# a wall socket
# distributor point: a contact in the distributor; as the rotor turns its projecting arm contacts them and current flows to the spark plugs
# repair the joints of bricks; "point a chimney"

 

[marksman]

At what point did citizens of the individual States become citizens of the United States?

Oh, for goodness sakes.

Article I, section 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Article I, section 3: No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Article II, section 1: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

These sections existed in that language at the time of the Constitution's adoption. Now, since we had no problem electing Senators and Representatives, there must have been people who were "Citizens of the United States" and thus qualified to serve in Congress.

So, yes, as soon as the Constitution was ratified, citizens of the various States were also deemed "Citizens of the United States".

In Federalist Paper No. 2, Hamilton specifically notes that this proposed Constitution would expressly establish what had been the unwritten practice during the Articles of Confederation: national citizenship:

To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.​

The Fourteenth Amendment did not create a new class of citizenship.

 

[Darth Rotor]

What kind of moron would vote for an actor?

Republicans.

Californians. Remember, he was your Governor before he was president.

I also note Martin Sheen spent some time as mayor of Malibu, and Eastwood of Carmel.

Sorry, I seem to be late to this thread.

Not just late, a bit off your feed.

DR