Poll: How should the US Constitution be ammended

How would you ammend the US constitution?

  • Repeal the second ammendment

    Votes: 17 20.0%

  • Strengthen the second ammendment

    Votes: 17 20.0%

  • Ban abortion

    Votes: 1 1.2%

  • Protect abortion rights

    Votes: 26 30.6%

  • Ban flag burning

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Right to privacy

    Votes: 36 42.4%

  • change/eliminate the electoral college

    Votes: 45 52.9%

  • Ban the income tax

    Votes: 8 9.4%

  • congressional term limits

    Votes: 29 34.1%

  • Balanced budget

    Votes: 20 23.5%

  • other

    Votes: 23 27.1%
  • Total voters
    85
Actually, it's been galling since I was seven to think that I could become President but my adopted sister never could (and she would be a great President).

(And I wouldn't want Ferrigno to be Veep -- he'd be the Secretary of Kicking Ass -- The Rock would be Vice President)
 
But if the Senate made him angry, while he was presiding...Well, let's put it this way. You wouldn't like him when he's angry.
 
gtc said:
This is true, but I don't think a Kiwi would like you saying that. Four fifths of their national identity is about not being Australians (kind of like the Canadians are with Americans).

.
Click to expand...
LOL Yes and that is why I worded it that way since I wasn't sure if the poster was from New Zealand. I spent a year in Perth as a Project Engineer for the Northwest Shelf LNG project and am very aware of the 2 countries rivalries.
 
gdnp said:
Pure, unrestrained democracy can be pretty ugly. I would hate to be entirely at the whim of my fellow citizens.

It is a tribute to the document and those running the country over the last 200 years that only one one big error was made: prohibition.
Click to expand...
Damn that Carrie Nation.
 
Looks like we're going to have to work harder on developing a consensus before we call our constitutional convention. Still not a single taker for a flag burning amendment, the one most likely to pass if proposed because few politicians would have the guts to vote against it.
 
I wrote this seven months ago on another forum where I asked precisely this question...

Here's my list, in no particular order:
1. Modification of citizenship requirements for presidency. A simple change, but a significant one. I would alter the requirement that eligibility for the office of President is denied by an accident of birth. Currently, if an individual is not born an American citizen, he is ineleigible to be president. I believe we are sufficiently removed from the threat of British reconquest to tiptoe into the waters of the possibility of maybe having a non-native American president. The age required to be president is currently 35. I think that is a sufficient requirement for term of citizenship also.

2. Amendment concerning acquisition of territory. There is no vehicle at the moment in the Constitution regarding how the United States can expand if the opportunity arises. The only possible justification is the method for signing and ratifying treaties, but that's only an implied authority. I would add an amendment that states new territory can be acquired by treaty, land gained in the course of congressionally declared war, or by claiming previously unclaimed land. Not only would this fix an oversight by the framers, it would also provide a constitutional basis for NASA.

3. Clarification of the Commerce Clause. As it stands, the clause granting Congress the authority to regulate commerce between the states is the basis for almost all laws passed by Congress and regulations enacted by various agencies. Supreme Court precedent holds that the federal government can regulate anything that merely travels between the states and even something that doesn't involve interstate activity at all can be regulated, relying on the possibility that it may affect commerce that could be interstate in nature. Anyone who took the time to understand the founding principles of this nation would know the federal government's powers were supposed to be few and defined. Compare that idea to the leviathan we have in Washington today, where one is hard-pressed to identify any activity that is not touched upon in some aspect by federal laws and/or regulations. This amendment would clarify the original intent of the Commerce Clause, which was to regulate ("make regular") commerce between the states and restrict them from enacting barriers to trade between them.

4. Designation of treaties as subordinate to the Constitution. Currently, treaties ratified by the Senate carry as much weight as the Constitution itself, yet they are not subject to the same controls as constitutional amendments. A simple majority of the Senate can, with the cooperation of the President, enter into a treaty that removes rights guaranteed by the Constitution. An amendment, on the other hand, must pass the Senate and the House, and the also be ratified by three-fourths of the several states in order to be carried into force. This imbalance in protections against unwanted changes from within is a threat to our freedoms. It should be fixed.

Those are the changes I could think of off the top of my head. I might have more, but I can't think of any at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Tsukasa Buddha said:
my amendments made no mention of central planning of the economy.
Click to expand...
Nor does the original US Constitution. Yet we have a federal government that justifies regulating how much wheat you can grow on your own land to feed your own animals and whether it's OK to grow your own medicine for your own use. All justified as regulation of Interstate Commerce. With that kind of logic they already have the power to control pot luck suppers. Who needs new authority for central planning?


Bob Blaylock said:
If we could get all levels of government to strictly obey the Constitution as it now stands, I solidly believe that this would be of far greater benefit to this nation and its people than any change that could be made to the Constitution itself.
Click to expand...

:clap:
 
It would never happen, but I wouldn't mind congressional term limits. I also haven't decided if the Seventeenth Amendment was a good idea (direct election of senators).

As for new amendments, I'd like one the prohibits the federal government from regulating (via funding) that which it can't legislate directly.
 
I too would like to see congressional term limits. These were a big deal with the Republicans when the Democrats were in power, but once the Republicans took over they dropped the issue.

The majority of the country seems to think that congress is broken, yet the reelection rate of Representatives in 2004 was 396 of 401: almost 99%. There may have been a few that did not run because they knew they would lose, but it still seems like a bit more turnover would be healthy.
 
gdnp said:
a bit more turnover would be healthy.
Click to expand...

I usually take that position in an argument. But since you already did, I can say something like:

But that puts all the power in the hands of experienced lobbyists and unelected bureaucrats.
 
YoPopa said:
I usually take that position in an argument. But since you already did, I can say something like:

But that puts all the power in the hands of experienced lobbyists and unelected bureaucrats.
Click to expand...

The power is still in the hands of the representatives, who have their fingers on the switch that votes "yea" or "nay". The congressional staffers would gain some influence. The lobbyists--they would have a flood of new recruits with all the turnover. There would be the problem of all the lame ducks.

The question would be how long to allow people to serve: two terms for the senate, six for the house?
 
gdnp said:
The power is still in the hands of the representatives, who have their fingers on the switch that votes "yea" or "nay". The congressional staffers would gain some influence. The lobbyists--they would have a flood of new recruits with all the turnover. There would be the problem of all the lame ducks.

The question would be how long to allow people to serve: two terms for the senate, six for the house?
Click to expand...
"still in the hands of the representatives,"?

It's hardly there now. Congress has abdicated most law making power to bureaucrats already. The EPA, FAA, SBA, SEC, CPPBSD, and hundreds of other agencies all pass their own regulations which carry the force of law.

And how many congress critters ever read the bills they are voting on? What they do is rely on the advice of others. At least if they have some experience they might know which of the others has hoodwinked them in the past. As noobs not a one of them will stay long enough to get even that small bit of insight.
 
gdnp said:
The power is still in the hands of the representatives, who have their fingers on the switch that votes "yea" or "nay".
Click to expand...
If that were an effective limitation, you wouldn't be advocating term limits. Term limits only make sense if you don't trust the voters to maintain reps who are voting "yea" or "nay".

But inexperienced Reps are more prone to be influenced by lobbyists who can flood them with information.

The congressional staffers would gain some influence. The lobbyists--they would have a flood of new recruits with all the turnover.
Click to expand...
Worse, the congressional staffers would become more familiar with the lobbyists than with the Congressmen. That's already a problem with the regulatory agencies, many of whose unelected staffers are more familiar with lobbies than with the political appointees who manage the agency for a few years at most.

I think term limits essentially hands the entire legislative process to the lobbyists.

There would be the problem of all the lame ducks.
Click to expand...
Let's see, lame ducks who don't have to worry about the approval of their constiuents, but do have to worry about their next paycheck... lobbyists who can offer big paychecks and will undoubtedly decide to hire people who have demonstrated a commitment to their cause...

[sarcasm]Yeah, no problem there...[/sarcasm]
 
Hmm. Term limits would seem to require more thought.

Anyone for a line item veto?
 
I have several dozen Natalie Portman related amendments that I would like to suggest. However, I don't feel this forum is a sufficiently serious place for such a discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom