• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

What should the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution address?

Alt+F4 said:
You can't edit an amendment to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Sure you can; it just hasn't been done yet. "The 14th Amendment to the Constitution is hereby amended as follows : insert the words "to two parents, both legally present in the United States" after the word "born"."

It could also be done, of course, by writing a standalone amendment that dictates an overriding policy change. "No person born in the United States whose parents are not both citizens or legal residents of the United States shall be a citizen of the United States from birth, the provisions of the 14th Amendment notwithstanding."

Or even "The 14th Amendment is herewith repealed."
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Absolutely not!

Such an Amendment would, in effect, turn the running of this country over to outside powers, not accountable to the American people. Under no circumstances should we ever even think of allowing that. We did not get to be the greatest country in the world by letting lesser countries tell us how to run our country.
Click to expand...

By "letting lesser countries tell us how to run our country", I´m sure you mean "live up to the standards we pretend to uphold and to which we hold other countries", right? What would be so bad about that?
 
leftysergeant said:
Hypocritical. We just destroyed a country because we called them in violation of human rights as recognized througfhout most of the world.

We get to determine which nationsa are violating human rights, but the community of civilized nations world-wide don't get to set some minimal standards? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

Without getting into the particulars, any amendment that points to other documents will fail unless that entire document is included in the actual amendment. In other words, if I write an amendment saying that we all must listen to Spuds McKenzi on what beer to drink (Budweiser) and then Spuds goes off and decides to endorse Lowenbrau after the amendment passes then the entire point of the amendment process is moot. I think that's what was meant by saying that the control goes out of our hands.

What you suggested could allow an end run around the constitutions amendment process.
 
"The right of the people to privacy of their persons and belongings shall not be infringed."

It would solve quite a few issues, from warrantless wiretaps to abortion rights to gun rights.
 
Beerina said:
60 seat filibuster is working as intended. Huge changes should not be made on small and transient majorities. That's utterly asinine.

In fact, I'd require all laws to:

1. Have a 2/3 supermajority
2. Automatically expire after 5 years unless explicitly renewed. This process repeats indefinitely.
Click to expand...

So we can safely assume you're in favor of the national government being forbidden from doing anything...ever...
 
Sam.I.Am said:
In other words, if I write an amendment saying that we all must listen to Spuds McKenzi on what beer to drink (Budweiser) and then Spuds goes off and decides to endorse Lowenbrau after the amendment passes then the entire point of the amendment process is moot. I think that's what was meant by saying that the control goes out of our hands.
Click to expand...

No, he clearly meant that I was selling out the greatest country in the world to the United Nations, when there was absolutely no evidence for that.

Two other things:

  • I don't think The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has changed since its adoption in 1948. So I don't think your capricious analogy works.
  • "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" -- Article VI, U.S. Constitution

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't include every treaty we make in the U.S. Constitution, right? Not really sure "IT'S NOT IN THERE!!1" is going to screw us over, since there hasn't really been a precedent for that. And the UDoHR isn't even a treaty.
 
Last edited:
28th. abolish income tax, tax accumulated wealth via property tax.

29th How about we erase the fifty states, and make new boundaries based on socio-economic bases? Each approximately equal in population, but not size. Small urban states, huge agricultural states, each resident having the same approximate pull in the gov. Hey, it has been 150 years since any state was an actual separate country/state. Make them all Americans first, make statehood devolve from the U.S. No need to make them contiguous, Puerto Rico, Samoa and Hawaii all as "Islandia". Or maybe P.R. as part of Florida? Cuba and Baja as "Hispania"?

30th amendment, do away with Washington, decentralize it all. We;ve got instant messenging. Senate to Los Angeles, Congress to St. Joe, Pres to Ottawa (as part of the 28th, why not add four or five more? well, not add, merge, 50 is my limit)

31th National ID, based on scanning fingerprint. No need for any card, it's all in the computer anyway. Immigration would be easy to enforce. Never any question about where a president was born.
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
No, but slowing it down greatly I have no problems with.
Click to expand...

Yes, all the crazy action that has been taken to reduce the use of foreign oil, to rethink social security and medical care, to deal with climate change...

(All things that Congressmen on both sides proclaim)

My god, we need to do even less! What was I thinking.

I've heard all the arguments about the Senate before. Yes, I know it was formed that way because the Founders didn't like democracy. The world has moved on. Norway and New Zealand didn't spiral out of control, and we wouldn't either.

Also, I doubt New Hampshire would secede from the union.

Hey, let's bring back appointed Senators, just like the founders wanted (Wait, there are people actually calling for that :eek: ).
 
theprestige said:
Besides, the Constitution already is a human rights document.
Click to expand...

It outlines legal rights that were based on the recognition of human rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, but yeah.

The framework for human rights provided by the UDoHR is something I prefer though.
 
casebro said:
29th How about we erase the fifty states, and make new boundaries based on socio-economic bases? Each approximately equal in population, but not size. Small urban states, huge agricultural states, each resident having the same approximate pull in the gov. Hey, it has been 150 years since any state was an actual separate country/state. Make them all Americans first, make statehood devolve from the U.S. No need to make them contiguous, Puerto Rico, Samoa and Hawaii all as "Islandia". Or maybe P.R. as part of Florida? Cuba and Baja as "Hispania"?
Click to expand...

I am intrigued. Partly because I have always looked at Connecticut and Rhode Island and asked myself, "do these people really need two separate governments? Are the economic, social, political, environmental, industrial, agricultural, legal, and educational issues facing these two regions so very different that they need to be separate states?" and partly because your idea is without doubt the most impossible-to-implement concept I have heard all year.

The people at the top (Congress), the people in the middle (state legislatures) and the people at the bottom (the electorate) would be violently opposed to such a plan. Even if it could be shown that it would be in their best interest, they would fight it.
 
Beerina said:
No, but slowing it down greatly I have no problems with.
Click to expand...

Requiring a 2/3 vote to pass legislation (especially in the House of all things) and affirmation again in five years isn't going to slow anything down. It's going to grind to a halt and refuse to move at all. Democracy has to come with the guarantee that the will of the majority means something at some point.
 
Thunder said:
edit the 14th Amendment to stipulate that the children of illegal immigrants are not instant citizens.
Click to expand...

No. They are citizen, period.

Otherwise you end up like many countries that have third generation individuals who are not citizens. Koreans who are no japanese for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom