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

[Thunder]

Besides, the Constitution already is a human rights document.

not

 

[caniswalensis]

The 28th amendment should alter the nature of the Executive Branch to conform with the Redundant Monarchy model as outlined by J. Black and K. Gass in their seminal work: "City Hall."

 

[Dancing David]

are you sure about that?

you can only overturn it?

In essence you would have to have an amedment that strikes and restates the prior amendment.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Then it would be in order to add that language through an amendment.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Which is why we have the system we do, the will of the majority elects the HoR, and as amended the Senate, the will of the majority also elects the President. the HoR can pass legislation with a simple majority. The Senate however has a rule about ending discussion that needs a super majority.

The rule of the Senate seems to work as intended while frustrating. It did not prevent DOMA or DADT unfortunately. But again it allows the minority interests that can form an alliance of 40% to stall the Senate.

Now I agree the way that it has gone in the last 15 years is frustrating, but it cuts both ways, had the parties not in power chosen to block DOMA and DADT they could have done so. But personally I do not want the will of the people to always dominate, or we will be a Xian country and homosexuality will be banned again. And then people who aren’t Xians can be discriminated against, creationism in the schools and all that.

The Senate filibuster cuts both ways.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Amending the Constitution should be reserved for only the most important matters. I believe the next one should be about developing standard measures for sweetness in soy sauce. Kikkoman and La Choy are very, very different in the matter of sweetness, and I for one am tired of the heartaches this causes. This matter is tearing our country apart!! A system of twenty-eight different taste classifications of various ranks, indicated by graded colored warning labels and strictly overseen by a government agency empowered to inspect and enforce the laws would greatly strengthen our beloved republic. It's not just our national security at stake: it's also our peace of mind, and our gyoza.

I offer myself to head this new Soy Sauce Sweetness Standards Bureau, and pledge to effectively do the job without exceeding the SSSSB's modest $50 billion annual budget. I will need 10,000 employees, offices in all 56 states, and a fleet of armed helicopters. We can work out details regarding robots and armaments later.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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.

Blaylock is absolutely right.

The UN declaration is a foreign made document. The amendment as proposed would effectively turn the US into a province of the UN.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The idea that corporations have human rights is an absurdity that must be addressed directly and permanantly and irrevokably. That will take a constituional ammendment.

And we need to do it now or the carcinoma that corporations have become will kill us as a nation.

Right before your "from each according to ability, to each according to need" amendment. Right, Lefty?

 

[drkitten]

In essence you would have to have an amedment that strikes and restates the prior amendment.

Source? Can you give me any actual documents that indicate that an amendment that simply said 'The First Amendment to the Constitution is hereby amended as follows : by inserting the phrase "a non-Christian" between the words "establishment of" and "religion"' would be procedurally invalid?

The simple fact that no such amendment has been passed does not mean that it cannot be passed.

 

[Giggywig]

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."

Pretty much anywhere you set the bar other than where it currently is, you're going to affect kids you didn't mean to. For instance if an American citizen is raped or has a one night stand with an illegal immigrant or a tourist visiting the country for a week, her child would not be an American.

 

[drkitten]

Pretty much anywhere you set the bar other than where it currently is, you're going to affect kids you didn't mean to. For instance if an American citizen is raped or has a one night stand with an illegal immigrant or a tourist visiting the country for a week, her child would not be an American.

Yes, but not relevant; the point I was making was that such an amendment could be written, not that it was a good idea. Personally, I like the 14th amendment exactly as it is, largely because I've seen what happens when citizenship gets restricted in other countries.

 

[Giggywig]

Yes, but not relevant; the point I was making was that such an amendment could be written, not that it was a good idea. Personally, I like the 14th amendment exactly as it is, largely because I've seen what happens when citizenship gets restricted in other countries.

Ah ok, then never mind

 

[Dancing David]

Source? Can you give me any actual documents that indicate that an amendment that simply said 'The First Amendment to the Constitution is hereby amended as follows : by inserting the phrase "a non-Christian" between the words "establishment of" and "religion"' would be procedurally invalid?

The simple fact that no such amendment has been passed does not mean that it cannot be passed.

None, an amending amedment would be just fine AFAIK, which isn't much.

 

[quadraginta]

Amending the Constitution should be reserved for only the most important matters. I believe the next one should be about developing standard measures for sweetness in soy sauce. Kikkoman and La Choy are very, very different in the matter of sweetness, and I for one am tired of the heartaches this causes. This matter is tearing our country apart!! A system of twenty-eight different taste classifications of various ranks, indicated by graded colored warning labels and strictly overseen by a government agency empowered to inspect and enforce the laws would greatly strengthen our beloved republic. It's not just our national security at stake: it's also our peace of mind, and our gyoza.

I offer myself to head this new Soy Sauce Sweetness Standards Bureau, and pledge to effectively do the job without exceeding the SSSSB's modest $50 billion annual budget. I will need 10,000 employees, offices in all 56 states, and a fleet of armed helicopters. We can work out details regarding robots and armaments later.

Will this include Tamari and Bragg's Amino's^TM?

If so, you have my full support.

I will also generously offer my invaluable services as a semi-unqualified non-expert (for a reasonable remuneration in the comfortable six figure range, of course.)

 

[Trakar]

Proportional representation and/or abolishing the Senate and Electoral College.

Proportional representation is the House objective, the Senate represents the States not the people, and is a balance and check on populist fads and trendy idiocies. I do agree, however that while the electoral college was necessary in our forefather's time when it took weeks, if not months, to travel and communicate across the territories and states of the nation, but it really serves little or no great modern need, and is an unnecessary and unneeded complexity.

This ties in with what I would propose as an issue that needs constitutional clarification, and that goes to the entire spectrum of the electoral process, from congressional district mapping to campaign financing to the election procedures themselves.

One thing I would love to see done is a restriction of public campaigning times to end what seems to be the evolution of a near continuous campaign cycle. And forced public financing for all candidates to force the process back to being about issues and stances and away from the near constant fund-raising mode which seems to dominate incumbancy.

Not that I think my ideas above are necessarily the only correct directions, but I do think that electoral and campaign issues have reached the point where they need constitutional addressment.

 

[Trakar]

edit the 14th Amendment to stipulate that the children of illegal immigrants are not instant citizens.

The children of illegal immigrants are not instant citizens,...but anyone born within the borders of this nation is afforded all the rights and protections of citizenship. I see nothing wrong with this policy and fully agree with the status quo in this regard.

 

[Big Boss]

Then it would be in order to add that language through an amendment.

I did.

1. The United States government shall take all the necessary steps to bring its laws, and the laws of the states, in keeping with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This has the same effect as adding the UDoHR to the U.S. Constitution verbatim, which I've already argued is unnecessary and inconsistent with how the U.S. Constitution deals with international documents; it acknowledges treaties as the supreme law of the land without the need to directly quote every single treaty. In this case though, the UDoHR is a declaration and an international aspiration.

 

[Big Boss]

Blaylock is absolutely right.

The UN declaration is a foreign made document. The amendment as proposed would effectively turn the US into a province of the UN.

WOW. YES. FOREIGN MADE DOCUMENTS ARE BAD!

Except:

"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

I guess the Founders are evil for stating that treaties—which have the potential to be FOREIGNLY MADE (AHHHHHHHH!)—have the potential to the "supreme law of the land".

That's just an argument against your unwarranted disdain for foreign documents.

Apparently I need to remind people, again, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a treaty concerning supranational authority over nations and thus, its explicit Constitutional acknowledgment would not make us a province of the United Nations. The UDoHR says nothing about supranational authority over other nations. Period. It is explicitly referred to as a "a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations". Codifying it in our Constitution would change it from an aspiration to a legal standard for how our government should run. That doesn't involve surrendering sovereignty to the United Nations. Okay?

 

[Dancing David]

I did.



This has the same effect as adding the UDoHR to the U.S. Constitution verbatim, which I've already argued is unnecessary and inconsistent with how the U.S. Constitution deals with international documents; it acknowledges treaties as the supreme law of the land without the need to directly quote every single treaty. In this case though, the UDoHR is a declaration and an international aspiration.

Well, the COTUS needs the specific language to be addeed, I am doubtful that another document that could be changed without reference to tehe amendment process would not pass.

Just take the language you like and insert it, that should be easy enough.

And no treaty ever over rules COTUS. The Supreme Court can always rule the provisions of a treaty to be against COTUS, and therefore abrogate.

 

[Big Boss]

The Supreme Court can always rule the provisions of a treaty to be against COTUS, and therefore abrogate.

You are correct about this. The only point I'm making is that we've dealt with similar issues before without having to quote an entire document in the Constitution.