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

[Trakar]

How do people feel about certain issues to do with government structure?

For example:

• The fact that Supreme Court justices can sit on the court for life.
• There are no enumerated powers and limits for the executive branch (see Article II of our Constitution and compare it with Article I's Sections 8 and 9; pretty big difference).
• The electoral college.
• The three-branch system; do you view another branch as necessary, I mean.
• The term for a president being 4 years and the term limit being 2.
• The lack of a means for national initiatives and referendums (i.e. bringing issues for a direct democratic vote at a national level).

These are issues where an amendment remedy is probably most necessary, assuming you view these as issues. I don't necessarily view all of these as issues myself, but these are ones I see commonly discussed.

Well if the executive branch has no enumerated powers in the Constitution then Constitutionally it should not have any powers,...right?

I like the idea of referendums, but in general, they tend to be unworkable as people actually have a long list of things they'd like the government to do for them, they just seem to refuse to increase their own taxes to pay for them. That's a big part of California's budget problem, unfunded mandates as the referendum process allows people to vote in new programs and vote out the tax hikes necessary to fund them. There are probably ways around some of these problems (require all referendums to be revenue neutral - funded, make the passage of national referendum require a 2/3 majority for passage, etc.), but it would be a messy, ugly system.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

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.

Wrong. anyone born in the U.S. is an instant citizen, regardless of the status of the parents.

 

[Trakar]

Wrong. anyone born in the U.S. is an instant citizen, regardless of the status of the parents.

That's what I said.

 

[Sabrina]

Term limits (no more than twelve years; i.e. two terms) for Senators and Representatives.

Worked for the President...

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Banning referendums that are _not_ recalling a politician. We kinda elected them for a reason.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You presuppose that there should be a 28th amendment.
I haven't given it too much thought, but I'm not sure that there is such a need.

Agreed. What's the actual need being addressed here?

Or is the OP just jerking off?

 

[Big Boss]

Or is the OP just jerking off?

Starting what has turned out to be a pretty insightful discussion, actually, which I have already masturbated to seven times.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Starting what has turned out to be a pretty insightful discussion, actually, which I have already masturbated to seven times.

Mission accomplished, I see ...

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Given the many problems that face our nation today, and just assuming you had the authority to ratify the 28th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution all by yourself, what issue(s) would you have the amendment address?

Some general issues to consider:

• The issue of corporate personhood.
• What powers are available to the executive branch and how it is organized.
• Equal rights across lines such as gender, sexual orientation, etc.

I'd restate the bloody obvious: the commerce clause is not, and never was, intended to be a grant of power to regulate anything under the sun as long as some tenuous nexus can be invented to show that commerce across state lines could possibly be affected, and is instead a grant of power to the federal government to strike down state laws that impede interstate commerce.

It's kind of ridiculous to have to restate something that should be as plain as day to anyone with more than one functioning brain cell, but it seems some people need this spelled out for them. We should probably use small words so they can understand what the amendment says, too.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

How do people feel about certain issues to do with government structure?

For example:
[*]The fact that Supreme Court justices can sit on the court for life.

I approve.

[*]There are no enumerated powers and limits for the executive branch (see Article II of our Constitution and compare it with Article I's Sections 8 and 9; pretty big difference).

I don't see this as an issue. The Constitution states that all executive power rests with the president. Seems pretty simple to me.

[*]The electoral college.

I'm cool with it.

[*]The three-branch system; do you view another branch as necessary, I mean.

Yes. Yes, I do.

[*]The term for a president being 4 years and the term limit being 2.

Length of term is fine with me, but I would remove the term limit.

[*]The lack of a means for national initiatives and referendums (i.e. bringing issues for a direct democratic vote at a national level).

Eh, I'm against this. While it would be nice to be able to enact laws out Congressmen don't feel like enacting, our system is pretty much organized to protect ourselves from tyranny of the majority.

 

[Cain]

I agree with earlier posters -- the senate works more or less as the Founders intended. Instead we need to get back to fundamental principles, fighting the scourge of democratic, representative government by repealing direct election of senators and somehow reinstituting the three-fifths rule (as the Founders intended).

 

[Upchurch]

Term limits (no more than twelve years; i.e. two terms) for Senators and Representatives.

Worked for the President...

Take it from a state that has term limits on its legislators: Term limits are a bad idea. It just means that the people with the most experience writing laws are the lobbyists.

 

[caniswalensis]

Every Friday will be mandatory "funny hat" day.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Every president shall be executed immediately on leaving office. This will prevent them from attempting to use their office for personal gain, and also discourage frivolous candidates from running.

 

[quadraginta]

Every president shall be executed immediately on leaving office. This will prevent them from attempting to use their office for personal gain, and also discourage frivolous candidates from running.

This reminds me of a sci-fi novel I read years ago (Sadly, I can't remember which one. I recall it was hilarious.) where one law was that it wasn't murder to kill a politician if you could convince a jury they deserved it.

 

[Trakar]

Take it from a state that has term limits on its legislators: Term limits are a bad idea. It just means that the people with the most experience writing laws are the lobbyists.

I'm not opposed to term limits, but without campaign and finance reform (which helps to address the lobbyist issue), it doesn't fully address the issues that most favor with regards to long-term incumbancy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'd restate the bloody obvious: the commerce clause is not, and never was, intended to be a grant of power to regulate anything under the sun as long as some tenuous nexus can be invented to show that commerce across state lines could possibly be affected, and is instead a grant of power to the federal government to strike down state laws that impede interstate commerce.

It's kind of ridiculous to have to restate something that should be as plain as day to anyone with more than one functioning brain cell, but it seems some people need this spelled out for them. We should probably use small words so they can understand what the amendment says, too.

But you're wrong. The liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause is the law of the land.

Even a strict constructionist has to recognize that the authority to interpret the U.S. Constitution is granted to the Judiciary and the Supreme Court. So dismissing the substantial case law that has led to the liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause would require ignoring Article III.

Article III plainly spells out this authority in very simple language. ETA: In other words, what YOU think the Commerce Clause means is not the law if it differs from what the Judiciary says it means.

 

[MikeMangum]

A slippery slope. One that defeats the original purpose of the amendment, that being to protect the citizens from the capricious will of local party politics.

Actually, the original purpose of (that particular portion of) the 14th amendment was to ensure that the freed slaves were granted citizenship, specifically to nullify the ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford that blacks were not protected by the Constitution and could not be citizens of the United States.

 

[MikeMangum]

Even a strict constructionist has to recognize that the authority to interpret the U.S. Constitution is granted to the Judiciary and the Supreme Court.

Even a strict constructionist huh? That's strange, since it is pretty well accepted that Marbury v Madison established the principle of judicial review, not the Constitution. In fact, the US government itself notes that this is the case on this page with the subhead:

The decision in this Supreme Court Case established the right of the courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government.

Part of the body:

“A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” With these words written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Supreme Court for the first time declared unconstitutional a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Nothing in the Constitution gave the Court this specific power. Marshall, however, believed that the Supreme Court should have a role equal to those of the other two branches of government.

 

[MikeMangum]

Congress shall not make any disbursement of funds to the states conditional on any action or policy of the states.

In other words, Congress can't take money from a state with which to then bribe that state to enact policies that the state would not enact absent that bribe. No more "raise your drinking age to 21 or your don't get hiway construction funds" or anything similar.

Sovereign immunity is no defense for an Officer of government accused of a crime. A crime committed by an Officer of government is the responsibility of that individual, and any punishments or penalties are to be assumed by that individual, not the people.

Prosecutor fabricated evidence, and this can be conclusively proven in a court of law? He can't be charged with obstruction of justice because he has sovereign immunity. A police officer beats the crap out of someone for no reason at all? Often, nothing happens to the police officer, and although you can sue, it is not the individual officer who is held responsible, but the government that the officer represents (read as: taxpayers). So the officer doesn't have to pay that $200,000 settlement because he had a bad day and took it out on some mouthy kid using his nightstick (causing said mouthy kid to end up in the hospital), it is the taxpayers. This amendment would change that.

And my absolute favorite:
Dear Honorable Justices, please re-read Article 1, Section 8, keeping in mind that it is an inclusive enumeration.

ETA: oh, and this:

Forced entry searches and seizures of residences are only to be conducted if there is an imminent threat to life or limb. The possiblity of destruction of evidence does not constitute such threat.