How would you amend the U.S. Constitution?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by fromtheright, Jan 14, 2006.

  1. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess the NationStates game got me to thinking. Any thoughts?

    For starters, I would:

    --Repeal the 17th Amendment (direct election of Senators) and get back to state legislatures choosing them and the federalist design.

    --Add a Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman and that none of the civil benefits of marriage are to be extended to any other "relationship" (though that language might have to be fine-tuned a little).
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    How would I amend the constitution?

    VERY carefully and very rarely.
     
  3. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreed. But any changes you'd like to see in it?
     
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Repeal 16th and 17th amendments. (We couldn't repeal #19 could we? [​IMG] [​IMG] )

    Possibly term limits for the House.
     
  5. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,432
    Likes Received:
    72
    I would repeal the 22th Amendment. In the second term, the president doesn't have to care about the will of the public because he knows he can't run for re-election.

    I would also like to see an amendment banning elective abortion.
     
  6. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would also repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. I would also support ratification of the Liberty Amendment which would repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, and provide that "Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts."
     
  7. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    JG,

    It's been years but I read a lot on the Liberty Amendment at one time. Didn't it also include something about strictly enforcing what Congress could enact to the enumerated powers?
     
  8. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    For starters I would be very careful. Then I would:

    1. Add a Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman and that none of the civil benefits of marriage are to be extended to any other "relationship" (though that language might have to be fine-tuned a little). [copied fromtheright]

    2. Add an amendment forbidding the murder of unborn children.

    3. Add an amendment restoring the same system of Government to the states that the Federal Government enjoys. That is each county in a state would be entitled to the same number of representatives in the upper legislative body [the Senate]. The number of representatives in the lower house would from each county would be apportioned based on population. This is the way it was before the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in the 1960's.
     
  9. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    Return members of Congress to non paid status. They must be businessmen/landowners of good reputation, willing to serve but a single term of 2 years, and elected by their constituents.
     
  10. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    I believe eliminating the pension plan would automatically result in term limits.
     
  11. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Require the federal budget to be balanced annually, with exceptions only by a three-fourths vote of both houses of Congress and the president's signature.
     
  12. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Absoluty HORRIBLE ideas!
     
  13. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    Any of your own?
     
  14. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe eliminating the pension plan would automatically result in term limits. </font>[/QUOTE]I bet it would too. Removing all financial reasons for service would result in actions on behalf of the nation instead of selves. But we can't go back.
     
  15. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,816
    Likes Received:
    0
    What would you hope to gain or avoid by repealing the 17th Amendment?
     
  16. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    For myself, I answered that question in the OP: because it would restore the original federalist design. I don't assert that the 17th Amendment is illegitimate in any way, it was passed under the terms of the Constitution and is therefore a valid part of the Constitution. And I don't argue that the 17th amendment doesn't embody a valid, historical position: during the Constitutional Convention, one of the proposals made was direct election of Senators (May 31, 1787, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, perhaps others; seconded by Gouvenour Morris).

    Election of Senators by the state legislatures was very much a part of the federalist design, in which the states themselves were represented. It would be ridiculous to somehow equate legislative election of Senators with the toleration of slavery implicit in the 20-year life it was given. Toleration of slavery is a moral issue, federalism is not. To assert that it is a "HORRIBLE" idea implies that it is outside the realm of right reason and a proper view of morality, which is ridiculous. The Founders relied on a view which is eminently defensible, both then and now. It would be logically ridiculous also to argue that repealing the 17th Amendment somehow "turns back the clock" to a period when slavery was practiced and defended.

    Certainly, there are good historical reasons, even from a federalist perspective, for the 17th Amendment, which are (1) that there legislative deadlocks when different parties controlled the two houses of a state legislature and (2) scandals brought on by charges of corruption and bribery in state selection of Senators.

    [ January 15, 2006, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: fromtheright ]
     
  17. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    The U.S. Constitution, as originally framed in Article I, Section 3, provided for U.S. Senators to be elected by state legislators. This provided the states direct representation in the legislative branch so as to deter the usurpation of powers that are Constitutionally reserved to the states or to the people.

    The Seventeenth Amendment (providing for direct, popular election of U.S. Senators) took away from state governments their Constitutional role of indirect participation in the federal legislative process.

    If we are to see a return to the states those powers, programs, and sources of revenue that the federal government has unconstitutionally taken away, then it is also vital that we repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and return to state legislatures the function of electing the U.S. Senate. In so doing, this would return the U.S. Senate to being a body that represents the legislatures of the several states on the federal level and, thus, a tremendously vital part of the designed checks and balances of power that our Constitution originally provided.
     
  18. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    I would abolish the electoral college and let the vote of the people elect the President. This would prevent situations like we had in the 2000 election in which a President was elected who was not the choice of the majority of those who voted.

    I think this would reduce the potential for fraud in the election because the outcome wouldn't be dependent on the result in a single state (FLA in 2000 and ILL in 2004).
     
  19. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    We should keep the Electoral College. If we do away with it, then we might as well do away with the States as separate governmental units.

    By the way, I think you meant OH in 2004.
     
  20. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    How would I amend the Constitution? I would pass an Amendment declaring an upper limit on the number of laws any state could have on its books at one time. Add a law and take one which is no long applicable off!

    Then there would be another amendment saying all Americans above poverty level would be taxed ten percent of their incomes. Clean, simple, clear.

    But that would put WAY too many IRS employees and accountants out of work, wouldn't it?
     

Share This Page

Loading...