If you could change the Constitution...

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by fromtheright, Nov 24, 2003.

  1. fromtheright

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

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    --I would do away with the Seventeenth Amendment that brought in direct election of Senators as it has weakened the federalism our Founders sought.

    --I would amend the Sixteenth Amendment (income taxes) to require a supermajority for tax increases.

    --I would amend the Constitution to ensure that citizens brought before administrative courts have the same due process rights as in regular courts of justice.

    --I would amend the Tenth Amendment, as was attempted and out-voted in the First Congress to say that "The powers not explicitly delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States..."

    --I would define marriage as between a man and a woman, and would attend none of the benefits of it to any other arrangement.

    --I would clarify that the Fourteenth Amendment shall not be construed to extend any legal benefit to anyone not otherwise entitled to such benefit.

    --I would prohibit Congress or any state from granting rights or privileges of citizenship to any immigrant, or their descendant, who has not been naturalized; that once an alien parent has been naturalized, their children are then entitled to such benefits.

    --I would edit the First Amendment to clarify that political leaders and government officials at all levels are protected by the free exercise clause, and not prohibited by the establishment clause, to acknowledge God.

    --I would remind voters that they are free to vote for the candidate of their choice without implication by PA Jim or KenH that they are lesser conservatives, Christians, or citizens for doing so. [​IMG]

    Just for starters.

    [ November 24, 2003, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: fromtheright ]
     
  2. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    Got a good chuckle on that one. [​IMG]

    BTW, I would Amend it to say that James Reed is the uncontested, never-ending, Supreme ruler of the country. :D Of course, that's just me.
     
  3. mark

    mark
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/mark.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2000
    Messages:
    1,906
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would make the 2nd amendment crystal clear. It can be interpretted as no restrictions at all, or it can be interpretted as only the "well-regulated militia" has this right.
     
  4. mark

    mark
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/mark.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2000
    Messages:
    1,906
    Likes Received:
    0
    The framers of the Consitution never dreamt that was necessary. It may be too late, (now don't yell at me, I am majorly anti-gay rights) but maybe we ought to start now moving to insure marriage is only between two people, no animals, no robots, and only 2.
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would leave the constitution the way it is. It works great.
     
  6. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    'maybe we ought to start now moving to insure marriage is only between two people, no animals, no robots, and only 2. "
    Very wise indeed.
    Finally putting in place the ERA amendment of 1972 also wouldn't hurt.
     
  7. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    One way you know the Constitution was well-written, is that it makes all the right kinds of people hyperventillate.
     
  8. fromtheright

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

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess when the Left does most of its amending through the Supreme Court, it's tough to see people who wouldn't mind seeing changes done democratically as intended.
     
  9. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    So if you think the Constitution works, you're a liberal?? :eek: Oh, please! What a cheap and baseless shot, meant to do nothing but discredit anyone who doesn't agree with you. :rolleyes:
     
  10. fromtheright

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

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, lighten up, Johnv. After being told I am apparently the "right kind of person" to hyperventilate, I didn't think it was too bad.

    The point of the changes I listed was:
    --to return to the federalist model
    --to make it tougher to increase taxes (which, now on second thought, might only make it easier to do deficit spending)
    --to more securely return to the limited government model of the Founders
    --to forestall an impending revolution in marriage law at the hands of various courts.
    --to better guarantee that those who get in this country illegally can't get its legal benefits.

    And, besides, it's true, you guys have largely gotten benefits of the liberal dream through the hands of activist judges, except for the New Deal, which was protected by activist judges. It's a valid, legitimate point that you can feel welcome to debate. If you take it so personally, it may be only because it rings so true.

    I will add that if anyone is due an apology, I offer one to Ken and Penn if any offense was taken; none was intended.
     
  11. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh, who's "you guys"? I'm not a liberal. I'm a moderate conservative. (which, to right wing conservatives, is a liberal [​IMG] )
     
  12. mark

    mark
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/mark.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2000
    Messages:
    1,906
    Likes Received:
    0
    Though I made 2 suggestions, the US Constitution is the most incredible man-written document ever composed IMHO.
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who gets to define the "right kind of people"???? I think the hyperventilation comes from those who see the constitution being often ignored or changed to fit a particular viewpoint.
     
  14. CalvinG

    CalvinG
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personally, I don't think it should be necessary to amend the constitution...and it wouldn't be if amendment were not occurring by judicial fiat.

    Who would ever have thought that the words of the Fourteenth Amendment protected the "right" to an abortion? Certainly not the people who overwhelmingly criminalized it whent he amendment was ratified. (There are problems with all the civil rights amendments that folks don't generally like to go into...such as some of their not being ratified by a supermajority of northern/unionist states and the requirement that they be ratified before "reconstruction" was brought to an end in the South.) To take an amendment that was initially ratified in this manner and then expand it far beyond what its drafters could ever have imagined...seems ludicrous to me.

    I actually would like to leave domestic relations laws to the states as a component part of federalism. Federal laws governing ERISA, social security, and other federal benifits, however, can take into account whether a particular jurisdiction has a marriage law which is contrary to public policy. And it would be very reasonable to permit states to deny recognition to "marriages" which are contrary to the particular state's public policy (and, incidentally, to all reasonable Judeo-Christian thinking).

    Maybe there is something wrong with my outlook on things, but it amuses me that ridiculously liberal states such as Massachusetts adopt laws which are so contrary to mainstream American thought. This really harms the Democrats on the national level. Is there any hope for Howard Dean, who signed a civil union bill, in the South? I think not.
     
  15. fromtheright

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

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

    You're quite right, of course. Though I would like to see the 17th Amendment overturned, it is simply to get back to the federalist model, but there is no doubt that the American people, who are sovereign, disagree (quite strongly, I might add) with me on that.

    I also agree basically with you about marriage law. The reason I want to see it Constitutionalized is primarily due to judges who are about to impose their own view of "family" on various states, and perhaps ultimately on the country by the Supreme Court. Scalia was, of course, right, that after the Texas sodomy case homosexual marriage would be the next thing pushed.
     
  16. fromtheright

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

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

    Uh, who's "you guys"? I'm not a liberal. I'm a moderate conservative. (which, to right wing conservatives, is a liberal )

    You're right, there are two kinds of politics: right[wing] and wrong. :D
     
  17. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Those who are adept and those who are sinister? [​IMG]
     
  18. CalvinG

    CalvinG
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    0
    From the right,

    I agree with you. Scalia is almost always right.

    Scalia's tenure on the SC stands for two things:

    1. New appointments should be conservative academics who have conclusively demonstrated their literalness and conservatism in academic writings.

    2. Academics are much less likely than statesmen or politicians, or even state judges to change their views when appointed to the Court.

    One thing to remember: most states elect their supreme court justices. Stating that ambiguous language grants homosexuals the same rights as regular folks with regard to the institution of marriage sounds like a really good way to lose the next election and (if the law allows) to possibly get recalled.
     
  19. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just a brief history lesson:

    Roe v Wade did not legalize abortion. Rather, it limited the states powers to regulate it across the board. Attorneys for Roe had suggested several constitutional provisions might be violated by the Texas law prohibiting abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother. The law was said to have been an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment, unconstitionally vague (the ground used in Blackmun's first draft of his opinion), a denial of equal protection of the laws, and a violation of the Ninth Amendment (which states that certain rights not specified in the first eight amendments are reserved to the people). The Court in Roe chose, however, to base its decision on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the so-called "right of privacy" protected in earlier decisions such as Griswold v Connecticut (striking down a ban on the use, sale, and distribution of contraceptives). Deciding HOW to protect the right to an abortion proved as difficult. Roe's trimester-based analysis generally prohibits regulation of abortions in the first trimester, allows regulation for protecting the health of the mother in the second trimester, and allows complete abortion bans after six months, the approximate time a fetus becomes viable. Prior to Roe v Wade, laws varied from state to state, though many states had laws that regulated abortion in the same manner as Roe v Wade. (Now, if the federal government were to place limits on abortion, then that would be constitutional, because a person's rights would not vary from state to state).

    In the 1992 case, Planned Parenthood v Casey, the court added an additional caveat: Does the regulation in question place an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion? Using this new test, courts have upheld some abortion regulations (such as 24-hour waiting periods) while striking down others.
     

Share This Page

Loading...