If the Constitution were yours to change...

[Avatar4321]

Your post would indicate otherwise, including posts 10 and 12, among others.

No, the Bill of Rights is in just as much need now as any time during our Nation’s history, if not more so.

Then why support politicians who ignore it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Dump the Electoral College and go to a straight popular vote for President

The EC should stay but the winner take all is unjust and needs to be eliminated.
In fact any adjustment should be that which gives no party or voting bloc ANY type of advantage.

The President represents the PEOPLE not the states

He should be elected by popular vote

Last time I read the Constitution, the House of Representatives represented the people, and the Senate represented the states. I might have to go and read it again, but I am pretty sure the president is supposed to command the military, the militia (including the National Gard for the idiots that think the president does not have the authority to order them into service), get the written opinions of the various heads of the executive branch, and grant reprieves and pardons to anyone who has not been impeached. He also negotiate, and sign, treaties, which have to be approved by two thirds of the Senate. He is also required to report on the state of the union to Congress, not blather endlessly about his political agenda, hopes, and/or dreams. He can make recommendations about the latter, but Congress is free to ignore them. He can also call Congress into extraordinary session, and can adjourn them of the two house do not agree on a date of adjournment. (This power, by the way, is why Obama was wrong to argue that he could make recess appointments without waiting for Congress to adjourn. I am sure that, if he had asked, Reid would have insisted on an adjournment date, putting Boehner in the position of not agreeing, thus enabling him to adjourn Congress under the Constitution, and making any appointment he made during the resulting recess unchallengeable.) He is also empowered to receive foreign representatives, issue commissions, and even take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Care to point out the part I missed where it says he represents anyone?

 

[Billo_Really]

Why would anyone waste their time on such nonsense.
BTW, Corporations may not be, in and of themselves "people", but they are made up of people and that's all that matters.

Corporations have much more money and capital to throw at politicians. They have a greater ability to influence elected officials than a single person can.

Giving them the same rights as a person, has stripped average American's from their representation in government. They need to be completely removed from the political process.

 

[sfcalifornia]

What changes, if any, would you make to it?

26th Amendment:
Eliminate electoral collegse. Top 2 national primary for President. The country shall have one day where the entire country votes for the two candidates they want to run for the Presidency. These two candidates may be from the same party. It's the top two regardless of party or affliation. It's based solely on popular vote. Whichever two candidates at the end of the wins the most votes wins the election.

Vote Fraud Prevention: First, voters must register to vote in the area they are live in. Voter registration update is required every five years. Registration requires: (1) A Birth Certificate or naturalization card, (2) One valid photo ID (driver's license or state ID) and (3) Proof of continued residency. At the polling place, you must provide valid identification of (1) Your voter registration card and (2) Photo identification in the form of either (a) state driver's license with identical name and address or (b) state ID card with name and address. If an individual is too inpoverished to obtain a state ID or driver's license than he/she can apply for at no cost, including free postage, a free of charge state ID card.

Not unlawful gerrymandering of districts to make the most favorable districts to a political party or candidate. Districts shall be constructed solo on geographical location and population. Unlawful gerrymandering shall be grounds for impeachement, removal from office and criminal prosecution for fraud.

The 26th Amendment sets the voting age at 18. It has nothing to do with the Electoral College. Do you mean the 12th Amendment?

 

[sfcalifornia]

What changes, if any, would you make to it?

In general, I'd clarify equal protection.

Specifically, I'd amend it to abolish the practice of using discriminatory taxation as a means of manipulating behavior. Effectively, this means no more using the tax code to 'incent' or 'penalize'.

I'd rewrite the taxation power to withstand the sophistry and lawyering of ambitious leaders (Hamilton, et al). I'd make it clear that it is the power to tax - not the power to spend. The power to spend is covered in the necessary and proper clause. No 'implied' powers need be imagined.

I'd clarify, and limit, the commerce clause to apply to the proper federal role of resolving trade disputes between the states, and prohibit it as an excuse for the feds to interfere in all aspects of our lives.

I'd consider repealing all of the Bill of Rights. It was never necessary.

The very First Amendment gives you the right to say that. I would say it was very necessary.

The 3rd Amendment seems a little silly nowadays...........

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What changes, if any, would you make to it?

In general, I'd clarify equal protection.

Specifically, I'd amend it to abolish the practice of using discriminatory taxation as a means of manipulating behavior. Effectively, this means no more using the tax code to 'incent' or 'penalize'.

I'd rewrite the taxation power to withstand the sophistry and lawyering of ambitious leaders (Hamilton, et al). I'd make it clear that it is the power to tax - not the power to spend. The power to spend is covered in the necessary and proper clause. No 'implied' powers need be imagined.

I'd clarify, and limit, the commerce clause to apply to the proper federal role of resolving trade disputes between the states, and prohibit it as an excuse for the feds to interfere in all aspects of our lives.

I'd consider repealing all of the Bill of Rights. It was never necessary.

The very First Amendment gives you the right to say that. I would say it was very necessary.

The 3rd Amendment seems a little silly nowadays...........

It does seem silly, but I am pretty sure no one would think it silly if the government decided to ignore it.

 

[sfcalifornia]

I would eliminate the Electoral College.

I would eliminate Pork from bills.

I would eliminate gerrymandering.

I would eliminate the filibuster.

I would eliminate property tax school funding and fund schools through income and sales tax instead.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The 3rd Amendment seems a little silly nowadays...........

That's because the 3rd Amendment has not been interpreted to account for modern times.

In Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice Douglas interpreted "Soldier" to imply "agent of the state." An agent by definition is "a person or thing that acts or has the power to act on another's behalf." The word "agent" was very specially selected among many other similar words that could have been used.

Also, in historical context, the Third Amendment is designed to protect the people against police oppression by an overwhelming military presence in a concentrated area.

When we take that into consideration, there are many things that we can consider "agents of state." A drone is an agent of the state, as is a piece of computer software that is installed on your computer (by the government).

Suppose that the government sent a person, with a warrant, to your house. The warrant said he was to "search your computer and monitor your computer activities for 12 hours a day, at the expiration of those 12 hours, a second agent will relieve him for the next 12 hours. They may watch your computer for as many days as they believe is necessary."

Well that sounds pretty screwed up no? Obviously no such warrant would ever issue. It would be a violation of the Third Amendment, even if its not a violation of the Fourth Amendment (although in bad taste).

Now let's suppose a realistic scenario based on the same concept: Suppose a law enforcement agency installs a piece of software on your computer to monitor all of its activities. The software is an "agent of the state," that is providing 24/7 surveillance, and that software cannot be uninstalled unless they terminate it.

In the context of the Third Amendment, it is the same Case as described above.

1. There is a government agent. Check
2. This agent is on/within your property. Check
3. This agent will remain there for an unreasonable amount of time. Check

Thus, on the Third Amendment alone, you can resist this.

-----------------------
How about an easier example, drones.
Suppose we reach a point where unarmed spy drones litter the skies, surveilling and policing, oppressing the population with non-lethal weaponry when required. This would be considered an Oppressive Police/Military Occupation, and based on the Third Amendment, is would be struck down.

-----------
We may arguably live in the most pivotal time in history to discuss the Third Amendment.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ouIKgregYuQ]Krauthammer - ban drones - YouTube[/ame]

Citizens have already shot down several drones over US soil. They wont' be brought to trial because it would force the Courts to recognize that 2nd Amendment for its intended purpose (to enforce the 1st, 3rd and 4th Amendments against a tyrannical power), which would deal two serious blows to the Progressive platform.

Here is a satirical article that gives you the idea of how the Third Amendment might be seeing action:
Americans forced to quarter military drone mechanics in their homes | Washington Times Communities

 

[FA_Q2]

I'd consider repealing all of the Bill of Rights. It was never necessary.

I am surprised to see you say this as it is downright crazy. I understand that if the government operated exactly as it is supposed to that you are essentially correct however the way the government has acted in the past and present should illustrate VERY clearly that your ideal is flat out not going to happen. The bill of rights is very much required to ensure that we even have rights.

I would go the EXACT opposite direction. It is quite clear from the founder’s standpoint that we really do not have ‘inalienable’ rights as they did not restrict the states in passing laws that stripped you of your rights under the bill of rights. That is a purely court contrived idea. I believe that those protections in the bill of rights and the following amendments should be just as protected from state intrusion as it is federal intrusion and I would make it so if I could.

 

[dblack]

I'd consider repealing all of the Bill of Rights. It was never necessary.

I am surprised to see you say this as it is downright crazy. I understand that if the government operated exactly as it is supposed to that you are essentially correct however the way the government has acted in the past and present should illustrate VERY clearly that your ideal is flat out not going to happen. The bill of rights is very much required to ensure that we even have rights.

I would go the EXACT opposite direction. It is quite clear from the founder’s standpoint that we really do not have ‘inalienable’ rights as they did not restrict the states in passing laws that stripped you of your rights under the bill of rights. That is a purely court contrived idea. I believe that those protections in the bill of rights and the following amendments should be just as protected from state intrusion as it is federal intrusion and I would make it so if I could.

I said I'd consider dismissing the Bill of Rights - but that would be contingent on the other changes to the Constitution that would make it clear that the federal government would have only the powers enumerated to them. In that sense, I think Hamilton was right when he argued that a prohibition against government doing something that they weren't empowered to do in the first place is superfluous - ie, there's no need for a rule prohibiting the federal government from prohibiting free speech if they aren't granted the power to do so in the first place.

The problem is, the Bill of Rights has allowed ambitious statists to turn the Constitution on its head. It's supposed to be a concise expression of the limited powers of government, with all other concerns up to the people. Instead, the Bill of Rights invites us to see the Constitution as a concise list of our rights - with all other concerns the purview of government. I would re-write the Constitution to make it doubly clear that the latter is not the case. We, the people, retain all rights and freedoms except for the narrow cases where we allow government to intervene.

 

[Nosmo King]

I would re-write the second amendment to clearly show what arms are intended for use by well regulated militias and what arms are appropriate for the streets. I would also clearly define what a well regulated militia is and what regulations it must comply with.

I would put in a provision that clearly separates church from state.

I would eliminate all references to 3/5 of a person.

I trust the electorate, so I would retain the 17th amendment. But I don't trust monied interests so I would include rigorous campaign finance regulations.

 

[dblack]

another biggie - I'd amend the Constitution to enforce a 'wall of separation' between the economy and the state.

 

[kwc57]

Further spell out the welfare clause so liberal morons wouldn't think it was a catch all clause for anything they wanted to do.

 

[Nosmo King]

another biggie - I'd amend the Constitution to enforce a 'wall of separation' between the economy and the state.

How could that work? Currency issued by private interests? No national defense because you eliminated the power of the state to tax. No infrastructure improvements, in spite of constitutional mandates to build roads and harbors?

 

[dblack]

another biggie - I'd amend the Constitution to enforce a 'wall of separation' between the economy and the state.

How could that work? Currency issued by private interests? No national defense because you eliminated the power of the state to tax. No infrastructure improvements, in spite of constitutional mandates to build roads and harbors?

I'd start with banning the use of discriminatory taxation to implement social engineering. Abolish the Fed. etc..

It wouldn't be easy, just as it wasn't easy to separate religion from government. But we managed to do that (much to our benefit). I think we can do the same in an effort to separate economic power from state power.

 

[Nosmo King]

another biggie - I'd amend the Constitution to enforce a 'wall of separation' between the economy and the state.

How could that work? Currency issued by private interests? No national defense because you eliminated the power of the state to tax. No infrastructure improvements, in spite of constitutional mandates to build roads and harbors?

I'd start with banning the use of discriminatory taxation to implement social engineering. Abolish the Fed. etc..

It wouldn't be easy, just as it wasn't easy to separate religion from government. But we managed to do that (much to our benefit). I think we can do the same in an effort to separate economic power from state power.

But the state is as it should be, a major player in the shaping and promoting of the economy. Trade agreements, judicial protections for copy rights and corporations, minting coinage and currency and controlling the supply, public spending on defense and infrastructure.

If you want to eliminate all social spending you'll have to face the same problems that were dragging the economy down before they were implemented. Remember, social spending is a response to a problem.

 

[dblack]

... the state is as it should be, a major player in the shaping and promoting of the economy.

Well, that's the view I'm opposing. The state should NOT be a major player in "shaping and promoting" the economy. Just as it should not be involved in "shaping and promoting" religion, and for most of the same reasons.

The state is there to protect our freedom to create the kind of economy we want, not to tell us what to do.

 

[westwall]

What changes, if any, would you make to it?

I would change the presidential election methods, and mandate a balanced budget be passed every year or the congress would be held in contempt of the people and jailed.

There are some others but that would be a good start.

 

[Nosmo King]

... the state is as it should be, a major player in the shaping and promoting of the economy.

Well, that's the view I'm opposing. The state should NOT be a major player in "shaping and promoting" the economy. Just as it should not be involved in "shaping and promoting" religion, and for most of the same reasons.

The state is there to protect our freedom to create the kind of economy we want, not to tell us what to do.

The state shapes and promotes the economy by granting licenses to corporations, protecting intellectual property with copy right regulations, mints the currency and supplies it to the citizens, builds infrastructure like roads and canals and harbors, negotiates trade agreements with foreign governments.

Without these vital actions by the state, the economy would be reduced to a barter system with no means of foreign trade or interstate commerce.

I'm all for capitalism. But I recognize the necessity for a strong and vigorous federal government to make it work.

 

[S.J.]

What changes, if any, would you make to it?

Index the size of government to the size of the general population and require a balanced budget. No deficits and no surpluses.