Constitutional amendments

[Emsworth]

Semantics

Perhaps, but if Scalia is making a distinction between "right" and "power," I should also be entitled to do so. In fact, every reference to "right" in the Constitution involves the people, and every reference to "power" involves a government.

[Emsworth]

Update:

- An amendment that would remove all doubt regarding the privileges or immunities clause, by incorporating the Bill of Rights
- An amendment granting the District of Columbia a voting Representative
- The repeal of the Eleventh, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Seventh Amendments
- The repeal of the natural birth requirement for Presidents

[jokerman]

Update:

- An amendment that would remove all doubt regarding the privileges or immunities clause, by incorporating the Bill of Rights
- An amendment granting the District of Columbia a voting Representative
- The repeal of the Eleventh, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Seventh Amendments
- The repeal of the natural birth requirement for Presidents

I really think the 27th is a very sensible amendment.  Why shouldn't we prevent lame ducks from granting themselves (with no danger in loss of public opinion, since they have already been defeated anyway) pay raises?

[Emsworth]

I really think the 27th is a very sensible amendment.  Why shouldn't we prevent lame ducks from granting themselves (with no danger in loss of public opinion, since they have already been defeated anyway) pay raises?

I don't think that congressional pay raises are really so significant as to merit congressional protection. The voters should be allowed to punish Congressmen for giving themselves pay raises; I don't think that the Constitution should deal with such trifling and petty matters. Of course, it doesn't do any harm, but on the whole I've always found it unnecessary, and the manner of ratification somewhat irregular.

As to lame-ducks: one must remember that in a given year, very few Representatives or Senators are lame ducks; most of them are re-elected. Indeed, about 90% of House incumbents seeking re-election win it. Thus, these people can still suffer from a change in public opinion.

[Schmitz in 1972]

I would pass an 'omnibus amendment' that would get a lot of things done. This amendment would:

-Do away with eminent domain
-Repeal the 16th amendment
-Rigidly define the commerce clause
-Require all legislation to be passed by congress (this would mean all decisions of organizations such as the EPA would need to be approved by a vote of congress)
-Declare that international law has no standing in the US
-Probably some other things too that I can't think of at the moment

[MaC]

"No representative shall serve for more than six two year terms; No senator shall serve for more than two six year terms"

"The sixteenth article of Amendment to the Constitution is hereby repealed"

"The national government shall pass no laws interfering with the economy of the nation; all current national laws are hereby repealed."

"In time of desperate need, when government becomes far too authoritative, and blatantly disrespects the Bill of Rights or other unalienable rights to it's citizens, they shall have the right to rebel against the current government"

"In the case of a tie in a presidential elections, congress shall organize the efforts of a recall.  If a recall cannot be established the president will be voted upon with a majority of the vote in both the house of representatives and the senate.  If no agreement is reached within 15 days, Milk_and_Cereal shall be appointed president.  If he is under 35 years of age at the time, the current libertarian candidate for president shall become president."

[Ebowed]

This stuff:

- An amendment granting the District of Columbia a voting Representative
- The repeal of the natural birth requirement for Presidents

And
"No government may use the power of eminent domain to seize private property for private enterprise."

And a right to life amendment.

And I support repealing the 22nd amendment.

[Peter]

Note to all who want to repeal the 16th Amendment:

The Courts will probably find that the majority, if not all, of the Income Tax is an indirect tax anyway, thus finessing the repeal of the 16th.

If you want to ban a federal income tax, you are actually going to have to say so.

[MaC]

"Peter Bell is now illegal by the Constitution; the government shall have the powers to enforce this"

[A18]

Section 1. Neither the United States, nor any State, shall levy cruel or unusual taxation.

Eh, maybe that's a little too vague.

[Storebought]

I'm not at all keen on the amendments allowing foreign-born citizens to become president.

I would favor, though, clarifications of the first two amendments, namely that public exercise of religion is not illegal, and that bearing arms is not solely the prerogative of a state militia.

A wholesale replacement of the Third Amendment would be in order, though. Quartering members of the American armed forces is not at all a realistic option available to the government, anyhow.

[Emsworth]

I would favor, though, clarifications of the first two amendments, namely that public exercise of religion is not illegal, and that bearing arms is not solely the prerogative of a state militia.

The latter is certainly important. The former has never been the interpretation of the courts, and is accordingly, IMO, not necessary. Only governmental endorsement of religion has been interdicted; private persons remain free to exercise is publicly, if they so please. Remember that the Constitution only binds the government, never private people or bodies.

[Citizen James]

Shorten the first amendment to its' first five words....

That should have a slightly stronger impact than repealing the 16th, and the executive branch has far too little power anyway.

</tounge firmly in cheek>

[A18]

I'd repeal the disastrous 14th amendment, as well as the 24th. Then I'd add one requiring a three-fifths majority for a tax increase, and a two-thirds majority to admit a new state into the union.

[Emsworth]

I'd repeal the disastrous 14th amendment...

Surely, the Constitution ought to protect fundamental rights from the encroachment of both state and federal governments? And surely, life, liberty, and property should not be seized without due process?

I would agree that the judiciary has in a sense overreached in defining the rights of the People, but if the courts are going to be incorrect, then would rather have a broader view of my rights than a narrower one.

[A18]

Surely, the Constitution ought to protect fundamental rights from the encroachment of both state and federal governments?

No. The federal constitution ought to protect fundamental rights from federal encroachment, and state constitutions from state encroachments.

Without the 14th amendment, federalism would still thrive today. The mass consolidation of power is bad for liberty.

[Emsworth]

No. The federal constitution ought to protect fundamental rights from federal encroachment, and state constitutions from state encroachments.

So the prohibition on state passage of bills of attainder or ex post facto laws should also be lifted?

[A18]

I'm okay with these bans when you're dealing with strict, literal concepts like those with fixed meanings. Those require interpretation, but it's almost objective.

If you disagree with your state enough, you can move. If you disagree with your nation, then yes, you can move, but it's much more burdensome. Federalism keeps judicial activism in check.

[A18]

And of course, its framers should have known that the 14th's due process clause would soon yield the same creative power over state laws that Taney 'discovered' over federal law.

[Emsworth]

I'm okay with these bans when you're dealing with strict, literal concepts like those with fixed meanings. Those require interpretation, but it's almost objective.

If you disagree with your state enough, you can move. If you disagree with your nation, then yes, you can move, but it's much more burdensome. Federalism keeps judicial activism in check.

Generally, I would strongly support requiring every state to guarantee the fundamental liberties of the People. In particular, the due process clause is of the utmost importance: allowing state officials to kill, imprison, or take property from an individual, without due process of law, is particularly tyrannical. The taking of property without just compensation was, I gather, particularly commonplace before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Of course, the courts have gone too far in binding the states: that, however, is not the fault of the Constitution, but of the judges themselves. To get rid of the Fourteenth Amendment because the judges have gone too far is akin to "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." The solution to activism is not, I think, the wholesale repeal of this great guarantee against state tyranny, but the appointment of judges with sound philosophies. One may contend that the process of appointing and confirming such judges may be difficult, but it certainly cannot be more difficult than the repeal of the Constitution itself.

Furthermore, repealing the Fourteenth Amendment does not solve the problem of judicial activism. After all, a sufficiently activist Supreme Court could still conceivably reverse Barron v. Baltimore, or find some other way in which it could restrain the states, even without the Fourteenth Amendment.

[A18]

Maybe my views are influenced by the fact that my state's bill of rights does not suck.

http://legis.state.va.us/Laws/search/Constitution.htm#1S11

[N]o person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law; ... the General Assembly shall not pass any law ... whereby private property shall be taken or damaged for public uses, without just compensation, ...

What does yours say?

[Emsworth]

Maybe my views are influenced by the fact that my state's bill of rights does not suck.
...
What does yours say?

Unfortunately, I am not so lucky. My state's bill of rights includes all manner of awful provisions, including one establishing a constitutional right to collective bargaining, and another requiring that victims of drunk driving be "treated with fairness, compassion and respect." But there is no due process clause.

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp

[A18]

Ouch. Well, in any case, the Supreme Court needs to adhere strictly to the Bill of Rights, and stop indulging itself in this "substantive due process" oxymoron.

[Emsworth]

Well, in any case, the Supreme Court needs to adhere strictly to the Bill of Rights, and stop indulging itself in this "substantive due process" oxymoron.

Certainly, I completely agree. Although I did support the notion at one time, I now feel that the notion is quite foolish--an invention of an overbearing judiciary.

[A18]

Congress should be given the power to regulate interstate emissions.