• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which Constitutional Amendments, if any, should be repealed?

Which Constitutional Amendments, if any, should be repealed?

  • Total voters
    52
vesper said:
That's not how I recall things. To the Founders, the very idea of taxing individuals (as opposed to objects, as with a sales tax) was highly offensive. They were regarded as options of last resort, only to be imposed in war or other emergency.
Click to expand...
All true. but nothing to do with whether or not it was Constitutional (outside the 16th ammendment).

The first federal income tax was imposed during the Civil War. it was soon repealed.
Click to expand...
The first proposol for an income tax was during the War of 1812, though it was not adopted. But in neither case was it suggested that the income tax was unconstitutional or could only legally applied in time of war.

In the 1890s Congress assessed a peacetime income tax for the first time. The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1895. Referring to prohibiting direct taxation in Article I, the court argued that the income tax would excessively enhance federal power in relation to state power.
Click to expand...
Sort of. The argument, regarding direct vs indirect, was that since the Constitution removed the State's power to tax imports or exports, that the State's had to retain some rights and protection for their state taxes.

But the Court in Pollock did not declare income taxes unconstitutional, only that taxing the income from real estate or personal property was a direct tax and would require apportioning among the states. But they upheld income taxes on other sources, but decided that the law as a whole, was so entangled, the parts couldn't be separated and the whole bill was therefore invalid.
Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.

Being of opinion that so much of the sections of this law as lays a tax on income from real and personal property is invalid, we are brought to the question of the effect of that conclusion upon these sections as a whole.

It is elementary that the same statute may be in part constitutional and in part unconstitutional, and, if the parts are wholly independent of each other, that which is constitutional may stand, while that which is unconstitutional will be rejected. And in the case before us there is no question as to the validity of this act, except sections 27 to 37, inclusive, which relate to the subject which has been under discussion...
Click to expand...
bolding mine.
To reiterate the bolded part....there was no question as to the validity of the act except for the parts relating to tax on income from real estate and personal property.
 
DVSentinel said:
5th and 8th.

Criminals deserve no right to silence. The need to punish is or at lest should be unusual and punishment is never effective without some level of cruelty.
Click to expand...

So you are in favor of allowing authorities to torture suspects, even without a requirement for proof or a conviction, as well as torture and painful deaths for convicts, right? Do you support drowning of witches and burning blasphemers also?
 
Kal'Stang said:
I think the 22nd should be expanded to include the House and Senate. Other than that...None of them should be repealed.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would be expanded but rather a new amendment should be added to cover the Congress and the Supreme Court as well. One term and you're out as far as I'm concerned.

In the poll though I picked other. I'd repeal the twentieth or at least change it. The 20th dictates that dates on which presidential and congressional terms start. Those dates are in January and it never made sense to me to have the elections in November but the winners (if they aren't incumbents) don't get to take office until two months later in January. The amendment should be changed so that they very next day after the election the winner takes office and if an incumbent lost it's "pack up your sh1t and get the f$#@ out, you don't have to go home but you can't stay here!"
 
DB20 said:
I don't think it would be expanded but rather a new amendment should be added to cover the Congress and the Supreme Court as well. One term and you're out as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

Disagree with the judges having term limits.

DB20 said:
In the poll though I picked other. I'd repeal the twentieth or at least change it. The 20th dictates that dates on which presidential and congressional terms start. Those dates are in January and it never made sense to me to have the elections in November but the winners (if they aren't incumbents) don't get to take office until two months later in January. The amendment should be changed so that they very next day after the election the winner takes office and if an incumbent lost it's "pack up your sh1t and get the f$#@ out, you don't have to go home but you can't stay here!"
Click to expand...

The reason for this is that the politician that gets elected into office needs to be "briefed" on various subjects. Basically they need to learn whats going on and what is being done currently about X situation. Including the ones that us civilians are not privy to. This is particularly important for new politicians. If terms limits were to be put on the Senate/House members this would be even more important.
 
The 3rd. There is very little case law so it isn't subject to a lot of course cases, and who doesn't support our troops? Imagine how much money we could save and how much safer our neighborhoods could be.
 
radcen said:
I would favor an amendment that stipulates that for a person to be a citizen that one of their biological parents must already be a citizen.
Click to expand...

Sure, under the condition that it is applied retroactively through your ancestors. If one of them wasn't a citizen, you're out.
 
jamesrage said:
The "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is the important part.Because if it was meant for anyone born on US soil then that part would not be necessary.The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 and the part in the part Nationality Act of 1940 that allows those born in US territories would have never been created if section 1 of the 14th amendment meant anyone born on US soil.
Click to expand...
Since unincorporated territories, such as the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc, were not considered to be part of the United States, as it was considered that the Constitution did not apply, children born there were not born U.S. citizens, unlike the incorporated territories of Alaska, Hawaii, or Oklahoma. Since the reservations were considered sovreign to the tribe, they were not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. None of those now apply, except for American Samoa, whose residents are U.S. Nationals, but not citizens.

Otherwise, "not subject to its jurisdiction" only applies to children of diplomats.
 
Several need amended and more need added, but the ones that need repealed are as follows:

16th - A century of history has proven why the federal government cannot be trusted to use a tax on incomes strictly for the purpose of revenue creation.

17th - Undermining of state sovereignty in contradiction to the expressed wishes of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention and the states they represented

23rd - I am assuming the rationale behind giving the District of Columbia electoral votes was the presumed difficulty in long-distance voting for DC's professional political class, a difficult which no longer exists and should never have justified the handing of electoral votes to a non-state entity in the first place.

26th - Children are less mature today at 18 than they were when this passed (much less a century earlier). I know very few 18-20 year olds whose opinions on government don't scare the bejesus out of me.

I could also make the case for the 15th, 18th, 24th and 25th, but I'll stick with being in a minority and avoid the extreme minority for the time being.
 
pinqy said:
It wouldn't do that. The Federal Government had the power without the 16th to lay an income tax and had done so. The issue in Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust 158 US 601 (1895) was whether an tax on income earned from real estate, personal property, or dividends was a direct tax requiring apportionment among the states. The SCOTUS ruled that they were direct taxes, and that the whole income tax law was invalid because of the invalid parts. In response, Congress proposed the 16th ammendment to avoid the issue.

Income taxes have never been ruled or considered unconstitutiional.
The only question was whether some types of income were direct taxes (income on wages was not considered to be a direct tax) and therefore needed to apportioned among the staes by population.

Repeal the 16th, and you could still tax income, and could even tax income from real estate or private property as long as it was apportioned by population.
Click to expand...


no.... the federal has no power to tax income before the 16th it was done during the civil war, however it was unconstitutional,and removed, in the 1890's the opinion of the court was any income tax would have to be by an amendment to be legal...... all taxes in article 1 section 8 are voluntary taxes. .......placed on the states, ...not the people.

by government taxing our income it gives government power over you, ...something the founders did not want.

by taxing income you remove money from the state which would have been used for commerce inside the state, providing states with more revenue, instead of redistribution by the federal government and their ability to blackmail states by telling them if they don't follow federal mandates, the states, will not get any federal tax money back.
 
Deuce said:
Sure, under the condition that it is applied retroactively through your ancestors. If one of them wasn't a citizen, you're out.
Click to expand...

For that to be legal, you'd have to amend the Constitution to overturn Article I, section 9, paragraph 3—a provision that is there for a very good reason.
 
Hatuey said:
They're tied together. The same states in favor of states rights would balk at doing away with the federal government's power to levy income taxes. Who do you think benefits most from incomes taxes? Blue states generally attacked for being statists or the states rights loving red states?
Click to expand...

well its not the same, i was talking about the 17th in the sense of returning to a republican form of government, ...away from the evil of democracy.

retuning to where states controlled the senate again, and provide a check on the federal government.

income taxes deal with the people.

the 17th is about state power in the senate......
 
None.

Nevertheless, prohibition of violent movies would not violate the First Amendment.

In 1870 -- 1954, in USA adult materials were illegal.
 
Last edited:
SCitizen said:
None.

Nevertheless, prohibition of violent movies would not violate the First Amendment.

In 1870 -- 1954, in USA adult materials were illegal.
Click to expand...

Per the Supreme Court, only sexual content has been (and still can be) prohibited. There has never been a ban on non-sexual depiction of violence that has been upheld. The Supremes fairly recently overthrew California's ban on sales of violent video games to minors. (Brown vs Entertainment Merchants Association et al June 27, 2011)

"Our cases have been clear that the obscenity exception to the First Amendment does not cover whatever a legislature finds shocking, but only depictions of “sexual conduct,”.....

...California’s argument would fare better if there were a longstanding tradition in this country of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence, but there is none. Certainly the books we give children to read—or read to them when they are younger—contain no shortage of gore. Grimm’s Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed.".....

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf
 
Hard Truth said:
The Supremes fairly recently overthrew California's ban on sales of violent video games to minors. (Brown vs Entertainment Merchants Association et al June 27, 2011)
Click to expand...

One of the reasons USA has a very high murder and violent crime rate is celebration of violence in the movies.
 
DVSentinel said:
They are not yet "convicted" criminals. If however, they have committed a crime, then they are indeed a criminal.
Click to expand...

"Convicted criminal" is a redundancy. They are not a criminal until they are convicted.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Deuce said:
Sure, under the condition that it is applied retroactively through your ancestors. If one of them wasn't a citizen, you're out.
Click to expand...
For that to be legal, you'd have to amend the Constitution to overturn Article I, section 9, paragraph 3—a provision that is there for a very good reason.
Click to expand...
Meh. He thought he was making a point.
 
ernst barkmann said:
no.... the federal has no power to tax income before the 16th it was done during the civil war, however it was unconstitutional,and removed,
Click to expand...
No, it was never found unconstitutional, and it was repealed because it was only meant to last for the war.

in the 1890's the opinion of the court was any income tax would have to be by an amendment to be legal...... all taxes in article 1 section 8 are voluntary taxes. .......placed on the states, ...not the people.
Click to expand...
Well, let's look first at Article I Section 8 "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" How do you get that only means voluntary taxes placed on the states?

For the income tax, the question was actually about Section 9: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." The Scotus in Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust 158 U.S. 601 (1895) ruled that a tax on income derived from real estate or personal property was a direct tax under the meaning of Section 9 and therefore had to be apportioned among the states. The rest of the income tax was ruled constitutional, but the Court considered the 2 parts too interwined to rule only part of the act unconstitional and so threw the whole thing out.
We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.

Being of opinion that so much of the sections of this law as lays a tax on income from real and personal property is invalid, we are brought to the question of the effect of that conclusion upon these sections as a whole.

It is elementary that the same statute may be in part constitutional and in part unconstitutional, and, if the parts are wholly independent of each other, that which is constitutional may stand, while that which is unconstitutional will be rejected. And in the case before us there is no question as to the validity of this act, except sections 27 to 37, inclusive, which relate to the subject which has been under discussion...
Click to expand...
Let me reiterate the bolded part...."no question as to the validity of this act except..." the sections dealing with income from real estate or propery.

by government taxing our income it gives government power over you, ...something the founders did not want.
Click to expand...
Generally not. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional. And you can't point out anything in the constitution that would disallow an income tax. An income tax was proposed during the War of 1812 but it was not enacted. Neither was it ruled unconstitutional.
 
pinqy said:
No, it was never found unconstitutional, and it was repealed because it was only meant to last for the war.

Well, let's look first at Article I Section 8 "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" How do you get that only means voluntary taxes placed on the states?

For the income tax, the question was actually about Section 9: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." The Scotus in Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust 158 U.S. 601 (1895) ruled that a tax on income derived from real estate or personal property was a direct tax under the meaning of Section 9 and therefore had to be apportioned among the states. The rest of the income tax was ruled constitutional, but the Court considered the 2 parts too interwined to rule only part of the act unconstitional and so threw the whole thing out.
Let me reiterate the bolded part...."no question as to the validity of this act except..." the sections dealing with income from real estate or propery.

Generally not. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional. And you can't point out anything in the constitution that would disallow an income tax. An income tax was proposed during the War of 1812 but it was not enacted. Neither was it ruled unconstitutional.
Click to expand...



ITS SIMPLE.........its in the constitution.

article 1 section 2 clause 3

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.


article 1 section 9 clause 4

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.


under the founders taxes are voluntary, they are not compulsory ,because that defies the founding principles of ..property.


none of the powers of congress in article 1 section 8 , have anything to do with the personal life's of the people.


james Madison--The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
 
SCitizen said:
One of the reasons USA has a very high murder and violent crime rate is celebration of violence in the movies.
Click to expand...

The USA is not unique in having a large quantity of violent content in the media, our films are distributed world wide. There is no proof of correlation between media content and violence. Censoring violence is a very slippery slope and it is extremely difficult to decide where to draw the line. Arguably, gory violence that shows the actual painful and messy consequences of violence is more responsible than violence that is depicted as quick, clean and easy.
 
Hard Truth said:
The USA is not unique in having a large quantity of violent content in the media, our films are distributed world wide.
Click to expand...

USA has corrupting influence on the World.
 
SCitizen said:
USA has corrupting influence on the World.
Click to expand...
But is that corruption positive or negative? and since it has already occurred, how do you know said corruption is not corrupting your response to the perceived corruption?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
that is the standard conservatives use to condemn obama.
Click to expand...
Oh, to the contrary. I would love to even have the opportunity to put Obama in a courtroom knowing full well that he is innocent until proven guilty.
 
The 17th Amendment should be repealed.

As should the Establishment clause and the part of the 24th prohibiting poll taxes in presidential elections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom