• 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 Amendment is the least, or most poorly, enforced?

Which Constitutional Amendment is the least, or most poorly, enforced?

  • Total voters
    21
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Which Constitutional Amendment is the least, or most poorly, enforced?

Relatively speaking, and in your opinion.

18th is disqualified from this discussion.
 
radcen said:
Which Constitutional Amendment is the least, or most poorly, enforced?

Relatively speaking, and in your opinion.

18th is disqualified from this discussion.
Click to expand...

1st & 10th, but it only let me select the 1st.
 
I have not made a detailed study of the matter, but I think that the 10th amendment is the least/most poorly enforced one.
 
The first amendment. Wartime censorship and the misinterpretation of "Money=speech" are a humiliation to the first amendment, which is the greatest piece of law the U.S. has. I would've also voted for the 4th amendment if I could've selected more than one option, as the pervasive amounts of surveillance in this country are also a constitutional violation.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
The first amendment. Wartime censorship and the misinterpretation of "Money=speech" are a humiliation to the first amendment, which is the greatest piece of law the U.S. has. I would've also voted for the 4th amendment if I could've selected more than one option, as the pervasive amounts of surveillance in this country are also a constitutional violation.
Click to expand...
The thing is, money has always equaled speech....it's just that these days we realize how powerful a multiplier it has become, someone tried to limit it, but got slapped down.

I've occasionally wondered if we need to eliminate money from politics to cut down on corruption. Then I wonder if that's even possible.
 
14th when it comes to privacy and legal jurisdiction.
 
All of them, however I chose the 2nd.


Any and every law pertaining to the 2nd (guns) is in its self breaking the amendment. The second amendment is perhaps the only amendment that is fully self contained and that requires no further action in any way shape or form. It only needs to be followed.

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed

actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
disobey, defy, flout, fly in the face of;
disregard, ignore, neglect;
go beyond, overstep, exceed;
infract
"the statute infringed constitutionally guaranteed rights"
antonyms: obey, comply with
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"


My belief is that the 2nd means you cannot deny, restrict, or remove ones ability to own a gun period.
 
The 3rd Amendment... not even close.
 
The Mark said:
The thing is, money has always equaled speech....it's just that these days we realize how powerful a multiplier it has become, someone tried to limit it, but got slapped down.
Click to expand...

Well, hence the first amendment, speech has always been, or at least should always be "free." If we are going to say money is the equivalent of speech, and money is not free in any sense of the word, than speech is not free. Giving an insane amount of money to a candidate isn't expressing yourself most of the time; it's furthering your agenda. Even when someone is personally motivated, their right to exercise free speech by giving thousands of dollars to candidates is more powerful than that of the average person, and free speech therefore is no longer a right.

I've occasionally wondered if we need to eliminate money from politics to cut down on corruption. Then I wonder if that's even possible.
Click to expand...

We most certainly can and should. As shown in the link, other countries have already done this.
 
Bodhisattva said:
The 3rd Amendment... not even close.
Click to expand...
What?

How has that one been violated and/or not enforced?

To my knowledge our military forces aren't going around demanding they be allowed room and board in random houses near where they're based...
 
The 2nd,

My right to bear arms does not extend past my front door in this "May issue" state that is Maryland.

Baralis said:
My belief is that the 2nd means you cannot deny, restrict, or remove ones ability to own a gun period.
Click to expand...

Merely own, what about bearing arms?
 
Bodhisattva said:
The 3rd Amendment... not even close.
Click to expand...

There has been no violation of the 3rd amendment, thus it has not ever needed to be "enforced" so I don't really think it qualifies as poorly enforced, that to me would mean that the right is violated frequently and not respected.

I'm a big fan of the 2nd, but I think the most poorly enforced is número cuatro, search and seizure has been insanely watered down, patriot act, asset forfeitures, to police searching you without a warrant, etc etc etc
 
SocialDemocrat said:
Well, hence the first amendment, speech has always been, or at least should always be "free." If we are going to say money is the equivalent of speech, and money is not free in any sense of the word, than speech is not free. Giving an insane amount of money to a candidate isn't expressing yourself most of the time; it's furthering your agenda. Even when someone is personally motivated, their right to exercise free speech by giving thousands of dollars to candidates is more powerful than that of the average person, and free speech therefore is no longer a right.
Click to expand...
My point was rather that money has always furthered the speech of those who have it. It's use for such, so far as I know, has yet to be curtailed in any meaningful way. The recent ruling only continues an ongoing trend, I think.


SocialDemocrat said:
We most certainly can and should. As shown in the link, other countries have already done this.
Click to expand...
None of those examples are acceptable to me.

I'm talking complete removal of money from politics.
No contributions to politicians campaigns are allowed.
No spending by politicians on campaigns are allowed.
No contributions to or spending from 3rd parties on behalf of a politician or their campaign is allowed.
No significant gifts from anyone, including family members.
Politicians are not allowed to maintain any prior investments of any form, or make any new ones for a period of time beginning when they announce their intention to campaign and extending until 5 years after their last term ends.
Politicians are not allowed to create or sell any products or media for the same period of time.
Politicians are not allowed to


I could go on.

But, in short, if you decide to become a politician, you give up all rights to any other source of income until 5 years after you leave office.

**** I dunno.


Edit: It's kinda like going to prison, or something, except it's voluntary.
 
And interesting question might be which amendments have been over-enforced or interpreted too broadly
 
The answer to this thread is easy - the 10th amendment, lol...

Because the FedGov doesn't follow the Constitution or amendments in any fashion whatsoever.
 
The Mark said:
What?

How has that one been violated and/or not enforced?

To my knowledge our military forces aren't going around demanding they be allowed room and board in random houses near where they're based...
Click to expand...
I think I read this poorly... I put down the least used Amendment.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
There has been no violation of the 3rd amendment, thus it has not ever needed to be "enforced" so I don't really think it qualifies as poorly enforced, that to me would mean that the right is violated frequently and not respected.

I'm a big fan of the 2nd, but I think the most poorly enforced is número cuatro, search and seizure has been insanely watered down, patriot act, asset forfeitures, to police searching you without a warrant, etc etc etc
Click to expand...

I might agree... the 5th has been violated up the ying-yang...
 
The Mark said:
That makes more sense, :lol:
Click to expand...

How, the 3rd is never used... I am not a big fan of making dumb mistakes but I certainly made a big dumb mistake :)
 
Bodhisattva said:
How, the 3rd is never used... I am not a big fan of making dumb mistakes but I certainly made a big dumb mistake :)
Click to expand...
I mean your response to the OP makes more sense if you mistakenly thought he was asking for least used amendments.
 
The Mark said:
I mean your response to the OP makes more sense if you mistakenly thought he was asking for least used amendments.
Click to expand...

I read that poorly too... I thought you said that makes "no" sense... not more sense.. No idea what is wrong with me today. :lol:
 
Bodhisattva said:
I read that poorly too... I thought you said that makes "no" sense... not more sense.. No idea what is wrong with me today. :lol:
Click to expand...
Some days the brain just doesn't work right.
 
On a related note, I wasn't aware of the history behind the 27th amendment.

Over 200 years from submission to ratification, daaaaaaamn.
 
Definitely the 5th, although the 4th is a close second. The war on drugs and war on terror operate almost entirely without due process. Asset forfeiture without trials literally happens every day of the week.
 
The Mark said:
My point was rather that money has always furthered the speech of those who have it. It's use for such, so far as I know, has yet to be curtailed in any meaningful way. The recent ruling only continues an ongoing trend, I think.


None of those examples are acceptable to me.

I'm talking complete removal of money from politics.
No contributions to politicians campaigns are allowed.
No spending by politicians on campaigns are allowed.
No contributions to or spending from 3rd parties on behalf of a politician or their campaign is allowed.
No significant gifts from anyone, including family members.
Politicians are not allowed to maintain any prior investments of any form, or make any new ones for a period of time beginning when they announce their intention to campaign and extending until 5 years after their last term ends.
Politicians are not allowed to create or sell any products or media for the same period of time.
Politicians are not allowed to


I could go on.
Click to expand...

All of those are great ideas. But I think that even a little reform would go a long way, such as a ban on corporate donations and a either a cap or a total ban on individual donations would go a long way. Would you support replacing donations and the like with public funding for campaigns? I don't think it's going to be practical, especially for the uneducated or undereducated voter, if a candidate doesn't have the means to advertise. That being said, political advertising should severely restricted, IMO.

But, in short, if you decide to become a politician, you give up all rights to any other source of income until 5 years after you leave office.

**** I dunno.


Edit: It's kinda like going to prison, or something, except it's voluntary.
Click to expand...

As long as there is somewhat decent pay for representatives, so that someone in lower incomes could practically run for the position, I'd say we should put as much scrutiny, especially when dealing with financial affairs, on our political representatives as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom