View Poll Results: Read the intro and vote accordingly

Voters
55. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1st Amendment

    4 7.27%
  • 2nd Amendment

    11 20.00%
  • 4th Amendment

    1 1.82%
  • 9th Amendment

    0 0%
  • 14th Amendment

    8 14.55%
  • Other.

    31 56.36%
Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 181

Thread: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

  1. #101
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Repeal the 19th.

    Actually, I'd make house terms 3 years and senate terms 7 years.

    This would be beneficial partly because longer terms results in less politicking, less fundraising, and more civility between parties. It would also have the benefit of making it so elections don't run concurrently. I don't think it's a good thing that we have elections every 2 years and big elections every 4 years. It would be much better to break up the rhythm so that people go and vote for the candidates in each office based on their individual merits, rather than walking in, voting D or R for the president, and then going down the checklist from there.

    I would eliminate the faithless elector problem

    I'd make the 8th amendment clearer as to what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment"
    The problem with your plan for terms is it's expensive. Elections are incredibly costly events for states to put on. That's one reason Arnold got so much crap for his special election in california. An election every two years is a reasonable cost. But having one every year, just about, would run up expenses. It's easier to pay for two elections than three or four. Especially considering you'd need primaries for every election.

  2. #102
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    only net tax payers should be able to vote on matters involving the raising of taxes
    This actually isn't a half bad idea. The best part is that it has a built in check so that as higher earners (presumably) vote down social service spending, more people will become net tax payers and be able to push back.

    The only problem I see is that I have no idea how it would be enacted...we vote for legislators who handle tax issues among other things. We couldn't remove the right to vote in general for non-net taxpayers, so would all tax measures have to be voted on by the public? Seems to be very difficult to enforce.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #103
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    The problem with your plan for terms is it's expensive. Elections are incredibly costly events for states to put on. That's one reason Arnold got so much crap for his special election in california. An election every two years is a reasonable cost. But having one every year, just about, would run up expenses. It's easier to pay for two elections than three or four. Especially considering you'd need primaries for every election.
    I don't think it would be such an unreasonable cost that it would be prohibitive. The vast majority of places already have elections every single year, whether its for Congress, President, Governor, or just things like city council. I don't see why there couldn't be one extra row tacked onto the ballot for a Representative or Senator without incurring any extra expense.

    Even if there are places that don't have yearly elections, the cost of elections isn't really that bad. It only costs about $1 per voter to run an election, and considering that we already run them every 2 years, it would work out to $.50/voter/year. I think that's a small price to pay for the resulting benefit in more efficient and competent government and more informed voting.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  4. #104
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    America (A.K.A., a red state)
    Last Seen
    09-24-13 @ 11:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,317

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    OK. Let's say that I'm President of the United States. I have a reelection coming up, so I decide to place some of these types of "restrictions" on the types of dissent that can be expressed.
    So you're a Democrat then, ok.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Working with my congressional allies, I pass a law that says people can't express dissent on Sunday, Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, or Saturday. You can express your dissent on Tuesdays, between the hours of 2:00 and 5:00 AM. Is this constitutional in Aquapub-world?
    Aquapub world? You must mean where the Founders lived. Of course this wouldn't be constitutional. This would be the federal government suppressing dissent against it.

    But it is not unconstitutional for a local municipality to make Neo-Nazis get a permit to demonstrate, and only during certain hours, down certain streets, and it is not unconstitutional for the federal government to ban setting national symbols on fire just because liberals are too illiterate to hate America with words like adult human beings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Working with my congressional allies, I pass a law that says people can't express dissent near any major road, but if they want to express their dissent on in suburban neighborhoods, they're welcome to. Is this constitutional in Aquapub-world?
    Asked and answered. See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Oh, and I pass a law that says they're welcome to express dissent, but they can't do it by setting anything on fire, or by using the internet, television, radio, or newspapers. And no magic-marker signs either. Is this constitutional in Aquapub-world?
    Asked and answered. See above.

    Thus far, Democrats are the only ones who've suppressed any actual Constitutional rights not hysterically hallucinated by liberals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I haven't banned dissent entirely, so by your logic, these laws should be constitutional. Right?
    Asked and answered. See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Anyone who wants to ban freedom of speech is hardly patriotic.
    So you're finally willing to admit that Democrats root for the enemy then?
    Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner (paraphrasing James Bovard).

  5. #105
    Irrelevant Pissant

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 05:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,194

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Aquapub world? You must mean where the Founders lived. Of course this wouldn't be constitutional. This would be the federal government suppressing dissent against it.
    No its not. People are still free to dissent, as long as they do so only on tuesdays between 2:00 and 5:00 AM. Its not telling people they can't dissent, its just setting parameters for how.

    But it is not unconstitutional for a local municipality to make Neo-Nazis get a permit to demonstrate, and only during certain hours, down certain streets
    It is however unconstitutional for a local municipality to make Neo-Nazis get a permit to demonstrate, and only during certain hours, down certain streets, while allowing a pro-choice group to deomonstrate without a permit whenever they like down any street they like.

    Restrictions the require permits, and restrict the time of day and venue for deomonstrations place equal restrictions independent of the content of the demonstration.

    Neo Nazis have to follow the same rules that every other group follows. And every other group has to follow the same rules that Neo Nazis follow.

    I you ban burning, then you have to ban all burning. It is unconstitutional to place a ban on burning the American Flag, while allowing the burning of the Swastika, because of the content of the ideas being expressed.

  6. #106
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    America (A.K.A., a red state)
    Last Seen
    09-24-13 @ 11:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,317

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    No its not. People are still free to dissent, as long as they do so only on tuesdays between 2:00 and 5:00 AM. Its not telling people they can't dissent, its just setting parameters for how.
    In his scenario, people were forbidden from expressing dissent during certain hours. That IS suppressing dissent. Had his scenario stated that certain TYPES of dissent was forbidden during certain times, you would be right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    It is however unconstitutional for a local municipality to make Neo-Nazis get a permit to demonstrate, and only during certain hours, down certain streets, while allowing a pro-choice group to deomonstrate without a permit whenever they like down any street they like.
    Nope, the Neo-Nazi permit rule is perfectly Constitutional, even if it is inconsistent with local policies for other demonstrations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    I you ban burning, then you have to ban all burning. It is unconstitutional to place a ban on burning the American Flag, while allowing the burning of the Swastika, because of the content of the ideas being expressed.
    Setting things on fire, either way, is not protected by the Constitution as speech.
    Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner (paraphrasing James Bovard).

  7. #107
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,056

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub View Post
    Nope, the Neo-Nazi permit rule is perfectly Constitutional, even if it is inconsistent with local policies for other demonstrations.
    Got any additional info on this or are you just saying it because "Aquapub sez so so thats how its gonna be".




    Setting things on fire, either way, is not protected by the Constitution as speech.
    So then you would have to make it unconstitutional to burn, say, a flag of North Korea or Iran as well correct?

  8. #108
    Irrelevant Pissant

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 05:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,194

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    In his scenario, people were forbidden from expressing dissent during certain hours. That IS suppressing dissent. Had his scenario stated that certain TYPES of dissent was forbidden during certain times, you would be right.
    Oh, so saying that you can express dissent using a television show during certain times is ok? So if you are caught badmouthing the president during primetime, you can be hauled away?

    Is big brother watching to make sure you don't dissent in a way that is dangerous to him?

    Nope, the Neo-Nazi permit rule is perfectly Constitutional, even if it is inconsistent with local policies for other demonstrations.
    No. You are quite simply wrong. A city cannot tell pro-life advocates that they can only demonstrate in the least busy, streets on the suburbs of the city where no one can see them anyways, between the hours of 2:00 AM and 2:30AM while letting the pro-choice advocates demonstrate all day long in the middle of the cities busiest street.

    It is just plain unconstitutional.

    Setting things on fire, either way, is not protected by the Constitution as speech.
    You are correct. And if they ban the use of fire, it will certainly cut down and smoking and barbeques. My point is that they can't ban any expression based on the content of the expression. The ban on flagburning is clearly an attempt to stop an expression because it is deemed disrespectful.

    Give me one good reason why flag burning should be outlawed that does not relate to the content such an action would express.

  9. #109
    Global Moderator
    Sinister
    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    133,881

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Aquapub's position is a strictly constuctional position of the First Amendment, but one that has not been held up by SCOTUS Beginning with Stromberg vs. California (1931), SCOTUS has consistently upheld the constitutionality of 'symbolic speech' as a 1st Amendment right.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  10. #110
    buttonpsi
    Guest

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    I would change the 2nd one to...

    "the right of the people to keep and bear many arms."

    and not like a hindu god.

Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •