• 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!

What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

Read the intro and vote accordingly

  • Total voters
    41
NguyenRhymesWithWin said:
I'd change the part that says it's a living document that serves a guideline for politicians and ensures our rights because it certainly does not.

If I need to prove that I'm not a dangerous person and I'm capable of owning and carrying a gun in order to exercise my 2nd Amendment right, I think we should do the same for Free Speech. If you can prove that you have only the interests of the United States in mind and if you can prove you're not against Democracy and Capitalism, then you are allowed to speak freely.
Click to expand...

What's the point of having freedom of speech if you're not allowed to use it to say anything that US wouldn't want you to? At that point it really seems like it ceases to be freedom of speech.
 
the makeout hobo said:
What's the point of having freedom of speech if you're not allowed to use it to say anything that US wouldn't want you to? At that point it really seems like it ceases to be freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

.... I mean we all know that making freedom of speech state regulated is the same thing as having to prove you're competent enough to own a gun. Oh wow... When will the non sequiturs stop?
 
Panache said:
I would add an amendement that would require a balanced budget for all federal spending.
Click to expand...


Doing that would totally screw up our economy. The Federal government needs to be able to create jobs by spending more in times of economic slow downs. Unfortunately, they abuse the fact that they don't have to balance the budget.
 
I wouldn't want to change the Bill of Rights.

As for the Constitution, I'd limit Representatives in the House to serving 4 terms, and Senators would be limited to 2 terms.
 
Doing that would totally screw up our economy. The Federal government needs to be able to create jobs by spending more in times of economic slow downs. Unfortunately, they abuse the fact that they don't have to balance the budget.
Click to expand...

No, not balancing the budget has screwed our economy. The Federal government doesn't need to create jobs by spending more than they have.
 
Jerry said:
Flag burning, when not for respectfull disposal, is arson.

Fire is not speach.
Click to expand...

Flag buring is an expression which is protected by the Constitution. It is NOT arson. Arson usually applies to stuctures, cars, and open areas set ablaze, on purpose or otherwise. It DOES NOT apply to buring ones own personal property.

:)
 
Panache said:
No, not balancing the budget has screwed our economy. The Federal government doesn't need to create jobs by spending more than they have.
Click to expand...

How has not balancing the budget screwed our economy?
 
Vader said:
Flag buring is an expression which is protected by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Flag burning is setting a symbol on fire and calling it expression. And the government is well within it's bounds to tell us where, when, and how we can express ourselves, just not what to express.
 
.... I mean we all know that making freedom of speech state regulated is the same thing as having to prove you're competent enough to own a gun. Oh wow... When will the non sequiturs stop?
Click to expand...

I fail to see how this is a non-sequitur. How is proving that you are competent enough to write responsibly significantly different that proving that you are competent enough to use a gun responsibly?
 
No it isn't. Flag burning is setting a symbol on fire and calling it expression. And the government is well within it's bounds to tell us where, when, and how we can express ourselves, just not what to express.
Click to expand...

So what is the rational for disallowing the burning of flags?
 
I would change the single-district voting system to proportional representation. What ever percentage of the vote a party gets, that is the percentage of seats they get. This gets more people involved in voting and gives third parties more of a voice. Voting for a third party would not feel like a wasted vote. It would be very difficult for any party to receive 50% of the seats, so they would have to form coalitions with smaller parties to get their agendas through. This is similar to most European countries.
 
Alex said:
I would change the single-district voting system to proportional representation. What ever percentage of the vote a party gets, that is the percentage of seats they get. This gets more people involved in voting and gives third parties more of a voice. Voting for a third party would not feel like a wasted vote. It would be very difficult for any party to receive 50% of the seats, so they would have to form coalitions with smaller parties to get their agendas through. This is similar to most European countries.
Click to expand...

Do that and out of 100 seats you would would have like 5 republican, 6 democrat, 1 independant, and the other 88 seats would remain empty due to the lack of voter turn-out.
 
Jerry said:
Do that and out of 100 seats you would would have like 5 republican, 6 democrat, 1 independant, and the other 88 seats would remain empty due to the lack of voter turn-out.
Click to expand...

Actually, voter turn-out is much higher in proportional representation because every vote means something. Voting for a third party would not be a wasted vote like in a single-member district.

"There is much greater voter participation. In countries using PR, voter turnout is usually in the 70% to 95% range."

Source: http://ed.labonte.com/pr.html

I am sure that any of our European friends on this website can verify this.
 
Panache said:
I fail to see how this is a non-sequitur. How is proving that you are competent enough to write responsibly significantly different that proving that you are competent enough to use a gun responsibly?
Click to expand...

Write responsibly? Wth does that mean? Why the non sequiturs?
 
Alex said:
I would change the single-district voting system to proportional representation. What ever percentage of the vote a party gets, that is the percentage of seats they get. This gets more people involved in voting and gives third parties more of a voice. Voting for a third party would not feel like a wasted vote. It would be very difficult for any party to receive 50% of the seats, so they would have to form coalitions with smaller parties to get their agendas through. This is similar to most European countries.
Click to expand...

That is a very thought provoking idea. We recently had a long debate about whether it made sense to vote for third or minor parties. I argued no in a close race, because a vote for a minor party takes away a vote from major candidate. Al Gore lost in 2000 because of the votes for Nader, more of which would in likelihood have gone to him and more than made the difference in Florida.

But with proportional voting for congress, your party candidate gets in even with a small percentage, and another voice is heard and differences of opinions expressed.

Like in Europe, it leads more to splintered groups and coalitions. But it would definitely take some of the power away from the two main parties (which is why we'd likely never see this as a real option being forwarded).

I'd go with this suggestion for the representatives in the House at least. Good post!
 
TOJ said:
In most cases it is the OB that requires the c-sec. There is a possibility of a uterus rupture in VBACs and most OBs are concerned about being sued if a VBAC goes bad.
Click to expand...

no, I'm talking about written hospital wide policies. its true that VBACs do involve more risks, however a patient must be given the absolute right to refuse surgery.

TOJ said:
I would not be surprised if the OB was blaming the hospital. If a woman wants a VBAC she should find another OB that is willing to take the chance. If it really is the hospital, she can find a different hospital.
Click to expand...

in some cases this simply isnt possible. if you live in a rural area (and rural areas are more likely to have hospitals with policies forbidding VBACs), there may be only one hospital anywhere near you.

TOJ said:
Trying to put these kind of decisions, that change as the technology and best practices change, into the Constitution sounds like pure folly.
Click to expand...

I disagree. bodily sovereignty is a broad right having many applications, and its a fundamental right. its absolutely the type of thing that belongs in the constitution.
 
the makeout hobo said:
What's the point of having freedom of speech if you're not allowed to use it to say anything that US wouldn't want you to? At that point it really seems like it ceases to be freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

Precisely my point. Just replace Freedom of Speech with the 2nd amendment. Unlike freedom of speech though, more people are way more likely to agree, "yeah, I think the government should have authority to chose who and who does not have guns.".
 
Navy Pride said:
I did not say throw the first amendment out, I said get rid of some of the loopholes that leftys like you take advantage of to circumvent the definition.........
Click to expand...

I'll diagram the interactions. Hatuey never said throw out the entire 1st Amendment. Neither did you. Aquapub accused liberals of being the first to attack the First Amendment. I showed he was wrong because you did. Flag burning is absolutely about the First Amendment. Though I disagree with the action, and would never do it myself, to preserve the First Amendment, I see no reason to ban it. It's no loophole. It is clear 1st Amendment expression.
 
aquapub said:
No it isn't. Flag burning is setting a symbol on fire and calling it expression. And the government is well within it's bounds to tell us where, when, and how we can express ourselves, just not what to express.
Click to expand...

And at this point in time, burning a flag one owns is allowed by the government to express dissent. It would seem to me that stifling this expression would be dictatorially curbing the 1st Amendment. I realize that this thread is about changing the Constitution, but is this what you are proposing?
 
aquapub said:
No it isn't. Flag burning is setting a symbol on fire and calling it expression. And the government is well within it's bounds to tell us where, when, and how we can express ourselves, just not what to express.
Click to expand...

The government can limit our freedom of expression when it conflicts with other people's rights. I can't walk down a residential neighborhood with a bullhorn shoutng my political beliefs in the middle of the night because I'm disturbing the peace. I can't assemble a political rally in the middle of a freeway because I'm endangering lives. I can't paint your car with pro Ron Paul slogans (oh, how I'd like to :) ) because its vandalizing your property.

However, I can burn a flag because it doesn't affect you one damn bit. You don't have a right to not be offended.

And for the record, I personally find flag burning to be detestable, but I support the right to do so. But the day they pass a ban on it, is the day I burn a flag because that would mean to me that America has truly lost its way and the flag would no longer be a symbol of a nation of freedom.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And at this point in time, burning a flag one owns is allowed by the government to express dissent. It would seem to me that stifling this expression would be dictatorially curbing the 1st Amendment. I realize that this thread is about changing the Constitution, but is this what you are proposing?
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court declared flag-burning legal. They also declared slavery legal. They have no infallibility here. They've been wrong before and they are wrong about this. And yes, if I were in their place, as the deciding vote, I would fully ban flag-burning based on the fact that the government can tell Neo-Nazis which streets to demonstrate on, when to do it, how to do it, etc. Flag-burning is a how, not a what.
 
Psychoclown said:
The government can limit our freedom of expression when it conflicts with other people's rights. I can't walk down a residential neighborhood with a bullhorn shoutng my political beliefs in the middle of the night because I'm disturbing the peace. I can't assemble a political rally in the middle of a freeway because I'm endangering lives. I can't paint your car with pro Ron Paul slogans (oh, how I'd like to :) ) because its vandalizing your property.

However, I can burn a flag because it doesn't affect you one damn bit. You don't have a right to not be offended.
Click to expand...

That's still inconsistent with the Constitution.
 
Telling Neo-Nazis where and when they can hold a political rally is different from banning flag burning. An equivelent ban would be to tell Neo-Nazis they were not allowed to use the "Heil Hitler" salute, or were not allowed to goose step.

I'm curious, why do you want to ban flag burning? OK, you find it repugnant, most folks will agree with you there, but beyond that do you really have a reason? Are afraid the carbon emissions from flag burning are contributing to global warming? ;)

I don't see how this simple act warrants such extraordinary measures, like amending our Constitution (and of course compromising our notion of free expression).
 
Also for your example of telling Nazis (or any other group) where and when they can protest, here is the Court's reasoning:

Government officials may not impose restrictions on protests or parades or other lawful assemblies in order to censor a particular viewpoint or because they dislike the content of the message. However, they may impose some limitations on assembly rights by enacting reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions designed to further legitimate regulatory objectives, such as preventing traffic congestion or prohibiting interference with nearby activities.
Click to expand...

Source: firstamendmentcenter.org: Assembly - Overview

Restricting flag burning does not further legitimate regulatory objectives.
 
aquapub said:
The Supreme Court declared flag-burning legal.
Click to expand...

And it is and so far unconstitutional to pass a law forbidding it. If an amendment is passed which would allow the congress to pass a law making it illegal then it will be illegal when they do pass the law and the SCOTUS could do nothing about it, it would then be constitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom