• 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
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.".


The diferance is that the worse I can do with my pen is give some people bad ideas. Or write emo poetry. The most I can do with my assault rifle is mow down a school full of people. There's a pressing reason to put some restrictions on guns. Maybe not full-out ban them, but make sure that the people that do have guns aren't the ones that are going to go crazy on us. I mean, I'm sure even you'd agree that a murderer, even one who has served his time, should probably not have a gun. This is vastly different than the ability to write down your opinion. There is no justifiable reason to restrict that.
 
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.

Sounds like a stupid waste of time amendment to me.

So what, someone burns a ****ing flag.

Cry about it. (Not you Stinger, unless you are suggesting we ban burning of the flag).
 
The most I can do with my assault rifle is mow down a school full of people.

If you mean to kill many humans, a ford pickup will allow for a bigger rampage and death toll than any firearm. Just go to a crowd of pedestrians, and you instantly outscore the gun guy. Wanna Ban Trucks ?
 
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.

But why would you disallow flag buring? Does flag burning cause traffic congestion? Does buring a flag create so much noise that it would disturb the peace if done at 3:00 in the morning?

Why would you ban flag-burning?
 
Sounds like a stupid waste of time amendment to me.

So what, someone burns a ****ing flag.

Cry about it. (Not you Stinger, unless you are suggesting we ban burning of the flag).

Just outlining how it would be done and that it would be of course be constitutional if the constitution is amended to allow such a law.
 
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.

Nope. Setting things on fire is one way to express dissent. What the 1st Amendment forbids is the federal government telling you you cannot express dissent, not that you cannot do it on a Wednesday, or on this particular street, or by setting things on fire, etc.

I'm curious, why do you want to ban flag burning?

Do I have to want it banned to disagree with your logic?

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).

Judicial activism is generally what forces patriotic people to such drastic measures.
 
Nope. Setting things on fire is one way to express dissent. What the 1st Amendment forbids is the federal government telling you you cannot express dissent, not that you cannot do it on a Wednesday, or on this particular street, or by setting things on fire, etc.

Burning a flag expresses things that talking about your dicontent cannot. It is those elements of dissent which you would forbid the expression of, which is unconstitutional.

If there were to be a ban on a method of speech, that ban must be applied to all speech without regard to content.

For example, The government can say that no one is allowed to march down a residential street a 3:00 in the morning. It cannot however say that only Pro-life groups are prohibited from marching down a residential street at 3:00 in the morning, while pro-choice groups are free to do so.

So if you are going to ban flag burning, you have to ban burning everything else too.

So no fireworks, no smoking, no campfires, no buring pictures of Hitler, no barbecues, no candles, etc...
 
If you could change one part of the Constitution without having to go through the normal channels, what would it be? Explain why.

I said the 14th, because it was ratified illegally, at the tip of a bayonet, and reversed everything the federal government was designed to be.
I realize you anti American right winger want to do away with the 1st Amendment. yet I am ready to go into the streets and the woods with my guns gauranteed by the third amendment to restore the democracy that the right wing fascist types hate.
 
I realize you anti American right winger want to do away with the 1st Amendment. yet I am ready to go into the streets and the woods with my guns gauranteed by the third amendment to restore the democracy that the right wing fascist types hate.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
 
Nope. Setting things on fire is one way to express dissent. What the 1st Amendment forbids is the federal government telling you you cannot express dissent, not that you cannot do it on a Wednesday, or on this particular street, or by setting things on fire, etc.

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.

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?

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?

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?

I haven't banned dissent entirely, so by your logic, these laws should be constitutional. Right?

aquapub said:
Judicial activism is generally what forces patriotic people to such drastic measures.

Anyone who wants to ban freedom of speech is hardly patriotic.
 
I realize you anti American right winger want to do away with the 1st Amendment. yet I am ready to go into the streets and the woods with my guns gauranteed by the third amendment to restore the democracy that the right wing fascist types hate.

BWUAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAAAA.....

Classic.....
 
I would love to see the first amendment deal strictly with speech not distorted as the left has done to allow flag burning which is an act not speech.........
 
I would love to see the first amendment deal strictly with speech not distorted as the left has done to allow flag burning which is an act not speech.........

Heck I'd be happy if the left would stop confusing free speech with freedom from criticism from other private citizens or a freedom to disrupt others speech.
 
Heck I'd be happy if the left would stop confusing free speech with freedom from criticism from other private citizens or a freedom to disrupt others speech.

We rarely agree it seems, but here you're spot on. Private citizens or corporations protesting, restricting, criticizing, or even censoring speech is perfectly constitutional and to require otherwise would be a gross breach of the ideals of the First Amendment.
 
Heck I'd be happy if the left would stop confusing free speech with freedom from criticism from other private citizens or a freedom to disrupt others speech.

I agree, but I do need to alter your statement, slightly...

Heck I'd be happy if the left and the right would stop confusing free speech with freedom from criticism from other private citizens or a freedom to disrupt others speech.
 
Why would anyone object to the burning
of a garment "made in China?"

ist2315739contradictionpu4.jpg
 
No seriously, would one of y'all folks who say we should ban flag burning give me one reason why?
 
No seriously, would one of y'all folks who say we should ban flag burning give me one reason why?

They won't, because there is no reason why. None other than the fact they "don't like it".

If they banned flag burning, I'd definitely burn a flag the minute I found out. Then I'd put one on the ground where I park my car everyday so I would drive over it and park on top of it. And, I'd put one down as my doormat. Wonder if they'd ban that too.
 
I'd dip a flag in liquid nitrogen and shatter it. They never said anything about freezing a flag...
 
Repeal the 19th.:2razz:

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"
 
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.


Wrong.

The government may treat prisoners that way; however, American tax payers are not subject to government interference in expression.

:doh
 
If you could change one part of the Constitution without having to go through the normal channels, what would it be? Explain why.

I said the 14th, because it was ratified illegally, at the tip of a bayonet, and reversed everything the federal government was designed to be.

The Second Amendment should read-Congress shall make no laws as to the natural right of individuals to keep and bear small arms

THe Commerce clause should have been rewritten to prevent stuff like affirmative action and gun control

estate and income taxes should have been banned in teh bill of rights and the general welfare clause should have been better explained so socialists cannot twist it to support their treasonous schemes

only net tax payers should be able to vote on matters involving the raising of taxes
 
Back
Top Bottom