• 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
-Congresspeople should have term limits. The longer they stay, the more powerful they become
-Executive orders should be cut down to things the president has direct constitutional authority over and matters of national security, and all others should be banned
-It should be made more difficult for the Supreme Court to make decisions contrary to ones they've made before -- especially cases where a rule is made about legal procedures, since they were not taken into account in previous cases.

There's more I'd like to change, but I won't go too far into it. Our system is great, sure, but there's lots we could do to make it better.
 
Hatuey said:
I'd make an amendment banning neo-cons and extremist liberals.
Click to expand...

Nice try, good luck on this one.
Obviously, a Hitler stands not a chance, but "close ones" ?? We simply do not have the quality of men to enforce this one....
I voted "other", as most here did.
Without a ton of study and true debate, I would not change a thing..
 
Navy Pride said:
I would make a new amendment providing the president of the U.S. the line item veto........
Click to expand...

I agree with this one, and there is such irony here. Clinton tried the line item veto, and Republicans took him to court, where it was declared unconstitutional. Of course, I understand why Republicans sued Clinton. He was trying to do something that the Constitution said he cannot do. Still, the irony here is so thick you can cut it with a knife. I only wish that Republicans would have supported the Constitution with as much zeal after Bush took office.
 
I would just add a small branch of government to examine hard-depotism and soft-depotism laws in this country.

Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country is overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" that might degrade it. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people.

For more: Soft despotism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
1. I would specifically ban abortion via constitutional amendment or at least enable states to pass their own laws regarding abortion.
2. I would codify a right to privacy into law.
3. I would codify a right to control your own body into law.
4. I would change the Interstate Commerce Clause so that it can't be so broadly misinterpreted
5. I would codify a right to tinker into law (inundating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and related laws).
 
Last edited:
BulletWounD said:
1. I would specifically ban abortion via constitutional amendment or at least enable states to pass their own laws regarding abortion.
2. I would codify a right to privacy into law.
3. I would codify a right to control your own body into law.
4. I would change the Interstate Commerce Clause so that it can't be so broadly misinterpreted
5. I would codify a right to tinker into law (inundating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and related laws).
Click to expand...

Points #1 and #3 seem to be in contradiction with each other. Just saying.
 
danarhea said:
I agree with this one, and there is such irony here. Clinton tried the line item veto, and Republicans took him to court, where it was declared unconstitutional. Of course, I understand why Republicans sued Clinton. He was trying to do something that the Constitution said he cannot do. Still, the irony here is so thick you can cut it with a knife. I only wish that Republicans would have supported the Constitution with as much zeal after Bush took office.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but if we allowed that, that would effectively give the office of the President legislative power which is a clear disregard of what the separation of powers is meant to do.

And I share your ironic sentiments. We're seeing this now. Stuff Bush did that Obama followed is suddenly unacceptable. The hypocrisy is amazing.
 
I'd like to make it so that an 80% popular vote could remove a Supreme Court Justice. In essence every so many years, there could be a retention vote for the Supreme Court Justices, and if enough people want them out (it would have to be a high percentage to insulate from crappy political stuff), then they're gone. I think the People need a way to control the courts as well.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
I'd like to make it so that an 80% popular vote could remove a Supreme Court Justice. In essence every so many years, there could be a retention vote for the Supreme Court Justices, and if enough people want them out (it would have to be a high percentage to insulate from crappy political stuff), then they're gone. I think the People need a way to control the courts as well.
Click to expand...

First, with 9 justices, we'd have these elections fairly often, or have one big super election... second, think of the dog and pony show we have every four years for the presidential election... could you imagine having a similar ruckus for every justice on the court? And of course, everyone in their power would do everything in their power to smear the justices, and it'd be a mess... thanks but no thanks.
 
Federal justices, including the judges sitting on the Supreme Court, should have fixed defined terms. For the USSC, fix the terms at 18 years, and stagger the appointments so that each congressional term sees the appointment of one new justice.

As it stands now, the judges hang on forever and incompetent old boobs can't be gotten rid of until their at death's door or beyond, and we're still suffering from reactionary judges appointed in the 70's giving us little gems like Kelo v New London, for one example.

Also write the amendment so that the appointment of justices can't either be filibustered in the Senate or held up in committee indefinitely.
 
Last edited:
the makeout hobo said:
First, with 9 justices, we'd have these elections fairly often, or have one big super election... second, think of the dog and pony show we have every four years for the presidential election... could you imagine having a similar ruckus for every justice on the court? And of course, everyone in their power would do everything in their power to smear the justices, and it'd be a mess... thanks but no thanks.
Click to expand...

I'd rather have control over the system then to just sail the seas hoping for the best because negative campaigning is ugly. And that's also the reason for the extremely high vote needed to remove a Justice from office.
 
Ikari said:
I'd rather have control over the system then to just sail the seas hoping for the best because negative campaigning is ugly. And that's also the reason for the extremely high vote needed to remove a Justice from office.
Click to expand...

Also, that would politicize their job even more than it is already. Would you want a Justice to have to worry about his job as he decides a case?
 
aquapub said:
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.
Click to expand...

You looking to bring back slavery?
 
I would add an amendment that requires Congress to buy every American citizen the best gun that the military uses, plus of course a nuke.

No more arguing about citizens owning nukes.
 
American said:
I would add an amendment that requires Congress to buy every American citizen the best gun that the military uses, plus of course a nuke.

No more arguing about citizens owning nukes.
Click to expand...

I assume you're being facetious about the nuke argument... as to every American citizen, please tell me you're joking about that too. I can think of so many people who should never have a gun.
 
Only thing that I would change is make it clearer that citizens have a right to own and carry a gun. Without locks and loaded. And allowed ANY type of gun.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Only thing that I would change is make it clearer that citizens have a right to own and carry a gun. Without locks and loaded. And allowed ANY type of gun.
Click to expand...

Do you think, personally, that there should be any sort of restriction or registration on gun ownership at all?
 
the makeout hobo said:
Do you think, personally, that there should be any sort of restriction or registration on gun ownership at all?
Click to expand...

Only for violent felonious criminals. They wave all their rights the moment they became violent and hurt someone else as far as I am concerned.
 
How about an amendment requiring that any bill go through a 5 day 'reading gtrace period' before any vote can take place.

Also, to make it easier for the president to lose his position through a 'vote of no confidence'... We'd have been rid of Bush at least a year earlier with that option.
 
the makeout hobo said:
I assume you're being facetious about the nuke argument... as to every American citizen, please tell me you're joking about that too. I can think of so many people who should never have a gun.
Click to expand...
Everyone except you. :lol:
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
As is the mother's body. Hence the contradiction.
Click to expand...
No contradiction, one of the bodies didn't ask to be made, therefore you are responsible. Would you kill your own child if you got tired of it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom