• 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
I like your ideas here. I like clerifying that the second amendment applyes to modern weapons and I would further that idea by having clerify that it includes so-called "assult weapons" and it protects privat ownership of fire arms.

actually, I was thinking more in terms of WMDs then firearms.

I like you idea of creating a bodily soverighty amendment, though Pro Choice would never allow such an abortion ban to come true.

what would happen, is that any abortion method where the death of the fetus doesn't somehow make the procedure easier for the woman, would become illegal. any other method would be a legal form of self defense.

Sometimes deficit spending is neccisary, even inexess, so I don't believe that an amendment is warented there.

I agree that its sometimes necessary, which is why I wouldn't support a balanced budget amendment. I do think that some sort of limitation is absolutely necessary though to avoid situations like the one we are currently in.
 
I'd add Jefferson's amendments, prohibiting the government from borrowing money and public stock corporations from owning one another.
 
I would expand the definition of treason by changing "and" to an "or",

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

Also, like Aquapub said I'd change the 14th amendment not so much get rid of it as change the interpretation of it by not allowing for total incorporation in matters other than slavery and segregation.
 
Last edited:
17th then 16th then 14th amendments.
 
I would also repeal the 17th Amendment and return selection of the Senators to the state legislatures.

It was the single worst change from the original concepts of the founding fathers.

It would curtail federal mandates on the states. It would contain the federal government form encroaching state authority. It would take the money and the politics out of the Senate since they would not "campaign" for the office. In my state I would push to give the governor a vote in the selection. Say you have 30 state legislators, give the governors office five votes in the tally, not enough to control but enough to have some influence so that the Senator is also responsible to the governors office. Let each state decide that on their own.
 
I'm not sure what the most eloquent and concise way of saying it would be, but I'd like it to cover things such womens rights during pregnancy and childbirth, circumcision (or other cosmetic surgery) of minors, organ donation, etc.

Bodily Sovereignty is a desperately make up concept based solely on the desire to enshrine abortion into the constitution.

It would mean we could sell our body parts if we wanted to and legalize prostitution, and might even make it unconstitutional to put anyones body in jail or under any other type of sanction, that would violate the sovereignty of it.

Just so precious abortion is constitutionally enshrined.
 
Bodily Sovereignty is a desperately make up concept based solely on the desire to enshrine abortion into the constitution.

It would mean we could sell our body parts if we wanted to and legalize prostitution, and might even make it unconstitutional to put anyones body in jail or under any other type of sanction, that would violate the sovereignty of it.

Just so precious abortion is constitutionally enshrined.

abortion gets the headlines and makes people angry. people argue about abortion so much that other bodily sovereignty issues get completely ignored. for example, many hospitals across the country have policies that forbid women who have had previous C-sections from giving birth vaginally. they are told that they are required to have a second surgery. and its completely legal to perform unnecessary cosmetic surgery on children. there are a lot of reasons why such an amendment is necessary, and yes, abortion is one of them.
 
abortion gets the headlines and makes people angry. people argue about abortion so much that other bodily sovereignty issues get completely ignored. for example, many hospitals across the country have policies that forbid women who have had previous C-sections from giving birth vaginally. they are told that they are required to have a second surgery. and its completely legal to perform unnecessary cosmetic surgery on children. there are a lot of reasons why such an amendment is necessary, and yes, abortion is one of them.

None of those reasons require a constitutional amendment, but do you really want government telling doctors and hospital what procedures they must do in spite of their own medical decisions and the state can regulate at what age a child can or cannot get an elective surgery with the parents permission but only in the most extreme cases, else the parent decides what is necessary and unnecessary and a constitutional amendment wouldn't have any effect on those issues anyway.
 
for example, many hospitals across the country have policies that forbid women who have had previous C-sections from giving birth vaginally. they are told that they are required to have a second surgery.
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.

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.

Trying to put these kind of decisions, that change as the technology and best practices change, into the Constitution sounds like pure folly.
 
Of course you would. Liberals are pretty much always the ones willing to throw the 1st Amendment under the bus the moment it gets in their way.

I would change the first amendment to remove some of the loopholes like saying burning and American Flag is speech when in reality it has nothing to do with speech..........


Guess you're wrong, aquapub.
 
There are a couple of amendments I would alter or eliminate because of my personal feelings and/or beliefs. However, the national ramifications of these changes would be huge, and though I disagree with parts of the Constitution, my changes, though in my best interests, would not be in the best interests of the country as a whole. Leave it the way it is...it works pretty good to me.
 
REPEAL the SIXTEENTH amendment, of course.

If you don't know what that is, it's the INCOME TAX.

How did it ever get ratified in the first place?????
 
Guess you're wrong, aquapub.

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.........
 
I would change the 4th amendment. At this point in time its just a little too damned vague and leaves too much up in the air for decisions to be made and then overturned in the legal system. Too much is up to a judge who may decide differently than another judge and thus it is difficult for Police and Government Officials to determine if their actions are reasonable when 4 different judges will give them 4 different opinions of the reasonableness of their actions.
 
I would change this part of the 14th "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" to "All person born to female citizens or naturalized in the United States".I would say "all persons born to citizens" but an illegal could claim that an American whom coincidently no one can find is the father.
 
:rofl - As opposed to neo-cons who want to "change" equal rights and due process the moment it gets in their way? Oh pubby. Your hypocrisy.

I'm not sure what this vague smear is referring to, but I'm talking about Democrats...

-lying about a vote they lost in the House, destroying the record, and changing the results

-trying to pass the "Fairness" Doctrine

-trying to strip workers of basic voting rights

-assaulting conservative speakers

-banning conservative books...

These things (and there are more) are actual violations of the right to dissent protected by the 1st Amendment. Conservatives are not advocating any such thing.
 
Unless it involves burning the flag.

Being told you cannot set something on fire in no way violates your right to express dissent. Flag-burning is a way of expressing dissent, not dissent itself.

Or New York art exhibits that the troglodyte mayor deems anti-religious.

:bs

Mayor Guiliani choosing to stop giving taxpayer dollars to an "artist" smearing one group of people's religion in no way violates their right to dissent.

Or websites that you consider harmful to children. Or images of boobs on television.

Boobs and porn sites in no way constitute dissent.

Or just about anything else that conservatives find offensive.

If you can come up with a single example to back up your claim that isn't Constitutionally illiterate hysteria, let me know. Meanwhile, liberals are still the ones prone to suppressing Constitutional free speech rights.
 
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.
 
actually, I was thinking more in terms of WMDs then firearms.

I would agree with clerifying that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to WMD's.

what would happen, is that any abortion method where the death of the fetus doesn't somehow make the procedure easier for the woman, would become illegal. any other method would be a legal form of self defense.

In theory, Justifyable Homicide is, well, justified, and any abortion which is performed to protect the mother's life is acceptable; regardless of the exact procedure used.
 
I would change the first amendment to remove some of the loopholes like saying burning and American Flag is speech when in reality it has nothing to do with speech..........


You cannot remove freedom of expression (even if it is flag-buring) without neutralizing freedom of speech.

:doh
 
You cannot remove freedom of expression (even if it is flag-buring) without neutralizing freedom of speech.

:doh

Flag burning, when not for respectfull disposal, is arson.

Fire is not speach.
 
Flag burning, when not for respectfull disposal, is arson.

That's ridiculous. If you're burning someone else's flag who hasn't given you permission to burn it, then of course that should be illegal, as you have no right to destroy their property.

But if you have your own flag, you're free to do whatever the hell you want to it as long as you aren't endangering anyone else. It's no one else's business.

Jerry said:
Fire is not speach.

Ya, I've heard that a few times now. Is the brilliant legal mind who came up with this a member of DP? Or is this meme circulating elsewhere on the internets too? If so, I've officially lost faith in human intelligence. :roll:
 
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.........

I disagree with your assertation that freedom of speech only applies to verbal speech. Heck, writing something down's not speech, but it should still be protected. The point of the matter is that the point of the amendment is that it is supposed to let us transmit any thought we want (with a few restrictions) from us to another person. The medium is not important. An act says just as much as a conversation. It may not be speaking, but it is still "speech"
 
Back
Top Bottom