• 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
RightinNYC said:
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"
Click to expand...

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.
 
TurtleDude said:
only net tax payers should be able to vote on matters involving the raising of taxes
Click to expand...

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.
 
the makeout hobo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you're a Democrat then, ok.

Kandahar said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

Kandahar said:
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?
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. See above.

Kandahar said:
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?
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. See above.

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

Kandahar said:
I haven't banned dissent entirely, so by your logic, these laws should be constitutional. Right?
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. See above.

Kandahar said:
Anyone who wants to ban freedom of speech is hardly patriotic.
Click to expand...

So you're finally willing to admit that Democrats root for the enemy then?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.:roll:

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Panache said:
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.:roll:
Click to expand...

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.

Panache said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nope, the Neo-Nazi permit rule is perfectly Constitutional, even if it is inconsistent with local policies for other demonstrations.

Panache said:
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.
Click to expand...

Setting things on fire, either way, is not protected by the Constitution as speech.
 
aquapub said:
Nope, the Neo-Nazi permit rule is perfectly Constitutional, even if it is inconsistent with local policies for other demonstrations.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

So then you would have to make it unconstitutional to burn, say, a flag of North Korea or Iran as well correct?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Aquapub's position is a strictly constuctional position of the First Amendment, but one that has not been held up by SCOTUS Beginning with [FONT=Helvetica, Arial][FONT=Helvetica, Arial]Stromberg vs. California (1931), SCOTUS has consistently upheld the constitutionality of 'symbolic speech' as a 1st Amendment right.[/FONT][/FONT]
 
I would change the 2nd one to...

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

and not like a hindu god.
 
The problem is that if we interpret the first amendment as Aquapub does, that means that any symbolic speech isn't included. After all, a picture isn't "speech", so wouldn't be covered. A yellow ribbon isn't "speech". If we follow that logic, then we cut out a huge majority of political statement. If you think I'm wring, aquapub, please explain why flagburning isn't covered but a yellow ribbon is.
 
aquapub said:
Setting things on fire, either way, is not protected by the Constitution as speech.
Click to expand...

And yet I can burn my garbage and start campfires. As he said above, if you ban the burning of a flag, you'd have to ban the burning of everything to remain logically consistent.
 
rivrrat said:
And yet I can burn my garbage and start campfires. As he said above, if you ban the burning of a flag, you'd have to ban the burning of everything to remain logically consistent.
Click to expand...

What if a flag is garbage...
When should I be able to burn the flag?
 
Kandahar said:
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?
Click to expand...

OK an interstate highway is a major road. Do you believe people have a right to express their "dissent" by shutting down interstate highways thus blocking other citizens from engaging in their private lawful business?

Do you believe citizens have a right to carry out their private lawful business without interference from other citizens even if those citizens are practicing their right to "dissent"?

The right to assembly is the right to "peacefully assemble", is mounting a protest, I mean a dissent, which shuts down commerce in the business district of a city "peaceful assembly"?
 
I would make everyone who wants to vote pass a test each election which indicated they understood the issues.

I would make it mandatory that every TV, radio, newspaper, magazine or internet news service submit DAILY copies, in their entirety, of ONE primetime news cast or front page to be graded by an independent 3rd party for truthiness.

And any organization falling below a certain level of truthiness would be unable to have inside or behind the scene or exclusive access to official government news sources or stories for a year.

I would make it mandatory that EVERYONE at online forums be identified by age and country from where their drivers license or ID card or passport or current citizenship papers are issued.
 
bhkad said:
I would make everyone who wants to vote pass a test each election which indicated they understood the issues.

I would make it mandatory that every TV, radio, newspaper, magazine or internet news service submit DAILY copies, in their entirety, of ONE primetime news cast or front page to be graded by an independent 3rd party for truthiness.

And any organization falling below a certain level of truthiness would be unable to have inside or behind the scene or exclusive access to official government news sources or stories for a year.

I would make it mandatory that EVERYONE at online forums be identified by age and country from where their drivers license or ID card or passport or current citizenship papers are issued.
Click to expand...


Wow; Hitler, Goebbels, Stalin would love you.
 
Stinger said:
OK an interstate highway is a major road. Do you believe people have a right to express their "dissent" by shutting down interstate highways thus blocking other citizens from engaging in their private lawful business?

Do you believe citizens have a right to carry out their private lawful business without interference from other citizens even if those citizens are practicing their right to "dissent"?

The right to assembly is the right to "peacefully assemble", is mounting a protest, I mean a dissent, which shuts down commerce in the business district of a city "peaceful assembly"?
Click to expand...

Yes, just like the Boston Tea Party. They didn't stop traffic... :roll:
 
bhkad said:
I would make everyone who wants to vote pass a test each election which indicated they understood the issues.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that "understand the issues" is so relative. I mean, there's usually different levels to the issue. Should someone only n eed to know the basic idea of a candidate's energy plan, or will they have to know the small nitty gritty? Should it be all issues, or only the "important" ones. I for one would be at a loss to tell you my state senator's stance on water distribution. Who determines what's important? And what if someone doesn't care about an issue, why should they have to know the stances on it? I see a lot of problems with that.

I would make it mandatory that every TV, radio, newspaper, magazine or internet news service submit DAILY copies, in their entirety, of ONE primetime news cast or front page to be graded by an independent 3rd party for truthiness.

And any organization falling below a certain level of truthiness would be unable to have inside or behind the scene or exclusive access to official government news sources or stories for a year.
Click to expand...

First of all, you're looking for the word "truthfullness" (i hope). Truthiness is something else entirely.

So you would censor governmen employess to talking to certain reporters? I see problems with that. Especially since it wouldn't be hard for that "independant 3rd party" to be anything but. Not to mention, sometimes what's believed to be "true" is an evolving and changing concept, with new evidence coming out every day. It would also punish media for faulty sources. It wouldn't be hard for someone to feed a newspaper false information in an attempt to get them punished.

I would make it mandatory that EVERYONE at online forums be identified by age and country from where their drivers license or ID card or passport or current citizenship papers are issued.
Click to expand...

That seems kinda weird. Why?
 
OK an interstate highway is a major road. Do you believe people have a right to express their "dissent" by shutting down interstate highways thus blocking other citizens from engaging in their private lawful business?

Do you believe citizens have a right to carry out their private lawful business without interference from other citizens even if those citizens are practicing their right to "dissent"?

The right to assembly is the right to "peacefully assemble", is mounting a protest, I mean a dissent, which shuts down commerce in the business district of a city "peaceful assembly"?
Click to expand...

The real question is "Should people expressing a pro-life view be subjected to laws that people expressing pro-choice view are not?

Is it consititutional to say that Pro-life people cannot demonstrate on a major highway because it would be "blocking other citizens from engaging in their private lawful business" and then turn around and say that it is ok for a pro-choice group to demonstrate on that same highway?

The point is that the ban on flag burning has everything to do with the emotionally charged content of the idea being expressed. If they banned the use of fire altogether it would be a different story.
 
I'd take out first the 16th amendment, followed closely by the 17th being tossed.
 
Ikari said:
I'd take out first the 16th amendment, followed closely by the 17th being tossed.
Click to expand...

Why would you get rid of direct election for senators? It makes more sense to me that people, in this age of high education and high information, should be able to pick who represents them in the senate. Why would you scrap it?
 
The Senate was not meant to represent the People, the People are represented through the House. The Senate represents the States, the States have interests too which must be represented in the federal government. It was a huge removal of a check on the power of the federal government when the States were removed. House of the People, Senate for the States; you get well more of a check on federal power that way.
 
RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

true its a wish not a reality. a better way is giving net tax payers more votes proportionate to the amount of taxes they pay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom