• 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!

Any Amendments you'd like to see repealed?

in a consumption tax, it is not compulsory,. is my point, and people enjoy the liberty they have by not being forced to pay like a direct tax, which violates the principles of this nation.

people who make more money can afford more expensive items then those on the bottom.

taxes are collected to be paid for the powers of congress, and meant to be uniform for the people.
Devil's Advocate: Times and people and societal attitudes change. The Constitution is changeable, too. Couldn't it be argued that the Constitution changed with the times to match the new principles of the nation? Seems that if we're supposed to rigidly stick to the original, then we shouldn't have an amendment process at all.
 
I'm not -- I'm basing it off the idea that no one has the liberty to live in our society free of spending money.
You can't NOT eat. You can't NOT buy clothing. You can't NOT get sick and not pay a doctor's bill.
No one can just "opt out" of spending money. Money doesn't grow on trees. It's necessary to survive.

Which why it's totally repressive of big government and contrary to the ideals of liberty to force people to pay tax on 100% of their money, because they have so little money they are forced to spend 100% of money to survive; and at the same time let other people pay tax on much less than 100% of their money! Not at all uniform.

Especially when the people who are paying tax on 100% have a lower standard of living.

we lived in a nation, which had no direct taxes uno people until the 16th amendment, all taxes were commerce taxes and those taxes were uniform.
 
Devil's Advocate: Times and people and societal attitudes change. The Constitution is changeable, too. Couldn't it be argued that the Constitution changed with the times to match the new principles of the nation? Seems that if we're supposed to rigidly stick to the original, then we shouldn't have an amendment process at all.

how can you change the principle that money is property belonging to the person who has earned it?

the principles the nation was founded upon are in the DOI.

by having direct taxes, this gives the federal government authority over you to make laws on the backs of the people, and the founders, did not want that.

why would the conventions of the people that ratifded the constitution want to have a federal government which dictated to them?
 
how can you change the principle that money is property belonging to the person who has earned it?

the principles the nation was founded upon are in the DOI.

by having direct taxes, this gives the federal government authority over you to make laws on the backs of the people, and the founders, did not want that.

why would the conventions of the people that ratifded the constitution want to have a federal government which dictated to them?
Is this the long version of, "No, there shouldn't be an amendment process at all."?

Also, keep in mind they allowed an amendment process, so it seems safe to say that they didn't expect everything to be carved in stone.
 
Is this the long version of, "No, there shouldn't be an amendment process at all."?

Also, keep in mind they allowed an amendment process, so it seems safe to say that they didn't expect everything to be carved in stone.

the founders had no problem with amendments, but should those amendments violate the principles of the nation and what the constitution was built on?
 
the founders had no problem with amendments, but should those amendments violate the principles of the nation and what the constitution was built on?
That's saying, "We have the ability to make change, but we should never use that ability."
 
That's saying, "We have the ability to make change, but we should never use that ability."

u.s. federal law, recognizes the principles of the DOI

in the DOI it states:

people have unalienable rights, which are endowed by god, or higher power,.....should we abandon that, and have government create rights instead?....so they control them to give them or take them away anytime they choose?

you have the natural rights of life liberty and property which government is created for the sole purpose to secure, ..should we have have government not secure property, but now take property by force?
 
u.s. federal law, recognizes the principles of the DOI

in the DOI it states:

people have unalienable rights, which are endowed by god, or higher power,.....should we abandon that, and have government create rights instead?....so they control them to give them or take them away anytime they choose?

the have the natural rights of life liberty and property which government is created for the sole purpose to secure, ..should we have have government not secure property, but now take property by force?
That doesn't really address my point. You're being specific, I'm being generic.

Did the FF specify any disclaimers about which parts should be sacrosanct?
 
Can you provide just one example? No offense, but I'm skeptical.

Context retained.

question first from you

if the founders say the federal government does not have a power to do something, but the USSC does who do you believe is correct?
 
question first from you

if the founders say the federal government does not have a power to do something, but the USSC does who do you believe is correct?
The SC cannot always be trusted. Civil asset forfeiture is an area where I believe they have literally thumbed their nose at the Constitution, and that's just one example.

But, the FF would have to be very specific in their denial of power to change. VERY specific. Otherwise, I see the ability to amend as overriding. And even then, I think it would have to be in the Constitution, not a some side writing.
 
The SC cannot always be trusted. Civil asset forfeiture is an area where I believe they have literally thumbed their nose at the Constitution, and that's just one example.

But, the FF would have to be very specific in their denial of power to change. VERY specific. Otherwise, I see the ability to amend as overriding. And even then, I think it would have to be in the Constitution, not a some side writing.

i have specifics of what the founders Madison & hamilton Say, yet the USSC says the opposite.

i am currently looking for were i believe its john adams saying that people's rights cannot be repealed.


"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." ~ John Adams
 
Last edited:
I would repeal the following:

16th Amendment to repeal tthe Federal Income Tax
17th Amendment to preserve state's rights
24th Amendment to keep the disinterested from voting
 
both the founders Hamilton and Madison state the federal government has no powers over the lives liberty and property of the people, so how can the USSC say they do?
 
both the founders Hamilton and Madison state the federal government has no powers over the lives liberty and property of the people, so how can the USSC say they do?
Ok, but the SC aspect sidesteps the fact that there is an amendment process. They very well may have said "no power", but barring more specifics that could mean "no power right now", potential amendments notwithstanding.
 
Ok, but the SC aspect sidesteps the fact that there is an amendment process. They very well may have said "no power", but barring more specifics that could mean "no power right now", potential amendments notwithstanding.

can you show me a power in the constitution itself, which granted congress a power to regulate the people?

because i know of no amendment of or after the founders that does that.

hamilton states in federalist 84 the constitution does not allow the federal government to regulate the people
 
can you show me a power in the constitution itself, which granted congress a power to regulate the people?

because i know of no amendment of or after the founders that does that.

hamilton states in federalist 84 the constitution does not allow the federal government to regulate the people
Why do you keep sidestepping the fact that there's an amendment process? What IS an amendment? It's the ability to change something.
 
Why do you keep sidestepping the fact that there's an amendment process? What IS an amendment? It's the ability to change something.

thats not what i was saying, i said, can you tell me of an amendment of the founders or after the founders that grants the federal government power to regulate the people, because theres no such in the constitution or amendment exist.

i also said, that the u.s federal government in another post recognizes the principle of the DOI, so how can they violate a principle, which by law they accepted by its recognition?
 
thats not what i was saying, i said, can you tell me of an amendment of the founders or after the founders that grants the federal government power to regulate the people, because theres no such in the constitution or amendment exist.

i also said, that the u.s federal government in another post recognizes the principle of the DOI, so how can they violate a principle, which by law they accepted by its recognition?
I know that's what you're saying, but we got on this whole tangent because *I* mentioned the amendment process.
 
I know that's what you're saying, but we got on this whole tangent because *I* mentioned the amendment process.

there is nothing wrong with changing the constitution, however why would anyone want to change the principles this nation and the constitution was built on?

should we change the constitution to grant government power of rights, and make people subjects of government, and not free people.

should we have government take care of our personal needs instead of government working only to secure rights?

should we change and have some people treated differently then others by government

i cannot understand why anyone would want to change the principles of the DOI, BECAUSE EVERYONE OF THEM IS ...GREAT PRINCIPLE of liberty.
 
I'd toss the entirety of the Constitution and start over.
 
Back
Top Bottom