• 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!

Which amendments would you add to the constitution?

M

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
489
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I would add these:

28th: US territories now have the right to vote

29th: the president may not pardon anyone who is convicted of a felony which was committed during their term.

30th: no victimless crimes

31st: no entrapment
 
What is even the point? When it's all said and done the Supreme Court will just abuse whatever you add to the constitution.
 
Masterhawk said:
I would add these:

28th: US territories now have the right to vote

29th: the president may not pardon anyone who is convicted of a felony which was committed during their term.

30th: no victimless crimes

31st: no entrapment
Click to expand...

I think an Amendment forbidding the USSC from reinterpreting the meaning of the words of the Constitution and allowing secondary law from circumventing it.
 
joG said:
I think an Amendment forbidding the USSC from reinterpreting the meaning of the words of the Constitution and allowing secondary law from circumventing it.
Click to expand...

the 1st amendment says that congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion and the 14th applies it to state level. You are clearly referring to gay marriage and the reason to oppose gay marriage is clearly a religious one.
 
Masterhawk said:
the 1st amendment says that congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion and the 14th applies it to state level. You are clearly referring to gay marriage and the reason to oppose gay marriage is clearly a religious one.
Click to expand...

That is one case, I guess.
 
joG said:
I think an Amendment forbidding the USSC from reinterpreting the meaning of the words of the Constitution and allowing secondary law from circumventing it.
Click to expand...

Nice ideal, but naive as hell. :mrgreen:
 
joG said:
Actually it is one of the two major Western theories of jurisprudence.
Click to expand...

I agree, but it is still most naive.

The rule of law, and the idea that all men are equal before the law are also 2 such themes/theories, but that does not make them reality.
 
Cisero said:
Speeding is a victimless crime. Would you allow people to drive down the highway at 300 mph as long as they don't hurt anybody / destroy anything ?
Click to expand...

I have never driven any faster than 315 Kmh. What is 300 mph like?

PS: It is not necessarily a victimless crime. The probability of a victim increases with vehicle velocity.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I agree, but it is still most naive.

The rule of law, and the idea that all men are equal before the law are also 2 such themes/theories, but that does not make them reality.
Click to expand...

This is true and not true. Everyone knows that objectivity in transmitting news is impossible and will always be subjective. Continental Europeans take this to mean that they needn't try for objective journalism.
 
joG said:
I have never driven any faster than 315 Kmh. What is 300 mph like?

PS: It is not necessarily a victimless crime. The probability of a victim increases with vehicle velocity.
Click to expand...

Probability of a victim, exactly, but not always a victim.
 
I'll just copy the 13th and the 21st for formatting since they are direct analogues:

The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Abortion shall not exist within the United States, nor any place subject to their jurisdiction, except in cases of life-saving medical necessity.
 
I would update the 2A to make it clear that the founders intended "the people" to be able to legally posses and bear any small arms that are contemporaneous with what the military and law enforcement are allowed to possess and bear.

I would also probably add a statement that the 2A has nothing to do with hunting, target shooting, or use otherwise of a firearm for recreational purposes.
 
JayDubya said:
I'll just copy the 13th and the 21st for formatting since they are direct analogues:

The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Abortion shall not exist within the United States, nor any place subject to their jurisdiction, except in cases of life-saving medical necessity.
Click to expand...

most people do not understand why this amendment needs repealing.

those that understand state powers, and the need to check the power of the federal government do.
 
Masterhawk said:
I would add these:

28th: US territories now have the right to vote

29th: the president may not pardon anyone who is convicted of a felony which was committed during their term.

30th: no victimless crimes

31st: no entrapment
Click to expand...

Well I'm really glad you're not in charge adding amendments to the constitution.

Who gets to decide what is and is not victimless again?
 
joG said:
I think an Amendment forbidding the USSC from reinterpreting the meaning of the words of the Constitution and allowing secondary law from circumventing it.
Click to expand...

Too bad the USSC has the sole discretion in interpreting the meaning of the words of the constitution and if they consistently disagree with you, then YOU are the one that is wrong.
 
Henrin said:
What is even the point? When it's all said and done the Supreme Court will just abuse whatever you add to the constitution.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh yes a whole bunch of legal scholars who've spent their entire lives studying law, the constitution, and legal precedent have no idea what the document said, but you the random dong who probably slept through 9th grade civics have it all down perfectly.
 
Masterhawk said:
29th: the president may not pardon anyone who is convicted of a felony which was committed during their term.
Click to expand...

The last thing on earth we need are restrictions on governments ability to give you freedom. The reason for the pardon, and the bill of rights and the separation of powers among three branches, and the constitution and all of that was because the founding fathers recognized that the majority would always vote to restrict the rights of minorities over time. Any power inserted into the constitution to insure that the government could give you freedom cannot be abused.

Masterhawk said:
30th: no victimless crimes
Click to expand...
Sounds lovely, but unfortunately it depends heavily on what you consider victim-less. Is firing a gun down a crowded street victim-less if you don't hit anybody? How about drinking and driving so long as you make it home safe? If you're unhealthy your medical bills go up, if your medical bills go up your insurance company has to charge everyone else they serve more money. If your high all the time it can effect your productivity. Isn't your lack of productivity hurting your boss, and all his customers?


Masterhawk said:
31st: no entrapment
Click to expand...

Entrapment is already illegal.
 
repeal the 16th and 17th amendments. Add an amendment saying Congress shall not evade any laws applicable to other citizens. and finally, the federal government shall make no laws nor regulations concerning the right of the people to keep, bear, possess, buy and sell any firearm
 
That Congress must explicitly state its theory of how any law it enacts is authorized by its enumerated powers.

That any law concern only one subject, and that the subject form a part of the bill's title.

The abolishment of extra-legislative regulation. As in, if it's to be a binding rule, Congress must pass it.
 
MrWonka said:
Ahhhh yes a whole bunch of legal scholars who've spent their entire lives studying law, the constitution, and legal precedent have no idea what the document said, but you the random dong who probably slept through 9th grade civics have it all down perfectly.
Click to expand...

I don't brow down to authority or the supposed intelligence of people because they sit on the bench. You can do whatever you please of course, but as for me I have thing called a mind that I find worthwhile in using.
 
Masterhawk said:
I would add these:

28th: US territories now have the right to vote

29th: the president may not pardon anyone who is convicted of a felony which was committed during their term.

30th: no victimless crimes

31st: no entrapment
Click to expand...



28th: Im ok with this as long as there other requirements. TO vote they have to be subjected to certain criteria. Not sure what all I would want and it should be but it should include statehood within a certain time frame, tax code etc etc
29th: NO
30th: NO
31st: NO, not totally against this but it doesn't need to be an amendment and needs way more clarification

Id have to put a lot of thought into this but off the top of my head I would clear up the 2nd, make it clear what the right to bear arm is since SOME seem to be confused on this issues. Every state would be open carry and conceal carry license would be national like ID. I'd clear up the 14th/civil rights issues and "Sex" would be national know to include gender, sexual orientation and sexual identity. Id also work to solidify the 15th. Im sure theres much more but thats just off the top. In general Id love to address the two party stranglehold on us and block it somehow but not allowing majority vote in the houses. Not sure how to work that out but Im sure theres a way to do it just like we collaborate and group voting now. Term limits For the houses would also be in place. And something about the solidarity of bills/laws. No more bills with multiply items in them that arent related lol
 
MrWonka said:
Well I'm really glad you're not in charge adding amendments to the constitution.

Who gets to decide what is and is not victimless again?
Click to expand...

Victimless crimes are crimes which hurt nobody nor increase risk of death or a non victimless crime. This includes incest, (regulated) prostitution, sodomy, gambling, adultury, teens sexting (I know the feds want to limit CP but for the love of god, don't charge the 16 yo girl with distributing lewd images), and tobacco commercials (those are prohibited under US federal law yet booze commercials are perfectly ok despite tobacco not causing car accidents and having a lower minimum age).

Honestly, defining victemless crimes is open for debate but I think that stuff that hurts nobody shouldn't be illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom