• 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Which Constitutional Amendments, if any, should be repealed?

Which Constitutional Amendments, if any, should be repealed?

  • Total voters
    52
jamesrage said:
I picked other.I would reword section 1 of the 14th amendment to only apply to the children of citizens like the authors intended.


The 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the dangerous misinterpretation of the birthright citizenship clause - DA King - the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship -
Before its ratification in 1868, Michigan's Senator Jacob Howard, author of the citizenship clause, made the intent crystal clear to the Senate: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include all other classes of persons."
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how they could have meant anything other than people born in the US were US citizens....

Here is the text: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

... This isn't a question about what "militia" means or what "infringement" means. The text clearly says people born in the US are US citizens. What the authors meant in whatever crystal ball you're holding is irrelevant. What is important is what was written.
 
Hatuey said:
I'm not sure how they could have meant anything other than people born in the US were US citizens....

Here is the text: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

... This isn't a question about what "militia" means or what "infringement" means. The text clearly says people born in the US are US citizens. What the authors meant in whatever crystal ball you're holding is irrelevant. What is important is what was written.
Click to expand...
I see it as a case where such issues today were unforeseen.
 
There aren't really any that I'd appeal, but there are some that I'd like to see changed.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Yeah, I goofed in my vote, sorry. 16th and 17th should be repealed, states should elect senators and the prohibition on direct taxation and the income tax should be immediately reinstated.
Click to expand...

I chose the 16th and 17th too. By repealing the 16th would starve the federal beast by depriving it of its consumption of money from the states and the taxpayers through income. States could exercise better control over how or even if their money is spent. Repealing the 17th makes United States senators directly appointed by the state legislatures would check the federal government's tendency to pass laws binding the states to unfunded mandates. It would increase the sovereignty of the several states and restore true federalism back into our system of government. The states could do this by individual vote. Three fourths of the state legislatures would have to vote to repeal each or any Amendment. Once each state votes to invalidate an Amendment, the vote is sent to the Archivist of the National Archives. The result would be a return to the Constitution as it existed before.
 
pinqy said:
no it wouldn't, as I already pointed out: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...-if-any-should-repealed-2.html#post1063461886
Click to expand...

That's not how I recall things. To the Founders, the very idea of taxing individuals (as opposed to objects, as with a sales tax) was highly offensive. They were regarded as options of last resort, only to be imposed in war or other emergency. The first federal income tax was imposed during the Civil War. it was soon repealed. In the 1890s Congress assessed a peacetime income tax for the first time. The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1895. Referring to prohibiting direct taxation in Article I, the court argued that the income tax would excessively enhance federal power in relation to state power. But in 1913 the 16th Amendment changed all that and today we see the wisdom of the Founders and the Supremes in 1895 for upholding the Constitution because indeed it has enhanced federal power. The federal government was to collect revenue in less intrusive ways through tariffs, excise taxes, and consumption taxes so as to limit the amount of money it could raise by its own authority but enough to cover expenses what the Constitution listed as its limited duties. But now because of income tax, it has created over bloated agencies of things it was never intended to intrude upon that were originally seen as states duties.
 
None, I am not an American but I do not think you can pick constitutional guarantees out of the whole frame work. The only way around that is to completely re-work the constitution into a new one and then have 2/3 of the congress, 2/3 of the senate and through a referendum 2/3 of the population agree with that new constitution. Then the congress and the senate has to be dissolved and a new congress has to be elected which then will have to again vote on that constitution and again 2/3 would have to vote in favor of it and then the constitution will be become the new law of the US (or that is how I think it should go).

The odds of that ever happening? Almost zero.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I see it as a case where such issues today were unforeseen.
Click to expand...
This. The wording is clear, and adhered to as it should be, but times have changed in a direction unforeseen by the people at the time.

While I think this is actually a pressing issue, and we need to amend the Constitution to add a requirement that one biological parent already be a citizen, can you imagine the response if proposed? The wailing and gnashing of teeth would be deafening.


Peter King said:
None, I am not an American but I do not think you can pick constitutional guarantees out of the whole frame work. The only way around that is to completely re-work the constitution into a new one and then have 2/3 of the congress, 2/3 of the senate and through a referendum 2/3 of the population agree with that new constitution. Then the congress and the senate has to be dissolved and a new congress has to be elected which then will have to again vote on that constitution and again 2/3 would have to vote in favor of it and then the constitution will be become the new law of the US (or that is how I think it should go).

The odds of that ever happening? Almost zero.
Click to expand...
I'll excuse your unfamiliarity with the American Constitutional process, but the amendment process exists precisely so that we don't have to throw everything out and start from scratch. Granted, many (if not most) countries require wholesale change, but why is that necessary at times when only a minor tweaking is desired?
 
The 47'th...provides rights to androids...especially those that are Skynet based.

Definitely repeal.
 
I'm with the rest of you guys who see the 16th and 17th as being completely disasterous.

I'd go after the 17th first, work to bring the FedGov leviathan under control, and then repeal the 16th...

Those are the two most damaging amendments ever passed.
 
I'd rather work on federal spending than repeal outright the 16th. Work on reining the feds back into what their purpose is supposed to be to begin with. The notion of an income tax, per se, doesn't get me as riled up as it does many other people. To be honest, I'd rather have that than a consumption/sales tax. I'd rather pay my money up front, then be left alone to conduct my business without extra surcharges.
 
radcen said:
I'd rather work on federal spending than repeal outright the 16th. Work on reining the feds back into what their purpose is supposed to be to begin with. The notion of an income tax, per se, doesn't get me as riled up as it does many other people. To be honest, I'd rather have that than a consumption/sales tax. I'd rather pay my money up front, then be left alone to conduct my business without extra surcharges.
Click to expand...

You'll never make any progress on reining in federal spending as long as we continue to dysfunction as a democracy.

Direct election of the Senators did more damage to our Republic than the 16th amendment.

We are dying the death that all democracies have died... rot from within. Democracy is a terrible form of government - as history clearly spells out. Repealing the 17th amendment would be a step in the right direction, and possibly afford us the leverage necessary to force the FedGov into compliance with rational, constitutional behavior.

To think that we would have any chance of controlling the FedGov, and forcing them to behave in a rational and constitutional manner without making any structural changes to way the system is currently rigged is naive.
 
wist43 said:
You'll never make any progress on reining in federal spending as long as we continue to dysfunction as a democracy.

Direct election of the Senators did more damage to our Republic than the 16th amendment.

We are dying the death that all democracies have died... rot from within. Democracy is a terrible form of government - as history clearly spells out. Repealing the 17th amendment would be a step in the right direction, and possibly afford us the leverage necessary to force the FedGov into compliance with rational, constitutional behavior.

To think that we would have any chance of controlling the FedGov, and forcing them to behave in a rational and constitutional manner without making any structural changes to way the system is currently rigged is naive.
Click to expand...
How libertarian are you? Libertarianism is no less naive, if not more so.

Keep in mind, also, that I did not say word one regarding practicality.

Agree regarding the 17th.
 
radcen said:
I would favor an amendment that stipulates that for a person to be a citizen that one of their biological parents must already be a citizen.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that but add the children of those who have legally immigrated here but aren't yet citizens.
 
Anagram said:
I'd agree with that but add the children of those who have legally immigrated here but aren't yet citizens.
Click to expand...
I would not. However, I would confer legal visitor status on them as long as they are with their parents and as long as their parents are here legally. I would be open to conferring citizenship to said children automatically if and when their parent(s) gain their citizenship. Minor children only, and only biological and legally adopted children. No extended family. Once a person turns 18 they're on their own, both for citizenship and legal status.
 
radcen said:
I'll excuse your unfamiliarity with the American Constitutional process, but the amendment process exists precisely so that we don't have to throw everything out and start from scratch. Granted, many (if not most) countries require wholesale change, but why is that necessary at times when only a minor tweaking is desired?
Click to expand...

Then you misunderstood me, from time to time it is good to do a complete overhaul of ones constitution IMHO. i know that you can amend but sometimes you need to change rather than amend, or at least that is my opinion.
 
Peter King said:
Then you misunderstood me, from time to time it is good to do a complete overhaul of ones constitution IMHO. i know that you can amend but sometimes you need to change rather than amend, or at least that is my opinion.
Click to expand...
Ok, got'cha. You're right, I did misunderstand. Thanks for the clarification.
 
radcen said:
How libertarian are you? Libertarianism is no less naive, if not more so.

Keep in mind, also, that I did not say word one regarding practicality.

Agree regarding the 17th.
Click to expand...

The anarchist wing of the libertarian house is definitely naive - I am a republican/libertarian. I agree with our Founding Fathers that liberty can only exist for a brief time without 1) a sound republican governmental structure, and 2) a well informed and involved citizenry that is committed to liberty, i.e. the restraint of government.

Americans don't understand or believe in republican government; they have been indoctrinated to believe in democracy; and, as James Madison said in Federalist Paper #10,

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths..."

Americans simply don't have the knowledge, tools, or ability to rein in their government - it's a lost cause. They think they know which way is up, but if they truly understood anything about governmental systems and human nature, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in to begin with.

I've known since the 80's that America was doomed; I knew they would run up the debt - intentionally; I knew they would continue to expand the definitions of the Constitution until it was meaningless as a document that retricted the government; I knew they would continue to foster conflict abroad, and enter in war after war after war; I knew they would continue to dumb down Americans thru indoctrination in the government schools; etc, etc...

We're nearing the end of the line now... no way we can last past 15 years; and there's no way the ship will be righted before we reach collapse - b/c 1) the people are ignorant; and 2) the collapse is deliberate - for very logical reasons from the perspective of the Establishment.
 
Peter King said:
Then you misunderstood me, from time to time it is good to do a complete overhaul of ones constitution IMHO. i know that you can amend but sometimes you need to change rather than amend, or at least that is my opinion.
Click to expand...

It isn't good to mess around with a solid Constitution that is properly constructed to grant the government certain "enumerated powers", and does not empower it any other way.

In the U.S., our Constitution was designed to do just that - the government was granted certain, limited, enumerated powers - and had no power beyond those enumerated powers. If the people wanted to further empower, or rescind an existing power, they have the ability to amend it - but that amendment process is decidedly undemocratic, as it requires super-majorities of the Federal Senate and the state legislatures.

The amendment process was deliberately made difficult so as to prevent anything frivoluous from being added to the Constitution in the heat of emotional reaction to something.

Sadly, our Founding Fathers could never have foreseen how unscrupulous and dishonest future generations of Americans would become. After approx. 130 years or so of the Constitution being generally adhered to, the Robber Barons and progressives were finally able to gain control of our Supreme Court and they began to reinterpret the Constitution to the point where it is a completely open-ended document that in no way constrains the Federal Government.

Now, 80+ years after the enemies of freedom were able to change our Constitution and loose the power of the FedGov upon the people, our treasury is empty, the people are ignorant and dependent upon government - and clamouring for more; the government is becoming increasingly oppressive; etc...

It is all very predicatable - we are dying the death that all democracies die. Only an ignorant fool would want to live in a democracy - well, that about sums up most Americans. They allowed all of this to happen b/c they failed to control their government, and allowed themselves to be corrupted. They deserve to lose their freedom, property, and lives as a result.
 
Dezaad said:
This is the one change I would agree with. It absolutely had a purpose and it was not intended for anchor babies.
Click to expand...

Anchor babies are actually the result of the Immigration Nationality act of 1965 that allows for the chain migration of relatives other than spouse of minor children.
 
Hatuey said:
I'm not sure how they could have meant anything other than people born in the US were US citizens....

Here is the text: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Click to expand...
The "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is the important part.Because if it was meant for anyone born on US soil then that part would not be necessary.The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 and the part in the part Nationality Act of 1940 that allows those born in US territories would have never been created if section 1 of the 14th amendment meant anyone born on US soil.

... This isn't a question about what "militia" means or what "infringement" means. The text clearly says people born in the US are US citizens.
Click to expand...
The militia part is dependent on citizens being able to be armed.the only time the people are regulated is when they are in militia service, not before.Its why the 2nd amendment does not say regulated right of the people to keep and bear arms or why the 2nd amendment doesn't say only the militia the right to keep and bear arms.


What the authors meant in whatever crystal ball you're holding is irrelevant. What is important is what was written.
Click to expand...
Author's intent is the only important part.Because anti-American scum like to play the "It's a living document"game to get around the amendment process.
 
radcen said:
I would favor an amendment that stipulates that for a person to be a citizen that one of their biological parents must already be a citizen.
Click to expand...

My only worry about that is if there is no DNA test requirement there would have a bunch of illegals claiming their child's father is an American citizen. Because right now there is no DNA requirement to list a man's name as the father.Its how many men end up paying child support for a child that is not theirs.
 
Voted for a repeal of the 22nd. If we are actually going to deal with political corruption, you're going to have to place restrictions on campaign finances. The people should be allowed to choose to reelect their president for more than two terms if they so choose. I'd also like to see a possible rephrasing of the 10th. I'm not sure if repealing it and not replacing it with anything would be wise, but the foundation of state's rights is not how I would like the model of government to be based.

Regarding the constitution, I have a favorable opinion of most amendments. What I would like to see is more amendments added to the constitution, including a significant expansion of the Bill of Rights, as well as reforming our government to be eliminated of corporate corruption and the establishment of proportional representation for our elections.
 
jamesrage said:
My only worry about that is if there is no DNA test requirement there would have a bunch of illegals claiming their child's father is an American citizen. Because right now there is no DNA requirement to list a man's name as the father.Its how many men end up paying child support for a child that is not theirs.
Click to expand...

There would have to be a DNA requirement, IMO, in all cases.

Phrased in such a way that would also allow for whatever reliable confirmation may be invented in the future that we today cannot envision.
 
DVSentinel said:
5th and 8th.

Criminals deserve no right to silence. The need to punish is or at lest should be unusual and punishment is never effective without some level of cruelty.
Click to expand...
Well the 5th has that bit about not taking stuff from citizens without compensation - which sounds good...

As for the 8th, all we need to is change our definition of "cruel and unusual punishment". For example, I don't think it would be overly cruel , nor should it be unusual, for unquestionably convicted child rapists to be put do death by impalement. I'm only half kidding on that, actually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom