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Which Constitutional Amendments, if any, should be repealed?

Which Constitutional Amendments, if any, should be repealed?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
Bob Blaylock said:
I believe that the Eighth Amendment is unclearly written, and has come to be interpreted very differently than its original intent. I agree with what I believe to be its original intent, and believe that this intent should be in the Bill of Rights. I would only support repealing the Eight Amendment if it was done by way of a new Amendment which expresses what I believe to be the correct intent more clearly—that the punishment for a crime shall not be very far out of proportion to the severity of the crime.
Click to expand...

Punishment should be to the degree necessary to deter others from committing the same crime. Punishments should also be done publicly if possible, not hidden away.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Except that the 5th isn't there to protect criminals. It's there to protect the innocent. That is its main job. If you can't convict someone on actual evidence and eye witnesses then a person should not be convicted.

As for the 8th, we're not barbarians. What might be considered "some level of cruelty" to you may very well not be cruel enough for others. I would have no problem reforming our punishment system, but there is no reason what so ever that we need to be like China and beat people just because a convict looks at someone cross eyed.
Click to expand...

No, it is there for criminals to hide behind. It prevents the use and development of chemical interrogation or other means of determining guilt or innocence. Such methods should have protections against abuse but should not be stopped from being pursued.

The Criminal Justice systems exist to catch, convict and punish criminals. It is mandated to do so in a way that does not necessarily infringe upon individual non-criminals rights.

We are not, but almost all criminals are barbarians. (My apologies to all barbarians, intent was not to insult you but rather to show how little value criminals have.) Your example of China is flawed because it has nothing to do with punishment but rather what should or shouldn't be considered a crime.
 
DVSentinel said:
No, it is there for criminals to hide behind. It prevents the use and development of chemical interrogation or other means of determining guilt or innocence. Such methods should have protections against abuse but should not be stopped from being pursued.
Click to expand...

Chemical interrogation is unreliable and people can be trained to "fool" it. And no, it is not there for criminals to hide behind. Yes they can hide behind it, but that is not and never was its intention.

DVSentinel said:
The Criminal Justice systems exist to catch, convict and punish criminals. It is mandated to do so in a way that does not necessarily infringe upon individual non-criminals rights.
Click to expand...

Except that you have to prove that someone is a criminal, and by then all of your points are moot as the 5th is no longer useable. You are advocating a system where people are guilty until proven innocent. Such a system was used for centuries and is easily abused. I much prefer the system of innocent until proven guilty.

DVSentinel said:
We are not, but almost all criminals are barbarians. (My apologies to all barbarians, intent was not to insult you but rather to show how little value criminals have.) Your example of China is flawed because it has nothing to do with punishment but rather what should or shouldn't be considered a crime.
Click to expand...

Just because criminals can be barbarians does not mean that we have to act like criminals ourselves. And no, the China analogy is not flawed as that is a part of their punishment.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Chemical interrogation is unreliable and people can be trained to "fool" it. And no, it is not there for criminals to hide behind. Yes they can hide behind it, but that is not and never was its intention.

Except that you have to prove that someone is a criminal, and by then all of your points are moot as the 5th is no longer useable. You are advocating a system where people are guilty until proven innocent. Such a system was used for centuries and is easily abused. I much prefer the system of innocent until proven guilty.

Just because criminals can be barbarians does not mean that we have to act like criminals ourselves. And no, the China analogy is not flawed as that is a part of their punishment.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why the 5th Amendment was written to begin with. A good understanding of history and human psychology. Let's face facts, if people were capable of the type of restraint that DVS is claiming, then the 5th never would have been necessary in the first place.

And yes, guilty people do misuse the intent of rights to their benefit, but you are correct in stating that that is not what said rights are for. They are there to protect the innocent.
 
radcen said:
Which Constitutional Amendments, if any, should be repealed?
  • 1st
  • 2nd
  • 3rd
  • 4th
  • 5th
  • 16th
  • 17th
  • 22nd
  • Other (Please elaborate)
  • None
This poll presumes the reader/participant is at least minimally educated and knows which Amendments are which.

You may vote for more than one, as some people feel that several should be repealed.
Click to expand...
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."
 
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 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.
 
Hatuey said:
16th amendment - There isn't a single Republican welfare state in the union who would go for repealing the 16th amendment. You think Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky and Alaska would try and repeal the one amendment that ensures their states don't look like Tajikistan? It's far more likely that the mostly Democrat states which carry the country would want to repeal it. To the chagrin of Republican welfare queens like Bobby Jindal's Louisiana.
Click to expand...


Its not like tax system couldn't be simplified. But by all means make the US tax payer bear the responsibility of costs associated with the IRS.

Government overhead and administrative costs in 2010: $12,400,000,000. A drop in the bucket to big government liberals.

One can only imagine what the full burden of government on the well-being of society might be. In our analysis we estimate that U.S. taxpayers pay $431.1 billion annually, or 30 percent of total income taxes collected, just to comply with and administer the U.S. income tax system.*
This cost estimate includes:
• Approximately $31.5 billion in direct outlays (e.g. paying a professional tax preparer such as H&R Block or purchasing tax soft ware) (2010 data).
• Total IRS administrative costs of $12.4 billion (2010 data).
• The Taxpayer Advocacy Service of the IRS estimates that individuals and businesses also spent 6.1 billion hours complying with the filing requirements of the U.S. income tax code. We estimate the dollar value or cost of these hours to be $377.9 billion as of 2008. The 6.1 billion hours number was estimated by multiplying the number of copies of each form filed in tax year 2008 by the average amount of time the IRS estimated it took to complete the form.
• Individuals spent 3.16 billion hours complying with the income tax code, which weighted by time spent by income group, costs the U.S. economy $216.2 billion annually.
• Businesses spent 2.94 billion complying with the business income tax code, which costs the U.S. econo-my $161.7 billion.
• Comprehensive audits also impose an additional taxpayer burden of at least $9.3 billion annually.
Click to expand...

http://www.laffercenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/2011-Laffer-TaxCodeComplexity.pdf
 
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...

So people suspected of a crime are guilty until proven innocent?
 
DVSentinel said:
They are not yet "convicted" criminals. If however, they have committed a crime, then they are indeed a criminal.
Click to expand...

You don't read someone their rights after they are convicted.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Chemical interrogation is unreliable and people can be trained to "fool" it. And no, it is not there for criminals to hide behind. Yes they can hide behind it, but that is not and never was its intention.



Except that you have to prove that someone is a criminal, and by then all of your points are moot as the 5th is no longer useable. You are advocating a system where people are guilty until proven innocent. Such a system was used for centuries and is easily abused. I much prefer the system of innocent until proven guilty.



Just because criminals can be barbarians does not mean that we have to act like criminals ourselves. And no, the China analogy is not flawed as that is a part of their punishment.
Click to expand...

Nor will it be improved upon until there is a need. Create the need and science will create the methodologies and continually improve upon them.
 
The 14th, but just Sec 1 & 4
16th
 
I would qualify the Second Amendment to mean any infantry-style arms and that it applies to all Americans, not just to the "militia." Also, include the word "digital information" along with persons, houses, papers, and effects in the Fourth Amendment.
 
None. They are all valid.
 
DVSentinel said:
Nor will it be improved upon until there is a need. Create the need and science will create the methodologies and continually improve upon them.
Click to expand...

Does that mean that we should also improve torture techniques? Part of the danger of relying on chemicals to seek out the "truth" is that chemicals can also be used the same way torture was once used...to gain a false confession of guilt. No one that wants actual truth would ever rely on chemicals, particularly when you combine the human element of greed and power into the mix.
 
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...

This is the one change I would agree with. It absolutely had a purpose and it was not intended for anchor babies.
 
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.
 
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 absolutely agree. The allowance of anchor babies to tie a foreigner to US subsidies is abominable.
 
DVSentinel said:
They are not yet "convicted" criminals. If however, they have committed a crime, then they are indeed a criminal.
Click to expand...

But, if arrested, they are not criminal. Our laws are designed to protect the innocent. Thinking that the accused should not have the right of silence and the right to not testify is to not understand the fundamental precepts of our criminal justice system.
 
I went with the 17th. The people have the the House of Representatives. We now have too many unfunded mandates because the senators are no longer representatives of the state process.
 
DVSentinel said:
No, it is there for criminals to hide behind.
Click to expand...
Protecting innocent rights do often hinder justice. However:

Benjamin Franklin said:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Click to expand...

DVSentinel said:
It prevents the use and development of chemical interrogation or other means of determining guilt or innocence. Such methods should have protections against abuse but should not be stopped from being pursued.
Click to expand...
Wow...

Do you also believe in torture?

DVSentinel said:
The Criminal Justice systems exist to catch, convict and punish criminals. It is mandated to do so in a way that does not necessarily infringe upon individual non-criminals rights.
Click to expand...
Which means officers of law must tread carefully. Too often, innocent people look guilty. When assuming that, and and allowing them to be treated as criminals is a violation of rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom