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Which Constitutional Amendments, if any, should be repealed?

Which Constitutional Amendments, if any, should be repealed?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

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Which Constitutional Amendments, if any, should be repealed?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You may vote for more than one, as some people feel that several should be repealed.
 
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.
 
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Which Constitutional Amendments, if any, should be repealed?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You may vote for more than one, as some people feel that several should be repealed.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...

16th. Now.
 
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...

I agree with this. I'm adding the 5th to my list.

ETA it won't let me add it to my already cast vote!
 
You can't really repeal an amendment, you can only amend.
 
American said:
You can't really repeal an amendment, you can only amend.
Click to expand...
Wasn't the 18th repealed?

Regardless, even if the 21st only technically amended the 18th, for the purposes of this thread that distinction is noted, but is also semantics and not especially relevant.
 
radcen said:
Wasn't the 18th repealed?

Regardless, even if the 21st only technically amended the 18th, for the purposes of this thread that distinction is noted, but is also semantics and not especially relevant.
Click to expand...

I was being technical I suppose. Just disregard, we get your meaning. I think amendments technically supersede clauses.
 
First and second amendments? Why would they be repealed?

3rd amendment - It's IMO the ideological foundation for private property laws. Good luck getting anyone to side with it in the long run.

4th amendment - No state liberal or conservative would agree to it. Even in Liberal states, there are already many challenged brought up against outfits like the NYPD for violating it.

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.

17th amendment - I can see that one as being repealed. There is no reason for voters to directly elect their senators and state legislatures have become almost irrelevant because of this amendment. I think it should go back to the senate to pick a senator that is not chained at the neck to whatever donors the party has.

22nd - I think it should expanded to include the Senate and House. There's no reason windbags like McCain, Byrd, Dingell, Waxman should serve for 20+ years or into senility.
 
Hatuey said:
<snip>

22nd - I think it should expanded to include the Senate and House. There's no reason windbags like McCain, Byrd, Dingell, Waxman should serve for 20+ years or into senility.
Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it better.
 
Hatuey said:
First and second amendments? Why would they be repealed?
Click to expand...
I could see many people wanting to repeal the 2nd, though maybe not many here at DP. I could also see some "law-and-order" types wanting to repeal, or at least modify, the 1st to cut down on right of protest, etc.

Not me for either of those, but I can easily see some wanting to, hence the inclusion.
 
radcen said:
I could see many people wanting to repeal the 2nd, though maybe not many here at DP. I could also see some "law-and-order" types wanting to repeal, or at least modify, the 1st to cut down on right of protest, etc.

Not me for either of those, but I can easily see some wanting to, hence the inclusion.
Click to expand...

Many people wanting to repeal it and it being politically feasible are two entirely different things. Most of the country believes in an all powerful being who cares about who they sleep with but can't be bothered to give the rest of humanity a qualitative or quantifiable sign of its existence. What many people believe and what can be done in politics are worlds apart. The backlash from trying to repeal the 1st or 2nd would be too much.
 
16th, to take away the power of government over the people thru income taxes and force government to curb its spending and stop violating the founding principle of securing property.

17th to return the original structure of the federal government of the founders, return states voice back into the federal government, placing a check on federal power.

abolish the federal reserve act and return the power of money to the people.
 
Hatuey said:
Many people wanting to repeal it and it being politically feasible are two entirely different things. Most of the country believes in an all powerful being who cares about who they sleep with but can't be bothered to give the rest of humanity a qualitative or quantifiable sign of its existence. What many people believe and what can be done in politics are worlds apart. The backlash from trying to repeal the 1st or 2nd would be too much.
Click to expand...
The question and poll have absolutely nothing to do with whether it would be feasible or not.
 
radcen said:
The question and poll have absolutely nothing to do with whether it would be feasible or not.
Click to expand...

The problem is that should be repealed takes into considerations whether it's feasible. If it's not feasible because of the political and social implications then it's clear that those same reasons can be used to deduce that it shouldn't be repealed.
 
Hatuey said:
The problem is that should be repealed takes into considerations whether it's feasible. If it's not feasible because of the political and social implications then it's clear that those same reasons can be used to deduce that it shouldn't be repealed.
Click to expand...
You're over-thinking.
 
ernst barkmann said:
16th, to take away the power of government over the people thru income taxes and force government to curb its spending and stop violating the founding principle of securing property.
Click to expand...



The states in favor of "states rights" and freedom would be the most affected by it. Louisiana and Alabama would crumble within weeks.
 
Hatuey said:


The states in favor of "states rights" and freedom would be the most affected by it. Louisiana and Alabama would crumble within weeks.
Click to expand...


well you quote the 16th, but are talking about state powers, the 17th returns states voice back into the federal government as a check and balance of government ,prevents the federal government from exceeding its powers,
 
ernst barkmann said:
well you quote the 16th, but are talking about state powers,
Click to expand...

They're tied together. The same states in favor of states rights would balk at doing away with the federal government's power to levy income taxes. Who do you think benefits most from incomes taxes? Blue states generally attacked for being statists or the states rights loving red states?
 
ernst barkmann said:
16th, to take away the power of government over the people thru income taxes and force government to curb its spending and stop violating the founding principle of securing property.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't do that. The Federal Government had the power without the 16th to lay an income tax and had done so. The issue in Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust 158 US 601 (1895) was whether an tax on income earned from real estate, personal property, or dividends was a direct tax requiring apportionment among the states. The SCOTUS ruled that they were direct taxes, and that the whole income tax law was invalid because of the invalid parts. In response, Congress proposed the 16th ammendment to avoid the issue.

Income taxes have never been ruled or considered unconstitutiional.
The only question was whether some types of income were direct taxes (income on wages was not considered to be a direct tax) and therefore needed to apportioned among the staes by population.

Repeal the 16th, and you could still tax income, and could even tax income from real estate or private property as long as it was apportioned by population.
 
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...

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.
 
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...


People invoking the fifth haven't yet been convicted so they aren't yet criminals.
 
I think the 22nd should be expanded to include the House and Senate. Other than that...None of them should be repealed.
 
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...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom