• 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!

What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

Read the intro and vote accordingly

  • Total voters
    41
Kal'Stang said:
Only for violent felonious criminals. They wave all their rights the moment they became violent and hurt someone else as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...

What about the mentally imbalanced? Or the senile? I also personally think that a course in basic training and handling should be required to buy a gun, but that's just me.
 
I was about to write a book but, I will adhere to the ONE part of the Constitution.
I would repeal the 14th Amendment because; I agree that it changed the original ideals of federalism.
 
the makeout hobo said:
What about the mentally imbalanced? Or the senile? I also personally think that a course in basic training and handling should be required to buy a gun, but that's just me.
Click to expand...

I agree with that... but once you've been trained to handle a gun, you should be allowed open carry and all.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Also, that would politicize their job even more than it is already. Would you want a Justice to have to worry about his job as he decides a case?
Click to expand...

That's why the percentage is so high. It's not a 50% + 1 thing, it should be something that could only happen if the Justice has really messed up, or used the power of the Judiciary against the rights and liberties of the People. The Justices were given lifelong appointments to isolate them from the pull and whims of the other two branches. But there's nothing to say they shouldn't have to fear the People.
 
Ikari said:
That's why the percentage is so high. It's not a 50% + 1 thing, it should be something that could only happen if the Justice has really messed up, or used the power of the Judiciary against the rights and liberties of the People. The Justices were given lifelong appointments to isolate them from the pull and whims of the other two branches. But there's nothing to say they shouldn't have to fear the People.
Click to expand...

That's why the justices ought to have a single term of 15-20 years max with no possibility of returning to the Court. That way the court changes regularly and the justices aren't really subject to political pressure from the other branches of government.
 
Cephus said:
That's why the justices ought to have a single term of 15-20 years max with no possibility of returning to the Court. That way the court changes regularly and the justices aren't really subject to political pressure from the other branches of government.
Click to expand...

I'd actually agree... they'd still be chosen the same way, but after 20 years, if they're still there, it's time to switch it up a bit. That way we don't get dying old coots like Rehnquist, or at least we get less of them.
 
The font.










*
 
The Electoral College. Currently it tilts the presidential election process in favor of small Republican states.

For one thing, if the states had electoral college votes based on their actual population size, without the extra two votes per state, Gore would have been sworn in as President in 2001, and we would still have a Constitution, an army, an international reputation, an economy, and $5 trillion more in our pockets.
 
HelloDollyLlama said:
The Electoral College. Currently it tilts the presidential election process in favor of small Republican states.

For one thing, if the states had electoral college votes based on their actual population size, without the extra two votes per state, Gore would have been sworn in as President in 2001, and we would still have a Constitution, an army, an international reputation, an economy, and $5 trillion more in our pockets.
Click to expand...





:lamo no really :lamo


We sir, are a REPUBLIC not a direct democracy. Your ideal would hand elections to the cities and would ultimately lead to the break up of the union.
 
The 14th amendment should be changed because not only was it keeping a number of people unrepresented in Washington but also not all of those who rebel against the United States did so willingly and if they did, then they were too young to understand what was happenning or they have conformed back into society.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
:lamo no really :lamo


We sir, are a REPUBLIC not a direct democracy. Your ideal would hand elections to the cities and would ultimately lead to the break up of the union.
Click to expand...

Why should people in cities have less of a vote? That's what the system comes down to now.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
What about everyone else that lives in rural area's?

Different ideals and views on the role of government.
If they are lucky, they will be left the scraps.
Click to expand...

They should get one vote, just like everyone else. The system shouldn't try to reward one area, or decrease another area's importance, everyone should be completely level.
 
the makeout hobo said:
They should get one vote, just like everyone else. The system shouldn't try to reward one area, or decrease another area's importance, everyone should be completely level.
Click to expand...

I agree to some degree but as it is with politics it doesn't work like that.

The only thing they have held firm on is farm subsidies and that doesn't benefit anyone except the corporate producers the most.

Since my particular area has a lot of elderly people we do occasionally get a senior center.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I agree to some degree but as it is with politics it doesn't work like that.

The only thing they have held firm on is farm subsidies and that doesn't benefit anyone except the corporate producers the most.

Since my particular area has a lot of elderly people we do occasionally get a senior center.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I may not be reading you right, but what is the point here?
 
the makeout hobo said:
I'm sorry, I may not be reading you right, but what is the point here?
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, rural areas are ignored in favor of more populous areas like cities and suburbs.

On the other hand, people with lots of influence (money) do get the occasional hand out in my parts, those handouts though go to very large scale farmers and not your mom and pop type.

I really need to work on presenting my point. :(
 
I would change the first amendment from:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Click to expand...
To:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or trade, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

Also a constitutional ban on central banks would be lovely.
 
Last edited:
HelloDollyLlama said:
The Electoral College. Currently it tilts the presidential election process in favor of small Republican states.

For one thing, if the states had electoral college votes based on their actual population size, without the extra two votes per state, Gore would have been sworn in as President in 2001, and we would still have a Constitution, an army, an international reputation, an economy, and $5 trillion more in our pockets.
Click to expand...
Obama just won a landslide in the Electoral College; wtf are you talking about? But why ask you, since you don't know.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Because we are a "Representative Republic" of individual states not a mob democracy. Why should NY, LA, CHI decide what is best for Butte, MT?
Click to expand...

My personal thoughts is that every state should have their number of EC votes reduced by two, to the number of their representatives. This way, the little small-population states don't have more proportional say than the big states. That way voting is still done by states, but you're not intentionally limiting the votes of the big cities.
 
Lachean said:
I would change the first amendment from:
To:


Also a constitutional ban on central banks would be lovely.
Click to expand...

Didn't the economy almost completely collapse when Andrew Jackson tried to do something to that effect? Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Didn't the economy almost completely collapse when Andrew Jackson tried to do something to that effect? Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? That was the first time in history the national debt was paid off.

Please explain exactly what you're talking about.
 
Lachean said:
What are you talking about? That was the first time in history the national debt was paid off.

Please explain exactly what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Now I'm going to quote from wiki here.... I'm by no means a scholar on this era, so please don't hold it against me, but...

The Second Bank of the United States was authorized for a twenty year period during James Madison's tenure in 1816. As President, Jackson worked to rescind the bank's federal charter. In Jackson's veto message (written by George Bancroft), the bank needed to be abolished because:

* It concentrated the nation's financial strength in a single institution.
* It exposed the government to control by foreign interests.
* It served mainly to make the rich richer.
* It exercised too much control over members of Congress.
* It favored northeastern states over southern and western states.

Following Jefferson, Jackson supported an "agricultural republic" and felt the Bank improved the fortunes of an "elite circle" of commercial and industrial entrepreneurs at the expense of farmers and laborers. After a titanic struggle, Jackson succeeded in destroying the Bank by vetoing its 1832 re-charter by Congress and by withdrawing U.S. funds in 1833.

The bank's money-lending functions were taken over by the legions of local and state banks that sprang up. This fed an expansion of credit and speculation. At first, as Jackson withdrew money from the Bank to invest it in other banks, land sales, canal construction, cotton production, and manufacturing boomed.[27] However, due to the practice of banks issuing paper banknotes that were not backed by gold or silver reserves, there was soon rapid inflation and mounting state debts.[28] Then, in 1836, Jackson issued the Specie Circular, which required buyers of government lands to pay in "specie" (gold or silver coins). The result was a great demand for specie, which many banks did not have enough of to exchange for their notes. These banks collapsed.[27] This was a direct cause of the Panic of 1837, which threw the national economy into a deep depression. It took years for the economy to recover from the damage.

The U.S. Senate censured Jackson on March 28, 1834, for his action in removing U.S. funds from the Bank of the United States. When the Jacksonians had a majority in the Senate, the censure was expunged.
Click to expand...

Also about the national debt...

In 1835, Jackson managed to reduce the federal debt to only $33,733.05, the lowest it had been since the first fiscal year of 1791.[20] President Jackson is the only president in United States history to have paid off the national debt. However, this accomplishment was short lived. A severe depression from 1837 to 1844 caused a ten-fold increase in national debt within its first year.[21]
Click to expand...
 
aquapub said:
If you could change one part of the Constitution without having to go through the normal channels, what would it be? Explain why.

I said the 14th, because it was ratified illegally, at the tip of a bayonet, and reversed everything the federal government was designed to be.
Click to expand...

I would have a treaty among the states which had authority over any federal constitution, which simply held any federal constitution to:
  • An expiration date (say, 20 years?),
  • Specified jurisdiction, where any constitution only applied to consenting states.
  • The right of the individual state to withdraw from any federal constitution and no longer be bound by it or any treaties the federal government has entered into, at any time, for any or no reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom