• 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

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
 
I would add an amendement that would require a balanced budget for all federal spending.
 
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.

I'd make an amendment banning neo-cons and extremist liberals.
 
I would add a provision requiring anything passed by Congress to concern a single topic only. No riders.
 
I would change the first amendment to remove some of the loopholes like saying burning and American Flag is speech when in reality it has nothing to do with speech..........
 
I would add a provision requiring anything passed by Congress to concern a single topic only. No riders.

I would add an exception (just for the sake of expediency) for cases where it can be demonstrated that the rider in question was of direct national importance and all of congress would have to vote on it simultaneously with the main bill.

Line item veto just re-arranges the corruption into one person's hands. I would totally support this.
 
I would make a new amendment providing the president of the U.S. the line item veto........
 
Of course you would. Liberals are pretty much always the ones willing to throw the 1st Amendment under the bus the moment it gets in their way.

:rofl - As opposed to neo-cons who want to "change" equal rights and due process the moment it gets in their way? Oh pubby. Your hypocrisy.
 
I would make a new amendment providing the president of the U.S. the line item veto........

I am sure that Rodham will appreciate your support in that.:2wave:
 
I am sure that Rodham will appreciate your support in that.:2wave:

Only in your dreams.......;)

Seriously it would hold any president feet to the fire to rule out fat........
 
I voted for other. I don't really have any major problems with any of the amendments as they stand...but there's a few things in the original document that need some updating.

For one, I'd modify the terms of Supreme Court justices. As it stands now, their term is "for good behavior," which generally means their entire life. I would change that to a single term, not to exceed 15 years. That would preserve their insulation from petty partisan squabbles of the day, but it would ensure that we don't have nine old farts sitting on the Supreme Court for decades.

Also, I'd change the way that we conduct elections for President and Congress. The electoral college is ridiculous; if nothing else, just scrap that and go with a simple national popular vote (although there are better systems than that too). Secondly, I would change the qualifications for office. Any US citizen who is 18 years old should be eligible to run for President or Congress. Let the voters decide if his/her age, residency, or place of birth is an issue.
 
I'd make the position of Senator a 10 year, 1 term only and a House member gets a maximum of 2 terms, each of which is 6 years long.

OTT, I might change the length of terms (maybe 8 and 4, maybe keep the Senate at 10 and make the House 4, etc. etc.) but wouldn't modify the term limits I'd set.
 
I would also repeal the 17th Amendment and return selection of the Senators to the state legislatures.
 
If it was left up to me I would change only two words in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any XpersonX citizen of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any XpersonX citizen within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It is the replacing the word "citizen" with the word person that gives room for argument about the illegal alien situation in revamping the border control/immitration laws, and as long as Section 1 remains as it is, unamended, the arguments have a good degree of validity...whether anyone including myself likes it or not.

I guess that rather makes me more a jingoist, in favor of U S Citizens rather than as I'm accused of being, a racist disfavoring illegal alien criminals no matter their ethnic background or skin color.
 
Last edited:
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.

If I could change any part of the constitution without going through the normal channals, then regardless of what little part I changed, I would have changed the whole thing by rendering it's authority impotent by virtue of the fact that I didn't have to follow the rules of the constitution to efect that change.
 
Of course you would. Liberals are pretty much always the ones willing to throw the 1st Amendment under the bus the moment it gets in their way.

Unless it involves burning the flag. Or New York art exhibits that the troglodyte mayor deems anti-religious. Or websites that you consider harmful to children. Or images of boobs on television.

Or just about anything else that conservatives find offensive.
 
I wouldn't change a thing.

I like my Constitution just the way it is.
 
I wouldn't change any of the amendments listed... except possibly the second, to clarify how it applies to modern weapons.

if I were to start adding amendments, I would put in a bodily sovereignty amendment, a cap on deficit spending as a percentage of all spending, get rid of the electoral college and switch to run-off voting, and prohibit large for-profit businesses from lobbying or donating to campaigns for congress or president.
 
if I were to start adding amendments, I would put in a bodily sovereignty amendment,

Can you clarify what you'd like it to say?

FallingPianos said:
a cap on deficit spending as a percentage of all spending,

Good idea. I'd actually go one step further, and limit spending to 98% of revenue. That way we can start paying off the debt too.

FallingPianos said:
get rid of the electoral college and switch to run-off voting,

Agreed.

FallingPianos said:
and prohibit large for-profit businesses from lobbying or donating to campaigns for congress or president.

I disagree. This would violate the tenets of freedom of speech. I realize that it would supercede the 1st amendment, but it wouldn't supercede the basic principles behind it.

Besides, I don't think there's much evidence that money actually influences elections very much, once a candidate passes the threshold of name recognition.
 
Can you clarify what you'd like it to say?

I'm not sure what the most eloquent and concise way of saying it would be, but I'd like it to cover things such womens rights during pregnancy and childbirth, circumcision (or other cosmetic surgery) of minors, organ donation, etc.
 
I'm not sure what the most eloquent and concise way of saying it would be, but I'd like it to cover things such womens rights during pregnancy and childbirth, circumcision (or other cosmetic surgery) of minors, organ donation, etc.

I agree for the most part, but I don't think I could support a constitutional amendment for that sort of thing. It would by necessity be too broad. For example, I don't think it should be legal for pregnant women to use cocaine.
 
I agree for the most part, but I don't think I could support a constitutional amendment for that sort of thing. It would by necessity be too broad. For example, I don't think it should be legal for pregnant women to use cocaine.

do you think it should be legal for a nonpregnant woman to use cocaine? if so, why not a pregnant woman?
 
I wouldn't change any of the amendments listed... except possibly the second, to clarify how it applies to modern weapons.

if I were to start adding amendments, I would put in a bodily sovereignty amendment, a cap on deficit spending as a percentage of all spending, get rid of the electoral college and switch to run-off voting, and prohibit large for-profit businesses from lobbying or donating to campaigns for congress or president.

I like your ideas here. I like clerifying that the second amendment applyes to modern weapons and I would further that idea by having clerify that it includes so-called "assult weapons" and it protects privat ownership of fire arms.

I like you idea of creating a bodily soverighty amendment, though Pro Choice would never allow such an abortion ban to come true.

Sometimes deficit spending is neccisary, even inexess, so I don't believe that an amendment is warented there.

Voting for the president should be left strictly up to the elected representatives, and not citizens at all, IMO. We have no right to vote for president, and really presidential elections are more American Idol than anything else, but without the ratings.

I suport limits on donations, but not out right prohibiting donations. IMO that's a free speach issue, up untill the point where the coruption saturates uncontrolably.
 
Back
Top Bottom