Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should there be a 28th Amendment, what should it be?
"Freedom of speech does not include monetary or material contributions to a political campaign and these may be regulated in a manner described by law"
The right wing loves to leave out the "well-regulated militia" language when they talk about the right to keep and bear arms under the Constitution. I personally think the only right that was being extended was for the right of men of a certain age who would be part of the militia in different colonies to own a gun for that purpose. If "well regulated" meant nothing, my question is why did the Founding Fathers include it within the text of the Second Amendment? It must mean something.
I think the idea that the Second Amendment was put in place to encourage people to revolt against their own government is laughable. Those trying to sell me on the right to keep and bear arms would do well to focus on threats from petty criminals and alike. That argument I can at least understand.
A couple of other points. When the Framers wrote the second amendment, America was a mostly rural country and hunting for food was critical for a portion of the population. The technology of the time had produced only single shot weapons. The idea that these same rules must absolutely apply to Glock semi automatic pistols that hold 30 rounds of ammunition baffles me.
You must be baffled to death if the 2A can draw 3 paragraphs from you. I would love to see what the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Articles do for you.
What is it that really troubles you about that particular amendment? Do firearms frighten you? Do you feel safe if a police officer is standing so that his firearm is almost brushes against you?
I like and read the entire document. I really love to read people's twisted aspects about the 2A; some people seem to dwell on that too much. Article 1, section 8 should be what most people should heed as it defines the greatest of powers the federal government has. Everyone is more concerned about guns rather than what their legislators can/cannot do while in office.
The MSN will fixate on Joe the Plumber plinking at gophers on a 1000 acre farm he owns and neglect telling you about the law Rep Goto and Sen Hell want to pass about taxing you a dime more per gallon of gas. BTW...stay tuned for the gopher news you have kept up with for the past week.
Everyone is hypnotized watching Joe shooting his rifle at gophers while the Goto/Hell law is enacted and you are soon paying $4 more a tankful of gas.
Soon everyone stands around the water cooler wondering how the gas tax was passed...damned gophers.
Should there be a 28th Amendment, what should it be?
A simple one might that be all voters are qualified by passing the same test an immigrant takes as part of the naturalization process. Basically, an individual's vote doesn't count if you don't understand the concept from which your vote derives. My basic premise of any such amendment would be to raise the bar across the board.
Another would be the one sci-fi writer Robert Heinlein mentioned in his novel, For Us The Living.
Heinlein Amendment (restriction on power of government)
“Every citizen is free to perform any act which does not hamper the equal freedom of another. No law shall forbid the performance of any act, which does not damage the physical or economic welfare of any other person. No act shall constitute a violation of a law valid under this provision unless there is such a damage or immediate present danger of such damage resulting from that actâ€.
[an excerpt from Robert Heinlein novel explaining and some other ideas:]
-- Do you see the significance of that last provision? Up to that time, a crime had two elements; acts of commission and intent. Now it had a third; harmful effect which must be proved in each case, as well as the act and intent. The consequences of the change can hardly be exaggerated. It established American individualism forever by requiring the state to justify in each case its interference in an individual’s acts. Furthermore the justification must be based on a tangible damage or potential damage to a person or persons. The person damaged might be a schoolgirl injured or endangered by a reckless driver or it might be every person in the state endangered by the betrayal of military secrets or injured by manipulation of commodity prices, but it must not be some soul less super-person, the state incarnate, or the majesty of the law. It reduced the state to its proper size, an instrument to serve individuals, instead of a god to be worshiped and glorified. More especially it ended the possibility of the majority oppressing the minority with that hackneyed hoax lie that ‘the majority is always right.’
“In another place in the constitution, corporate personswere defined and declared to have no rights of any sort except wherein they represented rights of real persons. Corporate persons could not be damaged. Anact committed against a corporate person must be shown to have damaged a real person in order to constitute an offense. This was intended to clip the wings of the corporate trusts which threatened to crowd out the man of flesh and blood.â€
“Another new civil liberty was defined, the right of privacy. You will understand that better as you study the role of customs. Several other reforms were instituted, most of them obvious, such as the direct election of the president, and a re-definition of the ‘general welfare’ clause in order to give greater freedom in changing the details of government in a changing world. There were two important changes in the method of legislation. The House of Representatives was given the right to pass legislation over the veto of the Senate. There had been under consideration the abolition of the Senate, or at least to make it proportionately representative, but an obscure clause in the original document prevented this without the unanimous consent of all the states. Perhaps the most striking change was the power vested in the chief executive to initiate legislation and force its consideration. Under this provision the President with the aid of his advisors could draft bills which automatically became law at the expiration of ninety days unless Congress rejected it. The ninety days had to be while Congress was sitting of course.â€
“Suppose the Congress wasn’t in session?â€
“The President could call it if he saw fit.â€
“Suppose the matter was too urgent to wait ninety days.â€
“Congress could accept it at once if there was need. Sometimes the Presidentasks them to do so.â€
“Did Congress lose its power to initiate legislation?â€
“Oh no not at all. They could pass any laws they wanted and reject any laws they chose to. But if there was great disharmony, either branch of the government might force an immediate general election. The President could do so by dissolving Congress; the Congress, by a vote of no confidence. The latter vote was in the House alone, the Senate wasn’t empowered. That is the least but one of the major changes. The new Constitution called for a re-codification of law every ten years and laid a strong injunction on all law makers to use simple language and to avoid abstractions. A way was opened here to invalidate laws on constitutional grounds simply because they were not in clear English.†--
Should there be a 28th Amendment, what should it be?
Voting rights, Representation and barring Congress from stripping the US citizenship from US territories Puerto Rico, Guam, North Marianna Islands, American Somoa and US virgin Islands. As of right now millions of US citizens in these territories can't vote for the President. They get one non voting house representative that is about completely useless. They also have no constitutional guarantee to there US citizenship, Congress can legally revoke it. Guaranteeing Citizenship, allowing them to vote in Presidential elections, and give them a real house representative would be a start if statehood isn't a realistic option...which outside of Puerto Rico it's not.
Should there be a 28th Amendment, what should it be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
"Freedom of speech does not include monetary or material contributions to a political campaign and these may be regulated in a manner described by law"
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has written a book proposing six new Amendments to the Constitution.
Briefly, he proposes:
Amending the Supremacy Clause of Article VI to state "...shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges and other public officials. in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Eliminating Gerrymandering Districts by adding a new Amendment to state: "Districts represented by members of Congress, or by members of any state legislative body, shall be compact and composed of contiguous territory. "
Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.
(Makes me think about Alabama this morning) Neither the Tenth Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, nor any other provision of this Constitution, shall be construed to provide any state, state agency, or state officer with an immunity from liability for violating any act of Congress, or any provision of this Constitution.
(Amend the 8th Amendment) Excessive Bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments such as the death penalty inflicted.
(Amend the 2nd Amendment) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.
Re: the Constitution of the United States of America
Arguably one of the greatest documents in the world promulgating the building blocks of an entirely new political system in civilization. And of course they benefited from all the exploration in political systems done through the centuries by the Greeks, Rome, Britain etc. Most of the signers were pretty well versed in that aspect. In retrospect they achieved much as shown by this from Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments:
"One kind of leader , infected with the spirit of system, tends to hold out some plausible plan of reformation which he pretends will not only remove the inconveniences and relieve the distresses immediately complained of but will also prevent such from ever arising again. To that end he proposes to new-model the constitution and becomes so enamored with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government that he insists upon establishing it completely in all its parts without any regard either to the great interests or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it: he seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society...as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chessboard'.
The other kind of leader acts with " proper temper and moderation and will respect the established powers and privileges of individuals and still more those of great orders and societies into which the state is divided. He will accommodate his public arrangements to the confirmed habits and prejudices of the people and thereby will become able to assume the greatest and noblest of all characters, that if the reformer and legislator of a great state; and by the wisdom of his institutions , secure the internal tranquility and happiness of his fellow-citizens for many succeeding generations".
In hindsight both types were there at Philadelphia in the 18th. It is evident which group put their stamp on the Constitution. The 'experiment' of that time seems to be working for our great nation and exemplies how the founders insured that pluralities would be a feature of the fledgling democracy under just law and institutionalized checks and balances.
Looking back one has to marvel at the sheer will and probing intelligence of those individuals who created a new political order and system that lives and breathes within each succeeding generation. We owe them much in our 'pursuit of life, liberty and happiness'.
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has written a book proposing six new Amendments to the Constitution.
Briefly, he proposes:....
(Amend the 2nd Amendment) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.
Fortunetly there are 9 supreme court justices. So he wants to turn one of the ten Bill of Rights, which all focus on individual rights, into a collective right. Only one. He lost that argument already. He can't get over that he was on the losing side in the Heller decision on the 2nd amendment. Give it a rest Stevens. You lost.
Fortunetly there are 12 supreme court justices. So he wants to turn one of the ten Bill of Rights, which all focus on individual rights, into a collective right. Only one. He lost that argument already. He can't get over that he was on the losing side in the Heller decision on the 2nd amendment. Give it a rest Stevens. You lost.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
