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.
If you reopen the second the best the gunnies can hope for is retaining the existing amendment and that is not likely. There is no popular support for the second as written. While perhaps half the population may support self defense weaponry the gunnies will get killed on military style stuff. So you end up with an amendment that guarantees the right for self defense weaponry with anything else left to the states or courts.
Trying to sell "explicit" into the tenth is another lost cause. Too many people like it the way it is.
I would still think the state model before the 17th is hopelessly out of touch with reality today. It assumes the states are roughly equals. That is simply no longer true. CA, TX, NY are each equivalent to the ten or twelve smaller states in all sorts of parameters. There is no rational for an equal vote in the Senate. Either new states or differing numbers of Representatives. The need for the existence of the states as other than a convenient form of local government has long gone.
it does not matter how much or if their is any popular support for a civil right you rights are not subject to any opinion of any group, person, or elected official..ever fro anything
"Military style stuff" It is protected under the 2nd Amendment, courts be damn other wise...those weapons are the best for Self defense..
I decided on the 17th Amendment. It needs to stay as is. Anyone who argues for repealing the 17th, look no further to the mess that is the EU. Many of the politicians in the EU are picked by other politicians, most notably the leadership positions of the EU, who are unelected. Libertarians, do you really want that?
Yes, I do. We already have politicians picked by other politicians. There are political appointees all over the place.
The people are represented by the House, the states are represented by the Senate. That's how it is supposed to work. That's the way it should work.
Would you support the states under Article 5 section 2 of Constitution passing the following Amendments?
~ An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Members of Congress
Yes
~ An Amendment to Restore the Senate (repeal of the 17th Amendment)
No
~ An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices and Super-Majority Legislative Override
No
~ Two Amendments to Limit Federal Spending and Taxation
Yes
~ An Amendment to Limit the Federal Bureaucracy
Yes
~ An Amendment to Promote Free Enterprise (redefining the Commerce Clause)
Yes
~ An Amendment to Protect Private Property (curbing abuses under the Takings Clause).
Hell Yes
~ An Amendment to Grant the States Authority to Directly Amend the Constitution
Yes.
~ An Amendment to Grant States Authority to Check Congress
Yes.
~ An Amendment to Protect the Vote (requiring photo ID)
Yes
Yes or no, What is you take on this?
Plus, an amendment to reinforce the 4th Amendment (a Privacy Amendment)
Plus, an amendment to make all military action without the declaration of war illegal, and make the declaration of war only available to: repel invasion.
Would you support the states under Article 5 section 2 of Constitution passing the following Amendments?
~ An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Members of Congress
~ An Amendment to Restore the Senate (repeal of the 17th Amendment)
~ An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices and Super-Majority Legislative Override
~ Two Amendments to Limit Federal Spending and Taxation
~ An Amendment to Limit the Federal Bureaucracy
~ An Amendment to Promote Free Enterprise (redefining the Commerce Clause)
~ An Amendment to Protect Private Property (curbing abuses under the Takings Clause).
~ An Amendment to Grant the States Authority to Directly Amend the Constitution
~ An Amendment to Grant States Authority to Check Congress
~ An Amendment to Protect the Vote (requiring photo ID)
Yes or no, What is you take on this?
#1,2, 3, 10 - no.
#6,7 - yes
#4,5, 8,9 - probably ; I'd need to read them first
Would you support the states under Article 5 section 2 of Constitution passing the following Amendments?
~ An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Members of Congress
~ An Amendment to Restore the Senate (repeal of the 17th Amendment)
~ An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices and Super-Majority Legislative Override
~ Two Amendments to Limit Federal Spending and Taxation
~ An Amendment to Limit the Federal Bureaucracy
~ An Amendment to Promote Free Enterprise (redefining the Commerce Clause)
~ An Amendment to Protect Private Property (curbing abuses under the Takings Clause).
~ An Amendment to Grant the States Authority to Directly Amend the Constitution
~ An Amendment to Grant States Authority to Check Congress
~ An Amendment to Protect the Vote (requiring photo ID)
Yes or no, What is you take on this?
These are just vague titles. Any actual verbage?
You might as well have "An Amendment to Declare the Mathematical Constant Pi as Exactly Equal to the Number 3.2"
Plus, an amendment to reinforce the 4th Amendment (a Privacy Amendment)
Plus, an amendment to make all military action without the declaration of war illegal, and make the declaration of war only available to: repel invasion.
Yeah the NSA needs to be abolished..
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.
