Four Consitutional Amendments proposed by JB

[JBeukema]

1)modify the 1st amendment to read:

Neither Congress nor any member State shall make any 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.

2)add an amendment that reads:

Neither Congress, nor any member state shall pass any law that deprives the people, or any class thereof, of equal rights, recognition, and protection under the law

3)Neither the president of the united states, nor any official acting from the authority of the executive branch of the federal government shall pass any order, proclamation, or command, other than those powers already delegated to said individual by the body of this document, to act to establish any new legislation or modify the text or interpretation of any existing law, as it falls wholly to congress to establish or modify such law and to the Legislative branch to review any law which is deemed suspect.

4) No person may serve more than twelve years in any office or offices of Congress, be they in the House, the Senate, or any combination thereof

 

[Chris]

I'm all for #4.

We need term limits badly.

 

[Citizen]

1)modify the 1st amendment to read:

Neither Congress nor any member State shall make any 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.

2)add an amendment that reads:

Neither Congress, nor any member state shall pass any law that deprives the people, or any class thereof, of equal rights, recognition, and protection under the law

3)Neither the president of the united states, nor any official acting from the authority of the executive branch of the federal government shall pass any order, proclamation, or command, other than those powers already delegated to said individual by the body of this document, to act to establish any new legislation or modify the text or interpretation of any existing law, as it falls wholly to congress to establish or modify such law and to the Legislative branch to review any law which is deemed suspect.

4) No person may serve more than twelve years in any office or offices of Congress, be they in the House, the Senate, or any combination thereof

If our government would just follow the Constitution we now have in place the only amendment that would need to be added would be your no. 4.

Since the 14th Amendment was passed the first amendment also applies to the states as well as the federal government, and it also states that we all have equal protection under the Constitution.

Although it is clearly ignored, the 10th Amendment clearly states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people, and the powers granted the federal government were very liminted with the bulk of power left to the individual states.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." - James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 25, 1788

IMHO, the reason our Constitution never set term limits was that they never invisioned professional politicians in lieu of citizens doing their patrotic duty to serve for a short time and thought that term limits would be determined thru the election process.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I'm all for #4.

We need term limits badly.

you have term limits....its called voting the guy out....

 

[JBeukema]

IMHO, the reason our Constitution never set term limits was that they never invisioned professional politicians in lieu of citizens doing their patrotic duty to serve for a short time and thought that term limits would be determined thru the election process.

I agree

you have term limits....its called voting the guy out....

1) Americans are too stupid to have a free Republic

2)After 18 or 24 years in office, people have too many ties to big business and the media to allow for truly free campaigns and elections. Term limits help limit such corruption and prevent such entrenchment, which is why they were put in place regarding the presidency

 

[Avatar4321]

1)modify the 1st amendment to read:

Neither Congress nor any member State shall make any 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.

We already have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. People do it all the time. No one is stopping them from doing so. What the hell is the point of adding that?

2)add an amendment that reads:

Neither Congress, nor any member state shall pass any law that deprives the people, or any class thereof, of equal rights, recognition, and protection under the law

We already have the equal protection clause. What exactly do you think this is going to do other than create a whole bunch of lawyers litigating what "a class there of" means?

3)Neither the president of the united states, nor any official acting from the authority of the executive branch of the federal government shall pass any order, proclamation, or command, other than those powers already delegated to said individual by the body of this document, to act to establish any new legislation or modify the text or interpretation of any existing law, as it falls wholly to congress to establish or modify such law and to the Legislative branch to review any law which is deemed suspect.

There goes all adminsitrative law. Now the executive branch cant do anything unless Congress tells them what it means. Which, of course, is a problem because Congress cant agree on what the law means half the time. Which is exactly why the President is there to enforce what Congress passed.

Not to mention im sure the President would simply argue that everything the Executive branch can do now is already delegated to him by the body of the Constitution. That one clause makes your entire amendment meaningless.

4) No person may serve more than twelve years in any office or offices of Congress, be they in the House, the Senate, or any combination thereof

This one may have merits. But in reality it's the responsibility of the people to vote. If people want a dictator for life, that's their right unfortunately.

 

[JBeukema]

We already have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. People do it all the time. No one is stopping them from doing so. What the hell is the point of adding that?


Read it carefully. I have added the text in red

Neither Congress nor any member State shall make any 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 grievance

As it stands, any state can pass any law regarding religion. The current 'wall of separation' applies only to the Fed

2)add an amendment that reads:

Neither Congress, nor any member state shall pass any law that deprives the people, or any class thereof, of equal rights, recognition, and protection under the law

We already have the equal protection clause.

Really? Try telling the gov't about that

There goes all adminsitrative law. Now the executive branch cant do anything unless Congress tells them what it means. Which, of course, is a problem because Congress cant agree on what the law means half the time. Which is exactly why the President is there to enforce what Congress passed.

This addresses the EXOs that now serve to effectively bypass the constitution and all law

This one may have merits. But in reality it's the responsibility of the people to vote. If people want a dictator for life, that's their right unfortunately.

See my earlier post

 

[SpidermanTuba]

1)modify the 1st amendment to read:

Neither Congress nor any member State shall make any 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.

2)add an amendment that reads:

Neither Congress, nor any member state shall pass any law that deprives the people, or any class thereof, of equal rights, recognition, and protection under the law

Q: Have you ever heard of the 14th amendment?

3)Neither the president of the united states, nor any official acting from the authority of the executive branch of the federal government shall pass any order, proclamation, or command, other than those powers already delegated to said individual by the body of this document, to act to establish any new legislation or modify the text or interpretation of any existing law, as it falls wholly to congress to establish or modify such law and to the Legislative branch to review any law which is deemed suspect.

What? By the "body of this document" ? So you want to pass an amendment stating the President may not actually use any authority delegated to him in the Amendments to the Constitution?

The judicial branch gets to review laws that are suspect. Why would you want to upset the balance of power between the three branches?

4) No person may serve more than twelve years in any office or offices of Congress, be they in the House, the Senate, or any combination thereof

Why not? You're telling me that in a representative democracy, the people shouldn't get to vote for the candidate of their choice?

You're telling me that if the people of a state choose a shitty Senator for 50 years, all you have to do is pass some stupid term limit rule and all of a sudden they'll just - completely by chance - pick someone much better? Thanks, but I'll take my odds at the slot machines instead.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I'm all for #4.

We need term limits badly.

What we need is smarter voters. I don't see how ejecting the morons we have from Congress will change the fact they were put in power by morons.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm all for #4.

We need term limits badly.

We already HAVE term limits, it is called the people's VOTE. You dumb shits just don't get it, do you? If you had any respect or responsibility you would work to unseat those members you have a vote on, you disagree with.

You see, you do not get to dictate to the citizens of the other 49 States, who and how long they will elect their Senators for. You do not get to dictate to the 434 other Congressional Districts citizens who and for how long they will elect their Representative either.

This is the ultimate NANNY State attempt. A cry for the Government to save us from our own petty greed and idiocy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

IMHO, the reason our Constitution never set term limits was that they never invisioned professional politicians in lieu of citizens doing their patrotic duty to serve for a short time and thought that term limits would be determined thru the election process.

I agree

you have term limits....its called voting the guy out....

1) Americans are too stupid to have a free Republic

2)After 18 or 24 years in office, people have too many ties to big business and the media to allow for truly free campaigns and elections. Term limits help limit such corruption and prevent such entrenchment, which is why they were put in place regarding the presidency

The Republicans created the amendment to limit the Presidential limits and they did so, not because of power or greed, they did it because Roosevelt got elected 4 times and they did not want another Democrat in office that long.

 

[Avatar4321]

Read it carefully. I have added the text in red

Neither Congress nor any member State shall make any 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 grievance

As it stands, any state can pass any law regarding religion. The current 'wall of separation' applies only to the Fed

Bullcrap. The establishment clause has applied to the States since the passage of the Fourteenth amendment. If it hadnt, we would still be allowed to pray in schools. You would know this if you had any knowledge of what you are talking about.

Changing the words would not in anyway change any practice that's already occuring. It would be pointless.

We already have the equal protection clause.

Really? Try telling the gov't about that

I don't have to tell the government about that. They've been enforcing it for well over a century.

This addresses the EXOs that now serve to effectively bypass the constitution and all law

I know exactly what you're trying to address. But the text you've provided doesnt do that. You've provided a huge loophole in the text that would negate any effect the amendment would have.

See my earlier post

You are completely ignoring the fact that people are free to enforce term limits on politicians by electing them out of office. And if the people like the job their leaders are doing they should be free to keep them in longer.

 

[NOBama]

I'm all for #4.

We need term limits badly.

you have term limits....its called voting the guy out....

You could apply the same logic to the Presidency as well, but we added a 2 term limit on that position, which is a good thing, IMO.

The problem with Senators is that WE elect them rather than the state legislatures which is how it used to be prior to the 17th amendment.

Additionally, we have asshole senators, like Dodd for instance, that build these huge war chests (campaign money) with donations from people living outside their state. Dodd has something like $300 in state contributions, yet he has over $500,000 in contributions from people who live outside the state of Connecticut. So, in effect, contributions from people living outside the state of Conn will have more to do with getting Dodd reelected than the people of Conn.

If we went back to having the state legislatures elect senators, we would have senators who would be more likely to represent the will of the people of their state, or they would be gone, because state legislators are more accessable than senators and it would be easier to influence them than it would be to convince the people of a state that certian people running for the senate will NOT represent them.

Edit: Forgot to mention, I'd abolish the 16th amendment and go to a usery or the latest PC term; VAT (Value Added Tax) system. I'd also add a caveat to section 3 of article 1 imposing a nonrenewable term limit for senators as well as representatives.

 

[JBeukema]

Q: Have you ever heard of the 14th amendment?

You mean the Anchor Baby Amendment, which was forced upon the states and never actually ratified by most of the states in the Union at the time?

What? By the "body of this document" ? So you want to pass an amendment stating the President may not actually use any authority delegated to him in the Amendments to the Constitution?

How do you figure? It protects the constitutionally granted powers and reels in those powers which have been assumed outside of constitutional authority

The judicial branch gets to review laws that are suspect. Why would you want to upset the balance of power between the three branches?

it wouldn't. Read it again

...as it falls wholly to congress to establish or modify such law and to the Legislative branch to review any law which is deemed suspect.

Why not? You're telling me that in a representative democracy, the people shouldn't get to vote for the candidate of their choice?

You're telling me that if the people of a state choose a shitty Senator for 50 years, all you have to do is pass some stupid term limit rule and all of a sudden they'll just - completely by chance - pick someone much better? Thanks, but I'll take my odds at the slot machines instead.

1) The current system, allows for a level of corruption that renders the democratic facade meaningless

2)Most modern-day Americans cannot be trusted to realize there's a dick in their collective asshole

That's not going to happen. America has grown complacent. So long has it been since America struggled in bloody conflict to preserve liberty and the rule of the People, that they've forgotten what it all even means.

We already HAVE term limits, it is called the people's VOTE. You dumb shits just don't get it, do you? If you had any respect or responsibility you would work to unseat those members you have a vote on, you disagree with.

Entrenchment + corruption + stupid masses yearning for tv = No true republic

Bullcrap. The establishment clause has applied to the States since the passage of the Fourteenth amendment.

the 14th amendment is illegal and was not ratified by the majority of states- the southern states were ignored, despire having already been let back into congress. A little history would do you good

I know exactly what you're trying to address. But the text you've provided doesnt do that. You've provided a huge loophole in the text that would negate any effect the amendment would have.

If you have any suggestions, post them.

You are completely ignoring the fact that people are free to enforce term limits on politicians by electing them out of office. And if the people like the job their leaders are doing they should be free to keep them in longer.

Most Americans have no business in the voting booth in the first place. The smart people who love their country should not be subjected to a de facto oligarchy because of the ease with which the idiot masses are swayed and used

Additionally, we have asshole senators, like Dodd for instance, that build these huge war chests (campaign money) with donations from people living outside their state. Dodd has something like $300 in state contributions, yet he has over $500,000 in contributions from people who live outside the state of Connecticut. So, in effect, contributions from people living outside the state of Conn will have more to do with getting Dodd reelected than the people of Conn.

Many backs were scratched, I bet

 

[KMAN]

1)modify the 1st amendment to read:

Neither Congress nor any member State shall make any 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.

2)add an amendment that reads:

Neither Congress, nor any member state shall pass any law that deprives the people, or any class thereof, of equal rights, recognition, and protection under the law

3)Neither the president of the united states, nor any official acting from the authority of the executive branch of the federal government shall pass any order, proclamation, or command, other than those powers already delegated to said individual by the body of this document, to act to establish any new legislation or modify the text or interpretation of any existing law, as it falls wholly to congress to establish or modify such law and to the Legislative branch to review any law which is deemed suspect.

4) No person may serve more than twelve years in any office or offices of Congress, be they in the House, the Senate, or any combination thereof

If our government would just follow the Constitution we now have in place the only amendment that would need to be added would be your no. 4.

Since the 14th Amendment was passed the first amendment also applies to the states as well as the federal government, and it also states that we all have equal protection under the Constitution.

Although it is clearly ignored, the 10th Amendment clearly states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people, and the powers granted the federal government were very liminted with the bulk of power left to the individual states.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." - James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 25, 1788

IMHO, the reason our Constitution never set term limits was that they never invisioned professional politicians in lieu of citizens doing their patrotic duty to serve for a short time and thought that term limits would be determined thru the election process.

Amen brother... Unfortunately adding amendments don't matter if they aren't followed.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

the 14th amendment is illegal and was not ratified by the majority of states- the southern states were ignored, despire having already been let back into congress. A little history would do you good

A little history would do you good. ALL FIFTY STATES have ratified the 14th amendment. That means even if your argument was meaningful at some point in the past, it no longer is. Take out all 11 confederate states and you still have more than a 3/4 majority at 39 states.

 

[del]

the 14th amendment is illegal and was not ratified by the majority of states- the southern states were ignored, despire having already been let back into congress. A little history would do you good

A little history would do you good. ALL FIFTY STATES have ratified the 14th amendment. That means even if your argument was meaningful at some point in the past, it no longer is. Take out all 11 confederate states and you still have more than a 3/4 majority at 39 states.

i hate to be the one to break it to an eminent historian such as yourself, but there were only 37 states in 1868. if you take out all 11 confederate states, the amendment, much like yourself, fails.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I'm all for #4.

We need term limits badly.

you have term limits....its called voting the guy out....

You could apply the same logic to the Presidency as well, but we added a 2 term limit on that position, which is a good thing, IMO.

Actually, the term limit for the Presidency was a stupid thing. the law was un-needed. FDR was the exception, and may very well have proven to be the exception, had the Republicans not moved to limit the terms of the President.


Not only that - but the amendment is ambiguous. A literal reading of the amendment reveals that a restriction is only placed on the number of times a person may be elected to the office of Presidency, thus it would allow someone to ascend to the Presidency, through succession, as many times as circumstances allowed. However its doubtful this was the original intent. Its a poorly worded amendment.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

the 14th amendment is illegal and was not ratified by the majority of states- the southern states were ignored, despire having already been let back into congress. A little history would do you good

A little history would do you good. ALL FIFTY STATES have ratified the 14th amendment. That means even if your argument was meaningful at some point in the past, it no longer is. Take out all 11 confederate states and you still have more than a 3/4 majority at 39 states.

i hate to be the one to break it to an eminent historian such as yourself, but there were only 37 states in 1868. if you take out all 11 confederate states, the amendment, much like yourself, fails.

I hate to be the one to break to to an eminent Constitutional law scholar such as yourself - but It doesn't matter. If you take the view that the 11 confederate states' ratifications didn't count, then the ratifications of the 13 states that were admitted later would have caused the amendment to be ratified.

There were only 13 states when the 27th amendment was proposed in 1789 - it was ratified in 1992 when at least 3/4's of the number of states at the time (38 of 50) had ratified the amendment.

 

[del]

A little history would do you good. ALL FIFTY STATES have ratified the 14th amendment. That means even if your argument was meaningful at some point in the past, it no longer is. Take out all 11 confederate states and you still have more than a 3/4 majority at 39 states.

i hate to be the one to break it to an eminent historian such as yourself, but there were only 37 states in 1868. if you take out all 11 confederate states, the amendment, much like yourself, fails.

I hate to be the one to break to to an eminent Constitutional law scholar such as yourself - but It doesn't matter. If you take the view that the 11 confederate states' ratifications didn't count, then the ratifications of the 13 states that were admitted later would have caused the amendment to be ratified.

There were only 13 states when the 27th amendment was proposed in 1789 - it was ratified in 1992 when at least 3/4's of the number of states at the time (38 of 50) had ratified the amendment.

except the 14th was ratified in 1868, justice frankfurter.
have an adult explain the difference to you.