Active Now

Randy D
Discussion » Questions » Politics » Would you change the Constitution? How?
BR_8093

Would you change the Constitution? How?

If you could get rid of, or change, anything recognized in the Bill of Rights, what would it be?

If you could make any changes to the Amendments that have passed since then, what would it be?

If you could add anything to the Constitution, what would you add?

Posted - May 10, 2018
Tags : politics Constitution Government

Responses


  • 97
    1)  The 2nd Amendment would simply read 'The right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed'.

    2)  The 14th Amendment would limit citizenship to the children of those here LEGALLY.

    3)  Eliminate the 16th (taxation), 17th (direct election of Senators) and 26th (lowerig voting age to 18) Amendments.

    4)  Add an Amendment limiting terms of House/Senate members to a total of no more than 12 years, regardless of which office or offices held.
      May 10, 2018 8:14 PM MDT
    1

  • 5835
    Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

    "Delivered unto me," get it? Satan is the god of earthly authority.

    It doesn't matter how clever your constitution is, people will either get around it, change it, or ignore it. When God brought the Israelites into the promised land, He told them no king and no law outside cities. That was ok until the people began to feel prosperous, and then they demanded a king. After that they were conquered. 
      May 10, 2018 8:56 PM MDT
    0

  • 5391
    Same can be said for scripture. “Lord knows” it has been misused and misrepresented to the detriment of the lives of countless victims.

    Hooray Establishment Clause!   This post was edited by Don Barzini at May 11, 2018 4:55 AM MDT
      May 11, 2018 4:27 AM MDT
    0

  • 16777
    Abolish the 2nd. It's an anachronism, the Redcoats AREN'T coming anymore and the US has a well-equipped, highly trained permanent army, no need for untrained militias.
      May 10, 2018 10:11 PM MDT
    1

  • 97
    The 2nd wasn't just to stop 'the Redcoats'.  It's there to stop a government from getting out of control.  Read what the Framers said about the need to keep & bear arms.  Understand who and why early gun control legislation was put in place.
      May 11, 2018 5:22 AM MDT
    1

  • 16777
    You realize the government has drones, right? You're bringing guns to a drone fight.
    When it was all muskets, guns might have made sense. Now, they have the drop on you. This post was edited by Slartibartfast at May 11, 2018 5:29 AM MDT
      May 11, 2018 5:27 AM MDT
    0

  • 5835
      May 11, 2018 9:42 AM MDT
    0

  • 97
    It doesn't matter that they have drones.  Or M1 tanks, F-16's & A-10's.

    We also have the right to defend our homes from invasion.  When help is needed in seconds, police are minutes away.
      May 12, 2018 11:27 AM MDT
    1

  • 5391
    Revise the 12th Amendment to abolish the Electoral College. 
      May 11, 2018 4:25 AM MDT
    0

  • 97
    So smaller states don't get any say in the Presidency?  That's why it was put in place- if you eliminate it, states like CA, IL, PA, NY & FL would pretty well control the WH.

    What about modifying it to give proportional EC votes?
      May 11, 2018 5:20 AM MDT
    1

  • 5391
    That is already the reality. But what you mention would work more fairly than the current system. This post was edited by Don Barzini at May 11, 2018 8:06 AM MDT
      May 11, 2018 6:16 AM MDT
    0

  • 97
    No, the way it is now gives small states at least some voice.  Winner take all for California is a lot more than winner take all for Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, Montana & Kansas combined, but at least there's a need to look at the concerns of the smaller states.
      May 12, 2018 9:03 PM MDT
    1

  • 1233
    I would make progressive taxation unconstitutional. Taxes would be flat rate only.

    I would make deficit spending unconstitutional. Budgets would have to be balanced.

    I would make income tax and property taxes unconstitutional. Taxation would only be permitted on voluntary transactions.
      May 11, 2018 4:41 AM MDT
    1

  • 16777
    The rich get richer, the poor get the rough end of a pineapple, the elderly and disabled can go to Hell and infrastructure goes to pot.
      May 11, 2018 5:00 AM MDT
    0

  • 1233
    False. Tax revenue would increase not decrease if this were done. Transactions taxes like sales tax would have to be set quite high at first.

    It doesn't favour rich people since rich people make most of the transactions and poor people hardly make any. It's just a tax structure that motivates people to work instead of punishing it. Even in a flat rate system the rich still pay most of the tax, since 20% of a lot is a lot and 20% of nothing is nothing. Transaction taxes, because of their simplicity, would also be very difficult to evade.

    Income inequality is essential to motivate people. The left can't understand how this kind of system can reduce poverty because it always measures poverty by the amount of inequality instead of objectively by measuring the standard of living. A few decades of an ethical tax system and true poverty would be eradicated, but left wing envy is likely to prevent this ever being reality. This post was edited by Zeitgeist at May 20, 2018 7:29 PM MDT
      May 11, 2018 6:10 AM MDT
    1

  • 97
    As far as taxes go, I like the flat tax idea if we're keeping an income tax.

    A flat rate of 20% on ALL income.  Exempt 25k for the first person, 15k for everyone after that.  A family of 4 would pay no income taxes on 65k.

    If we go a national sales tax, you need to exempt food, or at least the staples.
      May 11, 2018 5:18 AM MDT
    2

  • 34270
     
    1)  The 2nd Amendment would simply read 'The right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed'.

    2)  The 14th Amendment would limit citizenship to the children of those here LEGALLY.

    3)  Eliminate the 16th (taxation), 17th (direct election of Senators)

    4)  Add an Amendment limiting terms of House/Senate members to a total of no more than 16 years, regardless of which office or offices held.

    5) First amendment added to say Goverment shall not require membership/attendance/financial support of any religous church/organization.  Goverment shall not limit the free speech of any religous organization in the political area through tax laws or other laws. 

    6) Goverment shall be required to secure the borders of the USA.

    7) House of Representatives with have one Representative per every 250,000 citizens.  And electoral college will remain at 1 EC vote per Congressperson for each state. 

    8) Census will only use information about CITIZENS to determine Representatives  and Federal moneys to be distributed to states. 

    (Sorry I took most of your answer above...but there was not much to change)
      May 11, 2018 6:52 AM MDT
    2

  • 6023
    So ... would #5 include union membership?
    I know government doesn't *technically* require union membership - but it does enforce the unions' ability to force people to join.
      May 11, 2018 1:15 PM MDT
    1

  • 34270
    I think government jobs should be "right to work" situations. 
    I would think forced union membership would covered already under 1st amendment...freedom to assemble??? But it not then yes that should be included as well.
      May 11, 2018 1:36 PM MDT
    1

  • 6023
    I was thinking non-government jobs.
    The last I saw, the rules were that if enough employees filled out cards saying they were interested in voting for a union ... the union was using that as saying they wanted to be in the union (not just have a vote on it).  And the government was levying penalties on businesses who were telling the union "No.  The employees haven't actually held a vote yet."

    Just because employees say "Sure, it would be nice to have a vote on whether a majority of employees want a union" doesn't mean those people want a union.  They just want the option put before everyone.  But that's not how the unions or NLRB was treating it.  They were treating it as a foregone conclusion that the union would win the vote.
      May 11, 2018 2:43 PM MDT
    1

  • 34270
    Gotcha....truthfully I think that would be a states issue to decide. 
      May 11, 2018 4:42 PM MDT
    1

  • 97
    Good additions.
      May 11, 2018 8:47 PM MDT
    1

  • 34270
    Thank you.
      May 11, 2018 8:50 PM MDT
    1

  • 46117
    Got no time for that.   However, I would ADD another NUMBER or Article, I believe is the vernacular.
    You know what I mean.

    I would add:

    Let no fat, cellulited moron who won't answer questions that have been asked and answered by every other NON-Criminal President touch even the steps of the White House without being handcuffed beforehand.

    You don't answer?  You are a traitor, a colluder and have NO interest in the interest of any decent American, therefore you are disqualified unless:  WE SEE:  EVIDENCE OF TAX RETURNS.

    Who cares about a silly birth certificate when that is not exposed beforehand as proof of honesty or dishonesty.

    Any President who does not honor the wishes of the People regardless of their beliefs, has no right to torture, stalk, use his power or in anyway affect the terms of their futures out of SPITE.

    All Presidents be required to take LIE DETECTOR TESTS by seven of the world's best Judges of Lie Detection.

    No pleading the 5th.

    We are all human.  Everyone makes mistakes.  However, we need to be transparent and SEE what those mistakes are.

    The Christian Right needs to be disbanded TODAY.  That is the buzz word for NEO NAZI
      May 11, 2018 9:53 AM MDT
    0