Posted on 02/25/2004 11:42:38 AM PST by xm177e2
BUT ... AS LONG AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION
There have only been 27 amendments to our Constitution. The last basically said that the congress couldn't raise its own pay without an intervening election. Now there was a Constitutional amendment that recognized the essential truth about today's breed of politicians. Our founding fathers didn't put that in the original because they couldn't think in terms of elected officials staging raids on the taxpayers funds to the extent that they do today.
The American people have shown that they don't want to trivialize our Constitution with an endless succession of amendments. The unnecessary so-called Equal Rights Amendment was turned away, and amendments like one banning flag burning have never even made it off the launching pad. Americans aren't going to get behind this gay marriage thing either.
But .. since the subject has been broached, here are a few ideas for Constitutional amendments that I think would be a grand idea.
First on my list is an amendment to repeal an amendment.
The 17th Amendment, to be more specific. I believe the argument can be made that the 17th Amendment has done more to promote the growth of federal government than any other action in our country's history. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, provided for the popular election of U.S. Senators. Our original Constitution created a system whereby the people of the United States were represented in Washington by the members of the House of Representatives, while the state governments were represented by Senators. Each state legislature would appoint two people to serve staggered terms in the Senate. The people had their voice in Washington, and so did the States. Tell me, do you think that the federal government would have successfully usurped so many powers from State governments? Would the U.S. Congress have placed so many unfunded mandates on the backs of the states? Our founding fathers (the politically correct term is now "framers") felt that in times of peace 90% of all government should emanate from state and local levels, and only 5% from the federal level. The growth of the federal sector at the expense of local power can be traced back to the ratification of the 17th Amendment. Repeal it. Return the power to the local governments.
Second .. The Bricker Amendment.
The Bricker Amendment was introduced into the Senate in 1952. Some Americans actually think that our Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That may not be so. There have been federal court rulings which state that treaties duly ratified by the Senate can have a force under law that is superior to that of our Constitution. Some argue that this application is severely limited, others say that today's activist courts could expand this doctrine to the point that our Constitution takes second place in the "law of the land" list to treaties. Some examples? How about the Kyoto treaty? To what extent would our economic liberties be violated if Kyoto became the supreme law of the land?
OK ... back to the Bricker Amendment. Here it is, in its entirety:
Does anyone see a real problem with this? How could anyone really object to an amendment that cements our Constitution in place as the supreme law of the land? Well ... the Bricker Amendment was defeated in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 42-50. Republicans for ... Democrats against.
An amendment limiting the government's right to seize private property
It is an abomination that our Supreme Court has now given the green light to government to seize the private property of citizens without any due process at all. If you are found in an airport, a bus terminal, on an interstate highway ... virtually anywhere ... with a wad of cash in your pocket, the police can simply take the cash and send you on your way. In this case the government assumes that you have committed a crime, administers punishment, and sends you packing. How about a Constitutional amendment to protect your property against government seizure without due process?
Eminent domain abuse
Again, thanks to a ruling from the Supremes, governments across the country can now take your real estate from you and hand it over to another private citizen or developer simply because the government believes that the new owner will pay more in property taxes than you do. We need a Constitutional amendment to clearly define "public use" and set strong new limits on eminent domain.
Now ... how many of you would put an amendment banning gay marriage above those items?
I hope this hasn't already been posted; if it was I didn't see it.
Note: The URL will expire at the end of today, and the new URL you will have to enter to find the page is here (but this one doesn't work yet)
Will it reduce the size and the influence of the government in the lives of the citizens?
If the answer is Yes, I’ll vote for it. If not, not.
And by the way the first amendment I would put in the Constitution would be:
Unborn babies are persons.
Of course Boortz would never put that on his list.
Mr. Boortz is an ignoramus. The 27th Amendment was one of 12 amendments proposed by Madison immediately after ratification of the Constitution. Ten of those amendments made it into the Constitution immediately, and we know them as the Bill of Rights.
One of those original 12 gathered state ratifications slowly over time. Generations would go by without a new ratification, then someone would notice the amendment and push a state to ratify. In the Eighties, a Texas state legislator noticed it and helped push it over the three-fourths limit in 1992. That was the 27th Amendment, and it took over 200 years to ratify.
Neil should do his homework.
...The last basically said that the congress couldn't raise its own pay without an intervening election. Now there was a Constitutional amendment that recognized the essential truth about today's breed of politicians. Our founding fathers didn't put that in the original because they couldn't think in terms of elected officials staging raids on the taxpayers funds to the extent that they do today...
Actually, that amendment was one of the first ones, it simply had no expiration attached and it took unusually long to ratify.
I'm not so sure. I was against an amendment, for the reasons he states -- you don't tinker with the Constitution if you can possibly avoid it. But then this stuff in California happened -- the people charged with upholding the law are using their powers to ignore it. I've changed my mind.
I'm not even all that passionate an opponent of gay marriage, but I can't think of any other way to prevent 'public servants' from making up the law.
The problem is elected officials and judges making up the law as they go, and that can't be solved with this Constitutional Amendment. Maybe you should think about how you could create a Constitutional Amendment that would prevent them from making up the law, rather than an amendment to ban this one thing (gay marriage).
That would be awesome. We could call it the 4th Amendment.
Personally, I say repeal 16, 17 and 19 and everything else takes cares of itself.
No, I'm convinced this one is worthy on its own, not specifically because of the 'gay' part, but the 'marriage' part. If we allow any state to define marriage around terms other than procreation, I guarantee you polygamy will be the next issue - with much more justification than gay marriage, since it's legal in many places, has a long tradition, and is arguably a religious practice.
#1) marriage is not currently defined around procreation--infertile couples are permitted to marry, and married couples can choose to remain childless.
#2) While gays cannot procreate through gay sex, they are still capable of making children through heterosexual sex and can adopt children--there are gay couples who raise children.
#3) Polygamy is not unsuited for procreation; in fact, polygamists tend to have big families.
Overall, we may be better off with no more amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Read "The Gulag Archipelago" and see if you would to live in country without restrictions on cruel and unusual punishment.
You male chauvinistic pig, you! :^)
Actually, probably not too bad of an idea, and I'll bet that there are some FReeperettes who would probably agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.