What Constitutional Amendment would YOU Choose? (Boortz Poll)

Neal's Nuze (via InstaPundit.com) ^ | February 25, 2004 | Neal Boortz

[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:

• Section 1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.
• Section 2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.
• Section 3. Congress shall have power to regulate all executive and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization. All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article.
• Section 4. The congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

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?

[theFIRMbss]

>First on my list is an amendment to repeal an amendment

A Freeper once said
every few years we should toss
all amendments, and

if any were good,
activists should justify
them for the new scene...

[steve-b]

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 remaining 5% would emanate from a penumbra, or something.

[bassmaner]

How about an amendment making it easier for legislatures to remove activist judges from the bench?

[Dr.Deth]

Yeah, it's sad to say, but that's no typo. Most of the roots of government-as-nanny/husband can be traced to suffrage. The average psychological profile made it almost inevitable. Women want a safety net, a provider, a protector. Used to be, men provided that. Now the government does, so she can have her career and wear pants during the day too.

I don't mean to tar all with one brush, but by-and-large, men don't vote for a candidate because of his cute dimples (Certain currently shrill cupcakes excepted). Clinton would be a closet-Commie trial lawyer in BFArk if not for the 19th, and you better believe it.

[freeeee]

You people want to pass a constitutional amendment, when the ones we already have are routinely ignored?

Sounds good! I think I'll go change the headlight on the dead car in my backyard.

[WhiteGuy]

Will it reduce the size and the influence of the government in the lives of the citizens?

I'm with you.

Any action that does not REDUCE government serves to EXPAND government.

Along the same lines, any candidate who does not agree with this school of thought, and is willing to back it up, does not earn my vote.

[dalless]

How about an amendment that requires all judges to have term limits as opposed to life time appointments.

[cksharks]

To get rid of talk radio hosts.

[Defiant]

We need a bunch of amendments. Here are some that are in order:

The constitution is to be interpreted strictly, in accord with the original intent of the framers. (This one fixes a bunch of mistakes all by itself)

No automatic citizenship for persons born here, if they are here illegally.

No incorporation of the bill of rights to the states.

Spell out that "no establishment" of religion does not mean separation of church and state, and that the first amendment applies to Congress, not the states.

Spell out limits to the interstate commerce clause.

Limit taxation

Make it easier to get rid of law-making judges. Institute a recall procedure for them that is not common, but not impossible either. That will help keep them in check.

Spell out in even greater detail that the 2nd amendment does in fact give the people the right to keep and bear arms, and they don't have to be in a militia.

Affirm the existence of the 9th and 10 amendments.

That's a start. After 15 or 20 years of Republican majority rule, perhaps we can make a good start on these goals. Think incrementally, the way the leftists did from the 1930s on.

[Grit]

I support the 17th

Don't be shy, tell us why.

[Kherghan]

I'd Vote to repeal the 17th and the 16th amendment, before the 16th, there were no Income Taxes

[Political Junkie Too]

Repealing the 17th amendment would also solve campaign finance reform.

-PJ

[G.Mason]

"Personally, I say repeal 16, 17 and 19 and everything else takes cares of itself."

Agreed with the addition of adding on more.

Any elected, or appointed official who is found guilty of lying about matters relating to his/her official position shall be sentenced to death by public execution, within twenty four hours of the verdict. No appeal.

[prion]

Yes, I said that clumsily. I shouldn't have mentioned procreation. What I meant was that I think it's a worthwhile exercise to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage, because in the absence of a statute, I can see other challenges to the institution...some I would consider more disruptive than gay marriage.

[snooker]

I have to go with the 17th. This has done more to allow the federal government to expand than anything else. It has also created a political class of senators which remain in office so long they begin to smell funny. Each of these pompous senators takes on the air of the mini president.

Just think what couldn't happen if a states governor could stop it. That was the original intent.

We created a monster with this populist addition to the Constitution, time to get rid of it.

[tnlibertarian]

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.

Just curious and too lazy to find it myself, but what was the twelfth?

[patriot_wes]

Oooo, Ooooo I have one! How about.....No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.

[satchmodog9]

i agree

[Wurlitzer]

"There is a poll on his web page... how did you vote? What is the single most important Constitutional Amendmentment you can think of? "

An Amendment to force the US Government to follow the Constitution or be desolved! NOW

[wbill]

men don't vote for a candidate because of his cute dimples

Unfortunately, no, but male voters do cast their vote beacause their grandfathers were Democrats, or because their candidate supports saving the snail darter, or any other of a multitude of dumba** reasons. Fortunately or not (depending on your PoV), stupidity is not gender-based.

My wife is a moderate Southern democrat. Almost all of her friends are libs, from moderate to complete wackos. I would say among the females, the polarizing position is abortion. Candidates that are anti-abortion won't ever get their vote.