Skip to comments.
What Constitutional Amendment would YOU Choose? (Boortz Poll)
Neal's Nuze (via InstaPundit.com) ^
| February 25, 2004
| Neal Boortz
Posted on 02/25/2004 11:42:38 AM PST by xm177e2
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
There is a poll on his web page... how did you vote? What is the single most important Constitutional Amendmentment you can think of?
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)
1
posted on
02/25/2004 11:42:38 AM PST
by
xm177e2
To: xm177e2
I'd probably vote for the Bricker - it would solve a lot of the other problems as well.
Interesting question...
LQ
To: xm177e2
I have one question regarding any proposed Amendment to the Constitution
Will it reduce the size and the influence of the government in the lives of the citizens?
If the answer is Yes, Ill vote for it. If not, not.
3
posted on
02/25/2004 11:47:22 AM PST
by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: xm177e2
Nealz Nuze is an absolute must read every morning.
4
posted on
02/25/2004 11:48:39 AM PST
by
Phantom Lord
(Distributor of Pain, Your Loss Becomes My Gain)
To: xm177e2
Term Limits....never more important than now....
5
posted on
02/25/2004 11:48:51 AM PST
by
joesnuffy
(Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
To: xm177e2
I'd vote to AMEND the fourteenth amendment, the one that makes any child born here an AUTOMATIC citizen. It was added to the Constitution after the Civil War as a means of naturalizing the newly freed slaves. It is archaic and devastating to our nation now, as it allows a sleazy "in" for illegals.
To: xm177e2
Boortz has myopic vision. A piss poor thinker who doesn't have a clue about the expansion of federal government that will ensue when civil unions and/or homosexual "marriage" becomes the law of the land.
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.
7
posted on
02/25/2004 11:50:32 AM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: xm177e2
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.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.
8
posted on
02/25/2004 11:50:40 AM PST
by
Publius
(Die Erde ist gewaltig schön, doch sicher ist sie nicht.)
To: xm177e2
Thanks for the post.
...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.
To: xm177e2
Americans aren't going to get behind this gay marriage thing either. 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.
10
posted on
02/25/2004 11:53:35 AM PST
by
prion
To: xm177e2
repeal the 8th amendment!
11
posted on
02/25/2004 11:55:41 AM PST
by
Homer1
To: prion
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).
12
posted on
02/25/2004 11:56:26 AM PST
by
xm177e2
(Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
To: xm177e2
I would like to see amendments that would strengthen the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th amendments as well as repeal the 17th amendment.
13
posted on
02/25/2004 11:57:59 AM PST
by
R. Scott
(My cynicism rises with the proximity of the elections.)
To: xm177e2
How about a Constitutional amendment to protect your property against government seizure without due process? 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.
14
posted on
02/25/2004 12:01:34 PM PST
by
Dr.Deth
To: xm177e2
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). 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.
15
posted on
02/25/2004 12:02:52 PM PST
by
prion
To: prion
If we allow any state to define marriage around terms other than procreation, I guarantee you polygamy will be the next issue#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.
16
posted on
02/25/2004 12:06:00 PM PST
by
xm177e2
(Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
To: xm177e2
I'd like to see a list of all of the proposed constitutional amendments out there. The Dems are starting to push for the aboliton of the electoral college, for instance.
Overall, we may be better off with no more amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
17
posted on
02/25/2004 12:06:25 PM PST
by
HAL9000
To: Homer1
repeal the 8th amendment! Read "The Gulag Archipelago" and see if you would to live in country without restrictions on cruel and unusual punishment.
18
posted on
02/25/2004 12:06:58 PM PST
by
bassmaner
(Let's take the word "liberal" back from the commies!!)
To: All
I support the 17th
19
posted on
02/25/2004 12:08:41 PM PST
by
The Wizard
(democrats are enemies of America)
To: Dr.Deth
Personally, I say repeal 16, 17 and 19 and everything else takes cares of itself. 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.
20
posted on
02/25/2004 12:09:42 PM PST
by
bassmaner
(Let's take the word "liberal" back from the commies!!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson