What Constitutional Amendment would YOU Choose? (Boortz Poll)

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

[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.