ping
Instead of adding Amendments we should be repealing some. The 17th and the 13th should be the first to go.
My bad. It should be the 16th and the 17th. Sorry.
That should just about cover it!
Wow, how do we get that going?
I disagree. No entity(any kind of business) that does not have an actual right to vote should NOT be allowed to donate to any public servant. It's clearly corruption. AND no person should be allowed to donate to any elected official outside of their state, the POTUS excluded.
None of these would be needed if we would just start abiding by the Constitution as the framers intended.
Article [of Amendment 11] [Transfer of wealth to foreign nations]
The Government shall not tax its citizens and transfer that treasure to foreign governments. There shall be no case where citizens shall fund foreign governments, armies, citizens, special causes, political causes or welfare funding.
It is nonsense - like saying we need a new 2nd Amendment. Ho will we phrase it, “...AND WE REALLY MEAN IT THIS TIME!” ??
You are being distracted by garbage like this, while the fed turns us into Zimbabwe by printing money like the ink supply will never run out.
WONDERFUL.
AMEN!
However, imho, need one protecting free exercise of the JUDEO/CHRISTIAN FAITHS, ETHIC etc. and proscribing certain others—at least certain aspects of others . . . e.g. Jihad.
Shouldn’t these be Anti-Federalist Amendments?
Barnett needs to learn a little about the history of this country so he can at least get the titles of his academic tirades correct.
Perhaps he has never heard of the, "Federalist Papers," written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, a series of eighty five essays written as a defense and promotion of the US Constitution, advocating its ratification. Perhaps he's never heard of the falling out between Madison and Hamilton over Hamilton's acts to extend the power of the Federal government beyond the limits to which, men like Madison, Jefferson, Jay, and Patrick Henry and others, felt the constitution constrained the government. Perhaps he is unaware that those who opposed the extension of government power were called "anti-Federalists" and that there is a body of work by such men call the "Anti-federalist Papers." Perhaps professor Barnett needs to learn a little history.
Madison, by the way, is called the, "Father of the Constitution," and was strongly opposed to a "bill of rights." He wrote them to gain the approval of the anti-Federalists and agreement to ratify the new constitution. His reasons for opposing the bill of rights are instructive:
1. it was unnecessary, since it supposedly protected people from powers the federal government did not have, 2. it was dangerous because specifying some rights could imply the exclusion of others not specified, and 3. at the state level such "bills of rights" had proved useless against government power.
It is the last of Madison's objections to the bill of rights that is the most instructive. There were already "bills of rights" such as the one Madison presented to be ratified for the US Constitution in several states, particularly Madison's own state of Virginia—and Madison correctly observed they had been totally ineffectual in curbing the power of the state.
This is the fundamental flaw in Barnett's proposal, and all other such proposals, that totally baseless belief that the behavior of men, especially politicians, can be, in any way, constrained by something written on a piece of paper.
Madison and Hamilton were absolutely correct about their objections to a bill of rights. If the Constitution, as it was written, was strictly adhered to, there would have been no need for a "bill of rights." The desire for a, "bill of rights," was based on the certain belief that men cannot be controlled by a Constitution, or any other piece of paper that expresses noble sentiments.
If the Constitution, as it is written, including its unnecessary amendments, does not limit the obscene excesses of today's politicians, what makes anyone think, adding more rhetoric to that constitution is going to make an iota of difference
Even worse is Barnett's idea of calling for a Constitutional Convention. The problem is not what's written in the Constitution (because every single issue Barnett thinks he is making explicit is already explicit in the Constitution), but the fact you have a nation populated with those so ignorant they could vote for someone totally unqualified for the office of President of The United States, and approve of all his "programs." If there were a Constitutional Convention called today, far from adopting Barnett's 10 amendments, the entire constitution would be turned into a socialistic manifesto.
Hank
why do I think that the final “gift” of this most narcissistic generation of baby-boomers will be a Constitutional Convention to attempt to permanently enshrine their egos in perpetuity....
This need more thought.
At a minimum:
Amendment XVII needs to be repealed/replaced with something that makes the Senators responsible to their particular state so that the balance of power between the people, the State governments and the Federal government is more balanced.
Regarding: Article of Amendment 1:
“Congress shall make no law laying or collecting taxes upon incomes…” needs to be accompanied by repeal of the current Amendment XVI, else they will be in conflict.
“…sale of goods or services…” needs to be “…sale or barter of goods or services…”. Otherwise, anyone who can, will barter something they make or some service they provide to avoid the tax. Some will say “good”, but it isn’t "good" since it will just put the tax burden on those who can’t barter for whatever reason or require an increase in some other impost, duty or excise tax to make up the needed revenue. Any tax should be justly levied and if taxes are too high, the way to keep them low is to eliminate government expense and the need for revenue.
Regarding: Article of Amendment 2:
“…shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state…” Would “…any activity that is confined within a single state” include diverting river water to state uses when the water would normally flow to and be shared with another state? Would it include flood prevention measures that cause worse flooding downstream in another state? Or is water an “emission” under the terms of the article? How about a radio station that violates current FCC standards and dominates frequencies in other states making them unusable? Or are the radio waves an “emission”? How about flight paths? Does each state control its own airspace?
Regarding: Article of Amendment 3:
Unfunded mandates are a problem but I don’t think having them “fully reimbursed by the United States” is the answer. (What does that even mean? All the States reimburse all the States?) Some sort of sharing of the expense would be better. That would necessitate buy in from the States. There may be some things they might not want done even if they were fully reimbursed. And they might go along with some things they shouldn’t if they were fully reimbursed. Having to share in the expense would make them more prudent. And changing Amendment XVII would hopefully put the Senators in a position of looking out for State interests in any of this.
Regarding: Article of Amendment 6:
What Article 6?
Regarding: Article of Amendment 7:
I have mixed feelings on term limits. It just puts the power in the hands of the unelected bureaucrats and staff who support the elected officials, since they will be the ones most acquainted with the system, procedures, how to get things done or slow them down, etc.
Regarding: Article of Amendment 7:
I have some problems with this one. I’m not certain there is a right to “enjoy” anymore than there is a right to “happy”. I’ll acknowledge a right to pursue enjoyment just as there is a right to pursue happiness. And I have a problem with the “natural, inherent and unalienable rights which they retain when forming any government, amongst which are…acquiring, possessing and protecting real and personal property, making binding contracts…” For instance, under “natural” conditions acquiring real property is accomplished by gathering your relatives and friends and running off or killing whoever is claiming the real property you want, which is fair because that is the way they got it. I don’t think we want to reinstitute that kind of thing. As to “contracts”, it needs to be clear that we are not talking about legal contracts enforced by a government with all its laws and such, but the kind of contracts that are agreements reached between people under conditions of “natural”, without government and all it entails.
There’s other stuff, but I’m done for now except to note that a lot of the problems could be eliminated by making the Senators responsible to the States, looking out for State interests (which include the interests of the people of the States) while the representatives in Congress look out for the interests of the people (who also elect the State officials to look out for their interests).