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?

[Ancesthntr]

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.

How about this one:

Section 1: Any elected or appointed official of any government within the borders of the United States and its territories, protectorates and districts who is found guilty of attempting to infringe in any manner upon the right of individual citizens or residents to keep and bear arms shall be sentenced to death by public execution, and such sentence shall be carried out within twenty four hours of the verdict. There shall be no appeal from such sentence.

Section 2: The definition of "infringe" in Section 1 shall include, but not be limited to, any of the following:

a) proposing and/or voting for a law or regulation that would outlaw the design, manufacture, sale, purchase, possession and/or bearing of any firearm or other personal weapon that may be carried by any one individual, or any ammunition or accessory for any such weapon; or

b) proposing and/or voting for a law or regulation that would license or impose a tax or fee on the exercise of any aspect of designing, manufacturing, selling, buying, possessing or bearing any firearm or other personal weapon, or ammunition or accessories therefor (including the use of such items for target practice, hunting or other sport), unless such tax or fee was imposed on the income of a person undertaking such activity for profit where the tax or fee was imposed without regard to the nature of the activity in question. Proposing and/or voting for any nuisance or environmental law, ordinance or regulation which has the effect of restricting the rights protected by this Article shall be governed by this Article.

Section 3: It is specifically contemplated that neither the Congress, nor any agency of the federal government, nor any state or subdivision of a state, shall be empowered to restrict the right of individual citizens and legal residents of the United States to design, manufacture, sell, purchase, possess and/or bear any weapon, ammunition or accessory that was, is or will ever be issued by any organized armed force (specifically including any army, naval force, air force, space force, paramilitary force or police force) to any of the individual soldiers, officers or other members of any such force.

Section 4: Any elected or appointed official of any government within the borders of the United States and its territories, protectorates and districts will be subject to a trial by a jury of 12 citizens aged 18 or older in federal court for violating this Article, upon the submission of a petition signed by 25,000 or more citizens or legal residents of the United States who are 18 years of age or older. Conviction in such a trial must be unanimous, and no directed verdicts or judgments notwithstanding the verdict shall be permitted.

Section 5: Any citizen or resident of the United States and its territories, protectorates and districts over the age of 16 shall be permitted to kill any official or officials mentioned in Section 1 of this Article who is suspected of violating any part of Section 1; however, if such citizen or resident is accused of mistakenly killing an official who did not, in fact, violate Section 1 of this Article, then such citizen or resident shall be subject to a charge of murder in a federal court in whatever jurisdiction said killing took place.

[G.Mason]

I must say your well thought out amendment makes mine look weak and anemic by comparison.

You also escaped from New Jersey I see. Not Essex County by any chance?

[Ancesthntr]

Don't sell yourself short - you probably spent about 1 minute writing it, whereas I wasted a bunch of time composing mine. Also, being a lawyer, I wanted to chime in with something that had no loopholes that any future judge could possibly use to deny us the RKBA. Oh, and my proposed amendment will pass Congress and 3/4 of the states at about the same time as the sun is blotted out by flocks of flying pigs.

Regarding the PRNJ, I did live in W. Orange, Essex Cty, for 5 years ('92-'97), though I grew up in Freehold (Monmouth) and also lived in Middlesex & Mercer. While I miss the familiarity of the place where I was raised, many friends & relatives and some good food (you can't get decent deli, Italian or Chinese food in San Antonio, to say nothing of a good bagel), I'm glad to be out of there. I felt like an escaped felon and was, in fact, an unindicted felon...let me explain:

As you probably know, Florio's version of the AWB made/makes it a crime to own any magazine that can hold > 15 rounds. It is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and is a felony. When leaving NJ in 12/2000, I took all of my guns, ammo and related equipment with me in my vehicle. Upon passing the "Welcome to Delaware" sign on the Delaware Memorial Bridge, I turned to my wife and said, "now you won't have to bail me out of prison." I got the desired wide eyes and slack jaw, followed by "What! What are you talking about?" I explained NJ's law to her, political novice that she WAS (I've fixed that), and that somewhere around 200 years of prison was sitting less than 3 feet from her (not including the time that several hundred rounds of verboten hollowpoint and AP ammo would have earned me, which I didn't mention to her). It brought a smile to my lips when she said, "Well, I'm glad we're leaving. Who'd want to live there?"

The NJ of my youth, where the liberal NY'ers hadn't ruined the state and where you could by handguns and rifles in almost any department store, is gone. It has turned into a crowded, over-taxed, over-regulated, anti-gun liberal $hithole - and I'm glad not to live there anymore.

By the way, are you also a PRNJ refugee?

[William Terrell]

The Bricker amendment? For what purpose? I thought Boortz is a lawyer.

"It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument." The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall. ( 78 U.S.), 616, 620 (1871).

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights--let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition--to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V." - 354 U.S. 1 (1957)

"The treaty is . . . a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States." Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 656 (1853)

[inquest]

My amendment would be to make it harder to amend the Constitution. It's actually frightenignly easy as it is right now.

[G.Mason]

"Don't sell yourself short ......."

I got the shivers reading that.

I grew up in West Orange, N.J.. Lived at 55 Chestnut Street.

I retired from the Essex Co. Sheriff's Department and fled to Florida.

I did much the same thing as you in fleeing. All my guns in the "U-Haul" stuffed in boxes with other items on top & towing my car behind. Like a damn thief in the night.

I've been back about five times for short visits and hated every pulse quickening minute. Talk about the need to have eyes in the back of your head!

I live in Citrus County now, population 110,000 ....... Ya Hoo!
Getting more crowded here though, with the touristas in the winter, but we look at what we use to put up with and laugh.

Like you, the food sucks here.
We went to a place called The Margarita Grill, in Crystal River, just yesterday. In the past the food has been great, waitresses good, and always left feeling great.

It was absolutely horrible. I ate half my food, the wife sent her clam chowder back, as it was "potato soup" (no clams), and left vowing never to go back. There just aren't any "Joisey" diners, and I can't cross the tunnel and go to NYC and eat.

At this point I'd be happy with a visit to "Down neck", Newark to stock up on Polish Kielbasa, Italian sausage, and about two tons of various breads and bagles.

You're right, you just can't go home anymore!

Regards

[cynicom]

Strict term limits????

[Sloth]

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

Article the first (Not Ratified) After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

[dead]

No, I wouldn't vote for strict term limits.

First of all, that is not restricting the government's control over my life - it is increasing it by giving them the ability to further restrict the candidate I can choose to vote for. My current congressman is one of the most conservative men in the House. If I want to vote for him for twenty terms, I don't need the Federal government to tell me I can't.

Secondly, I think strict term limits will only give further control to the two parties and the people who buy influence with them. Politicians facing term limited ends to their careers will have absolutely no reason to answer to their constituency. They will only have reason to answer to the party leadership - the people who make sure that they transition smoothly into their reward jobs as lobbyists or corporate officers. They will vote exactly as they are paid to do, and when they are done, the next party-appointed apparatchik will step in for his two terms of doing the same.

[cynicom]

Well, at least Clinton has one conservative that agrees with him.

[cynicom]

Well, at least Clinton has one conservative that agrees with him.

[dead]

I don't believe Bill Clinton ever clearly stated his position on congressional term limits. Do you know what they were?

If you're talking about Presidential term limits, you don't need a constitutional amendment for that. It's already in there.

I think the uniqueness of that office makes it a special case for term limits. I wouldn't support an amendment changing that rule.

A president in his second term doesn't have to answer to the voters, but he has to answer to the judgement of history far more so than the relatively anonymous lawyer representing Idaho's six district does.

[cynicom]

dead

Whatwever you do, do not read the 22 amendment. In fact be 53 years ago tomorrow.

[dead]

Whatwever you do, do not read the 22 amendment. In fact be 53 years ago tomorrow.

I’m having a little trouble deciphering your mangling of the language, but are you implying that I don’t know what the 22nd amendment says?

I very clearly stated that term limits on the presidency are already in the constitution. They are. Have you read this amendment yourself? That’s where the the term limits on the president are described.

Do you want to overturn that amendment? I really don’t get your point.

[Imagine]

I SUPPORT THIS ONE: Democrats, illegial aliens and welfare recipients are ineligible to vote in state, federal or local elections.

[bc2]

so you are against the proposed marriage amendment?

instead of giving more power to the feds through exclusion by amendment, the answer to the gay marriage issue is to remove government involvement in marriages 100% and let the free market work it out, through churches, employers, insurance companies and HMO's.

best regards,

[dead]

Yes, I am.

If it's a government issue at all, it should be up to the states to decide.

[GigaDittos]

The Gay Amendment will allow gays to marry as long as they surrender their citizenship and leave the country forever.

[bc2]

exactly.

here's a big "get the government out of marriage" BTTT

[dead]

If we really want to fix this country, we should pass an amendment that bars lawyers from ever holding elected office. How much better would this country be if congress was filled with plumbers, physicians, astronomers, businessmen, accountants, etc.?

Unfortunately, the damn near all-lawyer congress would have to agree to it first.

In reality, only armed revolution could ever get it done.