Do we need another constitutional amendment?

THE KENTUCKY STANDARD ^ | Wednesday, August 17, 2005 | RON FILKINS

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

So, what part of "public purpose" did the Supreme Court not understand in the original Constitution that they will understand better from this language? The "Constitution" is whatever they say it is. No point in us peons even reading it, much less amending it.

[Myrddin]

A second amendment using contemporary language would be good, or simply adding another clause: "It's not about duck hunting".

I would favor a 2nd amendment that states, "The right of an individual person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by any government entity". Government entity is intended to encompass executive, legislative, judicial and bureaucratic elements at an level of government including local, state and federal.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!!

[nutmeg]

Connecticut ping!

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.

[traviskicks]

I'd like to see the following amendments as follows:

Congress and the states shall not have the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Congress and the states shall not have any power to tax/redistribute/interfer with the health care or retirement of citizens.

[dcwusmc]

I want one that says: "Neither the United States, the Several States nor any political subdivision thereof may take any property, personal or real, including but not limited to homes, motor vehicles, maritime vessels, aircraft or any other property, for any reason. Judgement rendered in open court shall be the only means of taking property to satisfy liens or other judgements. No political entity in or of the United States or the several States may enter or attempt to enter a lien on any property whatsoever. Attempts to circumvent this article by statute, regulation, subterfuge or any other means shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life without possiblilty of parole. Introduction into a legislative body or executive agency of any bill or proposed regulation shall be deemed sufficient to prove the charge."