Posted on 07/06/2022 9:55:53 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This Fourth of July, watching people fight over what the Constitution means, I ask people, if you could change the Constitution, what would you change?
"The forefathers knew what they were doing," said one woman.
But the Constitution originally accepted slavery. It's good that we can amend it.
So what should we change?
"Add a balanced budget amendment," suggests Glenn Beck.
David Boaz of the Cato Institute recommends 18-year terms for the Supreme Court. "Maybe confirmation fights would be less bitter and partisan."
Others suggest term limits for Congress. Stossel TV's Mike Ricci takes the idea further. "If your father, mother, siblings, uncle, cousins were elected to federal office, you can't be." That would curb Kennedy/Bush-like dynasties.
Several people said they want to eliminate the Commerce Clause. It gives government virtually unlimited power over the economy, complains tech journalist Naomi Brockwell, "forcing people to participate in federal pension programs ... enabling the War on Drugs."
Some want an amendment to stop the growth of Washington regulatory agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and Federal Communications Commission. Economist Don Boudreaux calls them "a grave threat to Americans' liberties and prosperity."
The Supreme Court took a small step in restraining their power last week when it ruled that EPA bureaucrats can't set emission rules all by themselves. Congress has to vote on that.
Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif, proposes overturning Citizens United. He says that would stop those who "spend millions of dollars corrupting elections (and) would return our democracy to the town halls and citizen involvement that our founders envisioned."
I doubt that. Limits on political speech increase insiders' power.
Christina Martin of the Pacific Legal Institute wishes the Constitution did more to protect the rights of the individual. "How about a right to earn a living? How about a right to not have the government steal from you?"
But some young people told us they want to eliminate rights already in the Constitution, like free speech.
"Being able to speak your mind is important," said one, "as long as it's not in a way that is going to be long-term harmful to people."
Ouch. Who decides what is harmful? Will he get to censor my videos?
The Bill of Rights also includes the right to bear arms. Babylon Bee's Kyle Mann would add some lines to clarify that "you can't pass laws restricting ownership of firearms."
Others want to get rid of the Second Amendment. "We have police officers. We have a military," said one woman in Times Square. "So do we really need them? No."
I'm glad another person corrected her. "The only reason we stand on freedom is because we got the right to bear arms!" he says. "(Because of the Second Amendment) We're all a micro government in our own way."
—apply the limitations of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and it solves almost all of our problems—
and the 19th ...
Incoming!
5.56mm
The difference is the right generally wants amendments that RESTRICT the federal powers, while the left wants ones that expand them.
YEs, amendments.
1. Term limits- one per person. no exceptions.
2. Remove the Pendleton act. Make such acts unconstitutional.
3. Civil servants should not be allowed to unionize or bargain collectively. They are in privileged positions and the bureaucracy should be run like a business. Perform your role or lose your job just like anyone else.
4. The Federal Reserve Act should be abolished and similar acts should be declared unconstitutional.
5. Corporations should not be considered to be people. Corporations should not be allowed to make political donations. Corporations should not be allowed to lobby. Citizens should have all these “rights” (wrong word, but it conveys the idea) reserved to themselves.
6. Fiat currency must go. Find something of value to base the currency upon. Gold would be acceptable, especially given the recent find of upwards of 15 trillion dollars worth of gold in Uganda.
7. End participation in the UN until such a time as it becomes a diplomacy-only organization with the intent\goal\mandate in preventing wars between nations.
Of course, these mostly don’t require amendments to achieve, but amendments mean they are much harder to get rid of by petty tyrants like what we have now.
More amendments?
I dunno bout that. I’d kinda like to repeal the 14th, 17th and 16th amendments.
bump
I actually want less amendments. I rather bring it all back to 1800 . 1800 is 3 years before the court siezed the power of judicial review with Marbury vs. Madison. That decision made the Constitution mere putty that is reshaped at whim by the Judges. Since all of the Amendments added since 1800 originated from Congress it is no big surprise they usually handed Congress more power.
I agree. In other words:
No representation without taxation!
“Repeal the 17th amendment.”
hear hear. Then insist that all “elected” senators resign and let the legislatures appoint, as originally intended.
We could get rid of McConnell and Graham in one fell swoop.
Beware of amending the Constitution.
After all, the misguided fools who ratified the 16th and 17th Amendments (16&17A), although they undoubtedly thought they were doing the right thing, ended up effectively repealing constitutional limits on the fed’s powers with those amendments imo.
So if patriots want to amend the Constitution, we first need to clean up the Constitution by ratifying an amendment that does nothing more than repeal 16&17A, arguably little or no discussion required imo.
Repealing those amendments will effectively secede ALL the states from the unconstitutionally big federal government imo.
But also consider that electing as many Trump-endorsed federal and state candidates in 2022 elections is the next best thing to amending the Constitution that Trump’s red tsunami of patriot supporters can do at this time, supporting their new state lawmakers in 2023 to repeal 16&17A.
In order for each state of have a representative government, ban all out of state political contributions. Ban any contribution derived from out of state. Either ban corporate political contributions, or limit them to the state where their headquarters reside.
Those who would do away with the Second Amendment should pay attention to the recent situation in the Netherlands. Unarmed farmers (the Netherlands bans private ownership of firearms) peacefully protesting government climate policies have been fired upon by armed police. When only the government has guns the government can easily impose its will on the people.
As you and others know, I am a longtime proponent of Article V, always comforted by the Constitutional high bar that it takes a minimum 3/4 of States to ratify an Amendment to the Constitution.
That would be 38 states.
Looking at it another way, 13 states are needed to defeat a proposed Constitutional Amendment.
But given today’s “ELITE CAPTURE” and the elected offices that are captured with it, the Constitution is at risk of a rigged election system, even with a high bar for ratifying new amendments.
If patriots are unable to keep integrity in more than 12 state legislatures, the Constitution will be overthrown.
Hence, it follows that election and legislator integrity are the crucial priorities.
To the lady who thinks we do NOT need 2 A because we already have police officers:
I have lived rural for over 29 years-—not counting getting raised on rural dairy farm.
IF I have a problem-—which I did—I would be VERY lucky to have a deputy to my property within 20 minutes.
The high NOON standoff I had in daylight with a local drug dealer who had deliberately come onto my property & LEFT MY GATE OPEN WHERE LIVESTOCK LIVE would have had a VERT different conclusion IF I HAD NOT taken my 12 gauge shotgun to the front door with me.
He kept saying I WOULDN’T SHOOT-—I told him it was up to him. He finally left-—and left the gate open.
I closed the gate & called the Sheriff to report the incident.
EVEN the large can of hornet spray at the front door is a deterrent-—keep one handy.
Have worn out the keys on this laptop trying to explain that to many here on FR.
VERT s/b VERY
Far from easy: An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.
I’d add an amendment to the effect of lengthy prison sentences for any politician proposing an unconstitutional law. With the possible exceptions of federal ammo subsidies and a Strategic Beer Reserve.
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.