Change the Constitution? Both Left and Right Want More Amendments to the Constitution

Townhall ^ | 07/06/2022 | John Stossel

[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."

[SeekAndFind]

RE: So Rand Paul would be ineligible?

So would John Quincy Adams

[servantboy777]

The 14th amendment was adopted after the civil war to aid in citizenship of slaves.

These days, the leftists utilize it to grant birth right citizenship to illegal alien babies born on United States soil.

Example. A pregnant woman from Mexico crosses the Southern border illegally, if she delivers that baby on American soil, that baby is presumed an American citizen by birth regardless of the illegal status of the parent(s).

The constitutional intentions are being abused.

[MalPearce]

If you phrased it like that, a state would have no power to legislate against cults or militancy based on religion.

If you check my posting history you’ll see why I have misgivings with that - I escaped being brought up in such a community only through a forced adoption out of state (not in America though). My sisters and underage mother didn’t, and they sustained years of abuse because the religious leaders of the community were the instigators of the abuse.

[SunkenCiv]

National voter ID, elimination of drop boxes, term limits (two five year terms for the House two five year terms for the Senate, two five year terms for POTUS), depopulate DC (official residences for the Critters analogous to the White House; museums; federal offices; embassies), flat income tax, federal sales tax, protect self-employment.

There are some others I wouldn't oppose, and there are some others I wouldn't support.

[NicoDon]

Labor unions should all be broken. The only current value they provide is the apprenticeship programs, and even then, those are better or worse depending upon the local.

Ask the nurses how the unions went to bat for them against the poison they were required to inject to continue their jobs. As a matter of principle, the unions SHOULD have played the my body my choice card (since in this case it was absolutely true) REGARDLESS of the efficacy of the treatments, but instead the unions decided to throw the nurses under the bus. NO ONE should pay union dues after that. Not nurses unions, UAW, Plumbers and Pipefitters, Operating Engineers, Electrical, Chemical, NONE of them should pay into any of them when the unions are so politically co-opted.

[TBP]

You can still punish the abuse (and militancy) — that is criminal in and of itself. I’m interested in restricting teh government as much as possible, not leaving a back door to say “well, we’re not enying them their religious expression, we’re just making sensible regulations” while they strip away religious liberty.

[TBP]

I pretty much agree with you that almost every union has outlived its usefulness and exists ot exist and enrich the union bosses. But they’re not ging away, and if you’re going to prohibit corporations from donating, fairness requires that unions be similarly prohibited.

[TBP]

"Add a balanced budget amendment," suggests Glenn Beck.

Agreed, but with tax limitation, Glenn. Limit the total tax burden that can be imposed, and require a balanced budget. That forces smaller government.

[Grampa Dave]

Jim Noble’s Free Republic’s home page re two party B$ aka Our Uniparty!:

The ruling coalition is united around several things that the people are against. They are skilled at setting up phony issues (or issues that don’t concern the Federal government) to break up the formation of any possible other coalition.

Republicans and Democrats agree that the purpose of the State is redistribution. How much, and to whom, and under what circumstances, there are disagreements. But no elected officials of either Party believe that it is wrong to take from you and give to another of their own choosing, for reasons that make sense to them.

Republicans and Democrats agree that you have “rights”; - lots of them. They also agree that any question ABOUT your “rights”, or whether or not something IS a “right”, should not be decided by a political process because that is “divisive”.

So, they both agree that the voice of “the People” as contemplated in Articles IX and X can only be voiced by nine unelected life tenure judges, and that five of them, at any time or for any reason, can give new “rights” and take away old ones, particularly if those old ones arise out of majority voting.

Republicans and Democrats all believe in “diversity”. They, ignoring completely the results of all social science research on this subject, and contrary to millennia of human experience and wisdom, believe that the more “diverse” our country, its institutions, and any private entities within her become, the more cohesive and productive we will become.

Republicans and Democrats almost all believe in “free trade” and “immigration”. These things are good for various constituencies of both parties while they wreck the economy and the nation.

Many of the People, perhaps a majority, do not believe in any of these things. But in our existing system, captive as it is to the MSM-mandated “process” for choosing two candidates for POTUS, neither of whom will change a thing, leaves the People with no voice.

After 1984, I believe the Uniparty came to a consensus - “Never again another Reagan”!

They devised a scheme to set Americans against one another over issues that elections cannot alter, so they could pursue their globalizing agenda in peace.

They have been very successful. Up until now.

The above is from Jim Noble’s home page.