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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I’m no expert on the American Constitution but I do think it should be amendable based on historical context. Not to restrict rights, but to extend and confirm precedence.
Example: First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I’d split them back out to make it clear that the First Amendment currently merges five rights into one - they’re not additive or overlapping, they are distinctive. In no particular order:
1 (a). “The freedom of citizens to speak, to write, or to publish their individual sentiments, shall be inviolable.”
1 (b). “The freedom of journalists to investigate and publish, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.”
1 (c). “The People shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to peacefully assemble, and consult for their common good.”
1 (d). “The People shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to peacefully petition their Government (state or federal) for a redress of grievances.”
1 (e). “The People shall not be deprived of their right to practice their religion.”
1 (f). “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment or prohibition of a national religion.”
That’s only an example. The wording might be open to discussion. Personally, there needs to be a distinction between individuals and organisations at 1 (a) and (b) for the simple reason that individuals need protecting while they’re researching and publishing their findings but aggregators of content (especially online scrape-bots) are subject to corporate responsibility so regulating them is more of a states matter. In the event that a state overreaches, the individual journalists have protection under the Constitution through three constitutional rights, to blow the whistle and challenge the state.
1 (c) (d) and (e) are rights accorded to the individual. 1 (f) confirms that a State can adopt a religion, but it cannot do so in a way that violates the individual right of worship.
So Rand Paul would be ineligible?
Only for a limited time. It didn't require slavery. In principle, slavery could have been abolished without an amendment.
I would:
Explicitly list a right of contract.
Limit the federal government’s authority to commerce that truly crosses state lines.
Strike the introductory clause of 2A, since it confuses so many.
Restore the selection of senators to the states.
Agreed, but with tax limitation, Glenn. Limit the total tax burden that can be imposed, and require a balanced budget. That forces smaller government.
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.