We already have threads discussing the repeal of the 2nd Amendment and the 22nd. How about the 11th? The 16th? Any others? Or any, if not actually repealed, should be . . . amended?
I hope that they don’t repeal the 21st Amendment.
The 10th and parts of the 1st.
octopus, I’m curious… Which parts of the amendment that protect all our other freedoms do you object to?
I was answering somewhat sarcastically.
I don’t object to the 1st but freedom of the press seems to trouble many. I understand the desire to limit potential conflicts of interest but the controversy over Citizens United is troubling.
The 17th amendment. The purpose of the senate is to give the states a direct seat at the federal table, not to act as a non-proportional house of representatives.
The 13th so babies born in the U.S to foreign women are not automatically citizens.
Add the 28th:
“Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to address abortion.”
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: REPEAL THE 3rd AMENDMENT
The 13th abolished slavery.
The 17th Amendment is what gives the states a direct seat at the federal table. States are made of people. (Never mind that the pre-17th Amendment system was hideously corrupt and broken. That’s irrelevant because it’s how the anti-17th Amendment crowd seems to like government.)
Nothing at all? What about this:
Law: Only white people may have abortions.
Argument: This violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Judge: No, it does not, because the 28th amendment specifically says that “nothing in this Constitution”, which includes the 14th amendment, shall be construed to address abortion. Therefore, for whatever equality that is a part of the 14th amendment, it does not address abortion. Law is constitutional.
You’d prefer that they be enslaved? That’s one disincentive to illegal immigration that even Trump hasn’t come up with yet.
I’m guessing he meant the 14th. I hope.
But Trump has said that many unnamed lawyers agree with him that the 14th does not cover anchor babies so no need to change it.
I think you may get many people wanting to abolish the 5th and 16th. Especially the 16th. Not I.
And I would change the, was it the 11th, to abolish the electoral college. Apparently, the EC was originally conceived as a kind of nominating convention that would nominate three candidates who would then be chosen by HR, each state having one vote. This has happened only once (twice if you count 1900, but that was before the amendment) and it was a mess. That’s what gave us Q, one of two presidents distinguished from his father by his middle initial.
Trash 'em all. According to some, no document written before 2014 has any bearing on the world today.
I assume he does mean the 14th, but in that case, I agree. It was that that provided the jumping off point for all this “penumbras and emanations” nonsense, and the vague and undefined phrases “due process” and “equal protection” which have allowed courts to reach absurd conclusions like the idea that some podunk town having a nativity scene in their town square violates a law that was originally intended to prevent the federal government from establishing an official government church.
And I disagree with all of that. Being born here should be all you need to be a citizen. And even podunk local governments shouldn’t be promoting one religion above others. Or really be in the business of promoting any religion.
Well, no.
The point of having the Senate elected by the state legislatures was to give the states, as entities separate from their citizens, a direct seat at the Federal table.
The whole point of a lot of the checks and balances in the Federal system were to prevent tyranny, and prevent popular stupidity from ruling the country. In a sense, the gridlock we see often in Congress, and between Congress and the President was originally considered a feature, not a bug.
Making the Senate more insulated from the vagaries of the people by having senators chosen by the states themselves is very much in line with that thinking.
Amend the United States Constitution so that it is no longer embedded.
Changes to the Constitution would then be possible by a simple majority in the House of Congress. I presume each change would need to be passed by the Senate, again by simple majority.
There are significant democracies which do not have a written constitution. One of them is the root of US law and your legal system: Great Britain.
The others are Canada, New Zealand, and Israel.