# Any other U.S. Constitution Amendments to be repealed? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 1, 2016, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842 "2016-07-01T01:54:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842/41 "2016-07-02T18:59:39Z")
> [@E-DUB](#): > > States have no interests other than those of their residents. That’s where we’ll have to disagree. States, as incarnated by their state governments are ostensibly supposed to have the best interests of the _entire_ state in mind. Most states have two situations where equating the interests of the state to the interests of the people is incorrect. First, many states are not homogenous. They typically have a large percentage of their population concentrated in urban areas. But the state government has to look out for the rural residents and as importantly from a whole-state perspective, the industries and agriculture of the entire state. So the policies and decisions that would affect the state as a whole don’t necessarily track with what the majority of the people might prefer. Much like having the Senate in the first place relative to the entire US in that sense. Second, while individual voters may be intelligent, informed and contemplative in their approach to voting, the general public is about as logical and well-informed as your average 5 year old. They’d probably vote for John Cena if he ran on a “I’ll Iron Claw Vladimir Putin” platform because he’s “bad ass” or something equally dumb. So having the Senate chosen by state legislatures puts the popular idiocy at a couple of removes, and sets the stage (ideally) for senators to be more contemplative and less concerned about the hoi polloi and more about the nation in general. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842/42 "2016-07-02T19:35:01Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Why? Almost nobody else does it like that. The US, Pakistan, and a bunch of South American countries. That’s it. The UK doesn’t. France doesn’t. Spain doesn’t. Since when do we base our laws on what other countries do? Perhaps the rest of the world should follow our lead in this respect. ---
**Author:** ![UCBearcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/77aa72/32.png) [@UCBearcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UCBearcats)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2016, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842/43 "2016-07-03T03:49:12Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > I’m guessing he meant the 14th. I hope. > > But Trump has said that [many unnamed lawyers](http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/donald-trump-bill-oreilly-interview-121515) agree with him that the 14th does not cover anchor babies so no need to change it. :smack: yeah, I meant the 14th. ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2016, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842/44 "2016-07-03T04:48:25Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > 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 AGs of some states recently wanted to sue groups who disagree about global warming because they “mislead” people. So there was that attack on the 1st, too. And some Democrats want to deny 2nd amendment rights to people solely because they’re on the no-fly list, and in doing so would deny their 5th amendment rights to due process. You know, that list that somehow Congressman John Lewis and the late Ted Kennedy. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2016, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842/45 "2016-07-03T04:55:10Z")
> [@bump](#): > > First, many states are not homogenous. They typically have a large percentage of their population concentrated in urban areas. But the state government has to look out for the rural residents and as importantly from a whole-state perspective, the industries and agriculture of the entire state. The Supreme Court struck down state legislatures that give more votes to rural residents in the 1960s, so a state legislature will be drawn in proportion from the same places where people live. > [@bump](#): > > So having the Senate chosen by state legislatures puts the popular idiocy at a couple of removes, and sets the stage (ideally) for senators to be more contemplative and less concerned about the hoi polloi and more about the nation in general. Yeah, the thing is, we had this system once before and it was broken. It’s not some theoretical notion about the meaning of federalism, but an actual system that was in place. We did it, and it didn’t work, so we changed it. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2016, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842/46 "2016-07-03T11:31:37Z")
> [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](#): > > The Ninth and Tenth Amendments have already been effectively repealed. Else we would have no Department of Education or Department of Energy. Or Internal Revenue Service, none of which are authorized to exist by the Constitution. > > Also, the First Amendment must go. Since the Second Amendment only applies to muzzle-loading muskets and not fully-automatic assault rifles, it naturally follows that Freedom of the Press only applies to Benjamin-Franklin-style hand-cranked printing presses, not radio, television, or internet news feeds. I disagree about the 9th. Although it is not usually cited, its principle remains in the form of the “substantive due process” analysis of the 14th amendment. Things like the right of parents to care of natural children, the right to travel, abortion, same sex marriage, etc. are not mentioned in the Constitution, but the Court nonetheless finds those rights to be rights. I agree completely about the 10th amendment. It is still technically valid, but it just so happens that nothing is beyond the purview of the interstate commerce clause, so it is effectively meaningless. The Supreme Court rejected the view that the 2nd amendment only applies to flintlock muskets in Heller. The 1st amendment is probably the single most powerful amendment there is. Freedom of speech is the most broadly recognized right, although freedom of religion has been turned on its head to almost mean freedom FROM religion. Sadly, the 4th amendment is being chipped away with the exceptions starting to swallow the rule. I would repeal the interstate commerce clause and replace it with language stating that the federal government may only enact legislation that deals with the particular interstate component of that commerce, and it may not ban items in interstate commerce unless the identical type of ban is in place in the target state. For example, say lottery tickets are legal in Pennsylvania and Maryland, but illegal in Virginia. The feds may pass a law outlawing the mailing or delivery of lottery tickets from Pennsylvania to Virginia, but may not outlaw the delivery of them from Pennsylvania to Maryland. The same way with guns. The laws related to guns can only be on the interstate portion. Manufacturing takes place entirely in one state, and point of sale purchase entirely in another. There is nothing interstate about either of those. I would also clarify that any tax must be enacted for the primary purpose of raising revenue, and not for legislating in an area otherwise outside the bounds of Congress. None of this nonsense that although the feds cannot require someone to purchase health insurance, it can tax the non-purchase of health insurance. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2016, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842/47 "2016-07-03T12:39:54Z")
I like to see a repeal and replace of the 26th Amendment. As it stands it prohibits the denial of the right to vote in federal or state elections, on the basis of age, to those US citizens over age 18. But that would allow for widely divergent standards should states choose to do so, where a 16 year old could be eligible to vote for President & Congresscritters in one state but denied that right in another. Another state might allow non-citizens to vote. Some allow felons who served their time to vote, others do not automatically restore voting rights. Seems like a lack of equality to me. I would replace it with an amendment limiting the right to vote in federal elections (President & Congress) to US citizens age 18 or older. I would be ok prohibiting felons from voting during the term of their sentence with automatic restoration of voting rights upon completion of sentence. It could provide for a uniform voter eligibility rule in federal elections. And I would allow that experimentation in voting age be limited to state or local elections for which the current amendment could stand. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2016, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842/48 "2016-07-03T21:09:27Z")
The First Amendment has to be severely cut back. Read literally, it prevents Congress from touching any abuse by the press, including fraud. The Tenth Amendment doesn’t make any sense. Is it reserving powers to the states or to the people? If the people decide to use the federal government to accomplish some end, and the Tenth stops them, isn’t that taking away the people’s power? Weird and dumb. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2016, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842/49 "2016-07-03T21:11:26Z")
> [@UCBearcats](#): > > The 13th so babies born in the U.S to foreign women are not automatically citizens. And we can go back to explicit slavery, instead of having to pretend that darkies are naturally criminal and need lockin’ up! Come on! That’s the greater effect of repealing the Thirteenth! _Own it!_ 😃 ETA: Wait, of course you’re talking about the Fourteenth. But that one has several clauses, each of which is a different argument. I do disagree with repealing the one you speak of, anyway. Birthright citizenship is an important legal principle. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2016, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842/50 "2016-07-03T21:22:10Z")
> [@bump](#): > > In a sense, the gridlock we see often in Congress, and between Congress and the President was originally considered a feature, not a bug. In a similar sense, the fact that married women could not own property in their own right, or vote for themselves, was considered a feature and not a bug. Just because somebody considered something a feature doesn’t mean I’m obliged to like it. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2016, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842/51 "2016-07-03T21:25:04Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > So if the Ambassador to the United Nations from Some Country has a baby in New York City the baby should automatically be a US citizen? You mean, like Christophe Lambert? Yeah, sure, why not? ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2016, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842/52 "2016-07-03T21:32:44Z")
The 2nd obviously needs clarification on which weapons are to be made available to ordinary citizens by right, and what regulatory powers the government retains. As for the rest of the amendments, I can’t really think of any that I’d repeal, and several need strengthening. If we were rewriting the Constitution from scratch, this whole nonsense that grants states with plenary powers would go away, and be replaced by a more centralized system where the federal government grants certain powers and responsibilities to the states to administer. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842/53 "2016-07-05T15:43:50Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Yeah, the thing is, we had this system once before and it was broken. It’s not some theoretical notion about the meaning of federalism, but an actual system that was in place. We did it, and it didn’t work, so we changed it. Broken is pretty strong, considering that the 17th Amendment was swept in as part of the early 20th century populist movement with William Jennings Bryan as its champion. I agree with the idea that not ALL of government should be directly popularly elected, and that the Senate, as a sort of more contemplative body, probably shouldn’t be concerned with popular re-election. And **Do Not Taunt** you seem to misunderstand the historical context of the Constitution and our Federal system- it was never in the Federal government’s power to grant the States ANYTHING. It was very much the other way around; the States granted the Federal government certain circumscribed powers (Constitution and Bill of Rights). That’s why the states have the plenary powers- they had them to begin with, and just didn’t give control of everything to the Federal government. **Foolsguinea** the 10th amendment was meant to be a check on Federal power- i.e. anything not expressly granted to the Federal government was considered to be a State-level matter, which goes with the commentary to **Do Not Taunt** above. They were basically putting it in writing that the States controlled everything, unless they specifically granted it to the Federal government. The “or to the People” part was added in for some reason that nobody seems to know. > **[Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)** > > The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism, also known as states' rights, by stating that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that all other powers not forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved to each state, or to the people. > The amendment, with origins before the American Revolution, was proposed ... ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842/54 "2016-07-05T18:42:48Z")
> [@E-DUB](#): > > Republicans have gerrymandered state legislative districts. They’ve gerrymandered Congressional districts. But they can not gerrymander entire states. And Democrats haven’t? OK there. The OP specified amendments so I won’t hijack this to deal with clauses in the original. I also hope that the OP allows us to rewrite amendments rather than straight repeal. 2nd Amendment: Remove the militia reference. Specify that right to bear arms is for home and self protection. 7th Amendment: I would open up the right to jury trial to ANY civil case wherein the person might suffer jail time as a result such as violating court orders. 10th Amendment: Tighten up the reserved rights so that Federal law can only be enacted if they deal directly with Congress’ enumerated rights. I know that theoretically this amendment does that but Congress’ powers have been stretched so much that they now control both interstate and intrastate commerce in all respects and can legislate via pursestrings outside of their enumerated powers via Tax & Spend. Thus this amendment should be rewritten. 11th Amendment: Remove state immunity. States should have to obey their own laws. 14th Amendment: Allow citizen by birth only if the mother is a legal citizen or legal alien resident of the United States. 17th Amendment: Repealed 23rd: Allowing presidential electors for **all** US citizens even if not a current resident of a state. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842/55 "2016-07-05T18:52:35Z")
I think the biggest parts of the Constitution needing to be rewritten aren’t amendments, but core text. Specifically the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper clause have been stretched, twisted and abused far beyond (IMO) their original intent, as a way for the Federal government to stretch its tentacles into things that are more properly the states’ responsibility and problem. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842/56 "2016-07-05T19:25:26Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I think the biggest parts of the Constitution needing to be rewritten aren’t amendments, but core text. > > Specifically the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper clause have been stretched, twisted and abused far beyond (IMO) their original intent, as a way for the Federal government to stretch its tentacles into things that are more properly the states’ responsibility and problem. I concur and Tax & Spend should only apply to items in Article I Section 8. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842/57 "2016-07-05T21:37:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Add the 28th: > > “Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to address abortion.” What about the 28th Amendment, which specifically addresses abortion? It’s a “This sentence is a lie” type paradox. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2016, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842/58 "2016-07-06T18:17:09Z")
> [@Mk\_VII](#): > > You could probably manage without the Third, which hasn’t attracted much litigation in the last two hundred + years. All that really means is that they’re obeying it. Considering the Sedition Act was passed a mere nine years after the First Amendment was ratified, how long would private property be free of soldiers after the Third Amendment was repealed? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2016, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842/59 "2016-07-06T19:57:56Z")
I’d repeal the 17th. There’s too much populism in politics. We need to turn back the clock a little bit, to restore the Founder’s goal of preventing the tyranny of the majority. > [@Bricker](#): > > Add the 28th: > > “Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to address abortion.” Well there’s always the 1st Amendment (since I’m fairly sure you’re referencing the 9th and 14th amendments). I don’t want Asian voters telling me that cows are actually the souls of my ancestors or that they’re the blessed of the bull god, so I can’t have a steak. I don’t want Christians telling me that sperm and egg goo possess a human soul and can’t be jettisoned. [Oh no, murder!](http://images.wisegeek.com/cracked-egg.jpg) Unless you can argue that there’s no difference between stomping a live chicken’s head under your boot, or stomping a fertilized but still goo-filled chicken’s egg, I think it’s safe to say that it’s a religious argument, rather than a rational one. I doubt you’ll find an audience that reacts the same to the curb stomp as the egg stomp. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842/60 "2016-07-08T15:29:09Z")
**Bricker** , is your abortion amendment intended as a counter or a clarification? That is, do you think _Roe v. Wade_ was wrongly decided and you want to prevent that mistake from being made in the future, or do you think the decision actually was in accordance with the Constitution but want to change the Constitution so it wouldn’t be? Regardless, I think it’s dangerous and shortsighted to write any articular issue or topic out of the Constitution. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-u-s-constitution-amendments-to-be-repealed/758842.md?page=4)