Just a hunch. I’m curious why YOU think most burglars and rapists would be Dems?
Rmat<----livelong Dem, btw.
“Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade…”
FWIW, the Pledge of Allegiance is codified at 4 USCS § 4, and reads:
Also, “In God We Trust” is codified as the national motto at 36 USCS § 302.
Also, I’d like to see the 9th and 10th amendments printed in red, bold, and in a much larger font. Maybe then Congress would notice them and take them seriously.
Allow me to second some mentioned proposals for amendments:
[ul]
-
Clarifying there is an individual right to keep and bear arms
-
Recognizing a right to privacy (No, it’s not the “right to do slightly illegal things when no one’s watching”, it’s a recognition that there DO exist things on which other citizens and the State should Mind Their Own Damn Business.)
-
Stating clearly there shall be SOCAS.
-
Disallowing “riders” on Public Laws (Ya got a point you want to make, Congressman? Then get it passed on itsmerits. Don’t attach it to the appropriation for Flood Relief.)
-
Eliminating the Winner-Take-All Electoral College – either by assigning Electors per Congressional District or by using Proportional vote.
-
Uniform U.S.-jurisdiction-wide age of legal majority (with States free to start partial attributions at an earlier point)
[/ul]
Others I’d like:
[ul]
-
Clarify the Commerce Clause to cut down on the “federalization” of common everyday civil and criminal matters.
-
Dump the obsolete “letters of marque and reprisal” language.
-
Do something about the “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” language in the Impeachments clause, even if it’s only mandating that there will be an Impeachment Code wherein the impeachable offenses would be expressly codified.
-
Give actual constitutional existence to the Territories (PR, Guam, USVI, Samoa, NMI); indicate clearly whether they are “part of” the US, but of a kind different than the States, or if they just “belong to” the U.S., or if there are two categories; and indicate which parts of the COnstitution apply to them. (Right now the Territories are only glancingly mentioned in a clause that says Congress is in charge of the disposal of the “territory and property” of the U.S., which theoretically means Congress could abolish their governments, partition them, trade them to another country, or what have you, at will.)
-
As the E.C. gets reformed, consider a D.C.-style arrangement to give the population of the Territories (which seems like they’ll never become states) at least a minimal participation in the election
-
A “Labor” amendment recognizing explicitly the right to choose, apply for, enter and terminate employment, to equal compensations for equal work and extraordinary compensation for extraordinary assignments (i.e. overtime), and banning its abridgement for any reason unrelated to the ability to fulfill the employer’s requirements; and stating there shall be a minimum wage (but NOT setting its amount or the method for raising it. That needs the flexibility of regular statute)
-
Some sort of meta-Equal Rights Amendment by which it would state that the equal opportunity to exercise political and/or economic (including labor) rights by a legally-competent citizen, resident, or person subject to the US jurisdiction (and if possible rephrase that so there’s clearly wiggle room for differentiating which apply to each of those categories), shall not be infringed for any reason beyond the individual’s control.
[/ul]
Some I’d oppose: -
Any related to a sole official language
-
Any regarding the origination of “human life”
What about pollution? Defrauding the government? Perjury? There is no “direct victim” to these offenses (in the first, everyone is impacted but not necessarily directly or obviously; in the second and third, the “victim” is society as a whole).
Ugh. The quality of state court judges is grossly inferior to that of federal court judges. Also, state court judges (being elected) are far easier to buy than federal court judges (who are appointed for life). This sounds like a perfectly terrible idea to me.
Bring back Lochner? The courts imposed this rule judicially during the early part of the 20th century. It made laws relating to workplace safety and reasonable work conditions impossible. Great for the people who run the factories; terrible for everyone else. Count me out on this one.
*Originally posted by KellyM *
I think it is perfectly legitimate for the government or the taxpayers to be considered potential “direct victims”. If you pollute taxpayers have to clean up after you. I see a direct connection there.
If you perjure, those on the other side of the case are victimized.
I respectfully disagree. First of all, not all state judges are elected, but those who are elected are scarcely “inferior” for that or any other reason. The idea that judges who enjoy life tenure are necessarily “better”–i.e., less prone to be influenced by matters that ought to be irrelevant to the task of judging–is complete bullshit. Indeed, the much-touted “independence” of federal judges virtually assures that they will eventually succumb to the most pernicious of all distractions: the temptation to completely ignore the rule of law in favor of their own political agendas. THAT is the story of much of the federal judiciary for much of the last 50 years.
- Abolishment of the Electoral College
- Elected federal officials including the president, must pass an test on the Constitution, and be able to recite it from memory.
- The president, as long as he has no physical impediments, or diseases preventing it, must be able to pronounce accuratly 51% of the time, everything which he is in control of. (Taking effect immediatly, starting with W)
- All executive orders have a 1 year expiration date, or be double checked by the Supreme Court before being imposed (of course, if they decide its unconstitutional while it in effect, it can still be anulled)
- (Although this issue is pretty much dead) No state can nullify any federal actions.
- Clearly defined seperation of church and state, including the removal of “In God we trust” from money.
- The President must have no history with, nor can he currently have, a substance abuse problem.
- All federal and state elected officials must be psychologically evaluated.
- No legislative body within the United States can pass a “gag order,” as congress did regarding slavery.
- Businesses can give donate 0.00 dollars, and no more, to election campaigns. People can give no more than $1000 to any one candidate.
- No special funding for political parties based on the votes they get.
- Voting booths shall be immediatly standardized throughout the entire nation.
- The political party, or lack thereof, of politicians shall not be revealed in anyway on the aforementioned voting booths.
OK, mentioned by others…
:rolleyes:
The latter obvious attempt at comedy at the Shrub’s expense, not really having jack to do with the Constitution, is duly noted.
As to the former,
(a) Just WHO would write and grade the test?
(b) “recite it from memory” obviously more attempted humor; the key would be UNDERSTANDING what it’s about. (Wonder if Chirac, Putin, Fox and Schroder have their nations’ constitutions/baselaws memorized by heart… and if they do any better a job of following them to the last jot and tittle.)
The courts can already stop the carrying out of a grossly unconstitutional Exec Order – a party with the “legal standing” to do so can file for an injunction almost immediately.
What is really being proposed is for SCOTUS to have a function similar to, IIRC, France’s Constitutional Council – an independent body that reviews legislation for constitutionality before it may get enacted. I believe this sort of function by the courts is alien to American Law – any lawyers out there know any better? Is there any country where Executive Orders are subject to court veto before being proclaimed?
Implicit in supremacy clause, could get explicitly included just so no-one gets any ideas, but you would need to add a a proviso that it does not mean the states can’t challenge any federal action. Because sometimes the states will be right and the feds will be wrong…
What is being asked is more than SOCAS, it’s a Constitutionally “Lay State”. (And what about commissioning and paying for Army chaplains?)
(A swing at both the Dubster and my Main Man ol’ Willie J.?)
No history? Even if it was at ages 18-21 and she’s been straight-edge clean for 40 years and neither has she hidden the former nor anyone disputed the latter? Is it “abuse” if the substance was illegal even though “he didn’t inhale?” Is it not if she binge-drank at frat parties during all her senior year but was already over 21?
Evaluated… for what? Fear of heights? Alpha personality? Gets weepy at movies? Kinky love life with the First Lady?
And what is done with the evaluation? Released to the public to pass judgement? Used to (dis)qualify him/her from running?
It is understood that to hold a position of trust with the US you have to be legally of sound mind. To set that forth explicitly woudn’t hurt, neither would it change a thing.
IMO these are issues of personnel management. Is that a matter for the Constitution?
The last few proposals could be summed up as a combination of removal of “Big Money” and of political parties and similar organizations as much as possible from the election process. This is an idea shared by many, in about as many variuants as proponents.
I second the right to privacy amendment. One other I would like to see is the following:
Congress and the states shall recognize that life begins at birth and not at conception.
(I just said I would like to see it; I never said I thought it had a chance of passing).
Mole, you’re saying that cirtain acts should be forbidden because they might lead to bad results. Do you really think we should base laws on the possibility that something bad might happen? Must we ignore the fact that these harmful results in many cases do not occur? Please consider this. When you come right down to it, anything might lead to anything. Meanwhile, people are being sent to jail for doing things that harm no one but themselves. And in some cases, for things that it would be hard to claim are even harming themselves.
to the freedom of speech i would like to add the freedom of act…
Also, Mole, whatever harm results from people committing these various victimless crimes results more from their illegality then from the acts themselves.
I expect others have responded to Mole’s post. I probably should not have responded without reading the whole thread first. Apologies if I’m repeating things others have said.
Wow, VERY good idea! I agree that adding riders concerning matters having zilch to do with the actual bill should not be allowed. Whatever they want to put in as a rider, let them propose an actual bill, and let it stand or fall on its merits. Quit sneaking things in.
Hear, hear!
OH one more thing.
The freedom to die at one’s own time and choosing shall not be infringed by congress nor the states.
either i’m misreading you or you have very little knowledge of economic principles. research john maynard keynes - considered to be one of the greatest modern economists - there is nothing wrong with defecit spending, in fact, at times it is necessary and desirable.