The 9th, in my opinion. It’s like the football player at the bottom of the pile, with everyone on top of him drunk and horny.
Personal experience? 
Lots. I’ve hosted several threads on libertarianism. 
Being an adamant opponent of term limits, I think the 22nd, which limits a president to two terms, should be repealed. As has been said by others before me, “we already have the ability to limit the terms of politicians. It’s called voting.”
If you live next to a bunch of Terrorists/Militia types/mobsters/gang members/whatever and the US army comes in, evicts you and sets up camp in your house, then you might have a case under the third amendment.
Of course, they’ll probably get around it by having the local Sheriff evict you and set up camp, which they then just happen to use.
Oh, and that last one about Voting and the 22nd amenment is hilarious.
Yes, but cases in which a federal law was declared unconstitutional because it was beyond the power of the federal government to act implicitly supports the 10th.
See e.g., U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995). (SCOTUS declares Gun-Free School Zones Act, making it federal offense for any individual knowingly to possess firearm at place that individual knows or has reasonable cause to believe is school zone, unconstitutional because the Act exceeded Congress’ commerce clause authority, since possession of gun in local school zone was not economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce).
By implication, the power to criminalize possession of firearms in school zones rests with the states under the 10th.
Also, Congress doesn’t go around writing basic contract, tort, or property law, so there seems to be a deterrent aspect to the 10th, similar to that of the 3rd, as discussed previously herein.
Amendment XII does NOT “define the electoral college”; the Electoral college is created by Article II of the Constitution. Amendment XII tinkers with the original provisions, most notably creating a separate ballot for the Vice President instead of giving that office to the runner-up (Heh – can you imagine GHW Bush as Bill Clinton’s VP? :P)
Since nobody can come to any reasonble understanding of what the 2nd Amendment means, as written it’s not very useful.
Should I feel offended, or honored?
I can’t believe nobody has nominated the 11th Amendment. I don’t have a clue just what the purpose of THAT one is. (Something to do with judicial power.)
Some of y’all are confusing Amendment with Article.
Ok, since no one has bothered to reference the fascinating case of Engblom v. Carey – the only serious case to invoke the Third Amendment – I’ll do so. From “In Our Defense” by Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy:
… in 1979, in the small upstate hamlet of Warwick, NY, it appeared the Third Amendment would finally be called to dutyu. Marianne E. Engblom and Charles E. Palmer were corrections officers at the Mid-Orange Correctional Facility in Warwick. They and several other corrections officers lived on the grounds of the facility in dormitory-style housing owned by the state. The rooms had a private or semi-private bath and common kitchen areas. The prison provided standard fixtures and a bed and dresser. The occupoants supplied all other furnishings and accessories “from curtains to toilet paper and light bulbs.” Thirty-six dollars a month was deducted from thjeir paychecks to cover the rent.
In April 1979, most of the corrections officers at Mid-Orange, including Engblom and Palmer, walked off the job as part of a statewide strike. Gov. High Carey mobilized the National Guard, ordering guardsmen to provide security in NY’s prisons. At Mid-Orange, the striking corrections officers were locked out of their living space and some of the guardsmen housed there during the three-week emergency. Engblom and Palmer were among those who were locked out while guardsmen lived in their room without their consent. They sued Gov. Carey and various prison officials for damages under the Third Amendment…
Summarizing the results of the case:
The district court found that because the State – the “owner” of the “house” – had consented to the quartering, Engblom and Palmer had no case.
On appeal in 1982, the Second Circuit reversed, ruling that a trial should be held.
The district court then held that the defendants (the Governor et al) were protected by “qualified immunity” – the protection of public officials from lawsuits during the excercise of public duty – and dismissed the case.
Interesting case, eh?
I’ll say the second. Mainly because the image of myself picking up a loaded weapon and keeping it in my house is ludicrous, to say the least…
Please. There is so much to the 2000 election. Do NOT try and dismiss it by saying “get over it”. Not like someone is all of a sudden going to get Al Gore in the White House, but if inconsistencies in a presidential election aren’t a cause for concern, then what is?
Or maybe Republicans should “get over” Bill Clinton.
And how closely can the popular vote and electoral college be aligned if they have four times failed to elect a popular president (Adams, Hayes, Harrison, Bush)? http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2001_winter/how_to_reform.html
Someone already had nominated Amendment XI.
Basically, if you live in State X and you want to sue State Y, you can’t do it in Federal Court, you have to do it in State Y.
I love oversimplification!
I think it’s pretty amusing that one of the most important aspects of the 10th Amendment, the Police Power, is implied and not explicit.
So have you been writing letters to try to get things reformed, or just sitting in your chair and whining? I can’t stand people who gripe about the 2000 election. There are so many more important things to worry about right now, especially because no, we’re not suddenly going to get Gore into the White House. It gives all the people who backed Gore in 2000 a bad name.
Considering the length of time he’s been out of office, yes, I’d say so.
Of course, it’d be different if they didn’t have campaign strategies tailored specifically for the Electoral College system. You act like everyone campaigns for the popular vote and the EC is just sprung on the people at the last second.
Sorta like the right to privacy. (See Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973)).
The second. People only read half of it anyway.
This question was posted six days ago, but the answer just now came to me. The most useless constitutional amendment is the 24th:
This amendment was ratified in January 1964. It had a useful life of only 26 months. In March 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that state laws infringing suffrage in any election violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. (The question was still relevant because Virginia continued to require poll taxes for state elections.) From that day forward the 24th Amendment has been surplusage.
One other note–the OP exempts the 18th and 21st Amendments, apparently in the belief that they cancel each other out. But the 21st Amendment does more than just repeal the 18th, because of Section 2:
This provision, which exempts alcohol from the “commerce clause” and was designed to protect dry states, has been abused by states to protect liquor distribution cartels. In fact, I’d nominate the 21st as the most schizophrenic amendment, combing the felicitous repeal of Prohibition with this asinine allowance for state protectionism. Recent court decisions, however, may be limiting state abuse of this power.