[ronald reagan]

What amendments would you propose to the constitution?

Me...

Repeal the 17th amendment.
Repeal the 16th amendment.
Add - An amendment that would create an election method similar to that of the wishes of the founders. Electoral votes are equal to the number of Senate and House Members from each state. Thus, the winner of the state as a whole would get 2 (the senate votes), and then each house district would vote independently for their respective winner. Part 2 of this amendment would require photo identification to vote.
Add - Define life as beginning at conception.
Add - Balanced budget amendment required. Only to be overridden by a 4/5's majority in both houses of Congress, and only for a period of 2 years, during periods of declared recession and with unemployment rates above a level defined by Congress.
Add - All tax increases must pass both houses by a 4/5's majority.
Add - No person shall be made purchase a product or service.
Add - Term Limits of 6 years in the House, and 6 in the Senate.
Add - Budget's must be passed or government WILL shut down. No continuing resolutions permitted.

Yeah, I'd change alot of stuff. More than even above.

What would you do?

[RunItUpTheGut]

I would add something....

"No persons names Barrack Hussein Obama shall ever be President"

[Hoot Gibson]

A constitutional convention would be a very bad thing, IMO. Not only would I not trust people like Pelosi and Reid with that kind of power, I would not trust the current Republican leadership either. The people who were too busy to even read Obamacare and are responsible for the compromises that have led us to the edge of the fiscal cliff have not shown themselves capable of making good decisions that will stand the test of time.

This nation was founded by wise men but is governed by self-centered fools, supported by even bigger fools.

[ronald reagan]

Hoot, FYI, this isn't 'real'. haha.

I agree though, that a constitutional convention would be a bad thing. I would oppose it entirely. The point made in the post though is.... what amendments would YOU like to see. Not what amendment would Nancy pelosi and Barney Frank propose. Attention to detail. Its clear from the first sentence, and the last....

[vector]

Add - Term Limits of 6 years in the House, and 6 in the Senate.


this 1 would help more than anything but i would go farther 1 term get all the money out of elections

[Harry Rex Vonner]

We don't need any changes in the U.S. Constitution. We need judges who will interpret it as it was intended to be interpreted.

[ronald reagan]

We don't need any changes in the U.S. Constitution. We need judges who will interpret it as it was intended to be interpreted.

Soo.... you don't support a marriage amendment? or repeal of the 17th amendment? or even a balanced budget amendment? I would have thought otherwise.

Because these three things are not able to be interpretted by the Courts otherwise.

Direct Election of the Senate has been the worst thing this constitution has ever provided. And not having a balanced budget amendment has led us to being 16 trillion in debt.

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot, FYI, this isn't 'real'. haha.

I agree though, that a constitutional convention would be a bad thing. I would oppose it entirely. The point made in the post though is.... what amendments would YOU like to see. Not what amendment would Nancy pelosi and Barney Frank propose. Attention to detail. Its clear from the first sentence, and the last....

I understood that this is a whimsical thread, and unless I alone could choose all of the delegates, then I would not change a thing.
I am not sure that I would even trust myself to "improve" the Constitution. Lol

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Soo.... you don't support a marriage amendment? or repeal of the 17th amendment? or even a balanced budget amendment? I would have thought otherwise.

Because these three things are not able to be interpreted by the Courts otherwise.

Direct Election of the Senate has been the worst thing this constitution has ever provided. And not having a balanced budget amendment has led us to being 16 trillion in debt.

You would have been wrong.

Marriage, like everything not specifically reserved to the federal government, should be a state's rights issue. Strictly Tenth Amendment. While some states would legalize same sex "marriages", the others would clearly move to not grant full faith and credit to these "marriages".

If you want to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment do it in the same manner as the Eighteenth Amendment was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment- with a new amendment.

Introduce an amendment calling for a balanced budget and see if it can be ratified.

A constitutional convention opens the door to wholesale changes many of which would be damaging to the Republic.

Make changes through the amendment process or not at all. That's what was envisioned by the framers, all of whom were certainly more competent than are the "leaders" of today.

I feel sure that a return to original intent would cure many of the ills we now face. I am a firm believer in strict construction.

[TheRealThing]

We don't need any changes in the U.S. Constitution. We need judges who will interpret it as it was intended to be interpreted.

I agree. The assault on traditional America has been through the courts. Activist judges and justices have opened pandora's box of social issues.

[TheRealThing]

A constitutional convention would be a very bad thing, IMO. Not only would I not trust people like Pelosi and Reid with that kind of power, I would not trust the current Republican leadership either. The people who were too busy to even read Obamacare and are responsible for the compromises that have led us to the edge of the fiscal cliff have not shown themselves capable of making good decisions that will stand the test of time.

This nation was founded by wise men but is governed by self-centered fools, supported by even bigger fools.

Talk about the mad hatter's tea party come to life, Pelosi and Reid are naturals for the cast! They wouldn't even need make up, LOL. However, to me that (hopefully) unlikelihood, would seem to take us to an apt conclusion of today's governmental lunacy.

[RunItUpTheGut]

The ending of career politicians would be the best thing to ever happen...

[nky]

Be careful what you ask for the last Constitutional Convention threw out the government of the United States and started over from square 1

[TheRealThing]

Be careful what you ask for the last Constitutional Convention threw out the government of the United States and started over from square 1

Ironically this seems to be what this administration is presently attempting to accomplish. We like to refer to the congress as being grid locked, and truly that is the case. However, it only takes one man to make that happen. Since legislation normally originates in the House and is then sent up to the Senate for consideration, one man can stymie the entire function of the Congress of the United States. That man of course, is Harry Reid, nothing comes onto the floor of the senate unless he allows it. As I mentioned, since the democrats lost their super majority in the elections of 2010, senate leader (and believe me when I honor him by mentioning his title, it is with reluctance) Harry Reid, has effectively shut down the legislative branch of the federal government. Refusing to bring up any legislation approved by the House merely because the majority of the House is republican.

Dems had a heyday the first two years of Obama's term, steamrolling over any and all objections of the out-voted republican minority. ObamaCare, possibly the biggest piece of legislation ever to come out of the congress, didn't happen because folks wanted it to happen. It happened because Pelosi, and other rabid liberals rammed it through over the objections of the people. It is still incredible to hear dems call republicans the party of no and obstructionists, when they are the ones obstructing. In a kind of political 'food fight', by throwing up a barrage of false accusations, distortions and outright lies, the dems have succeeded in confusing the scene, making the whole of congress seem inept. Even more incredible is the fact that there seems to be a relative few who can see the through the glaring hypocrisy of Reid and his band of merry mental midgets. Where is the public outrage? Where is the media? The fact is, even FOX News, is willing to venture out just so far, onto the thin ice of calling out this administration's shenanegans.

[TheRealVille]

Ironically this seems to be what this administration is presently attempting to accomplish. We like to refer to the congress as being grid locked, and truly that is the case. However, it only takes one man to make that happen. Since legislation normally originates in the House and is then sent up to the Senate for consideration, one man can stymie the entire function of the Congress of the United States. That man of course, is Harry Reid, nothing comes onto the floor of the senate unless he allows it. As I mentioned, since the democrats lost their super majority in the elections of 2010, senate leader (and believe me when I honor him by mentioning his title, it is with reluctance) Harry Reid, has effectively shut down the legislative branch of the federal government. Refusing to bring up any legislation approved by the House merely because the majority of the House is republican.

Dems had a heyday the first two years of Obama's term, steamrolling over any and all objections of the out-voted republican minority. ObamaCare, possibly the biggest piece of legislation ever to come out of the congress, didn't happen because folks wanted it to happen. It happened because Pelosi, and other rabid liberals rammed it through over the objections of the people. It is still incredible to hear dems call republicans the party of no and obstructionists, when they are the ones obstructing. In a kind of political 'food fight', by throwing up a barrage of false accusations, distortions and outright lies, the dems have succeeded in confusing the scene, making the whole of congress seem inept. Even more incredible is the fact that there seems to be a relative few who can see the through the glaring hypocrisy of Reid and his band of merry mental midgets. Where is the public outrage? Where is the media? The fact is, even FOX News, is willing to venture out just so far, onto the thin ice of calling out this administration's shenanegans.

:hilarious:

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Ironically this seems to be what this administration is presently attempting to accomplish. We like to refer to the congress as being grid locked, and truly that is the case. However, it only takes one man to make that happen. Since legislation normally originates in the House and is then sent up to the Senate for consideration, one man can stymie the entire function of the Congress of the United States. That man of course, is Harry Reid, nothing comes onto the floor of the senate unless he allows it. As I mentioned, since the democrats lost their super majority in the elections of 2010, senate leader (and believe me when I honor him by mentioning his title, it is with reluctance) Harry Reid, has effectively shut down the legislative branch of the federal government. Refusing to bring up any legislation approved by the House merely because the majority of the House is republican.

Dems had a heyday the first two years of Obama's term, steamrolling over any and all objections of the out-voted republican minority. ObamaCare, possibly the biggest piece of legislation ever to come out of the congress, didn't happen because folks wanted it to happen. It happened because Pelosi, and other rabid liberals rammed it through over the objections of the people. It is still incredible to hear dems call republicans the party of no and obstructionists, when they are the ones obstructing. In a kind of political 'food fight', by throwing up a barrage of false accusations, distortions and outright lies, the dems have succeeded in confusing the scene, making the whole of congress seem inept. Even more incredible is the fact that there seems to be a relative few who can see the through the glaring hypocrisy of Reid and his band of merry mental midgets. Where is the public outrage? Where is the media? The fact is, even FOX News, is willing to venture out just so far, onto the thin ice of calling out this administration's shenanegans.

Actually, TheRealThing is absolutely correct. That is conclusively proven by the fact that TheRealVille laughed at it. Like the senile Biden, when you have nothing else of value, you laugh.

[TheRealVille]

Actually, TheRealThing is absolutely correct. That is conclusively proven by the fact that TheRealVille laughed at it. Like the senile Biden, when you have nothing else of value, you laugh.

Are republicans the only ones smart enough to amend the Constitution? Biden laughed when he heard outright lies.

[Hoot Gibson]

Actually, TheRealThing is absolutely correct. That is conclusively proven by the fact that TheRealVille laughed at it. Like the senile Biden, when you have nothing else of value, you laugh.

Great point. Biden and RV laugh when they hear the painful truth. Biden seems to have received a pass from the media and Obamanistas for the whoppers old Joe told, such as his claim to have voted against both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

[TheRealThing]

:hilarious:

You demonstrate a total disconnect with objective discernment. Leaving amending the constitution aside, after all my post didn't address that possibility. I am against amending the constitution, I am for enforcing and preserving it as it is. If you are truly trying to say you can't see what Reid has done since the elections of 2010, perhaps that mega IQ has let you down?

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Are republicans the only ones smart enough to amend the Constitution? Biden laughed when he heard outright lies.

No, not Republicans. However, it would appear that Conservatives are the only ones capable of interpreting the U.S. Constitution in accordance with the intent of those who actually formed, wrote, and adopted it.

Biden laughed continuously because he isn't smart enough to do otherwise. Only incompetent fools laugh as much as Biden. As I said before, Biden belongs in a nursing home or in a vaudeville act. Biden is a disgrace to the United States. Anyone who tries to defend him is an idiot. He isn't the crazy uncle in the attic. He is too far gone mentally to qualify. I will cut him a little slack and suggest that possibly all those hair plugs screwed up his brain.

[ronald reagan]

You would have been wrong.

Marriage, like everything not specifically reserved to the federal government, should be a state's rights issue. Strictly Tenth Amendment. While some states would legalize same sex "marriages", the others would clearly move to not grant full faith and credit to these "marriages".

If you want to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment do it in the same manner as the Eighteenth Amendment was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment- with a new amendment.

Introduce an amendment calling for a balanced budget and see if it can be ratified.

A constitutional convention opens the door to wholesale changes many of which would be damaging to the Republic.

Make changes through the amendment process or not at all. That's what was envisioned by the framers, all of whom were certainly more competent than are the "leaders" of today.

I feel sure that a return to original intent would cure many of the ills we now face. I am a firm believer in strict construction.

Wow. I guess I should have just been clearer...... I meant this thread to be simply a thread to talk about amendments to the constitution. The title must have thrown everyone off, I dunno what I was thinking. Repealing the 17th amendment would be done by adding an amendment. I didn't know I had to be so clear to get the point across.

And your concerns over a balanced budget amendment... We were 1 vote away in 1994. It passed with the needed votes in the house, and failed by 1 in the senate. The states would absolutely ratify it. They already are under balanced budget amendments for the most part, and the people definately support it. I feel confident that it could be passed. Especially so close, so recent.

I'm also a firm believer in 'state rights'. Its one of the top principles that guide me. But you make the point that marriage is a state issue. Current law makes that clear, DOMA. States already don't have to recognize that of others. However... how does the Full Faith and Credit Clause work with this?

Lets reset this thread.....

What constitutional amendments would YOU like to see added? I dont remember writing the convention part..... I surely meant amendments. I oppose a convention as well. The Constitution party led me to that beleif in its earlier days.

I do however support several amendments to the Constitution, in an effort to stop judicial activism. You can hope and wish for constructionist judges who rely on the federalist papers, original intent, and strict interpretation.... but you'll see and amendment banning HETEROSEXUAL marriage before then.

[WideMiddle03]

Add - Term Limits of 6 years in the House, and 6 in the Senate.


this 1 would help more than anything but i would go farther 1 term get all the money out of elections

i agree!

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Wow. I guess I should have just been clearer...... I meant this thread to be simply a thread to talk about amendments to the constitution. The title must have thrown everyone off, I dunno what I was thinking. Repealing the 17th amendment would be done by adding an amendment. I didn't know I had to be so clear to get the point across.

And your concerns over a balanced budget amendment... We were 1 vote away in 1994. It passed with the needed votes in the house, and failed by 1 in the senate. The states would absolutely ratify it. They already are under balanced budget amendments for the most part, and the people definately support it. I feel confident that it could be passed. Especially so close, so recent.

I'm also a firm believer in 'state rights'. Its one of the top principles that guide me. But you make the point that marriage is a state issue. Current law makes that clear, DOMA. States already don't have to recognize that of others. However... how does the Full Faith and Credit Clause work with this?

Lets reset this thread.....

What constitutional amendments would YOU like to see added? I dont remember writing the convention part..... I surely meant amendments. I oppose a convention as well. The Constitution party led me to that beleif in its earlier days.

I do however support several amendments to the Constitution, in an effort to stop judicial activism. You can hope and wish for constructionist judges who rely on the federalist papers, original intent, and strict interpretation.... but you'll see and amendment banning HETEROSEXUAL marriage before then.

The theory of Full Faith and Credit is that states recognize the laws of other states. For example, if one has an Indiana driver's license, Kentucky will accept it as valid when the Indiana resident drives through Kentucky. Also, if one is accused of committing a felony in Indiana, if he is held in Kentucky, Kentucky will extradite him back to Indiana.

However, this concept is not absolute. Kentucky, as long as the Tenth Amendment applies, is not required to recognize homosexual marriages from California.

I am 100% against homosexual marriages. However, I am committed to the Tenth Amendment. Therefore, rules for marriage, in my mind, must be set by each state.

A great liberal canard is that, if Roe v Wade is overturned, abortion will become illegal. Not true. Regulation of abortion would merely return to its status prior ot January 22, 1973, It would be a state's rights issue in accordance with the Tenth Amendment. Each state decides for itself.

Of course, if Kardashian and his ilk manage to make marriage a federal issue, the Tenth Amendment is thrown out the legal window and all states would be required to recognize homosexual marriages and to allow homosexual marriages.

You will see the real Kardashian in a second term. This would be just one on many radical, anti-Christian, anti-Capitallism items on his agenda. You can bank on that as a fact.

[WideMiddle03]

The theory of Full Faith and Credit is that states recognize the laws of other states. For example, if one has an Indiana driver's license, Kentucky will accept it as valid when the Indiana resident drives through Kentucky. Also, if one is accused of committing a felony in Indiana, if he is held in Kentucky, Kentucky will extradite him back to Indiana.

However, this concept is not absolute. Kentucky, as long as the Tenth Amendment applies, is not required to recognize homosexual marriages from California.

I am 100% against homosexual marriages. However, I am committed to the Tenth Amendment. Therefore, rules for marriage, in my mind, must be set by each state.

A great liberal canard is that, if Roe v Wade is overturned, abortion will become illegal. Not true. Regulation of abortion would merely return to its status prior ot January 22, 1973, It would be a state's rights issue in accordance with the Tenth Amendment. Each state decides for itself.

Of course, if Kardashian and his ilk manage to make marriage a federal issue, the Tenth Amendment is thrown out the legal window and all states would be required to recognize homosexual marriages and to allow homosexual marriages.

You will see the real Kardashian in a second term. This would be just one on many radical, anti-Christian, anti-Capitallism items on his agenda. You can bank on that as a fact.

you are exaggerating just a bit my friend

[Harry Rex Vonner]

you are exaggerating just a bit my friend

Indeed, you are either naive or an enabler.

[WideMiddle03]

Indeed, you are either naive or an enabler.

then show me examples

[Harry Rex Vonner]

then show me examples

If you don't see Kardashian as a danger to outr way of life, you are naive.

If you do see him for what he is and still support his agenda, you are an enabler.

If you don't fit either example, you are an ostrich with his/her head in the sand.

[Hoot Gibson]

Here are a few amendments that I would support:

1. An amendment to ban all federal spending on political parties. If political parties want to select candidates through primary elections, then they should pay the entire cost of those elections. With the exception of the Speaker of the House, which is a constitutional position, all members of the US House of Representatives would receive the same budget for staffing and other office expenses. Ditto for US Senators. No perks for seniority such as office size would be legal.

2. An amendment explicitly giving states the right to define marriage and explicitly forbidding the federal government from forcing a state to recognize a marriage performed in another state. The amendment would also prohibit the federal government from meddling in state laws governing benefits granted to "partners."

3. I would also support eliminating the direct election of US Senators. States should be allowed to select senators however their citizens decide it should be done.

4. An amendment to allow each state to determine its own laws governing abortion.

5. An amendment to outlaw all federal and state "hate crime" laws and other laws that attempt to punish human thoughts by creating protected classes. The amendment would also prohibit stiffer punishments being codified for crimes committed against elected officials, police officers, etc. Crime is crime and every American is created equally and deserves equal protection of our laws, and nothing more.

6. An amendment that would phase in a requirement to balance the budget and eliminate the national debt.

7. An amendment to the commerce clause that would explicitly prohibit the federal government from using it where no interstate commerce is involved. If states want to legalize drug manufacture or cultivation for personal use, then the federal government should have no jurisdiction. Commerce means commerce and nothing more.

[SKINNYPIG]

then show me examples

At one time I was feeling as if we would be in deep trouble if Obama won another term. I felt like the "moocher" class would run us to a hole in the ground. Not those genuinely in need, I'm talking about those that are able, but have no intention of ever providing for themselves or families...I believe there are millions of em. They overwhelmingly support Obama. Although I believe this country will be years recovering from an Obama second term, I do believe it is bigger than him.

There is a whole lot of talk about Romney and his plans, but very little about Obama's. Even though I don't fully understand Romney's economic/tax plan, I do believe he intends to broaden the tax base by having more people in the work force paying taxes. The best I can tell right now, Obama intends to tax the rich so government can have more to spend. Big contrast IMO.

Two things I consider to be serious cover ups, Fast and Furious and the debacle in libya, seem to go over Obama supporters heads. That is scary to me. I couldn't even consider voting for my father if he pulled these stunts and it's getting passed over...very confusing to me. It baffles me that it doesn't exclude him as an option.

Based on the past four years, can you give me two examples of why ANYBODY should vote for Obama?

Based on the past four years, can you comfort me that Obama will not or cannot inflict pain on this country?

[WideRight05]

Scary thing is, with an obama second term a convention to change everything in the constitution may be a reality.