Needed United States Amendments

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
#1
What amendments do you currently think are advisable or necessary?

I believe that there needs to be a process for withdrawal from the Union. Currently section X of Article I reads "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation." That's well and good (for the federal government should conduct foreign policy), but why can't states leave? The EU has a similar quandary, and they've inserted an exit clause in the Lisbon Treaty, which may pass in the next year or so. As a federal republic, it makes sense that it should act more like a federation- a voluntary collection of states.
=
Sen. Feingold introduced a proposed amendment XXVIII, which would make special elections mandatory for senatorial vacancies. It seems that given how long senatorial terms are, people should be electing them. So you voted for a Democrat because you find him personally scrupulous and efficient, what's to say you want a Democrat in his place if he passes away? America doesn't operate on list representation- it values individual politicians, thus one Democrat or Republican is not equal to another one.

What else?
 

Sim

Registered Member
#2
There should be an amendment that clarifies that ALL humans, American citizens or not, have inviolable human rights that must be protected and respected under any circumstances.

That would keep future Presidents from using that loophole to arbitrarily intern and denying fair trials to innocent people kidnapped from the streets by the CIA, as Bush did.
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#3
Those rules are place Sim, they're simply ignored by men who think they can just pretend they don't exist.
 

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
#5
Those rules are place Sim, they're simply ignored by men who think they can just pretend they don't exist.
The importance of international law (where most of these lie) is still not very well-codified. Certainly countries like China and the United States believe their legal systems have precedence.
 
#6
The only thing I can think of off hand is line item veto.
There's a reason we left that out of the Constitution, because it's pure BS. People think it's gonna be used to cut out pork and earmarks, but the POTUS literally has the power to remove or accept whatever little thing he wants from a bill. Totally takes out the word "compromises" from a bill.
 

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#7
The importance of international law (where most of these lie) is still not very well-codified. Certainly countries like China and the United States believe their legal systems have precedence.
We are sovereign nations, not to be judged at the whim of some beurocratic law maker in another nation.

Our constitution comes above any treaty with any other nation. If it violates the constitution (as SCOTUS has ruled) then the treaty is void.

If anything we need an amendment that says no outside force has a say in the laws of our nation.
 
Last edited:

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
#8
I heard a good idea yesterday for an amendment. All bills must be read aloud on the floor of the Senate and House before being voted on. If any congressperson was not present for the reading, he would not be allowed to vote on the bill.
 

Mirage

Administrator
Staff member
V.I.P.
#9
I heard a good idea yesterday for an amendment. All bills must be read aloud on the floor of the Senate and House before being voted on. If any congressperson was not present for the reading, he would not be allowed to vote on the bill.
That is a great idea. One of the best I've heard.

Personally I'd like to see an amendment that makes it so bills must be voted on individually. Ear marks should be made entirely illegal if you ask me.

I am also a fan of the Parental Rights amendment that is being proposed lately. Homeschooling among other things could be at risk if this amendment is not passed. Basically it would block a UN treaty that would take a lot of parenting rights away.

THE PARENTAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

SECTION 1
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

SECTION 2
Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

SECTION 3
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.
 
Last edited:

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#10
I'd be in favor of a Constitutional amendment that requires a supermajority, say 75% or even 90%, before any law can be passed that either forces or prohibits any behavior. It's absurd that 51% of Congress can ban possession of guns, knives, drugs or other such things that are victimless crimes.

If 49% of our elected representatives don't feel that a particular behavior is bad enough to send a person to jail, then why should it be forbidden behavior? Particularly since the Federal government has no police powers at all, and they have to pretend that gun bans are "commerce" regulation.

Congress could require that all Jews register and go to camps, but that wouldn't stop me from hiding them if given the chance. More and more, Congress itself is fostering disrespect for the law... just when Congress votes for 1,300 pages of multi-trillion dollar laws without even reading the damn bill :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Top