Needed United States Amendments

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Kazmarov, Feb 18, 2009.

  1. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    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?
     

  2. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    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.
     
  3. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    Those rules are place Sim, they're simply ignored by men who think they can just pretend they don't exist.
     
  4. MenInTights

    MenInTights not a plastic bag

    The only thing I can think of off hand is line item veto.
     
  5. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    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. WingsOfDesire

    WingsOfDesire New Member

    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.
     
  7. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    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: Feb 25, 2009
  8. MenInTights

    MenInTights not a plastic bag

    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.
     
  9. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    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.

     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2009
  10. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    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: Jul 1, 2009

Share This Page