If you could change one thing about the constitution what would it be?

F

Flo_Rida_2016

Active member
Please, if you haven't read the constitution and/or you don't understand the constitution please leave now.

For the remaining 2 NSers left, if you could change one thing about the constitution to alter either policy outcome or the process by which certain policy is made what would it be?

I was thinking i would make congress vote in the minority half of the supreme court justices so that not all of them have to fear the president and court-packing.
 
i would completely restructure the second amendment for a more clear definition of who can own guns.

also the felons and voting thing. i guess if you have a felony you can't vote, everyone needs to vote. AND, do like australia where if you dont vote you are jailed.
 
wow are you serious? that would be taking away ar first amendment by telling ppl what they have to do. and i think everyone should be able to own guns
 
1_the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg

 
id agree with that.

also remind the makers of the patriot act of that whole right to privacy, search without a warrant thing
 
I assume you're talking about the US constitution here, in which case "one thing" won't cut it. The whole constitution, though it contains a number of excellent provisions that are absolutely essential, is in its totality pretty abysmal. It's not 1776 anymore and the document badly needs updating. It's written poorly, arbitrarily in some areas, using convoluted and occasionally pointless language. Every word in a consitutional document should have important meaning referable to the lives of the citizens of the Country. So, it's long overdue for a re-drafting, following largely the same guidelines. Just to pick out one thing, your freedom of expression provision and how it's been interpreted is a mess, and I must gloat that ours is better.
 
By the way, that criticism applies more to the bill of rights than anything else. Federalism issues and division of legislative and taxing powers are going to be messed up no matter what century they're written in. In that way, the Canadian constitution is pretty much just as bad (and worse in some cases).
 
I don't really see any reason why anyone actually needs to own guns. I am 20 and i've never shot a gun, nor have I ever been in a situation where I've needed to...
 
Its not the constitution I would change, but the outcomes of a number of historic court cases that have defined more clearly what is set out in that document.
 
Thats like saying noone needs to own a bat, or a golf club. Believe it or not, guns and hunting are a strong tradition in this country, and taking that tradition away would probably spark another revolution.

However, that being said, I believe we should abolish the 2nd ammendment and create several new ones in its place. One being the right to own a firearm. Two being the right to carry concealed weapons. And Three, the regulation of militia.

The 2nd ammendment now is too general and many people get concealed handguns, gun rights, and shit like that confused. So if one right gets taken away everything does. So i do believe it should be more specific. Yet the right to OWN guns should be kept.

 
Well I completely disagree with you.
So then you have law makers directly choosing the people who will enforce their laws? Goodbye checks and balances. That just doesn't make sense. The president appoints and the Senate Confirms. Congress has enough power as it is.
 
Granting citizenship solely based upon birth within this country. One parent must at least have some kind of legal residency status.
 
Care to offer a reason, aside from "I like my country to be as exclusive and homogeneous as a country club"? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't think of a reason that's convincing enough to bring any reasonable person to the conclusion that this is the single most important flaw in the US Constitution and the first one that would need changing.
 
I would make it necessary for everyone to own a gun. Think about it: areas where most people own guns have a lot less crime. It's true, if you don't believe me come to Vermont.
 
You know my stance on illegal immigration. The children of illegal immigrants are often among the most racist and hateful people in the country. Just look at the race warfare between blacks and latinos in Los Angeles. In addition, these confused and angry Chicanos are a huge burden on society and the government, especially on our law enforcement and justice system as well as welfare. Also, because they are confused and feel "cheated" by society they gravitate towards gang culture. Basically, we should not be responsible for bearing the burden of Mexico's overpopulation and poverty. Denying citizenship to kids born to those that are here illegally would be a good beginning in a controlled immigration policy. Their kids should not be able to use the same services that we pay for just because the parents snuck across the border, thats exploiting the system.

Another major step would be to put heavy taxes on all money sent back into Mexico by illegal immigrants. This tax would then be used to fund the building and improvement of schools, while discouraging people from working here illegally. A third step would be to create a guest worker program, to fill in for jobs that we need people for. Guest workers after a certain time would then be granted legal residence or deported if they commit crimes. Part of obtaining legal residence would also include passing a test demostrating basic knowledge of English. The spouse would then be granted legal residence as well and the children would then become citizens. This would then improve the caliber and work ethic of lower class immigrants, since they have the opportunity to be rewarded with legal residence and citizenship for their children, rather than just claiming it as their right as is the current situation. Guest workers would also be allowed to use social services such as schools, and acquire driver's licenses while here. This creates a strong incentive to follow the law and improve the general welfare. Money sent back to Mexico by guest workers would be subject to no tax. However, if a guest worker breaks the law, they are barred from ever returning to the US, after serving time or paying whatever their conviction entails.

In a situation like this no one could argue that we were being racist, or argue that we were not upholding our immigration laws.

This is an interesting philosophical piece on the subject of international poverty.

http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_lifeboat_ethics_case_against_helping_poor.html

 
To add a little more to that, employers who hire illegals would be fined considerably. Repeat offenses would involve revoking their business licenses. With guest workers available for hire, it would be criminal to hire illegals in an attempt to pay them less than what they should receive.

Also, and expanded adult school would be available through public schools. Free English classes (including other classes as well, since many have barely an elementary school education), so that these immigrants will be fully able to pass the English competency test and assimilate to a much higher extent in American society and not be taken advantage of.
 
agreed

a restructuring of our judicial system would be what is best...no more stupid suings for stuff like getting burnt by mcdonalds coffee, suing ski resorts for building icy jumps and getting paralyzed, and suing for medical issues.

a reason medical insurance is so expensive right now is because people started suing for malpractice and it was really easy, so doctors had to buy malpractice insurance and rates went right up.
 
The unfortunate thing is that much of the information that lawyers use in the trial is based on precedent, and there are a hell of a lot of dumb cases out there in which the "victims" acquire ridiculous amounts of money.

 
shit, like a cap on libel and rediculous out of control suing?

whoever said the thing about the 3 different gun laws instead of the extremely vague second amendment, good start.

and fuck, salcedo, i agree with your points of illegal immigration. its fucked how badly we are taken advantage of by illegals, you had a good point with your worker idea.

so much could be done.
 
i just see that texas flag shit and i dont even read the post. dont talk about your problems here dude, if yo dont like it move out of that texas shithole
 
5 points to anyone who can accurately describe the fundamental purpose of the second amendment.

100 points to anyone who can describe the fundamental purpose of the US Constitution.
 
All i want to know is if you think you have the answers why do you got to hold it like its precious? What good does it serve you to laugh at all the people who can't give an answer? That said, here's my thoughts

The 2nd amendment gave the citizen power to fight against the governing powers. It was an equalization between the ordinary citizen and the soldier. Thus it is possible for the citizens to ensure that they are able to defend against tyranny, and uphold the principles of the constitution. The constitution is the platform which citizens are protected from a tyrannical rein of power. In setting up three distinct branches of government the expectation was that each branch could ensure the liberty, freedom, common wealth, etc, read simply the democracy. The fundamental purpose of this document is to define the means by which the end "We the People" is achieved.

 
i just wanted to see what people think..i don't claim to have some special knowledge. and i wasn't planning to laugh at anyone.

from what i have read and heard one of the major reasons behind the constitution was to precisely define and limit government powers so as to keep the government in check..prevent tyranny and abuse of power.

as far as the second amendment, i believe that most if not all of the founders believed that a well armed citizenry would be the greatest deterrent to invasion as well as government tyranny.

 
i just took your awarding of points wrong, i thought it was more of a challenge.

speaking of the right to bear arms, i think it's really silly to be squabbling over handguns, they won't do shit for you if you've got to fight our own army, which is really the fundamental purpose of that right.
 
although this is an interesting proposition, I do not think that it would get the necessary 2/3 majority in congress to pass. This would be a case of extreme bias towards over weight and obese women in general
 
i was opperating under the premise that i was like a cat burgler armed with a pen and some whiteout and could add/change/remove anything there without going through the lenghtly voting process.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top