List of Possible Constitutional Amendments

[Chris]

I would add the word "expressly" to the 10th amendment, modelled on article II of the Articles of Confederation, "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

Thus: "The powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

[Standing Wolf]

Is the tyranny of the minority better?

Return the Courts to their intended role, which of course, is to ensure the law is applied, not to make it up as they go.

It is almost exclusively the legislatures and executives who are "making it up as they go"...and making it up in such a way that it elicits the greatest number of reelection campaign dollars, while ignoring pertinent existing law, American legal traditions and principles, and a lot of other things they have no interest in or understanding of.

[Standing Wolf]

I would add the word "expressly" to the 10th amendment, modelled on article II of the Articles of Confederation, "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

Thus: "The powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Would you be willing to cite an example of some specific legal situation as it currently exists that would be altered by that additional word?

[MisterVeritis]

I think that MV will say that the elimination of judicial review will be important.

The Congress has two important responsibilities it has failed to use. Impeachment. And determining each court's jurisdiction. We need an amendment that says a decision will be as narrowly applied as possible.

[Chris]

Would you be willing to cite an example of some specific legal situation as it currently exists that would be altered by that additional word?

Where does the Constitution expressly grant the federal government to decide any social issue? Marriage for instance.

[Cletus]

It is almost exclusively the legislatures and executives who are "making it up as they go"

That is not really true, but even if it were, that is their job, not the court's.

[Standing Wolf]

Where does the Constitution expressly grant the federal government to decide any social issue? Marriage for instance.

I won't insult you by pointing out where the requirement for the equal protection of citizens' rights under the law is contained in the Constitution - nor where it is made clear that the states must adhere to that standard every bit as firmly as does the federal government. If an issue involving equal protection comes before a federal court, and that issue happens to deal with marriage, the fact that "marriage" isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution is no more relevant to jurisdiction than it would be if the issue involved "computers" or "telephones" - which are also not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. In other words, the underlying issue is not marriage, but equal protection under the law.

[Cthulhu]

There was a thread about the states' convention. I'm curious, what constitutional amendments would some of you push for?

For me, off the cuff and in no particular order:

1. Term limits
2. Balanced Budget Amendment, with a self-expiring national security exception
3. Strengthen 2nd Amendment.
4. Restrict Commerce Clause
5. Restrict General Welfare language.
6. Clarify anchor baby issue.

Get rid of the 14nth. The taxing part. Obviously all human citizens get to vote still. Iron out anchor baby issue as mentioned earlier.

Make the 4th amendment, and 5th more ironclad. Put in penalties for their violations. Put an actual time limit to speedy and public trial for the 6th(?) Of no more than 3 months. As well as having a jury trial available for ALL cases - even traffic tickets to amend the 7nth.

Regarding trials and appeals - appeals only allowed if new evidence is uncovered in future or violation of prices during trial.

Set the commerce values based on physical gold and silver/copper to set a fixed amount of currency in relation to actual metal reserves - kill fractional reserve banking in ALL it's forms.

Fear profits a man nothing.

[Cletus]

I won't insult you by pointing out where the requirement for the equal protection of citizens' rights under the law is contained in the Constitution - nor where it is made clear that the states must adhere to that standard every bit as firmly as does the federal government. If an issue involving equal protection comes before a federal court, and that issue happens to deal with marriage, the fact that "marriage" isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution is no more relevant to jurisdiction than it would be if the issue involved "computers" or "telephones" - which are also not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. In other words, the underlying issue is not marriage, but equal protection under the law.

That argument doesn't hold water. We have hundreds of laws that do apply equally to all, even the current, way out in Left Field interpretation of marriage laws issued by the Supremes. Do marriage laws apply equally to all? Of course they don't. There are age restrictions, there are prohibitions against incestuous marriages... the law is not equally applied. It was just applied to an extremely vocal minority. That is a prime example of the Justices reaching under their robes and pulling something out of their asses and calling it law.

Equal protection under the law means nothing more than laws must be applied equally to all to whom the law applies.

[Chris]

I won't insult you by pointing out where the requirement for the equal protection of citizens' rights under the law is contained in the Constitution - nor where it is made clear that the states must adhere to that standard every bit as firmly as does the federal government. If an issue involving equal protection comes before a federal court, and that issue happens to deal with marriage, the fact that "marriage" isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution is no more relevant to jurisdiction than it would be if the issue involved "computers" or "telephones" - which are also not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. In other words, the underlying issue is not marriage, but equal protection under the law.

You mean rights like life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, rights to free speech, association, religion, arms, etc. protected in the BoR? Why then sure. But marriage isn't a right--and, no, the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government the power to create new rights, nor to create laws willy nilly so as to protect all equally under them.

Oh, and, no, you don't insult me with your obvious desire to expand the powers of the government beyond the power EXPRESSLY grants.