Constitution issue

[carrot red]

If you had the power to amend the U.S. Constitution, what would you change and why?

[Dart Zaidyer]

I would add in a very strict and well laid-out safeguard against corporate control of the Government. Because we all know how badly this is needed.

[Jigglysaint]

I believe that amending the constitution is what has cause much of America's woes. There are some that are good, but I'm quite sure that there are many people who will lobby totally against what the constitution stands for, which in turn is a viloation of God.

[slothman]

An anti-discrimination law. There's too much of it around. Just look at the "16 might be able to vote" thread.

[Daarkseid]

I'd have the entire consitution voided, and full autonomy givin to the individual states, resulting in the creation of more than 50 individual countries.

[inori]

I'd make myself dictator. The why should be obvious. :kawaii:

Barring that thought... I dunno for sure. After all, the thing has been around over 200 years and has only been amended 27 times. This seems to imply it's doing its job well. Maybe eliminate the Electoral College, which had its place when the Constitution was written but makes less sense now.

[Axel]

Daark, we tried that once, it was called the Articles of Confederation. a spectacular failure.

like inori, eliminate the electoral college. or maybe reaffirm the Bill of Rights, because it seems that more and more those are being violated.

[AtmaWeapon]

GYARGH!!! Axel beat me to the Articles of Confederation point. I think the amendment that is needed most is one to explicitly state that the Constitution applies to all humans, despite race, or gender. Furthermore, no law or behavior will be tolerated within the realm of our government that in any way favors a particular race, or gender.

I believe in this amendment because too many Civil Rights activists these days push for "perks" to being of their race. I've seen special scholarships that required nothing more than an application for different races, and it makes me sick. I had to work my little white butt off for scholarships, and others get it just for being born? Too many people skew the issues using flawed logic.

I also agree with Axel that the Bill of Rights should be reaffirmed, though I feel deep down inside the ways I feel it is being violated are different than the ways he feels it is being violated.

[Axel]

do you think the Patriot Act violates the rights of the accused?

[AtmaWeapon]

I know little of the internals of the Patriot Act, but if I'm not mistaken it allows the government more freedom with surveillance of people. Forgive me if this is incorrect, I'd like to have an example of what you feel is wrong.

This is something that I've never understood why people get up in arms about. The government does not have the resources to monitor every citizen. They are not looking at what Joe Blow is watching on TV right now. However, if someone is suspected of illegal activities, the government probably is more likely to be monitoring them. Is this an invasion of privacy? Not if the government has reason to believe this person is dangerous. If the person turns out innocent, who cares? The only people who have anything to fear from being monitored are criminals and those who harbor them.

I agree that the Patriot Act does greatly increase the government's ability to monitor people. However, I feel that if the government can catch just one terrorist before he does his damage through this act, it is worth it. I intend to walk around my house naked just in case the government is looking. Wouldn't want them to get bored, ya know.

Oh, and so the feds will get more suspicious of me: bomb building credit fraud hacking Allah jihad airplane goatse.cx child porn jew spy top secret documents penis

[Axel]

The Partiot Act, among other things, allows the government to arrest suspected terrorists without a warrant or probable cause. It allows them to conduct trials in secret, and to deny the precense of a jury.

[AtmaWeapon]

If the government has reason to believe the person is a terrorist, and there is enough evidence, then I see no problem. I understand the implications, and I think the lack of the "precense" of a jury is disturbing, but as long as the newfound power is used only for suspected terrorists, I see no problem.

I imagine it won't last long in its current state if it is as awful as you imply.

[Axel]

according to the Bill of Rights the accused have the right to know what they've been accused of and to a trial by jury. also the government is not allowed to conduct secret trials.

[AtmaWeapon]

Then the Supreme Court should be smacking the Patriot Act. Either they have no trouble with it or it hasn't been abused yet.

[slothman]

How many people have actually been arrested via the PATRIOT act. I don't think it is many. Until one of them gets appealed to the SCOTUS then it won't repeal the act.

[inori]

Indeed. It's commonly established that the Supreme Court cannot declare a law unconstitutional, except in the context of a specific court case. Until someone appeals something done under the Patriot Act up to the Supreme Court, they will not rule on its constitutionality.

[Axel]

I realize this, however I still think that the Patriot Act ranks among the Court of the Star Chamber and French Revolutionary Tribunals with history's bad ideas.

[Beldaran]

If I could make one change to the constitution that no one could ever amend, I would add a clause that says:

"No one, under any circumstances or authority, may change this constitution for any reason from here on out. The rights of this constitution will remain garaunteed for as long as this union stands."

[Daarkseid]

Originally posted by Axel
Daark, we tried that once, it was called the Articles of Confederation. a spectacular failure.


The articles of confederation were not at all what I was talking about. I'm talking about voiding the federal government entirely, giving total control of the states to their own governments. The articles of confederation were an attempt to maintain unity even while respecting the sovereignity of the colonies, which of course is why it failed. It sought to maintain unity to solve the problems facing all of the colonies.

What I'm talking about is all 50+ states going it alone without any kind of obligation to a greater governing body. The goal in this is NOT for the sake of any mutual benefits between the states, or to solve any problems facing the states themselves. I'm only talking about a quick dissolution of the United States of America. Is this necessarily good idea? Probably not, but thats what I'd do.

[TheGeepster]

I think the main points of the Constitution are fine in and of themselves. I might consider looking into finding a way to replace the electoral college system of national election, perhaps with something that makes a 2 party system harder (although that would be very difficult). I would also want to include some prohibition of making laws race-based. Now gender is a touchier issue, because there are general differences in the two sexes.

But I do agree that men and women ought to be treated the same in general, without respect to their gender. However, setting up a private or semi-private organization for one gender only can be acceptable in some circumstances, where basic human liberties are not an issue.