Proposed Constitutional Amendments

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by Bob0627, Jun 18, 2017.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So is yours and everyone else. There's a very good reason for that.

    First, there are literally tens of thousands of laws that make nearly every American a criminal. So no one actually "knows" the law. Second, most laws are unconstitutional because in part, the majority can't pass the smell test (the Vagueness Doctrine):

    Definition

    1) A constitutional rule that requires criminal laws to state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable. Criminal laws that violate this requirement are said to be void for vagueness. Vagueness doctrine rests on the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. By requiring fair notice of what is punishable and what is not, vagueness doctrine also helps prevent arbitrary enforcement of the laws.

    2) Under vagueness doctrine, a statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature's delegation of authority to judges and/or administrators is so extensive that it would lead to arbitrary prosecutions.

    Illustrative caselaw

    See, e.g. Skilling v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 2896 (2010).

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vagueness_doctrine


    Many laws are so vague that interpretations are in the eyes of the beholder. But that's not the only reason. There is nothing that prevents any legislature from inventing and enacting unconstitutional legislation.

    As to "case law", now that is the stuff of judicial shenanigans. It's the judiciary's stealthy way of overstepping its constitutional boundaries. While it isn't actually law, it is a law of a cancerous kind that resembles actual law. I'm not saying it's all bad, some of it is brilliant and 100% correctly interpreted. Many of those in the judiciary were brilliant men and women. In my own case(s) I used quite a bit of case law in support of my position. I had no choice. Unfortunately, many are just plain fallacious politically motivated garbage. Many of these effectively Amend the Constitution because they are "interpretations" of the Constitution and yield "meanings" never meant by the founders and contradict the Constitution.

    Proposed Amendment #3 would eliminate the above travesty (hopefully).
     
  2. Chester_Murphy

    Chester_Murphy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,503
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How does this happen and why what would cause them to do the will of the people?

    How would justice be served and how would sentences be determined and distributed?

    Do lobbyists pay for favors or make it easy for some to make huge sums, like through insider information on the stock market?


    How do we do this when folks are voting more than once, and registering to vote as legal citizens when they are not, as in Illinois, Indiana and Pennsylvania, to name a few states with issues?

    It really doesn't matter. Everyone is tempted by big money. You'd have to stop them from being able to enrich them. So, how?
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or worse, the fact that there is no real choice. There are 2 exclusive political parties in the US that serve the same master, giving the illusion of choice (divide and conquer). All other parties are either excluded via collusion or marginalized by the MSM.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2018
  4. Satirical

    Satirical Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    This a million times over.

    [​IMG]

    The income tax is major theft!
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The manner in which it is seized violates the Constitution in numerous ways.
     
  6. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some third parties are marginalized by their own design
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps. Can you give an example?
     
  8. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The Reform Party gained a governorship and then threw in the towel

    Libertarians - great ideas but they always try for offices they can't win. They can't grasp the concept of taking one county at a time
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes but is that really all their doing or is it more that the 2 major parties in conjunction with the MSM doing whatever they can to exclude or marginalize these parties? Candidates from parties other than the 2 exclusive ones always have a difficult time (if not impossible) trying to get on the ballot due to restrictive rules heavily influenced by those 2 parties. Americans in general have been indoctrinated to believe that voting outside these 2 parties automatically means voting for the loser and that they would be throwing away their vote.
     
  10. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The sad reality is most Americans don't like the two party system. Yet most are too ignorant (and most cannot be taught):

    1) In a hotly contested race, the third party may have only 3 or 4 percent of the vote. That vote could make the difference for either candidate in a run-off

    2) IF the third party has an issue that is not a part of the two party system, they could offer their support to the candidate that champions their cause... especially if it can become major headlines

    3) Repeat the process in each election cycle and pretty soon one of the major parties has adopted the majority of your platform.

    So, you didn't win the election. You made headlines and forced one of the two parties to adopt your stances. Now you have influence and a record of success.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here I have to disagree. There is absolutely no reason for ANY political party. Political parties are similar to religion, made for lockstep group thinkers. They are rife for corruption. A qualified candidate should be able to clearly state his/her position on all major issues and the constituents should pepper them with questions, then decide which candidate best fits the voter's personal mindset without influence from a group think tank. The way the vote goes should be a paper ballot and a runoff between the top 2 vote getters if no one achieves 50%+ of the vote. Terms must have limits and judges should also be elected, never appointed and certainly never for life.
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm going to add another proposed Amendment to the ones already proposed. To review, these are the ones I originally proposed:

    Article V

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.


    The problem with the above is that the US government and individual state governments have way too much control over amending the Constitution, which actually belongs to and is authored by The People. So it stands to reason that The People should have complete control over amending their work. I would suggest that:

    9. A petition to Amend the Constitution (or repeal an Amendment*) can be submitted by any verified American citizen at any time. And any petition to Amend must be supported by a minimum of 50,000 signatures (this number can be modified to what may be considered reasonable) by verified American citizens to be achieved no later than 90 days prior to Election Day (the time period can also be modified to what is appropriate). Once enough signatures are obtained, the proposed Amendment is voted on within the originating state on Election Day (just Yes or No). If a vote achieves a 60% Yes vote or more, the proposed Amendment is then placed on the ballot in every state the following Election Day and is deemed ratified when passed by 60% or more of the states by 60% or more Yes votes per state.

    * Note: The Bill of Rights would be exempt when proposing any repeal.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
    Chester_Murphy likes this.
  13. BaghdadBob

    BaghdadBob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2016
    Messages:
    3,126
    Likes Received:
    4,804
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. Impose Congressional term limits
    2. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, returning the election of Senators to state legislatures
    3. Impose term limits for Supreme Court Justices and restrict judicial review
    4. Require a balanced budget and limit federal spending and taxation
    5. Define a deadline to file taxes (one day before the next federal election)
    6. Subject federal departments and bureaucratic regulations to periodic reauthorization and review
    7. Create a more specific definition of the Commerce Clause
    8. Limit eminent domain powers
    9. Allow states to more easily amend the Constitution by bypassing Congress
    10. Create a process where two-thirds of the states can nullify federal laws
    11. Require photo ID to vote and limit early voting
    12. Ban direct social welfare payments, and privatize Social Security.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2019
  14. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,624
    Likes Received:
    11,201
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think any entirely new amendments are needed, but rather clarifications of already existing amendments so they can't be wrongly used, or bypassed.

    However, I would be extremely reluctant about going back and changing things in the Constitution because of the possibility it could get messed up and greater permanent damage done.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2019
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I proposed this Amendment in Post #1:

    This is House Joint Resolution 48 introduced on 1/30/17:

    We The People Amendment

    Section 1. [Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights]

    The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

    Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

    The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

    Section 2. [Money is Not Free Speech]

    Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

    Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

    The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.


    https://movetoamend.org/amendment
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I disagree. We need both. In the latter case we need clarification of some amendments BECAUSE they are wrongly used.

    The Constitution has been flawed since inception and much damage, including permanent damage has already been done and continues to be done as a result. If that weren't true this thread would not exist. For me the ONLY limitation that amendments should have is that the Bill of Rights is untouchable.
     
  17. BillRM

    BillRM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    6,792
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes indeed we can not loss access to weapons that can killed large numbers of people enjoying a concert or children in our schools.

    Let keep our hands off the second amendment that grant the right to do such large scale killings at our whim.

    The other amendments are being destroy by our courts such as the sixth amendment right to remain silent. Right now there is one man who been lock up for a few years now for not giving the government his passwords for some computer files they would care to look at under the odd theory that the content of those files is a forgone conclusion and therefore he does not have a right to not give them the passwords.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2019
  18. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Opinion: All sound improvements...can you please explain number 6 a bit?
    How will lowering taxes help?
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Although the Supreme Court once declared that the 16th Amendment changed nothing, it is still used by the IRS and the courts to justify robbing people via the income tax. And the IRS is a gestapo like agency that enforces theft under threat of incarceration. Virtually everything the IRS does violates the Bill of Rights and other portions of the Constitution. It has no place in a Constitutional Republic. Remember that the Constitution is a law to LIMIT the powers of government to secure the individual rights of The People. The 16th Amendment does no such thing.

    The income tax as it's used is unconstitutional. Taxing a protected right (the protected right to sustain one's life and liberty by earning an income) is unconstitutional. And worse, the manner in which it's done is outright thievery. A substantial portion of tax money is used for the military industrial complex to wage endless war for profit and power. It benefits only the very few privileged at a tremendous cost to the rest. The current US government is a behemoth that requires an incredible amount of money and resources to operate. Over 90% of that is not used for the purpose of securing anyone's rights, it is used for individual enrichment. The framers never meant to create a federal government for that purpose (see the Declaration of Independence, our founding document). In fact the Constitution itself says:

    Article I Section 4 Paragraph 2

    The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

    So the framers never meant that Congress be a full time job, the above makes that more than obvious. Today it's not only a full time job with incredible benefits but nearly every Representative, Senator and Executive leaves Washington much more wealthy than when they first started.

    Taxation to fund government can be accomplished many different ways without resorting to robbing people and it doesn't require such extreme funding.
     
  20. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for explanation....but how would you get all these good ol boys on both sides of the isle to give up the cushy jobs they've created for themselves
     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one voluntarily leaves, it's not going to happen in my lifetime. I can explain it until I turn blue but the vast majority only hear what they're fed by the very same criminals in charge. Education is the key but they must be willing to be educated.
     
  22. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've heard the education idea in another thread here...but don't see how that will make any difference. What can you teach them that they don't already know?
    Most already have enough education to know right from wrong but that wont change their actions.
    It seems more like an attitude adjustment that needs to be made rather than education.
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Many don’t already know, many have been misled and those who need an “attitude adjustment” is the same as needing an education. Most will not shake their indoctrination either way.
     
  24. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes that seems to be the biggest problem...no? How do you propose to deal with that?
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Re-education or education. Some people are difficult or impossible to reach and nothing will work. They may be too set in their ways. If you want changes you try to do the best you can. Doing nothing is not an option.
     

Share This Page