If you could cancel a part of the constitution what article/amendment would it be?

Pick one and explain why.

this is a fun topic, no bashing please. You can question to understand their point of view but no bashing. Please realize everyone’s opinions will very. I will start with the fourteenth because I believe it has been used far past what it’s original intent was designed for.

this amendment was sited in crazy court cases from Row vs Wade, to Bush vs Gore. It was designed to establish equal rights for slaves. It’s been abused to the extent it should be amended to not include anything other than that.

 

I would remove the clauses that in their narrow interpretation do not grant additional enumerated powers, but are confusing and endlessly fought over...the General Welfare Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the clause in the Second Amendment "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."

 

2A. Yeah, I know, it'll never happen. I'm so sick of people getting mad and shooting people and I get tired of hearing gun owners say "A good guy with a gun is better than a bad guy with a gun." Yeah, maybe, but when we start killing a bunch of Kindergartners...No. And, statistically, the number of Lone Ranger vigilantes isn't anywhere near high enough to warrant anybody with a fake ID and ability to lie on a form to get as many guns as mommy's allowance permits.

I think they should go full on unethical and start putting Valium in tap water. People need to calm down. Most of it just isn't that serious.

 

This is a very interesting topic indeed......
I expect to learn a lot from the replies here.....
I am Canadian and I plead guilty to being IGNORANT of the various amendments to the USA constitution......
but I went with "none" because I have something in mind that could potentially be huge......
I want to unite the economy of the USA with the economies of Israel, Australia, New Zealand and Canada at a whole new level.....
that will be a part of a plan to shift a part of the USA Hollywood and New York film industry to Israel.......
as a series of high profile indictments take place.......
some of those indictments could be voluntary and artistic as opposed to being literal.......
legal and ending up with some famous people wearing orange jump suits against their will........
or perhaps only while film footage is being shot........

I like the idea of combining this discussion to at least some degree with this other discussion.....

Should Israelis begin discussion of a Class Action Lawsuit against Bill Gates?

and this other discussion as well......


Can Israel pull the entire world economy out of a possible Bear Market, another 1929?

Sanhedrin asks Putin and Trump to build a Third Temple in Jerusalem


Yes....I believe that President Donald J. Trump as an artistic nineteenth President of the Republic of the USA would likely be willing to assist the Jewish nation to construct at least one Jewish Temple somewhere in Israel......

Should Israel crown Donald J. Trump as Moshiach ben Ephrayim?

and yes... with his reported IQ of 156 or so I suspect that an artistic President Trump would be interested in a certain ancient Islamic prediction for the "Last Hour."

 

"A film devoid of conflict is boring!" (R. W.)

IF... the rumours turn out to be true that a number of high level indictments in Hollywood and New York will temporarily mess up the Hollywood and New York film industry THEN......
luring Israeli film companies into win - win - win - win - win collaborative projects with the United States could potentially take the USA and Israeli film industry off in a new and promising direction......
that could answer the question hinted at near the end of this film where the theory is explained that A. I. can create a class of people who cannot find a job......

Many Israelis and many Americans and many Canadians could potentially become actors enacting a possible alternative understanding of amendments to the USA constitution that would set in motion alternative time lines as Hollywood has already explored many times.....


The New Normal Documentary by happennetwork



The footage of a warehouse that is fully automated and needs no human workers is amazing!

 

That is one legitimate and seemingly logical way of looking at this topic but then......
Bill Gates comes out and attempts to sell Americans and TedX audience members all over the world on the need to reduce the population of all nations..... and voila.....
all of a sudden that Second Amendment starts to look pretty good to the majority of Americans.....
especially considering that the nation of Turkey disarmed the Armenians before the 1915 genocide on them......

... which gave Hitler clues how to do something similar in Germany.




Bill Gates : Reduce World Population With New Vaccines
325,369 views
Aug 15, 2020

OK.... fine.... I plead guilty... that Second Amendment is also looking pretty good to this Canadian as well..... .even though at this moment I have no guns?!

 

Even at the lowest end there are over 100k self defense gun uses every year. Per the CDC. And that's not even needing any Lone Ranger vigilantes. Of which is illegal. So I would hope that statistical number is low.

 

We should change it to Only a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.

 

Some signers feared a standing army and a central government so they created militias instead and inserted "the right to keep...." to prevent the central government from disarming the militias. Militias didn't work out and a standing army was created. It's a vestigial amendment that has been corrupted well beyond its intent and now is causing great social harm..

 

The "General Welfare Clause" needs to be clarified to indicate that it refers to providing protection for the "well-BEING" of all U. S. citizens, and not (NOT) freeloading, handout-welfare in the modern context.

The Constitution was written in the aftermath of America being a mere colony of Britain, a state of being in which the "mother-country" of England could impose any kind of taxation it wanted on colonists, and violate a citizen's property, his business, and his ability to be fairly represented in Parliament. Thus, to ensure that such things would not happen in the new United States, protections for a citizen's individual rights -- his very "well-being" against any future tyrannical, autocratic government were built-in. It had nothing to do with the government GIVING anybody free housing, free food, free medical care, or any of the rest of this endless litany of contemporary government handouts -- no -- instead, it provided for a citizen's ability to life a life unmolested by an overbearing, intrusive central government!

But, along came the 20th-Century, and during the 1930's, the FDR administration created the foundations of a literal "welfare state" that has remained to this day, based largely on the entirely mistaken idea that the Constitution guaranteed that government would provide everyone with "WELFARE"... and now we're stuck with it, and will never get rid of it. A Parasites' delight!

 

Article 2 - The Electoral College which is still being ABUSED by the racist white supremacists in order to OPPRESS minorities.

Get rid of the EC and the GOP would have NOTHING in the way of an elected power base.

 

And, I believe the correct interpretation of the clause is 'only within the scope of the enumerated powers.'

 

We are a union of states which have significant independent sovereignty. We do not elect the President by popular national vote, the states elect the President.

 

I figured this one would come up. If I changed anything in our voting procedures I would go back to when only property owners could vote. Maybe allow anyone who had a full time job to vote as well. I don’t believe you should have a voice until you contribute to the economy.

 

How about this -- Every American citizen should have the right to vote -- BUT -- if a person takes UNEARNED, handout welfare benefits from the government at any time during a given calendar year, then he/she loses the right to vote during that entire calendar year!

I've advocated this for many years, and of course, it won't ever happen. But, if it did, we could flush all the parasites, bums, moochers, and slackers out of the decision-making processes in this country....

Thus, a citizen shouldn't be required to own "property" in order to vote, but he should be required to provide for his own needs before he has the right to tell other people how THEY should be governed!

 

So you would disenfranchise ALL of the WOUNDED VETS that cannot hold down a full time job.

You would disenfranchise ALL of the WORKING mothers who have PART TIME jobs.

You would disenfranchise ALL of the VOLUNTEERS who WORK without being paid.

You would disenfranchise ALL of the INTERNS who work full time WITHOUT being paid.

Thanks for ESTABLISHING that this is a POLITICAL BASHING thread and that the OP was being DISINGENUOUS about it being a "fun topic".

Sad!

 

The 17th that changed the Senate to a popular vote.

 

So YOU would DEPRIVE the DISABLED of their Constitutional RIGHT to vote just because they receive SSDI?

SAD that you call wounded VETS "parasites, bums, moochers, and slackers".

 

Logical fallacy. Welfare is for those that cannot work but many abuse the system. Do you support such abuse or are you protecting it?

 

It sounds very anti citizen in words yet pro citizen when one reduces the job of president to similar to the 9 justices on the Supreme court.
Look at how Democrats daily lied about Trump. It was like a drum beat. And it was wrong to believe past problems merely on the say so of Democrats. So I would stop the practice of voters having to vote for the president. Experts on the job should vote.

 

The disabled are the voters today. It is why we have Biden who is a sorry excuse of a president.

 

No, obviously my simple reply wasn’t to in depth

yes I would

yes I would for some. Volunteer work for certain programs I would not such as Red Cross volunteer work. Holiday Turkey carving wouldn’t be on that exempt list.

Interns obviously contribute to the economy. Yes they would be able to vote

first of all I never bashed your suggested change. I just stated what I would change in the area you are suggesting change in. I never criticized. You sir are the one criticizing.

 

Really voting was interesting in the beginning. We obviously were never intended to be a democracy at the beginning. We definitely had some democracy underlinings but far from a full democracy. I’m actually opposed to democracy. I am pro republic. I feel about democracy the same way Aristotle did. He didn’t quite like republics either but felt they were still superior over democracies. Aristotle was genius

 

I would amend the Constitution to impose term limits on members of the House, and I would repeal the 17th Amendment and return the selection of Senators to state legislatures.

I would amend the Constitution to clarify that the President could not engage in military hostilities without a vote by the Congress and that both the House and Senate would have to approve. The exception would be in the case of a surprise attack.

I would amend the 2A to clarify that law abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. I would untie that right from language authorizing a militia.

I would amend the Constitution to state that campaign contributions are not protected by the 1st Amendment as free speech, and they may be regulated by laws passed by Congress or state legislatures.

 

I think you would feel differently if the political landscape favored Republicans. Imagine what your point of view would be if the big cities were overwhelmingly conservative, and those city dwellers controlled the outcome of the elections.