English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

How do you think it would read? Personally, I do not think a gay marriage ban will make it's way into the Constitution. More likely, an ammendment that restricts free movement throughout the country is likely.

2006-07-14 11:34:24 · 13 answers · asked by Scooter 4 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

13 answers

one that suspends current constitutional liberties, at Presidential discretion, for the greater "good".. Like a constitutional veto..

2006-07-14 11:38:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Well amendmenst need 2/3 of House and Senate votes and 2/3 of all states to vote for it. So I cannot see a gay marriage ban, flag protection or a restriction on movement rights making it into the Constitution. The next amendment, if there is one any time soon, well either deal with changing the ages or nationalities requirements for office, term limits, or some other political type amendment that will have little or no effect on the overall populus.

2006-07-14 20:16:01 · answer #2 · answered by strangedaze23 3 · 0 0

i've got two ideas. 1. something that gets at the roots of campaign financing. currently campaign contributions are practically unlimitable. supreme says that money equals free speech. i think money equals a megaphone for free speech, and that the equal protection clause should be allowed greater weight in the balance of this arguement. anything that begins to sever the link between individual Big Donors and legislative favors would be good for the rest of us individuals to get a fair hearing. a megaphone for free speech was not what the founding fathers intended. if the supremes wont reverse itself here, then the time for a constitutional amendment has come....
#2 would be rules for redistricting. making safe seats for incumbents is totally unamerican. something that requires redistricting processes to produce 'net neutral' (political party neutral) districts as the highest goal would make these politicians appeal more to the political center/middle for support and votes, instead of the extremes which has us at each others throats all the time.

2006-07-14 18:53:37 · answer #3 · answered by emptiedfull 3 · 0 0

This is probably one of the more interesting questions I have read on here in a long time. I agree that the gay marriage ban probably won't make it, and it shouldn't make it either. I'm thinking maybe something to do with immigration, or possibly abortion. I wonder what other people will and have come up with.

2006-07-14 18:41:17 · answer #4 · answered by just LAURA for now 3 · 0 0

How do you think an amendment restricting free movement is likely? Are you kidding me? In this country?

I'd love to see an amendment limiting the terms of Senators and Representatives, but that won't happen.

I don't believe we'll see another amendment in at least the next decade.

2006-07-14 18:39:54 · answer #5 · answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7 · 0 0

I think your choice is outlandish......I don't think there will be any new amendments anytime soon. Plus the federal gov't doesn't need to have a gay marriage amendment as more and more states are placing that ban in their own constitutions.

2006-07-14 18:37:59 · answer #6 · answered by jpxc99 3 · 0 0

Scooter,

I actually feel that gay marriage will be the next "amendment" to make it. Sickening as it is, it didn't fail by much the first time and they're about to vote on it again in the next few days. (Did I ever write my congresspeople!)

If that doesn't make it, probably flag burning (an equally stupid thing to amend) - as it only failed by 1 vote. Amazing how we want to strip freedom of speech because a **symbol** of our country is desicrated. "Hey! You hurt my feelings! I'm calling the cops!" Ridiculous idiocy.

2006-07-14 18:40:12 · answer #7 · answered by Madame Gato 4 · 0 0

marriage definition or death penalty or suicide. one of those will be in the next ammendment, defining what rights there are if any in the subject.

2006-07-14 19:01:55 · answer #8 · answered by shelldelmar 1 · 0 0

That a president can serve more than two terms.
Bush for life.

2006-07-14 18:39:52 · answer #9 · answered by racquel 4 · 0 0

does it matter? noone follows it anyway.
do you really have free speech?
ask the teacher fired for comparing Bush to Hitler
or the christians who can't pray in school

freedom? right, get a life.
all we do is pay taxes to criminals to protect us from other criminals.

2006-07-14 18:57:54 · answer #10 · answered by eg_ansel 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers