2006-09-04 08:45:14 · 11 answers · asked by JPage125 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Additions:
The most bold one would be that no union(marriage) between two adults should be given special rights by any state.
I also think there should have been clear and defined term limits for ALL politicians. That is one area the forefathers seemed to overlook.
Areas that needed more clarification:
Quite a few areas are too open for interpretation. Like some ppl argue the 4th amendment doesn't distinctly state a separation of church and state but rather that it states the government can't make laws favoring one religion over another.
It is not until you examine the forefathers statements and writings on this that you find they meant precisely ..."thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/churchstate.html
Things like that should have been made more clear.
There are many more but that was not your question.
2006-09-04 08:47:46 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Judicial review of laws for unconstitutionality (Article III). A better fixed definition for jurisdiction of federal courts below the Supreme Court (Article III). Stronger protections against federal usurpation of state power (clarify the 10th). A clearer definition of what constitutes a fundamental right (9th). A clearer definition of what constitutes "respecting the Establishment of religion" (1st). Plus, making the electoral college numbers independent of the Congressional numbers, and setting better rules for allocation of electoral votes (Articles I and II).
Those were all foreseeable problems that weren't properly addressed. I would also have added in the original no discrimination allowed based on race, gender, or personal beliefs.
{EDIT to OzobTheMerciless} You apparently haven't read the 9th Amendment, have you? That issue was addressed on point.
2006-09-04 08:47:17 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Though the constitution is an enabling document and one of its primary purposes is to outline the rights of the individual required to protect them from an unjust government, I believe it should have addressed how the government may react to internal threat or disruption.
In particular I am thinking of citizenship. We know how to become a citizen, but should there be specific circumstances in which an individual's citizenship should be in jeapordy?
A contemporary example would be terrorists. If a citizen is found guilty of terrorist acts, would it not be appropriate to strip them of citizenship?
2006-09-04 08:54:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
how does someone deal with illegal combatants? it's probably more of something which happens now with the war on terror but how would have deal with them and would they be allowed to a free trial since they act without law?the constitution should have a section on combatants.
2006-09-04 09:00:46 · answer #4 · answered by loretta 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
1. Term limits for senators and representatives.
2. Clear definition of women's rights, children's rights, fetus rights
3. Line item veto for the president
4. Definition of marriage
2006-09-04 08:54:46 · answer #5 · answered by Carl 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The right to arm bears - wait that's not in there - I guess its fine as it is.
2006-09-04 08:48:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
My God-given right to rule this country.
2006-09-04 08:50:26 · answer #7 · answered by Dip Shït 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
protection of the flag
proper definition of states rights
2006-09-04 08:47:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
that idiots should not be able to breed and make more idiots, oh wait, thats inbreeding right?
2006-09-04 08:52:33 · answer #9 · answered by whydiduaskthis? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"These words are not to be interpreted by judicial activists to undermine their spirit, to create rights which aren't listed and to circumvent the law."
2006-09-04 08:48:32 · answer #10 · answered by OzobTheMerciless 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋