I wouldn't make any....we have too many as it is....
turn it around and write why you would remove some laws.
2006-12-12 14:56:13
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would enforce the alcohol use laws strongly. In a bar, I would put a limit to how much one can drink. I would also increase the age at which you can smoke a cigarette. I believe right now it is 18. I would put breath devices in anyone convicted of drunk driving, I would take away alcohol which are very strong.
A good fellow said that your freedom ends where my nose begins. That is the reason, I would take away freedom to be alcoholic.
I would also put a law that will not let most people own a gun. If you look at stats, guns are only used for violence and not for defense. Why would you give a gun to someone to commit an offense. I also do not like hunting.
2006-12-12 14:59:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by observer 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Repeal and replace the 14th Amendment. Section 1 of the 14th has three consecutive clauses that are vague and have been misused and abused by the Courts so much that it makes me want to stay away from the ballot box for the rest of my life.
Constitutional law ought to constitute a set of rules so that government (the level of government being commanded) can know what it can or cannot do. Constitutional law ought to "provide guidance and discipline for the legislature, which is entitled to know what kind of laws it may pass," and it ought to "mark the limit of [the Court's] authority." (From Romer v. Evans, 1996; morally correct rhetoric but completely hypocritical in reality.)
Declare that the 14th is repealed (we obviously don't need the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sections of it any more) and is replaced with more clearly stated rules for the states to obey.
In place of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, say that states must obey all provisions of the Bill of Rights except for the 2nd, 7th, and 9th amendments, and the Grand Jury Clause of the 5th.
Clarify that the Due Process Clause means exactly what it literally says and that, as Alexander Hamilton once said, it can never be applied to an act of the legislature (or voters). The Clause guarantees fair, standard PROCEDURES, not laws which judges deem acceptable.
Clarify that the Equal Protection Clause means only one thing: RACIAL equality. Not gender, not sexual orientation, not aliens, not equality for persons born out of wedlock, etc., etc.
The Supreme Court has been at its worst when: 1) it steals Presidential elections, 2) it enforces "unenumerated rights," and 3) picks out "minorities" other than racial minorites for "heightened protection."
"The current state of equal protection and fundamental rights is a travesty. The Court has drifted between different [clauses of the 14th] in deriving these rights as if they were so many coat hooks for the Court to use which-ever one is convenient. The various standards set out by the Court for deriving these rights are so vague as to be virtually useless. ... [T]he Fourteenth Amendment remains a hodgepodge of underdeveloped ideas." -- Evan Gerstmann, "Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution," (2003) Cambridge University Press, pp 209-210.
2006-12-12 15:05:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
You say you have to write a paper for school huh?Look at that sentence,YOU have to write a paper for school,not any of us.This is a very easy task.Its not like you have to do any hard core research for this.You can do this on your own.I see so many people asking for homework help and I just don't get it.Its always things that only require a small amount of thinking.Do it yourself,im sure thats what the teacher was going for when she assigned you the paper.
2006-12-12 15:00:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by jill@doodle 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
I would change the way we vote. The popular vote would count [Gore vs Bush]. Also make every state keep their polling places open from 1201 UNTIL 12MIDNIGHT [24 HRS on the day of the election. This would give most every one time to vote. As for my on personal satisfaction I would not let any news reporters predict who was winning until all polls were closed, and at least 60percent of the votes were counted.
2006-12-12 15:35:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by Noona 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would make a law that said all student must study economics and civics in high school. It's a shame that so many young people are so clueless about how things really work in a capitalist society.
2006-12-12 15:04:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by Michael 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
a sensible tax code, a just legal system, and no religions allowed.
the current tax code benefits the wealthy, punishes the middle class, ruins the poor, penalizes the married. the legal system is beneficial only to those who can afford to be equal. the more you can afford, the more equal you are in the eyes of the law. religion is the bane of all mankind. it has been the primary cause of more death, mass murder, persecution and destruction than any other ten factors combined. 99% of all wars ever fought were because of religion. religion is nothing but destruction and death codified as truth. people are required to believe what they are told by those who seek only wealth and power over others. and wars to gain both are fought in the name of religion, but it's really about wealth and power!
2006-12-12 15:08:23
·
answer #7
·
answered by de bossy one 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
I would make the city pay for what they think needs to be done,like putting a sidewalk infront of out house.
The city is trying to do this and we live on the corner and would have to pay more than others,and we,frankly, don't have the money for a sidewalk that we don't want.
2006-12-12 14:57:13
·
answer #8
·
answered by B-jammin 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
1. Impose death penalty to all crooks and misfits. This will eliminate corruption, especially in government of poor nations. Corruption is the main cause of poverty in many nations, because those corrupt people in power keep on enriching themselves while their people live in abject poverty.
2. Total ban and elimination of all weapons of war. While we have existing international laws prohibiting use of nuclear, bacteriological and chemical weapons, these laws alone are not enough to prevent mass killing and destruction. Still many people die as a result of destructive weapons of war, while still short of being classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction. Better yet, it will be beneficial for all mankind if there is a law outlawing war itself and the waging of war.
3. Stricter laws and stiffer penalties to person or people guilty of violating human rights. Although we consider ourselves living in a highly civilized society, the abuse of human rights is still prevalent and common in many countries.
So here you are.... Hope these will help... Good Luck!!!
2006-12-12 15:34:24
·
answer #9
·
answered by roadwarrior 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
I would make a law that repeals all of the ol outdated ,useless, intrusive ,and udderly ridiculous laws of the last 230 years thank you
2006-12-12 14:59:51
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋