How would you feel about making amendments to the constitution have to be reaffirmed every set number of years

Question

I feel that this would be a safegaurd against amendments that are farmful ,or not effective.Example the 21st amendment had to be made in order to repeal the 18th amendment.I would personaly like to see the 16th amendment repealed.

I am not proposing making it easier to change , just that the old amendment be brought up to a vote.All the same requirements to pass would apply.If it was aproved by the smallist margin the first time,and defeated soundly later ,than what is the proper stance.

I am not proposing making it easier to change , just that the old amendment be brought up to a vote.All the same requirements to pass would apply.If it was aproved by the smallist margin the first time,and defeated soundly later ,than what is the proper stance.

Answer 1

I've not read it yet but I' heard Neal Boortz mention that he would like to see a 10th amendment commission whose sole purpose would be recommending which laws or amendments that are out dated or an infringement upon our rights, or unconstitutional or something to that effect. sounds worth looking into but I'm not real keen on calling for any constitutional conventions or any such thing. Can you imagine the can of worms that would open?

Answer 2

No way. Amendments are a result of social progress and reform. Why regress things because a couple groups don't agree with everything. Lot's of blood, sweat, and tears went into making our constitution what it is today- we shouldn't trivialize it by making it less concrete. The fight to reverse an amendment should be as difficult as getting it passed in the first place.

Answer 3

if you repeal the 16th amendment, the government will find other ways to tax the people to raise money for the government
before the 16th amendment, there was a protective tariff of like 65%.

Answer 4

Bad idea...the whole point of a constitution is that it's supposed to be hard to change. Our body of law is built on Constitutional interpretation...if amendments are expiring hither and yon, jurisprudence would be shot to hell.

Plus, some schmuck will decide it's okay to rewrite the first amendment and say that Christianity is the official national religion. No thanks.

Answer 5

The 16th Amedment (income tax) was never ratified by 2/3 of the states, meaning it is not part of the Constitution.

Additionally, the Supreme Court defines "income" as profits or gains made by corporations, not personal wages.

BOTTOM LINE: INCOME TAX IS OPTIONAL- THE GOVERNMENT IS DEFRAUDING THE PEOPLE. IT IS UNCONSTITUITIONAL TO LEVY A TAX ON THE LABOR OF A US CITIZEN.

Answer 6

interesting idea but it might dilute the seriousness of the process and encourage too much ongoing change if it was made too easy, that is what legislation is for. so I think in reality it would be a bad idea in practice

Answer 7

It shouldn't be too easy to amend the constitution or there would be no stability.