what is the worst amendment of the constitution and why?

Question

do you hate free speech, the right to bear arms, quatering of soldiers? what should have been left out of the constitution? i think we can do without number 16 but lets hear what you think.
heres all 27 incase u dont know...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Answer 1

The 17th amendment. The whole purpose of having the State's appoint their Senators is so that the State has representation. The Senate is suppose to represent the State and the House is suppose to represent the people. Since Senators were chosen by the legislature of each state, they answered only to that states' legislature. This placed them above the influence of special interest groups, the media, and, to a great extent, political party bias, since members of all political parties in the state legislature chose them. The state’s representatives were given power to veto or monitor all three branches of the federal government. each piece of legislation, all judicial appointees, and all Executive appointments had to be approved by the Senate. As for national and foreign issues, all treaties, and all military affairs had to have the Senate's approval. Thus the STATES had a hand in all Federal affairs and each state’s sovereignty was protected. This amendment does away with all of this.


United States Constitution, Article I, Section 3
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Answer 2

Constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar notes that the permanence of the United States changed significantly when the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the adoption of the United States Constitution. This action “signaled its decisive break with the Articles’ regime of state sovereignty.”[6] By creating a constitution instead of some other type of written document, it was made clear that the United States was: Not a “league”, however firm; not a “confederacy” or a “confederation”; not a compact among “sovereign’ states” -- all these high profile and legally freighted words from the Articles were conspicuously absent from the Preamble and every other operative part of the Constitution. The new text proposed a fundamentally different legal framework.[7] Patrick Henry represented a strong voice for the Anti-Federalists who opposed adoption of the Constitution. Questioning the nature of the new political organization being proposed, Henry asked: The fate ... of America may depend on this. ... Have they made a proposal of a compact between the states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing -- the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. ...[8] The Federalists would point out that Henry exaggerated the extent that a consolidated government was being created and acknowledged that states would continue to serve an important function. However on the issue of whether states retained a right of unilateral secession from the United States, the Federalists made it clear that no such right would exist under the Constitution.[

Answer 3

Prohibition, but it was rescinded by another amendment!

AMENDMENT XVIII
Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed by amendment 21.

Section 1.
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2.
The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.



Other than that I don't have any issues the amendments other than they are constantly trampled on!

Answer 4

The 10th Amendment. It should have been very forcefully worded saying something like, "The Federal government is prohibited from legislating, acting or regulating in any area where it is not specifically authorized to do so."

Ok, worded better than I did, but you get the idea. The 10th, 9th and 2nd Amendments needed to be worded much more directly and concretely.

Answer 5

The 18th amendment (ratifying the prohibition of alcohol) was the worst. But it was repealed. Barring that one, I'd say the 16th amendment, which gave the government the power to collect income taxes.

Answer 6

22nd Amendment because it creates a lame duck President immediately after they are reelected. If someone is popular (Reagan/Clinton), why should they be barred from serving another term?

Answer 7

The 5th Amedment. People should be forced to tell the truth under oath even if it is to lead to self-incrimination.

Answer 8

I wish they would acutally enforce the 27th. Congress has been abusing that one since it was ratified in 1992.

Answer 9

I wish the second had been better written. It has been misconstrued by too many people as "I get an AK-47."

I don't like paying taxes either, but I sure do like roads. I guess there's give and take.

Answer 10

twenty seventh...............16th...(which was not ratified)
umm..............income taxes do not pay for roads.......... and the right to bear arms does in fact mean that you get a tank, or an ak47 or a nuclear Arm if you could afford it.............
WHY??? because YOU are the Government not THEM...
The founders Understood that is what it takes to make THEM bow to YOU, Else they could just simply Kill YOU, without Them fearing YOU
UNDERSTAND?????????