what part if any would you change?

Question

what part if any of the constitution would you change?
i ask this because alot of people seem to be against free speech on this site. not trying to start a debate but would like some serious answers.

Answer 1

My God, the people here are loony. One wants to scrap the income tax, (and replace it with what?) the other wants to scrap the equal protection. Why stop there?

I think we should clarify the 2nd amendment so there can be no challenges to the licensing, registration, and prosecution for illegal use, sale and distribution of guns.

We should abolish the electoral college and go to direct vote for the Presidency.

And there are a few things that should not change:
There should NEVER be any amendments to deny any specific rights to any specific groups. There should be no 'right to life' amendment unless it also covers capital punishment, addresses the 30,000 gun deaths per year, and guarantees all citizens access to life-saving medical treatment.

Answer 2

I believe that the 14th amendment should be repealed and replaced. At least, the first section of it should be.

That amendment has certain crucial problems with it. As soon as someone -- like Robert Bork, and I agree with him about this point -- tries to suggest that we should interpret that amendment according to the best available information as to that amendment's "intent," someone else strenuously objects and comes up with tortured arguments as to why it would be a terrible thing, and impossible, to find the "intent" of that amendment. I have seen scholars who say -- or at least imply -- that the amendment had a different meaning for those who proposed it than it did for those who ratified it. If there were any truth to that, ................. just stop and think about it: an amendment which meant something different to the proposers than it did to the ratifiers. It's mind-boggling.

Section 1 of the amendment has a set of 3 clauses, two of which are vague, and the third one is not as vague and yet the third clause, too, has been debated up-and-down with still no agreement as to its meaning.

That amendment and in particular the first section of it has obviously had the effect of significantly increasing the federal government's power -- and in particular, the judicial branch's power. Indeed, the Supreme Court has, more than once, struck down laws passed by Congress when Congress wanted to "enforce" the principles supposedly in section one. The Court won't allow Congress to tamper with it; meanwhile the hypocrites on the Court keep on tampering with it themselves all the time.

And speaking of hypocrisy:

"Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." (An amazing statement the Court has used twice in the last 15 years.) That is pure b***s***.

"The search for the link between classification and purpose provides substance to the equal protection clause; it provides guidance and discipline for the legislature, which is entitled to know what kind of laws it can and cannot pass; and it marks the limits of our own authority." That is even more b***s***. Elmer Gantry would be proud of the extraordinary hypocrisy.

Power needs to be usurped from the Supreme Court and returned to the states. And scholars need to stop treating one another like the Three Stooges while they debate how -- or even if -- to interpret the 14th Amendment.

Answer 3

Yes I agree with another answerer. Abolish Electoral College . Every State gets one vote. It would be the popular vote of the people. Then there would be 2 results. 1 being the over all popular vote of the entire U.S. and the other one being 50 votes going one way or the other. The candidate having 26 votes or more wins! I think that would be fair. Each state stands on its own and gets equal treament.

Answer 4

16th Amendment. SCRAP IT!

Jehen - you want to make all those changes and you think I'M loony? I guess loony is an awfully subjective term, then. You don't need to agree with me on the 16th Amendment, I'm sure most people don't because they've bought into the lie of legalized theft, but calling me "loony" is unnecessary. I'm not loony - I have perfectly logical and ethical reasons for my opinion and, if you'd ever like to discuss the issue sometime, you'll get to read them.