If so? What would you change in it?
2007-08-02
08:58:39
·
13 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Coragryph,
Under - Amendment -- True Equal Protection.
I disagree with definitions 2 and 3.
We must remain strict on the Traditional bonds of marriage, lest we be found without the favor of Almighty God! You have to remember, it was the lifestyles of Sodom & Gomorrah that led to their destruction, 23,000 in one day.
2007-08-02
17:28:46 ·
update #1
I would more clearly define the 1st amendment, and reaffirm that under no circumstances do things such as nativity scences and the 10 commandments on public ground constitute establishment of a religion.
I would also like to see a right to life for the unborn amendment.
2007-08-02 09:03:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by MoltarRocks 7
·
2⤊
6⤋
1) A Balanced Budget amendment that would prevent the US from borrowing any more money and require them to start paying off the current debt.
2) Some guidelines on how congressional districts must be drawn, to prevent gerrymandering. (Districts must be as equal in population as possible and compact in their perimiter.)
3) Repeal the last one, the one that gives House members an automatic annual raise.
4) Congress shall make no law that pertains only to itself, or specifically excludes itself. (To stop Congress from making laws for everyone else, or giving themselves freebies.)
5) The President and Vice President can use executive privilidge only in cases where the requested information violates national security. In areas where the President and Congress disagree, the information will be submitted to the top officer of the Army and Navy, the Speaker of the House, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Secretary of State. These five shall rule on the sensitivity of the information, and a majority vote shall determine if the information meets the qualifications for refusal.
I know I'm dreaming, but you asked the question . . .
2007-08-02 16:19:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by Chredon 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes.
Do away with the Electoral College and require congressmen, senators and the president to be elected by a simple majority of the popular vote. Anything less than a majority would require a runoff election.
Require all eligible citizens to vote.
2007-08-02 16:24:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Make it a capital offense for a president, who has sworn to defend and uphold the constitution to refer to it as "just a god-damned piece of paper" like Bush did.
Establish a minimum IQ of 100 for the presidency. Actually it should be set even higher, but requiring the president to be at least as smart as 50% of the populace would prevent a moron like Bush from ever being appointed president again.
2007-08-02 16:24:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Absolutely not!! The current administration is attempting to systematically expunged our rights. At least the amendments that won't assist them in gaining power and money.
2007-08-02 16:16:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Nikki 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
I have three proposed amendments (linked below) -- fix campaign/election loopholes, true equal protection, and put back the 10th Amendment.
2007-08-02 16:08:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Repeal the 16th amendment?
2007-08-02 17:12:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
No.
The Constitution is just as valid today, as it was when written.
I believe the Constitution is written for EACH INDIVIDUAL to interpret in their OWN lives, and not for another to interpret or infringe on that persons right to do so.
2007-08-02 16:07:06
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
I would make an amendment that privides health insurance for every citizen in this country!
2007-08-02 16:12:38
·
answer #9
·
answered by Nemo the geek 7
·
4⤊
1⤋
Actually, the constitution is fine, as is. The problems in our country stem from the fact that our f*ckhead politicians ignore it.
-J.
2007-08-02 16:04:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by Jason 4
·
4⤊
1⤋