What amendment would you make to the constitution?

Question

What amendment would you make to the constitution? Is it already perfect, or can it be improved? I think it's one of the best in the world, but...
1. I'd like to have the power of initiative at the federal level.
2. I think some positions that are currently appointed should be elected, like attorney general.
3. I think the second amendment needs to be reworded, because nobody can agree on what the heck a "well regulated militia" means.
4. I think the fourth amendment should specifically say that the right to privacy includes the right to be anonynous.
Any other ideas?

Answer 1

#1 might be a god idea. #2 won't work. I know that the current adminsitration indicates some reform is needed--but maing the AG a popularity constest would make things worse,not better. How about makng it an independant office, with a specified term independant of the particular administration?
#3 is about to get resolved by a case before the USSC. And long overdue.
#4 Sorry--that's too broad. In what context to you mean "anonymous"--you need to be more specific.

But--I'd suggest jsut one change--something like this:

"Congress shall make no law regulating the personal conduct of any law-abiding citizen, except that the action regulated is injurious to others"

That would get both the right and left looking to lynch me! :)

Answer 2

The only "perfect" thing about the constitution is that is amendable to meet the changing needs fo society.
For you're suggestions;
1)-?power of initiative for whom & the power to initiate what?
2)- No. Has it occured to you that all Federal elected positions are all elected at a "local" level? Congressmen, Senators & even the Presidency/Vice Presidency are elceted based on the results of local votes (congressional district for the House, States for the Senators & a combination of the two for the Electoral Collage, which selects the President/Vice President). The reason this was done was that the Founding Fathers knew that political partisanship (factions) was & is the reality of any political system. Localizing the elections for national offices pits those factions against each other & prevents any one particular from gaining enough power to impose its will to the point that it could permanently take over the gov't.
3)-rewording isn't necessary, this is why we have a independent judiciary, to interpret or reinterpret the language. In fact, there are several cases on this particular subject on the Supreme Court's docket. Keep your eyes on the news. These cases will have rulings in the nbext several months.
4)-Disagree. The right to be secure in one's effects & papers in based on the right to private property, not secrecy.


My own ideas;
-A Balanced Budget Amemdment, one that speciffically denies Congress the right to raid Social Security or any other gov't trust programs, automatically cuts out Congressional "earmarks" (also known as porkbarrel spending), & makes every member of the House & Senate forfit their pay & federal benifits (including pensions & insurance) for passing a deficit budget.
-An Amendment limiting the amount of time anyone is allowed to campaign for Federal office, say 90 days between the first day one can file to run & the day the election is held. In addition, None of the Above is given as a choice for all federal ellections. If the voter turnout for any particular office is less that 50% of the total number of eligible registered voters, or None of the Above is the winner, all previous candidated are disqualified & new elelctions take place within 30 days. As part of this, no one may hold the same federal office for more than 2 terms.

I completely disagree with Tobias! The 1st Amendment's "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion" means just that. If you want to live in a Christian Theocracy, Vatican City is in Rome, you can catch a flight there anytime you want. (Wait, You're not Catholic? Don't want a gov't telling you who & how to worship? You want to know something? Neither do the rest of us!)

I also gotta disagree with a marriage amendment. If fact, I personally don't think gov't should be in the marriage recognising business, including laws prohibiting bigamy, polygamy & polyandry. As long as ALL the people involved are legally adults (none of this child marriage crud) & can contractually spell out their duties & obligations to each other, it's none of the gov't business (nor anyone elses, for that matter).

Answer 3

I would make prostitution and drugs legal.
I have never used a prostitute, and I gave up drugs 30 years ago. Right now, prostitution is horrible, because women are used against their will, there are no safeguards for workers or customers. In other words, it is slavery, with pimps as the slave owners. If it were legal, like in Nevada, the women would be free to come & go as they please. They would be taxpaying citizens. As far as drugs go, right now, it costs a few cents to make a gram of crack, but it sells for hundreds of times it's cost, because it is illegal. A crack addict has to steal $200/day to pay for a $100/day habit. Many of the people in prison are there for drug related (so called victimless) crimes. It costs $50,000/year to keep a man in Federal prison -taxpayer money -yours & mine.

Answer 4

I'd like one that states that members of Congress are forbidden from raising their own pay. In any other company, the employer raises pay, or not. Believe it or not, voting residents of America are the employer of all Congressmen.

Answer 5

I would re-word the 10th amendment to make it stronger. Everything else will follow automatically.

Answer 6

There would no longer be the ability to make amendments.

Answer 7

Well, I'll take heat for this one, but I wish the founding fathers had put into writing their real intent on having America based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and it was worded in no uncertain terms what their true wishes were so we could put the whole argument to rest about including God in our nation where He should be.

For those who want to throw the whole "separation of church and state" around, those words are NOT in our constitution or bill of rights....anywhere! Don't believe me ? Look for yourself----> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

Have a blessed Christmas :-)

I know I'll get a few "thumbs down" for this as the world is hostile to Jesus Christ and His desire to give everyone eternal life who asks for it...I can't fathom that, but sadly it's the way it is....I'll take my beatings now please and thank you.

Edit:

HEY JENNIFER- you got a thumbs-up from me on your comment!

Answer 8

ID LIKE TO AMMEND THE LEGISLATIVE DEPT. MAKING THE CONGRESS AS A UNICAMERAL ONE,JUST TO BE ALL THE MEMBERS OF WHICH IS SHALL BE JUSTIFIED BY THE WHOLE FILIPINO PEOLE NOT BY JUST DISTRICTS.AND ALSO TO SAVE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE GOVT. AND DECREASE PORK BARREL FUNDS WHICH ONLY TURNED TO CORRUPTION.

Answer 9

I would like an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I know I'll get low ratings for this, but I don't care, so rate away.

Answer 10

I'd legalize prostitution. I always want to be a pimp.