I propose the following Constitutional Amendments

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[nate895]

IV. No treaty may enjoin the Constitution as supreme law of the land without being subject to the Amendment process

VI. Criminalize violating an oath to the Constitution. Like an impeachment process that can be initiated by petition from the voters who elected the political official.

Only two I have problems with.

VI: According to common law at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution, violating an oath of office is already a crime, and an impeachable offense.

IV: Treaties are fundamental law according to International Law (at the time of adoption of the US Constitution, the Law of Nations), and to say that they aren't is to break international law and gives other countries a reason to go to war with us. That being said, it would be unconstitutional for us to ratify a treaty that violates the Constitution on its face.

[Bradley in DC]

One Paul supporter a long time ago (1998?) wanted us to truncate the Bill of Rights after five words... :D

[Matt Collins]

- Senators should be elected by the legislators so they represent the STATES and not the People.

- NV and WV should have to resubmit to statehood because they were created illegally

- The 14th Amendment needs to be actually ratified (it wasn't ratified believe it or not)

- Every bill introduced and signed needs to have a section detailing which line of the Constitution grants them the power to enact that legislation

- It needs to be against the law to break the law (government officials should be held accountable)

- Sovereign immunity needs to be ended in most cases

- The Interstate Commerce clause needs to be rewritten to say what it mean at the time it was written "to make commerce regular among the several states"

- It should read "we the States" instead of 'we the People'

- Amendment X should have the word "expressly" reinserted back into it

[Truth Warrior]

"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender. I know that to pay all proper expenses within the year would, in case of war, be hard on us. But not so hard as ten wars instead of one. For wars could be reduced in that proportion; besides that the State governments would be free to lend their credit in borrowing quotas." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798. ME 10:64

[familydog]

My contribution:

"The first eight Amendments to the Constitution only apply to the federal government."

:)

[tpreitzel]

- Senators should be elected by the legislators so they represent the STATES and not the People.


Absolutely vital that the 17th amendment is repealed. This sole amendment is the source of much of our problems today. Where is the representation of the state legislatures when deciding to go to war? Well, there is none so we have the brainwashed masses drooling like a pack of hungry dogs when their handlers say it's time to hunt.

[Jeremy]

My contribution:

"The first eight Amendments to the Constitution only apply to the federal government."

:)

why?

[Vaio]

Good amendments, but never could you expect to amend the Constitution that many times...too scary and radical to accept :)

I think you could take care of a LOT of problems in Government by doing what Jefferson suggested. Have every debt taken on by the Federal Government be paid for by a tax. Jefferson suggested paying off debts in 19 years, I say 20 or 25 years with interest included--like a mortgage or any other type of private loan. You would then have to raise and appropriate money for this purpose, so a new tax would have to emerge to be specifically for that debt. This would keep politicians from overspending as they would have to justify imposing another tax on their constituents, and it would guarantee an end to entitlements as they would have a term limit of their own--20 or 25 years. It'd be like a sunset clause on every bill. A generation later, we would review the legislation and see if it worked or if it were popular and that we could afford it. In that case, we could vote to extend it another generation for the present, but it would NEVER end up like Medicare/Social Security today because, for one, those have been far outgrown. The need for more money for those programs would mean a much higher tax, so if we're going to have entitlements and this country chooses Socialism generation after generation, then they will at least be paid for and at least the present generation gets a say and not our grandparents or great grandparents deciding to bound us indefinitely to legislation passed in their time.

Some of you might be offended by "higher taxes", but the system we have now is either tax cuts while increase spending, or tax increases on the rich thinking that will pay for massive entitlements which outpace revenue in a matter of years. If we had a $1 trillion debt, then we would have a way to pay it off. If it were $50 trillion, we would have a way (although painful) to pay it off. If we have a $100 trillion debt in this system we have today, we have no way to pay it off and it results in Dollar depreciation, constant need for warfare, and paranoia over world resources and having the need to protect "our interests" by invasion.

If you look at all the conflicts and all the problems we have, I guarantee you it can be traced back to money. So the need for all of these amendments you propose is unnecessary if you have a Government that would be heavily restricted by maintaining a balance between taxes levied and debts incurred. Then we could use those "democratic term limits" everyone talks about and can vote our politicians out of office if they choose to raise taxes on my porn subscription.

[familydog]

why?

That's the way it was meant to be, but unfortunately things got out of hand. Sooo a Constitutional amendment is required.

Not to mention that's what the Constitution already supports.

[Jeremy]

That's the way it was meant to be, but unfortunately things got out of hand. Sooo a Constitutional amendment is required.

Not to mention that's what the Constitution already supports.

But we're talking about the bill of rights here

[jonhowe]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9... 11 ?

[familydog]

But we're talking about the bill of rights here

There is no textual evidence in the Constitution to support states having to abide by it. The original intent and understanding of the Bill of Rights was that it only applied to the federal government. Unfortunately things have changed. :(

Thus the proposed amendment.

[cien750hp]

don't forget clarification of the second ammendment that grants rights to ALL citizens to own guns, and carry them wherever.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[cjhowe]

don't forget clarification of the second ammendment that grants rights to ALL citizens to own guns, and carry them wherever.

The second amendment is clear enough on its own and does not support your assertion. The second amendment grants no rights. The second amendment is a restriction on the federal government. By the federal government abiding by the second amendment, your individual right to bear arms is kept from being infringed upon by the federal government.