For what would you open the Constitution?

[BonosSaint]

We've seen so many loosely proposed amendments to the Constitution lately -- eliminating two terms for President, allowing naturalized citizens to become President (done for Arnold, I guess), banning gay marriage.

What do you believe in strongly enough that you would amend the Constitution of the United States and what is your reasoning for taking this ultimate step?

 

[Irvine511]

great question. let me think. will get back to you.

 

[U2democrat]

great question. let me think. will get back to you.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

The problem isn't so much that we need to amend it as much as we need to consider it for what it is, the supreme law of the land.

- Freedom of speech/religion, not FROM speech and religion.
- Right to bear arms
- Right to a speedy trial
- Etc, etc, etc...

 

[Irvine511]

- Freedom of speech/religion, not FROM speech and religion.

disagree with you here. we get freedom of religion, and freedom from religion -- even Bush has said this.

 

[Se7en]

electoral college.

 

[80sU2isBest]

electoral college.

Even though I voted for Bush and Bush won the first election as a result of the electoral college, I must agree.

 

[verte76]

electoral college.

Me too.

 

[Se7en]

Even though I voted for Bush and Bush won the first election as a result of the electoral college, I must agree.

unfortunately wink for some of us you got the second election by 3 mill.

 

[melon]

- Freedom of speech/religion, not FROM speech and religion.

Looking at the "anti-gay marriage amendment," we need freedom from religion as well.

Melon

 

[Teta040]

Um.....
The 2000 "election" wasn't won by the Electoral college.

It won because nobody in the media, the dingbats, bothered to note that for many months prior to the event, Jebby Boy and staff had, at Big Brutha's request, drawn up a list of hundreds of thousands of perfectly oridinary citizens in Maimi-Dade County (urban, black.Latino, and mostly Democratic) and converted them into registered felons, who could not vote. Even many poll workers suddenly found out they were convicted felons on Election Day., and it was to late to do a damn thing about it. This eliminated potential votes that cost the Dems the largest county in the State, so no matter what rhe Upreme court decided, they'd still have won, b/c they'd havew won M/D.

I understand something siliar happened this time around, but with questionable ballots. Which nobody from the US scrutiunzed, though a visiting Brit had exposed potential flaws in the system a few months back. There was a hell of a big stink, but it rapidly disappeared.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Because of the VRWC of course.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

electoral college.

Ooh, I'll second that one.

That is a good question. Hmmm...*Ponders this*.

Angela

 

[U2democrat]

electoral college.

*ding ding ding ding ding!*

i think we have a winner!

 

[BonosSaint]

Okay, we've got a consensus here. I can agree the current electoral college sucks. Next question then.

Since part of the reasoning behind the electoral college is to protect the interests of the smaller, less populated states, would you eliminate the electoral college entirely or would you modify it?
Say, for example, instead of the typical winner takes all, the electoral votes are assessed based on the percentage of the vote in the state and this is a uniform rule.

(I have to think this out mathematically. Would that end up the same as a simple majority vote or not? I'm an English major) If not, it seems to me that would still better reflect the will of the people than the current system while still giving some respect to the smaller states.

 

[Irvine511]

hmmmm ... maybe something to do with the overrepresentation of the sparesely populated western states in the Senate.

 

[verte76]

I'd like to abolish the whole thing, and go on strictly the popular vote.

 

[BonosSaint]

hmmmm ... maybe something to do with the overrepresentation of the sparesely populated western states in the Senate.

Could be.

 

[Irvine511]

i think it's much easier to say what you wouldn't amend the constitution for than what you would. as a general principle, the constitution should be to preserve rights, not take them away or narrow their focus, and it should never, never be used as a political tool, i.e. flag burning. the constitution must protect the rights of a minority from the tyranny of the majority -- which is why i always find it laughable when politicians talk about letting the people vote on certain cultural issues. i'm sorry, but rights are not to be conferred upon nor taken away from a minority by the majority.

 

[BonosSaint]

i think it's much easier to say what you wouldn't amend the constitution for than what you would. as a general principle, the constitution should be to preserve rights, not take them away or narrow their focus, and it should never, never be used as a political tool, i.e. flag burning. the constitution must protect the rights of a minority from the tyranny of the majority -- which is why i always find it laughable when politicians talk about letting the people vote on certain cultural issues. i'm sorry, but rights are not to be conferred upon nor taken away from a minority by the majority.

Thank you for that post.

 

[sue4u2]

i think it's much easier to say what you wouldn't amend the constitution for than what you would. as a general principle, the constitution should be to preserve rights, not take them away or narrow their focus, and it should never, never be used as a political tool, i.e. flag burning. the constitution must protect the rights of a minority from the tyranny of the majority -- which is why i always find it laughable when politicians talk about letting the people vote on certain cultural issues. i'm sorry, but rights are not to be conferred upon nor taken away from a minority by the majority.

With that said, it should be aganist the law of man and humanity to Abuse, Torture or Neglect of Children. Period...
Penalties should be so severe that no one would do this.. EVER!!
Regardless of the laws now in place, this is not being observed.
Untill it is, we have.... what we have.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I don't know if it's right to change the constitution at all, unless it was absolutely necessary. As I said earlier, we should never fog up the constitution with imaginary petunias that suit agendas and nothing more. For every major ruling, it should be explained to the public as to why something is constitutional or not. I don't have a strong opinion on the electoral college. As Irvine said, we should preserve rights, rather than amend, amend, amend. I find myself in agreement with his last post.

 

[deep]

I don't have a strong opinion on the electoral college.

That is a shame


We (the country) can not even have any confidence in how the president attains the office.

How can any thing else be more important?


Is it ignorance and/or apathy?

that allows our country to have an election process less legitimate than many banana republics

 

[Macfistowannabe]

You should be happy that I wouldn't piss my pants over it if it was overruled.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

That is a shame


We (the country) can not even have any confidence in how the president attains the office.

How can any thing else be more important?

I think it's more important how the country is run than by whom is running it.

Is it ignorance and/or apathy?

that allows our country to have an election process less legitimate than many banana republics

"Less legitimate", interesting terminology. However, I won't be out claiming that the Founding Fathers were infallable. Perhaps it is consistency, for better or worse that keeps the electoral college together.

 

[deep]

I think it's more important how the country is run than by whom is running it.

So a dictator would be fine

if you like the choices he made?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

So a dictator would be fine

if you like the choices he made?

Not exactly, because he would be running a dictatorship, rather than a democracy. I would not approve of that.

 

[deep]

I think it's more important how the country is run than by whom is running it.


"Less legitimate", interesting terminology. However, I won't be out claiming that the Founding Fathers were infallable. Perhaps it is consistency, for better or worse that keeps the electoral college together.

The Founding Fathers - what ever the fuck that means?

Just a bunch of property holders looking out for their self-interest

They came up with plans and compromises that served their ends

to their credit they did a fairly good job

Especially providing for changes and amendments

The E C is as obsolete as the concept “3/5 human for Negroes” is in census counting for apportionment.

 

[deep]

Not exactly, because he would be running a dictatorship, rather than a democracy. I would not approve of that.

Bush supports this.

Maybe you should reconsider.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

The Founding Fathers - what ever the fuck that means?

Just a bunch of property holders looking out for their self-interest

They came up with plans and compromises that served their ends

to their credit they did a fairly good job

Especially providing for changes and amendments

The E C is as obsolete as the concept “3/5 human for Negroes” is in census counting for apportionment.

Does your opinion of Ben Franklin, etc get any higher than that? I sure hope so.

Would you approve of rewriting the constitution little by little?