If you could change the U.S. Constittion in ONE way, what would it be?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
they did that in eastern europe and look what happened

You can always depend on mafia feudalists to step in when you need a helping hand.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Make it clear that "due process" has nothing to do with "substance." The doctrine of "substantive due process" has done more to erode the foundations of the constitution than anything else.

I figured it's overzealous legislators who have taken it upon themselves to legislate personal morality of private conduct and everything else under the sun. The concepts of limited government, limited power and individual liberty have gone so far by the boards that they seem to be nothing more than an abstract argument.

Oh, and make the right of secession explicit this time.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


I figured it's overzealous legislators who have taken it upon themselves to legislate personal morality of private conduct and everything else under the sun. The concepts of limited government, limited power and individual liberty have gone so far by the boards that they seem to be nothing more than an abstract argument.

Oh, and make the right of secession explicit this time.

MTG, many states have put a right to privacy in their laws or constitutions. I think that should be sufficient. But what you want, it appears, is the Federal Courts declaring state laws unconstitutional just because nine stuffed shirts, er, justices deem them inconsistent with "international law" or what they perceive to be right.

States rights? You, sir, are no true supporter thereof.

[Whoha]

this is kinda dumb, your one change could be to add an amendment completely rewriting the constitution.

[Ned]

Whoha, my change?

We are talking here about the Fifth and Fourteeth Amendment's "Due Process" clauses. These clauses per se do not speak of "substantive due process." That concept itself was once declared extremely flawed by the Supremes only two years before it was again used to justify Griswold.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
Whoha, my change?

No, "your" as in the "If you" from the thread title, meaning any and every contribution.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Ned
Whoha, my change?

We are talking here about the Fifth and Fourteeth Amendment's "Due Process" clauses. These clauses per se do not speak of "substantive due process." That concept itself was once declared extremely flawed by the Supremes only two years before it was again used to justify Griswold.

the thread.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
MTG, many states have put a right to privacy in their laws or constitutions. I think that should be sufficient. But what you want, it appears, is the Federal Courts declaring state laws unconstitutional just because nine stuffed shirts, er, justices deem them inconsistent with "international law" or what they perceive to be right.

States rights? You, sir, are no true supporter thereof.

I know we're in the Nedlight Zone^TM, but:

Wherein does commentary about overzealous legislators and the lack of the notion of limited government equate to support for Federal courts applying "international law" or some other nonsense?

WRT states rights, states have no more fundamental right to impose overzealous regulation on their citizens than does the United States have a fundamental right to impose overzealous regulation on the states.

Unfunded mandates? Congressional intervention in state law and/or private matters?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Bosh
Allow states to have complete control of how their Representatives are elected. This would allow for Single Transferable Vote or Proportional Representation or whatever at the state level.

Wow... that's a great proposal! I'll sign onto yours.

It strengthens states rights while allowing experimentation in elections... and of course their would be some basic standards like 'one person, one vote' and the number of reps .

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ned
We are talking here about the Fifth and Fourteeth Amendment's "Due Process" clauses. These clauses per se do not speak of "substantive due process." That concept itself was once declared extremely flawed by the Supremes only two years before it was again used to justify Griswold.

Actually the more I've read about this, the less hostility I have for "substantive due process". Turns out that 'due process' was a word that meant 'natural law' in English law back in the 1500s and beyond. If that be the case, then substantive due process is not that far out of the realm of possibility.

Then again, the problem is defining 'natural law'.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Then again, the problem is defining 'natural law'.

Smoke a little mother nature and all will become clear.

[Zkribbler]

Since so many other people are tinkering with the Second Amendment, I'll take a crack at adding an "advise and consent of the Senate" clause onto the President's power to pardon.

Clinton's 11th-hour pardon of financial sleezeball Rich was vile and unforgivable but in the long run will not do permanent damage to the country. But sooner or later, some wacko President is going to pardon a treasonous dog like Benedict Arnold or Aaron Burr, and the constitutional/legal system of America will be powerless to prevent it.

[Japher]

I would get rid of that amendment that allows for Woman's Suffrage... I mean, come on, how oppresive can we get as a nation!?

Either that, or I'd put in more references about god... just to pisss off a lot of ppl.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Smoke a little mother nature and all will become clear.

After all, the Constitution is written on it.