If you had the power to enact a single constitutional amendment-- anything-- what would it be?

Views: 343

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That would be considered unconstitutional

If it's an amendment to the Constitution then it IS constitutional.
Corporations are not considered as persons and do not have the rights afforded to citizens. As such they are not allowed to contribute to political campaigns or endorse political candidates.
My only objection (pointed out by someone else here - sorry, can't remember who) is that the ruling opens the door for corporations to be executed for capital crimes.
The only thing I can say to that is GOOD.
Sorry - this was my objection to the suggested amendment. It is, for me, the 'silver lining' of the ruling.
Congress shall make, vote upon, and ratify ONE LAW OR BILL AT A TIME. No riders, or unrelated bills, laws, etc. shall be allowed to piggyback any vote on any singular issue.
But how else are my rights to bear unconcealed weapons in state parks going to get protected? X^P
I am not American, but, for what's worth, if I could ammend your Constitution, I would forbid gun ownership.
Prohibition of pre-criminal activity always makes things worse in America. We should require that bullets be registered along with guns, that all registered guns have a ballistics profile associated with the registered owner. Also, unless the owner has reported the loss or theft of their weapon or ammunitions within thirty days of the incident, any crime committed with that weapon or ammo may be charged as an accomplice to the crime - whether they were materially involved or aware of the crime or not.

I would add that, the second amendment should be amended to include specific definitions for what constitutes 'arms' and 'a well-regulated militia.' From my reading, it is currently not clear as to why I cannot have a nuclear weapon.
Howard, in Article 1 sec 8 "Powers of Congress" it states "the Congress shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia..." I would assume that Congress can dictate what arms are used.
Ah - but the amendment states:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If the amendment has to be taken within the context of Article 1 section 8 - then the NRA should be entirely out of luck with their initiatives.

If not, however, eerily, the McVey interpretation of 'militia' (notice the lowercase 'm') is nearly correct - moderated only by the terms 'well regulated' and 'free State.' If you simply ignore the fairly clear implication of those two terms - then the current Supreme Court is doing a great job!

The definition of 'arms' is unclear in this case, however. For instance, many nuclear weapons treaties we have signed refer to them as 'nuclear arms'. This allows for an argument to be made that, while the treaties themselves probably prohibit me from having a loaded silo in my backyard - the 2nd amendment might insure I do have that right - as long as I comply with the pesky 'well regulated' aspect and only use them to maintain a 'free State.'
The real difference is between inalienable rights and conditional rights. Although the Constitution does not grant rights per se, but rather, enumerates the areas in which the government will not write restrictive laws.
Of all the amendments the 2nd is the only that is conditional and justified. For instance the 1st doesn't say "In order to maintain a democratic society the right to free speech shall not be infringed". Its is stated without condition or justification -"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" - so it's an inalienable right.


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service