• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Any Amendments you'd like to see repealed?

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Any Amendments you'd like to see repealed? If so, which ones and why?

Me...

17th: Upsets a proper balance of power. States now get unfunded mandates, and get blackmailed with, "If you don't do what we want, we'll take away your highway money.", because they have no voice to speak for them in Congress. It would not be taking anything away from the people, as they have the House to represent their interests.

22nd: The people should be free to elect whomever they want. Period. This factor alone trumps all other considerations.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Any Amendments you'd like to see repealed? If so, which ones and why?

Me...

17th: Upsets a proper balance of power. States now get unfunded mandates, and get blackmailed with, "If you don't do what we want, we'll take away your highway money.", because they have no voice to speak for them in Congress. It would not be taking anything away from the people, as they have the House to represent their interests.

22nd: The people should be free to elect whomever they want. Period. This factor alone trumps all other considerations.

you are 100% correct on the 17th, the government is out of balance in power, the states can no longer protect their state powers from usurpation by federal law.

the 17th moved our government away from a true republican form of government which was a mixed government, to a more democratic form of government, which has many factious combinations, which in time control government and work in their interest, instead of the interest of the people- the states- and the union as a whole.

the 16th is another one to repeal because it gives the federal government power over the people, "the power to tax is the power to destroy"

when the 16th amendment was made into law, it violated the founding principles set forth for this nation by the declaration of independence, which is that money is property.

with the federal government using a direct tax, it is taking property by FORCE.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Any Amendments you'd like to see repealed? If so, which ones and why?

Me...

17th: Upsets a proper balance of power. States now get unfunded mandates, and get blackmailed with, "If you don't do what we want, we'll take away your highway money.", because they have no voice to speak for them in Congress. It would not be taking anything away from the people, as they have the House to represent their interests.

22nd: The people should be free to elect whomever they want. Period. This factor alone trumps all other considerations.

I think the Constitution works quite well as it is.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
you are 100% correct on the 17th, the government is out of balance in power, the states can no longer protect their state powers from usurpation by federal law.

the 17th moved our government away from a true republican form of government which was a mixed government, to a more democratic form of government, which has many factious combinations, which in time control government and work in their interest, instead of the interest of the people- the states- and the union as a whole.

the 16th is another one to repeal because it gives the federal government power over the people, "the power to tax is the power to destroy"

when the 16th amendment was made into law, it violated the founding principles set forth for this nation by the declaration of independence, which is that money is property.

with the federal government using a direct tax, it is taking property by FORCE.
I don't disagree with the sentiment re the 16th, but modern practical reality is that we need a somewhat efficient funding mechanism. I think we should be funding far less than we currently do, but that's another topic for another thread.

Re 17th: You and I are on the same page, but again back to practical reality, I don't see it happening. Not in my lifetime, and possibly even never. One, too many people would be all, "You're taking away my representation! :2mad:", without stopping to think about the whole picture and how the current imbalance of power is not serving them well. Two, Congress itself would be loathe to give up the power. They would fight it tooth-and-nail, and it would be truly bi-partisan.

Side question: I wonder how many of our current Senators would be Senators if they were appointed by their states instead of popularly elected? :2razz:
 

Cisero

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
1,663
Reaction score
1,212
Location
Valais, Switzerland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Any Amendments you'd like to see repealed? If so, which ones and why?

Me...

17th: Upsets a proper balance of power. States now get unfunded mandates, and get blackmailed with, "If you don't do what we want, we'll take away your highway money.", because they have no voice to speak for them in Congress. It would not be taking anything away from the people, as they have the House to represent their interests.

22nd: The people should be free to elect whomever they want. Period. This factor alone trumps all other considerations.

The 2nd.







*grabs popcorn*
 

Grizzly Adams

Tick Tack, Tick Tack, du wirst alt
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
7,101
Reaction score
2,369
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I agree with the repeal of the 22nd, but I'm not that passionate about it.

I used to be in strong favor of the repeal of the 17th, but the graft that propelled it to passage would likely still be a problem. I am now rather intrigued, and could be convinced fairly easily, that the answer instead is to allow the legislatures of the states to vote on repeal of a federal law. I'd need to the see exact wording of the amendment, and the main sticking point, in my opinion, is the budget and the carrot-and-stick provisions it regularly contains.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I don't disagree with the sentiment re the 16th, but modern practical reality is that we need a somewhat efficient funding mechanism. I think we should be funding far less than we currently do, but that's another topic for another thread.

Re 17th: You and I are on the same page, but again back to practical reality, I don't see it happening. Not in my lifetime, and possibly even never. One, too many people would be all, "You're taking away my representation! :2mad:", without stopping to think about the whole picture and how the current imbalance of power is not serving them well. Two, Congress itself would be loathe to give up the power. They would fight it tooth-and-nail, and it would be truly bi-partisan.

Side question: I wonder how many of our current Senators would be Senators if they were appointed by their states instead of popularly elected? :2razz:

i prefer a consumption tax, because it voluntary and everyone pays, and those that have a lot of money pay more taxes, because they buy more.

the 17th i don't see it either, because most people do not understand what a balanced government is and think democratic forms of government are good, went they are bad.


answer to you question:

i have look at old records of senators , although the 17th was enacted in 1913, 32 states were already directing electing senators by the people before 1913, and i found when senators were appointed, they were never appointed more then 2 terms.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I agree with the repeal of the 22nd, but I'm not that passionate about it.

I used to be in strong favor of the repeal of the 17th, but the graft that propelled it to passage would likely still be a problem. I am now rather intrigued, and could be convinced fairly easily, that the answer instead is to allow the legislatures of the states to vote on repeal of a federal law. I'd need to the see exact wording of the amendment, and the main sticking point, in my opinion, is the budget and the carrot-and-stick provisions it regularly contains.

yes there was graft, ..on the state level, with the 17th graft moved to the federal level of the senate.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
answer to you question:

i have look at old records of senators , although the 17th was enacted in 1913, 32 states were already directing electing senators by the people before 1913, and i found when senators were appointed, they were never appointed more then 2 terms.
Interesting. I would have no issue if a state chose... of it's own free will... to popularly elect Senators. But it would have to be the state's choice, not coerced in any way.
 

Lovebug

Be humble and kind
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
32,237
Reaction score
17,205
Location
south
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

We need to adjust part of this section of the 14th amendment to stop its abuse.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
interesting. I would have no issue if a state chose... Of it's own free will... To popularly elect senators. But it would have to be the state's choice, not coerced in any way.

but remember the constitution was written TO GIVE people an interest in government via the house, the states interest was via the senate.

Why do you want people to have 2 interest in government?

Without any state interest in our federal government, the states cannot protect their states powers from federal usurpation.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
but remember the constitution was written TO GIVE people an interest in government via the house, the states interest was via the senate.

Why do you want people to have two interest in government.

Without any state interest in our federal government, the states cannot protect their states powers from federal usurpation.
I agree. But, and this is where there are competing interests... allowing a state to choose popular election of Senators is about freedom of the states to make their own choices. I agree that it would affect, albeit to a smaller degree, the balance of power, but freedom of the states rates higher to me. The Constitution is about reigning in federal power, not about micromanaging the people or the states. People and states should still be free to make their own decisions, even bad ones.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I agree. But, and this is where there are competing interests... allowing a state to choose popular election of Senators is about freedom of the states to make their own choices. I agree that it would affect, albeit to a smaller degree, the balance of power, but freedom of the states rates higher to me. The Constitution is about reigning in federal power, not about micromanaging the people or the states. People and states should still be free to make their own decisions, even bad ones.

in order to have such freedom the constitution must be amended and that would be article 4 section 4, because it guarantees a republican form of government, by having senators by direct election moves the government to a more democratic form of government.

while i agree people have right to self government ,what i am doing is explaining why the constitution was created to be a mixed government.

because mixed government prevents faction/special interest from controlling government, because it blocks the collective capacity of the people of the house from making laws which would violate rights of people, and from making laws which violate the separation of powers.

the senate in the hands of the states does not have the power of revenue, and cannot impose laws on the people and violate rights.

people complain all the time that our government is bought and paid for by elites, well this is true, and it is true because the government is no longer mixed, because the states no longer have control to stop collective law making
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
in order to have such freedom the constitution must be amended and that would be article 4 section 4, because it guarantees a republican form of government, by having senators by direct election moves the government to a more democratic form of government.

while i agree people have right to self government ,what i am doing is explaining why the constitution was created to be a mixed government.

because mixed government prevents faction/special interest from controlling government, because it blocks the collective capacity of the people of the house from making laws which would violate rights of people, and from making laws which violate the separation of powers.

the senate in the hands of the states does not have the power of revenue, and cannot impose laws on the people and violate rights.

people complain all the time that our government is bought and paid for by elites, well this is true, and it is true because the government is no longer mixed, because the states no longer have control to stop collective law making
So, are you saying that the states that allowed popular election of Senators prior to the 17th were violating the Constitution by doing so?

Honest question.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So, are you saying that the states that allowed popular election of Senators prior to the 17th were violating the Constitution by doing so?

Honest question.

yes, because the constitution states that senators are appointed by the state legislatures not the people.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

you are going to ask how a violation of the constitution was allowed to go on, because if i remember correctly the elections were challenged that it did not conform to a republican form of government, to which the USSC replied that , "it is a political question", and they cannot adjudicate in that area and would not hear the case.

from 1880 to 1920 was the progressive era of america where people were being taught america was a democracy.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
14th
16th
17th
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,884
Reaction score
24,983
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
22nd: The people should be free to elect whomever they want. Period. This factor alone trumps all other considerations.

Nope. That way leads to dictatorship or some other form of cult of personality autocratic government. It also limits the effect of "dynastic" elections. People have a tendency to keep voting for someone who is ready and able to keep the "bread and circuses" at whatever cost to maintain personal power.

IMO we need term limits for Senator's and Representatives too.

Now as for the 17th? I haven't really thought of it to much, but a term limits Amendment might serve to balance the reasons leading to the ratification of the 17th.
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Any Amendments you'd like to see repealed? If so, which ones and why?

Me...

17th: Upsets a proper balance of power. States now get unfunded mandates, and get blackmailed with, "If you don't do what we want, we'll take away your highway money.", because they have no voice to speak for them in Congress. It would not be taking anything away from the people, as they have the House to represent their interests.

22nd: The people should be free to elect whomever they want. Period. This factor alone trumps all other considerations.

1st: People shouldn't be free to harm society by promoting moral degeneracy. The state shouldn't be implicitly atheistic. And the press shouldn't be allowed to rule (which is what "freedom of the press" means).

2nd: Firearm regulation is a prudential matter. There's no moral right to own a gun.

5th (partially): The common people shouldn't be responsible for deciding on criminal charges. That should be left to people educated in the law. Also, if new evidence is obtained, why shouldn't a person be subject to punishment?

6th (partially): Again, judges should render verdicts, since they are practiced in judging evidence.

7th: Same as above. These matters should be decided by judges, not jurors.

10th: Sovereignty by nature should be unitary. Multiplicity of sovereignty is problematic.

11th: Ibid

14th: People born here to foreigners should not be citizens. Equality is a myth, so the law should not pretend that it is real. There's nothing wrong with restricting the right to vote.

15th: Voting is not a moral right.

17th: This populism is bad for sound government. Government should be as hierarchical as possible.

19th: Allowing women to vote was idiotic. Governing is generally the business of men.

22nd: There's no reason a good leader shouldn't be able to reign longer than eight years.

23rd: No reason to expand the vote to DC.

24th: Again, voting isn't an inherent right. Nothing wrong with restricting it.

26th: Political power should be restricted to the more mature.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,884
Reaction score
24,983
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

Only people who have bought into the ideologies that "government is always our friend" and "someone else needs to take responsibility for my safety and security" think there is a need to disarm the general population of a free state.

The Second Amendment is not a power given to government, it is a restriction on government power. The reasons for it's inclusion in the Bill of Rights are stated simply and clearly in the Declaration of Independence, and the fact that without the right to keep and bear arms no people have the ability to either defend themselves from the threats of other people, or act against any form of government that becomes abusive of power.
 
Last edited:

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Nope. That way leads to dictatorship or some other form of cult of personality autocratic government. It also limits the effect of "dynastic" elections. People have a tendency to keep voting for someone who is ready and able to keep the "bread and circuses" at whatever cost to maintain personal power.

IMO we need term limits for Senator's and Representatives too.

Now as for the 17th? I haven't really thought of it to much, but a term limits Amendment might serve to balance the reasons leading to the ratification of the 17th.
I favor no term limits whatsoever, for any office. The people get what they want, whether they realize it or not.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,884
Reaction score
24,983
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I favor no term limits whatsoever, for any office. The people get what they want, whether they realize it or not.

I don't agree. The people get what they think they want, usually because they have been convinced that they need it.

For example, do we really want the newest car every two to four years, or have we been convinced by advertising that having the newest car makes us more special?

Do we really need the internet, or has it's touted convenience made us slaves to it's use?

Every dictatorship in history was founded on this understanding of human nature, from the first Roman Emperor to the current example of Vladimir Putin in Russia.

This is the Tyranny of the Majority that our Framers were concerned about.
 
Last edited:

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I don't agree. The people get what they think they want, usually because they have been convinced that they need it.

For example, do we really want the newest car every two to four years, or have we been convinced by advertising that having the newest car makes us more special?

Do we really need the internet, or has it's touted convenience made us slaves to it's use?

Every dictatorship in history was founded on this understanding of human nature, from the first Roman Emperor to the current example of Vladimir Putin in Russia.

This is the Tyranny of the majority that our Framers were concerned about.
You are correct, we disagree. I think people are only posturing when they complain about our politicians. I think, deep down, we have it easy and we know it, and we don't want to rock the boat.

Collective "we", of course. There certainly are people who are upset, and I would categorize most at places like here in that group, but those of us are in the definite minority.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,587
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think the Constitution works quite well as it is.

I think rather than repealed they need to go back to their original content.
there has been so much crap filed on top of them that their original meaning
has gotten lost.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I think rather than repealed they need to go back to their original content.
there has been so much crap filed on top of them that their original meaning
has gotten lost.
Do you mean original Constitution only and lose the Bill of Rights and everything? Or, keep the Bill of Rights, also?
 
Top Bottom