• 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!

Would You Change The Constitution?

The first things that come to mind? I'd add a voting rights amendment that bans gerrymandering and flushes the electoral college.
 
Tlrmln said:
Ok, how about $1 billion, less 100 million for each demonstrable lie they tell during their campaign or while in office?
Click to expand...
When they get to 0 are they forced out of the election or do we end up with a president who’s salary is -700billion on Inauguration Day
 
ScrambledEggs said:
How do they increase corruption and decrease accountability?
Click to expand...
Elections are constantly 'new faces' voters know through the big money advertising, not experience in office. The people who decide who gets the big money backing will dominate elections even more. Accountability is obvious - instead of voters deciding whether to re-elect someone based on what they did, the politicians will have no incentive to worry about voter opinion.

You didn't ask about making government worse.

Let's not have Nancy Pelosi doing the great job she did as leader. Let's not have Bernie Sanders leading all the good things he's leading. Let's not have Sen. Whitehouse leading the fight against dark money and court corruption, and many other very experienced leaders.

Let's instead have new people who don't know what they're doing, getting little to nothing done other than what the people who got them elected tell them to do.
 
Chillfolks said:
When they get to 0 are they forced out of the election or do we end up with a president who’s salary is -700billion on Inauguration Day
Click to expand...

Well, I think it will take time to prove that the lies are actually lies, so I figure we do it after the fact, and if they end up with a negative balance, they have to work it off in a hard labor camp.
 
Craig234 said:
Elections are constantly 'new faces' voters know through the big money advertising, not experience in office. The people who decide who gets the big money backing will dominate elections even more. Accountability is obvious - instead of voters deciding whether to re-elect someone based on what they did, the politicians will have no incentive to worry about voter opinion.

You didn't ask about making government worse.

Let's not have Nancy Pelosi doing the great job she did as leader. Let's not have Bernie Sanders leading all the good things he's leading. Let's not have Sen. Whitehouse leading the fight against dark money and court corruption, and many other very experienced leaders.

Let's instead have new people who don't know what they're doing, getting little to nothing done other than what the people who got them elected tell them to do.
Click to expand...
Ya make some interestin points
 
ScrambledEggs said:
I wasn't talking about the Patriot Act specifically. For example, could the 2nd Amendment be clarified?
Click to expand...
I don't want it to be. I mean, how much clearer can "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" be?
 
Mycroft said:
I don't want it to be. I mean, how much clearer can "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" be?
Click to expand...
A right by definition cannot be "infringed" legally speaking. Yet we regulate every right known to man. Still, Conservatives view "shall not be infringed" as "shall not be regulated".
 
ScrambledEggs said:
A right by definition cannot be "infringed" legally speaking. Yet we regulate every right known to man. Still, Conservatives view "shall not be infringed" as "shall not be regulated".
Click to expand...
As long as that "regulation" prevents people from keeping and bearing arms...that's an infringement.
 
Mycroft said:
As long as that "regulation" prevents people from keeping and bearing arms...that's an infringement.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The entire point of regulation is to control the actions taken by individuals to exercise that right. Every right is regulated.
 
Mycroft said:
Just because infringements have been allowed by the courts, that doesn't mean infringements don't exist.
Click to expand...
Do universal background checks "keep people from bearing arms"?
 
Why doesn't the 2nd Amendment say anything about buying or selling arms?
 
ScrambledEggs said:
The Constitution can and has been amended in very significant ways, much of it to protect against discrimination in the public sphere. Recently, Trump called for a radical change in the Constitution.

Regardless of whether there are votes, what would you like to see if anything changed in the Constitution?
Click to expand...
No. The constitution is interpreted and implemented while keeping "we the people" as a guiding principle. I believe the first amendments were the bill of rights as the first ten amendments. The first 2 we all know. The third one is the quartering of soldiers, which became outdated long ago. No need to amend constitution.
 
Tlrmln said:
Well, I think it will take time to prove that the lies are actually lies, so I figure we do it after the fact, and if they end up with a negative balance, they have to work it off in a hard labor camp.
Click to expand...
But they still get the reward of being president? I would prefer not to keep putting lying assbags in the WH
 
Craig234 said:
Term limits are a terrible idea. They make government worse, they increase corruption, and the decrease accountability. Now we have elections where money plays a huge corrupting role; with term limits, it would be much worse.
Click to expand...

We finally found one thing that Trump would agree with you on.
 
ScrambledEggs said:
The Constitution can and has been amended in very significant ways, much of it to protect against discrimination in the public sphere. Recently, Trump called for a radical change in the Constitution.

Regardless of whether there are votes, what would you like to see if anything changed in the Constitution?
Click to expand...
A few I'd look at: repeal that dated second amendment language and that archaic electoral college, provide for a peaceful process for state succession from the union, add a right to privacy, and a right to make personal autonomous medical decisions. Require that the Senate hold a trial on impeachments, hearings on judicial nominations, and a stand alone floor vote before providing any funds to be used in major military conflicts ( they must consider and pass declaration of war language before providing the funding for wars)

Make the cowardly Senate do its job as the constitution described it.
 
Craig234 said:
Term limits are a terrible idea. They make government worse, they increase corruption, and the decrease accountability. Now we have elections where money plays a huge corrupting role; with term limits, it would be much worse.
Click to expand...
I could not agree more. We already provide for term limits. They come at the end of two years in the House and 6 years in the Senate, when they all lose their jobs until they reapply for the same position and beg their former employers to renew that same employment contract. Rinse and repeat.

Voters should not be told that they can't renew that contract with their legislators if they want to.
 
Craig234 said:
Term limits are a terrible idea. They make government worse, they increase corruption, and the decrease accountability. Now we have elections where money plays a huge corrupting role; with term limits, it would be much worse.
Click to expand...
But the longer you stay in power, the less removed you are from the people. This is true anywhere without term limits. We need to bring politicians closer to the people, so term limits -by itself- will not fix it. What do you propose, with or without term limits?
 
noonereal said:
Yes, pretty much all of it is outdated and we never amended it. It needs to be junked. Until it is, SCOTUS will be our legislative body in the country. Not how it should work at all.
Click to expand...
So you agree with Trump? Weird.
 
ScrambledEggs said:
Regardless of whether there are votes, what would you like to see if anything changed in the Constitution?
Click to expand...
Like many other people, I think that it is time for the states to have more autonomy.

Real autonomy.

For example, a border patrol officer has just lost his life chasing some unauthorized migrants in Texas.

Of course, no one in the Dem Administration has expressed his/her condolences, including the elderly and confused career politician who has hinted that he WILL run for a second term. He has said that he has "more important" things to do than to visit the border. As one wag put it, he is more interested in finding good ice cream shops.

If Texas were truly autonomous, it could conclude a treaty with Mexico to crack down on the flow of unauthorized migrants and the drugs that are killing thousands of Americans.
 
Last edited:
ScrambledEggs said:
The Constitution can and has been amended in very significant ways, much of it to protect against discrimination in the public sphere. Recently, Trump called for a radical change in the Constitution.

Regardless of whether there are votes, what would you like to see if anything changed in the Constitution?
Click to expand...
Get rid of right to bear arms and explicitly provide instead that the federal government and states have the right to regulate arms and there is no right to travel interstate with arms.
Add Roe v Wade and Obergefell holdings.
Ban partisan gerrymandering
Require ranked-choice voting in all elections
Get rid of electoral college or at least have EC votes divided in proportion to popular vote of each state
Make Senate proportional to population rather than 2 per state.
 
Given: the current level of polarization in the United States of America and the accent on winning above all expressed by many of our present politicians. There's a danger of one of our political parties achieving sufficient control of the levers of governmental power to change the Constitution unilaterally. Should that come to pass, our experiment in democracy will end.

I would like to see the Constitution changed to prevent such a thing from happening.

I do not see it as a real possibility, however.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom