What, if anything, do you think needs to be changed about the U.S. Constitution?

originally posted by: ownbestenemy

originally posted by: jtma508
Accountability for actions or failures to act

No dual-citizens to hold any political office or military commission

Lobbying becomes a federal crime

Lobbying is explicitly protected in the First Amendment....do you propose removing our Right to bring grievances to our elected officials? How would you define what is and isn't a grievence?

Because...because...evil corporations being all corporationy and stuff.

originally posted by: imnotanother
a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

The 16th Amendment.
We shouldn't have to pay a tax on our income earned through trading our time for labor.
From my understanding, the amendment was barely ratified.

Yes, repeal the 16th. I can agree with that.

originally posted by: PansophicalSynthesis
a reply to: MarlinGrace

What's your idea for securing the border? Troops, a wall, cameras, thermal sensors, etc? I mean, we can keep people out of area 51 without high tech, why not the border?

I have said this very thing in another thread, just call the guys at area 51 and let them do it. No worries.

Honestly, I don't like most of the changes!

Get rid of direct election of senators and the income tax. And perhaps maybe revise the 14th Amendment so the poor Supreme Court justices don't have to struggle with Incorporation Doctrine so much (all for equal protection, but it was worded rather...openly.)

a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

Personally....and i'm not sure if marlin agrees with this sentiment, but i figured i'd chime in, because i have ideas as well...i'd say a wall....about 15-20 feet thick, about 50-75 feet high, spanning the entire length of our southern land border, with watchtowers every 100 yards, with a sniper and spotter staffing them at all times...a 200-500 foot wide mine field, extending out from the wall on the mexico side, regular ground and helicopter gunship patrols along the entire length of the border....oh, and the whole deal, from construction, to staffing, to patrol, everything encompassing that wall, and the security of the southern border, should be handled by the military....i'd suggest some combined force of marines, and army.

do this, and the only way in and out over land, is through roads....roads with military checkpoints at the border....no more sneaking over the border...

the way in which people are kept out of area 51 is actually more high tech than you think.....sensors everywhere, a dedicated security force, that WILL kill you....and that's just the measures we know about..... i'm sure there are other measure we don't know about

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

Personally....and i'm not sure if marlin agrees with this sentiment, but i figured i'd chime in, because i have ideas as well...i'd say a wall....about 15-20 feet thick, about 50-75 feet high, spanning the entire length of our southern land border, with watchtowers every 100 yards, with a sniper and spotter staffing them at all times...a 200-500 foot wide mine field, extending out from the wall on the mexico side, regular ground and helicopter gunship patrols along the entire length of the border....oh, and the whole deal, from construction, to staffing, to patrol, everything encompassing that wall, and the security of the southern border, should be handled by the military....i'd suggest some combined force of marines, and army.

do this, and the only way in and out over land, is through roads....roads with military checkpoints at the border....no more sneaking over the border...

the way in which people are kept out of area 51 is actually more high tech than you think.....sensors everywhere, a dedicated security force, that WILL kill you....and that's just the measures we know about..... i'm sure there are other measure we don't know about

Um...wouldn't it just be cheaper and easier to just prevent illegal immigrants from accessing the benefits US citizens have (Social Security, etc.) and prevent children of illegal immigrants born on US soil from automatically becoming US citizens? Then we can just deport illegal immigrants that we catch. That's, like, really easy to implement, cheap, and doesn't involve killing people. I mean, I'm NOT in favor of illegal immigration, but it seems like a really lame reason to shoot somebody.

yeah, i would say we should be getting rid of a direct tax on income from our jobs....and the government really should be adhering to the constitution..in other words, obeying the law, but there's not much we can do about that, aside from kicking them all all out, and replacing them, because as anyone with a functional brain knows, writing a law that says you hafta obey the law, is stupid, and wouldn't do anything...oh hell, let's just repeal the 16th amendment altogether...

we should also be doing something about that federal reserve thingy, because i'm fairly certain the only entity legally allowed to create money is congress, by way of the treasury/mint..

we should be doing away with the electoral college, which would allow us to do away with the 23rd amendment as well..

we should be reworking the 14th amendment, to eliminate "birth tourism", or the act of producing "anchor children", where the parent gets pregnant in their country of origin, illegally crosses the border, and then has their child, so they can't be deported. the only way to really do it, is to have it so only the children of citizens (either natural born, or naturalized legal immigrants) are considered citizens.

i mean, there's other stuff we should do...but that's the constitution-related stuff..

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Um...wouldn't it just be cheaper and easier to just prevent illegal immigrants from accessing the benefits US citizens have (Social Security, etc.) and prevent children of illegal immigrants born on US soil from automatically becoming US citizens? Then we can just deport illegal immigrants that we catch. That's, like, really easy to implement, cheap, and doesn't involve killing people. I mean, I'm NOT in favor of illegal immigration, but it seems like a really lame reason to shoot somebody.

it would be cheaper, and easier, but it also wouldn't do anything.

they'd still come over here, and get jobs under the table, and it would be business as usual....and if those jobs weren't paying enough, there's always robbery, and drug dealing.....

i don't see anything lame about killing foreign invaders, trying to illegally enter the country...obviously, you'd wanna catch, and turn them around, rather than kill them, but that's not always possible....

like i've said before, the people who wanna go soft on border security, don't understand the situation......it's like if i decided to break into your house....and i decide i wanna live there, despite it being YOUR house...so i sit on your couch, and tell you to piss off, because i'm not leaving....

what do you do? you either call the cops, or you disable, or kill the intruder.....it's the same deal here...

originally posted by: Daedalus

it would be cheaper, and easier, but it also wouldn't do anything.

they'd still come over here, and get jobs under the table, and it would be business as usual....and if those jobs weren't paying enough, there's always robbery, and drug dealing.....

i don't see anything lame about killing foreign invaders, trying to illegally enter the country...obviously, you'd wanna catch, and turn them around, rather than kill them, but that's not always possible....

like i've said before, the people who wanna go soft on border security, don't understand the situation......it's like if i decided to break into your house....and i decide i wanna live there, despite it being YOUR house...so i sit on your couch, and tell you to piss off, because i'm not leaving....

what do you do? you either call the cops, or you disable, or kill the intruder.....it's the same deal here...

The whole "jobs under the table" just tells me that Americans aren't willing to compete on the free market (or are prevented from competing because of regulations like the minimum wage.)

And I'd totally stand by anyone who threw robbers and thieves off of their property, or used lethal force when appropriate. IMHO, that's what we should do with illegal immigrants. But...some of them (God only knows the breakdown) don't come here to steal from people, but because their life at home is terrible. I mean, the Mexican government can barely enforce the law. And if someone showed up on my property explaining they had been driven from their land by a tyrannical government, I wouldn't shoot them. I might not have the resources to let them stay, of course.

You see, people come here because it's better here than there. If they're coming here because we'll feed them and pamper them and because they can steal from us, that's terrible–and we should eliminate the incentives (again, Social Security, etc.) If people are coming here because all they want to do is earn an honest living and take care of their family...well, I hardly think shooting them is the appropriate option. I think it'd be much easier to make it clear that there was NOTHING to be gained here by coming illegally. (Currently, our policies encourage it. Although, honestly, I have a hard time denying people honest work for honest pay. But, if you break the law, you gotta suffer the consequences.)

Besides which, walls built to keep people out can just as easily keep people in.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
The whole "jobs under the table" just tells me that Americans aren't willing to compete on the free market (or are prevented from competing because of regulations like the minimum wage.)

the minimum wage is a GOOD thing...it ensures an employer can't pay you five cents a day, or five cents a week, just so they can say "see, i'm paying them"

paying illegals under the table means employers can get more for less, by breaking the law....it also allows the illegals an uncountable source of income, which they don't pay tax on, because on paper, it doesn't exist...

this isn't anything to do with americans being unwilling to compete..

And I'd totally stand by anyone who threw robbers and thieves off of their property, or used lethal force when appropriate. IMHO, that's what we should do with illegal immigrants.

ok, so we're in agreement on this point then...

But...some of them (God only knows the breakdown) don't come here to steal from people, but because their life at home is terrible. I mean, the Mexican government can barely enforce the law. And if someone showed up on my property explaining they had been driven from their land by a tyrannical government, I wouldn't shoot them. I might not have the resources to let them stay, of course.

if it's so terrible there, they should be working to fix their home, rather than coming here....they take and they take, and they screw things up so badly....eventually, it will be just like where they came from...doesn't seem like an ideal outcome for anyone.

You see, people come here because it's better here than there. If they're coming here because we'll feed them and pamper them and because they can steal from us, that's terrible–and we should eliminate the incentives (again, Social Security, etc.) If people are coming here because all they want to do is earn an honest living and take care of their family...well, I hardly think shooting them is the appropriate option. I think it'd be much easier to make it clear that there was NOTHING to be gained here by coming illegally. (Currently, our policies encourage it. Although, honestly, I have a hard time denying people honest work for honest pay. But, if you break the law, you gotta suffer the consequences.)

it's not our job to fix their home, and it's not our responsibility to take them in, and give them everything, just because they don't want to do what needs to be done to fix their home.

Besides which, walls built to keep people out can just as easily keep people in.

this is true, but there are still plenty of ways out of the U.S., if one were inclined to leave..

originally posted by: Daedalus

the minimum wage is a GOOD thing...it ensures an employer can't pay you five cents a day, or five cents a week, just so they can say "see, i'm paying them"

paying illegals under the table means employers can get more for less, by breaking the law....it also allows the illegals an uncountable source of income, which they don't pay tax on, because on paper, it doesn't exist...

this isn't anything to do with americans being unwilling to compete..

Yeah, actually, if Americans were willing to compete, we would't have to have a minimum wage; then employers could pay AMERICANS legally whatever they're paying illegals now.

if it's so terrible there, they should be working to fix their home, rather than coming here....they take and they take, and they screw things up so badly....eventually, it will be just like where they came from...doesn't seem like an ideal outcome for anyone.

Yeah, that sounds nice. I'm sure, with a little work, those individual citizens can fix their home country. Because their completely non-corrupt law enforcement officials and the cartels have their best interests at heart.
Honestly, I tend to agree with you. But sometimes a civilization is so far gone that, for individuals, the only way they can see out of it is escaping.

In those sorts of circumstances, I think the United States should welcome them with open arms IF they are willing to be productive citizens and obey the laws–including the immigration laws. But perhaps that's got more to do with the state of immigration laws than with illegal immigration per se.

Put yourself in their shoes. The LEOS are corrupt. The cartels are everywhere. And they know if they go to America they can prolly get free government assistance, healthcare, education, etc., etc....
Which, I think we should remove those incentives. And actually enforce the current immigration laws, and deport the ones we catch.

Keep in mind, we know who's coming and going. We've got good eyes on the border, and good intelligence agents. We don't need new personnel, we just need to remove a few incentives and enforce the current laws.

it's not our job to fix their home, and it's not our responsibility to take them in, and give them everything, just because they don't want to do what needs to be done to fix their home.

I agree, it's not our responsibility, but fixing Mexico is easier said than done. And, ya know, if a refugee showed up on my doorstep, I'd prolly feed the guy! Now, I don't think the government should act as a private charity in this case. But I don't think that shooting people fleeing for their lives is an optimal solution.

this is true, but there are still plenty of ways out of the U.S., if one were inclined to leave..

All the ways out are ways in also.

I would change the second ammendment to let states determine what guns citizens can own and also be able to keep undesirables from having them.

Also, an ammendment to outlaw corporate personhood and paid lobbying.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Yeah, actually, if Americans were willing to compete, we would't have to have a minimum wage; then employers could pay AMERICANS legally whatever they're paying illegals now.

so the federal government can tax THAT, and then we can have less money than we have now, and less money than what they pay the illegals now....that sounds like a GREAT idea...

in case you couldn't tell, that was sarcasm...

Yeah, that sounds nice. I'm sure, with a little work, those individual citizens can fix their home country. Because their completely non-corrupt law enforcement officials and the cartels have their best interests at heart.
Honestly, I tend to agree with you. But sometimes a civilization is so far gone that, for individuals, the only way they can see out of it is escaping.

In those sorts of circumstances, I think the United States should welcome them with open arms IF they are willing to be productive citizens and obey the laws–including the immigration laws. But perhaps that's got more to do with the state of immigration laws than with illegal immigration per se.

Put yourself in their shoes. The LEOS are corrupt. The cartels are everywhere. And they know if they go to America they can prolly get free government assistance, healthcare, education, etc., etc....
Which, I think we should remove those incentives. And actually enforce the current immigration laws, and deport the ones we catch.

Keep in mind, we know who's coming and going. We've got good eyes on the border, and good intelligence agents. We don't need new personnel, we just need to remove a few incentives and enforce the current laws.

then perhaps the mexicans should take a page out of our book, and have a revolution....yeah, a lot of people will die, but chances are, they'll come out on top, and then they can rebuild their country, and make it a place they can be proud of, and not hafta run away from...

I agree, it's not our responsibility, but fixing Mexico is easier said than done. And, ya know, if a refugee showed up on my doorstep, I'd prolly feed the guy! Now, I don't think the government should act as a private charity in this case. But I don't think that shooting people fleeing for their lives is an optimal solution.

if the government were so inclined, they could take the war on drugs literally, like they did with the war on terror...start invading countries from mexico, all the way down to the tip of south america...root out the drug production facilities, root out the cartels....utterly destroy them....it could be done.

i'm not sure i'd support such a thing, on account of all the waste, fraud, and abuse that would go along with it, because our government is rather corrupt as well....but still...THAT move would at least make some kind of sense..

All the ways out are ways in also.

this is true, as well.....however, we don't get thousands of people coming here illegally, every month, by way of door, from cuba....the land route is the one that is the biggest problem...

a reply to: CB328

and there it is....the one i've been waiting for...

once you start down the slippery slope of removing equal protection, it's difficult, if not impossible to right it....

the bill of rights is a set of rules everyone has to follow...if your state doesn't want to play by the rules, then they can leave the union...

a reply to: Daedalus

Well, if we had it my way, the feds wouldn't be able to tax anything you made
But lots of people get paid above minimum wage today. Competition would keep wages up. Perhaps they wouldn't be as high, but if the federal government couldn't tax everyone's income, it might not be a problem

Yeah...I suppose the Mexicans could have a revolution. Not sure how that'd work out. Doubt it would pay off in the short run. Maybe in the long term.

Yeah, it might make sense. But the government seems to want "the border problem" to be just that, so they can create a crisis to get money. *sigh* Same as the War on Drugs. Somebody is getting rich, but it isn't the taxpayers. Which is why we need to get rid of that silly income tax amendment!!

a reply to: StalkerSolent

IF..and i emphasize that very strongly, IF there was no federal income tax...removal of a federal minimum wage might work....when you think about it, all the minimum wage does right now, is ensure that you are being paid enough to be able to pay federal income taxes...it's REALLY an indirect corporate tax, as it requires companies to pay you a minimum amount, which they then help themselves to a piece of.....it's a lot like writing yourself a check with someone else's money...

the only down side is that once the federal income tax is gone, we still have state income taxes, which would probably go up, after the federal government starts squeezing the states for money, to compensate for the loss of income tax revenue....and even if that doesn't happen, you would almost certainly see the introduction of some kind of federally mandated flat-rate sales tax on all transactions....so every time you buy gas, food, clothing, a home, ANYTHING...you get taxed by the federal government, so then we'd be making less than what minimum currently is, and we'd still be pretty heavily taxed...

ultimately, the government would find a way to help itself to a large percentage of our money....so really, we kinda NEED certain protections in place..

competition wouldn't keep wages up.....say the minimum is 8 dollars an hour, an i make 10 dollars an hour....the employer doesn't HAFTA pay me 10, he chooses to do so, to make the job more attractive...he COULD pay minimum, and someone would take it, because they need the money.....remove the minimum, and now they can pay less and less, and someone will always take it, because they need the money...so if i won't work for less than 8, and they wanna pay 4, well, i'm not taking it, which means i'm boned for a job....it's a death spiral of increasingly lowered expectations, and the real end of anything even remotely resembling the american dream....

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: StalkerSolent

IF..and i emphasize that very strongly, IF there was no federal income tax...removal of a federal minimum wage might work....when you think about it, all the minimum wage does right now, is ensure that you are being paid enough to be able to pay federal income taxes...it's REALLY an indirect corporate tax, as it requires companies to pay you a minimum amount, which they then help themselves to a piece of.....it's a lot like writing yourself a check with someone else's money...

the only down side is that once the federal income tax is gone, we still have state income taxes, which would probably go up, after the federal government starts squeezing the states for money, to compensate for the loss of income tax revenue....and even if that doesn't happen, you would almost certainly see the introduction of some kind of federally mandated flat-rate sales tax on all transactions....so every time you buy gas, food, clothing, a home, ANYTHING...you get taxed by the federal government, so then we'd be making less than what minimum currently is, and we'd still be pretty heavily taxed...

ultimately, the government would find a way to help itself to a large percentage of our money....so really, we kinda NEED certain protections in place..

competition wouldn't keep wages up.....say the minimum is 8 dollars an hour, an i make 10 dollars an hour....the employer doesn't HAFTA pay me 10, he chooses to do so, to make the job more attractive...he COULD pay minimum, and someone would take it, because they need the money.....remove the minimum, and now they can pay less and less, and someone will always take it, because they need the money...so if i won't work for less than 8, and they wanna pay 4, well, i'm not taking it, which means i'm boned for a job....it's a death spiral of increasingly lowered expectations, and the real end of anything even remotely resembling the american dream....

Good point with the minimum wage as a mechanism to make sure people are paying taxes.
Hmm, the American Dream was around before the minimum wage. Agreed, state taxes would go up, but I also think people would then be upset at the states, (and federal government) leading to Representatives that were anti-tax getting voted in. Shoot, it would probably be a single-issue campaign.

Besides, I'd prefer a state income tax to a federal one because the state is closer, and people vote with their feet. The few states with no or little income tax would grin as they skimmed the tops off of the businesses that moved there to avoid the high income tax. The other states being crushed under the weight of the tax burden and losing their revenue stream would appoint anti-tax senators to take the burden off...oh, wait. We did away with state appointment of senators. Something else that needs to be changed about the US Constitution.

Obviously, this would lead to a downsizing in federal government. But I think we could save billions on overhead and stupidity if we merely moved a bunch of functions to state governments, like welfare, education, etc. We could also afford to downsize the military somewhat, and I think we could both agree that USAID could go.

I feel an amendment like "When a president commits treason under the constitutional laws, he is immediately revoked of any executive powers, and must go before a grand jury to decide validity. IF congress fails to proceed with the charges, or attempts to downplay the act committed as it is clearly defined in the Constitution, the congress persons and the speaker will forfeit their terms and be permanently banned from serving the USA in any official position.

Our current president has committed treason 13 times in many clearly defined ways that are evidence themselves of the willful intent to commit crimes against the people of America, contempt of congress, contempt for everything and everyone.

The constitution allows for even the death penalty for some forms of treason, which he has also already done too. The latest one:

According to U.S. Code 18 USC Section 2339A, it is a treasonous act to arm a State Department-designated terrorist group. Barack Obama on September 16, 2013 signed an executive order essentially exempting himself from the law in order to allow him to send thousands of tons of weapons to what he calls “freedom fighters”—the Syrian rebels that openly identify with al-Qaeda. The executive order, however, is not retroactive. This means that the 1000 tons of weapons that our own CIA distributed to the rebels on August 21, 2013— including thousands of shoulder-fired missiles capable of taking down a commercial airliner—is clearly a treasonous act. In fact, this was just one of dozens of weapon transfers prior to September 16, 2013 that the Obama administration has made to a terrorist group that murdered thousands of Americans on 9/11

There needs to be a reinforcement amendment to punish any, or all who do not act to remove a president who commits treason against America.

The Second Amendment.

I wish the second Amendment made it clearer for United States Citizens to have the right to bare arms and have the right to acquire such firearms as long as the guide lines are in pace that are there today are followed of course. I am strongly for USA citizen to acquire guns as long as they are eligible and responsible gun owners. To many of times do I see people arguing about gun laws and the second amendment using it for gun control laws stating it is more about arming a militia rather then an individual. So i just wish the second Amendemt was worded a little different in which our founding fathers intended on making and conveying the message they were trying to convey which would make sense in todays day of age.

I've written about this subject before. What would I change on the constitution? Without getting into the technical details of how to do it I would revamp the tech side of voting so that election fraud changes from easy to theoretically impossible. Next I would return the House of Representatives to the 1 rep per 20,000 constituents standard, with digital meeting rooms there is no longer a reason to limit ourselves to a building that can only physically seat 600 people. Then I would considerably increase the pay of members of congress, but dole it out in exponentially increasing amounts until reaching a maximum at the end of a term limit. This gives them an incentive to keep doing a good job. After that I would create a stipend for members of congress that they can live on, former members would be forbidden from holding non public sector jobs after leaving should they choose to work unless it's through self employment. This is the only way to stop the revolving door.

After all of that, I would rewrite the constitution to provide protections when dealing with interactions between corporations and the people. Contract law doesn't work here as it should because both sides lack comparable bargaining power.

The whole "jobs under the table" just tells me that Americans aren't willing to compete on the free market (or are prevented from competing because of regulations like the minimum wage.)

Americans cannot compete in the free market at rates paid in under the table jobs, and it goes beyond that. You have the illegals but you also have the prisoners and disabled. Prisoners get prison jobs where they're paid 10 cents/hour, this takes a job away from a honest hard working citizen in the community. The disabled that wish to work face their own wage reductions because you face an 85% tax rate and risk losing any benefits if you work on the books. I've done the whole work under the table thing in the past, a friend of mine is doing it too... oddly enough our paychecks even came from the feds as we worked for colleges (though I would report mine anyways because I would rather be honest, I am in the extreme minority with this viewpoint).

The people who get minimum wage in this country are the lucky ones. I've never gotten minimum wage as my take home pay in my life.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
But lots of people get paid above minimum wage today. Competition would keep wages up. Perhaps they wouldn't be as high, but if the federal government couldn't tax everyone's income, it might not be a problem

Actually, without laws to enforce wages they decline. The end game of free market capitalism is everyone except for a select few at the top working for slave wages. Competition is a joke because of globalization. Someone working in a poor area of India or China can do the same job as you remotely (if it's anything technology based) and do it for 1/100 the price. Competition is a great theory in economics but it only works in isolated markets, in a global market where there are major inequalities on the price of labor but little if any gap in skill, those people living in the expensive countries simply can't afford to work. It cost me $25 to put half a tank of gas in my car today, the last time I tried rentacoder $25 was my bid on a project that would take 6 hours to complete. And I still wasn't accepted because someone offered to do it for half that.

Competition keeps prices down to an extent, but it also reduces wages significantly unless laws are in place to say otherwise. You cannot compete on price when some people are playing by wage laws and others aren't for various reasons.