It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 04:02 AM
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

We would not have had a president pass that standard in the past 50 years.

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 04:52 AM
1. a statement that it should be read in it's enitirety to all elected officials before they swear in just so they know what it says since they seem not to!
2. term limits on congress
3. ERA!!!

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 05:13 AM
a reply to: xxspadyxx

that's the thing about the's plainly written, and when you read it as it was written, taking into account what the words meant (i mean in the academic, literal, dictionary sense), instead of "interpreting" it (ie; changing the meaning), it's plain to see what their intent was.

problem is, people who are against private firearm ownership twist the meaning of the text, by applying current modern definitions of words to ones that meant something much different at the time the constitution was written.

it's not a matter of it not being's a matter of people being deliberately deceptive, to serve their own agendas....i'd say they're incapable of accepting reality, but they know EXACTLY what they're doing...

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 07:17 AM
Here's a good one: make election day and tax day (currently April 15th), the same day. I bet people's voting habits would change if they went to the polls right after filing their taxes.

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 07:20 AM
a reply to: NavyDoc
they'd probably bring their pitchforks and vote with it
totally destroy the ballot and we'd just had a bunch of paper with milions of holes punched in them!

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 07:23 AM
This thread in itself is treason. You do not change the constitution you amend it. Everything in the constitution can be directly related to the injustices being carried out right now. The fact that people on here claim they care is sickening, so you post about independent news then what you sit back down in your chair and sip your coffee made by the same companies you complain about stop being hypocritical. how can you be a metaphysisist or realistic and not care about humanity or the procreation of the species? Society is a figment of our intellect. Yet we still choose to act as if it's the only way. Whether you choose to believe or not you all are enabling the problem. Want the world to change? stop being internet warriors and make a difference. Go out and do something. Speculation and hypothetical guessing will lead nowhere. Want to change the system get off your Glutes and do something. People complain about steeple yet everyone who insists on posting instead of protesting in person not posting on the internet is the problem... You think anyone cares truly about what some internet hero says? no most of the world doesn't even have access. Your argument is invalid. The internet will not change the system direct action will. Please understand why the problem persists instead of the people who started it. The corruption can be removed but your complacency with your surroundings and circumstances cannot while you ALL SIT IDLEY BY AND TYPE NONSENSE ON COMPUTER SCREEN. Get off your dam computer and hit the streets. If you don't don't claim your not part of the problem. Ignorance is bliss and that ignorance in our current time is this. Is that you can change the world from your computer screen. That has been proven false since the beginning. What really has changed in America? You stopped them from making laws against the guns, the internet, but has it stopped the spying or the executive orders or your freedoms slowly being stripped our our children's children being enslaved into debt slavery before their even born? No it hasn't. More has come faster from people hitting the streets. Oh you don't have time? Really well you have two feet and a heart beat so what's your excuse. Go ahead and rationalize it. I have a job a lifestyle to maintain? really now? And heat happens when you didn't do enough and now your lifestyle was taken from you? Pretty much was all for nothing since you didn't stop anything at all from happening. Want to see the change in the world then you need to be the frontline. Lead in the right direction and others will follow stop posting your #ing pointless information and fix the problems that are fact like the recession jobless rate, debt ceilings nothing can be fixed until that has been taken care of. You cannot build a house without the proper foundation. a tree will not grow in infertile soil.....

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:29 AM
a reply to: Aazadan

1. Wage cuts are not a problem if taxes also go down.
2. Competition is not only for products, but also for people. Competition for the best people would drive wages up pretty quickly.
3. You're assuming employers only care about the bottom line, which is untrue. Even if it were, though, my second point holds true

4. Agreed, international trade does make competition complicated. There are ways to "equalize" the playing field (tariffs) but the overhead associated with moving products overseas inherently favors local production.

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:49 AM
If they could be trusted to change it (they can not) then I would like to see Article 2 section 1 changed in concern of the Vice Presidency. The Vice President should be whoever loses the bid for Presidency just like it once was. Then these yahoos would be forced to deal with each other, work together, compromise or get nothing done and not be reelected.

Right now though what really needs to be changed in concern of our Constitution can be done by us citizens alone in the way we view it and follow it and teach our children the importance of it, so they teach their kids and on and on.
It is a gift from our forefathers and should be treated as such.

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:03 AM
a reply to: 5thNovember

That's what we're doing. So much hostility in your tone.

Before you make change, you need to understand what change has to be made. There has to be a plan.

This thread is hardly treason. In our modern times, it does seem fit to exclude the fact that immigrants can illegally invade our country, thus breaking our laws, then have a baby and claim citizenship on that child and receive government benefits. Is that over your head? No offense. No one should be rewarded for breaking a law, unless, of course, the law is unconstitutional to begin with, but I'm not trying to get off track with semantics.

Right now, the current situation is one of litigation, legislation and ideology.

There are many types of people that work within the legislative branch of government. Both the law makers and the law enforcers. Guess what? The law makers sit on their butts all day and make laws. Then, when they create stupid unconstitutional laws, the law enforcement officers carry out those orders.

If no one is "sitting around on their glutes" monitoring the language of these laws and pointing out what needs o changed and what is wrong, then the problem goes uncontested.

In fact, our forefathers encouraged us to question the government. You know why? For times exactly like these. They also spoke of how "cloudy" their days were while writing the constitution.

You speak with a connotative undertone regarding not wanting us to slowly lose all of our rights, yet you fight against those who are attempting to make things right. Get yourself together.

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:08 AM
a reply to: StalkerSolent

In response to your reply to Daedalus:

The problem with not having some form of sensory or physical blockade at the border is that illegals can still enter our country. At a time when we are being threatened by terrorist organizations that are hell-bent on fortifying a caliphate and seeing the destruction of Jews and Americans, it would seem logical from a safety standpoint to not just let in anyone.
edit on 14-8-2014 by PansophicalSynthesis because: speeling&typos

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:12 AM
only military veterans may hold elected office.

only those that are willing to lay it on the line for this country should be entrusted to run it.

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:41 AM
a reply to: stormson

I wholeheartedly disagree. I have all the respect in the world for our service members and what they do, but I'd rather have the better president as my commander in chief, instead of replacing by him or her with a less competent individual simply on the basis of military experience.

Furthermore, I run for Vice President, I have the support of an ex-military officer that runs for President, he or she gets elected on my ideology, resigns, and relinquishes power to me. I become president with no military experience.

You want to militarize the presidency? Careful what you ask for.

There are many more ways around what you have proposed beyond my retort.

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:47 AM
The Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment needs to be truncated.

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

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The First Amendment needs to be broadened.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No law, legislation, executive order, judicial ruling, nor city, county, state, or federal policy shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Without Due process" should be removed from the 5th amendment.

The Fourth Amendment should be truncated,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

The Ninth Amendment Needs to be used to produce and then include a Right to privacy as an example of "Additional Rights", and likely use language similar to the 4th and 5th amendment. A Right to privacy needs to grant people security from voyeurism, from unwanted technological scans, from unwanted photographs, filming, satellite imaging, TSA scanners, wiretapping, frisking, breathalyzers, forced blood samples, forced DNA samples, forced retina or other biometric scans, facial recognition software, and other implements designed to infringe on the person's privacy without their permission.

Many people do not know this, but for many years, shop keepers were afraid to put up security cameras because they believed that a right to privacy existed. While the current 9th amendment makes it possible for a right to privacy to exist, there is no right to privacy specifically drawn out, therefore it is not enforced.

The constitution also needs a section stating full restoration of citizenship and rights to anyone who has been declared innocent or completed their sentence, including abolition of records designed to track recidivism. This includes abolition of parole officers, abolition of "grace periods" or other periods in which an ex convict is monitored such as through a tracking anklet. It includes abolition of requirements to report to a counselor, patrol officer, or any other duties that occur after the criminal has completed their rehabilitation. It criminalizes the process of bias in renting or purchasing of any and all products by the ex convict and makes it illegal to treat that person as anything other than a citizen. It protects the rehabilitated citizen from the production of a status or record that follows them and prevents them from becoming gainfully employed, from voting, from purchasing firearms, blades, bows, or other implements of self defense. It prevents them from being classified in a database as surly or otherwise undesirable in a rental or home situation or effecting their 'credit score'.

Speaking of credit scores, those should probably be abolished through a Constitutionally established Jubilee, but that is not my focus.

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:48 AM
originally posted by: PansophicalSynthesis

Oh, sure. But right now we have good intel on who the baddies are and where they're coming in. I've heard one of our major problems is the different agencies (DIA, ATF, FBI) running undercover ops without running them against each other or messing each other up in some way.

And we do this all without a wall. We've got enough boots on the ground to track the major traffic flows, it's just not being enforced (I suspect in part because Border Patrol agents are being paid only takes a few bad apples.)
edit on 14-8-2014 by StalkerSolent because: I quoted myself...

edit on 14-8-2014 by StalkerSolent because: Ah, so that's how it works!

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:51 AM
The problem isn't so much with the basic system of government outlined in the constitution but with our failure to scale it up with the growth of our nation and our failure to design our extra governmental establishments to function within the bounds of the constitution.

For example, the constitution suggests a maximum congressional representation of one representative per 30,000 population. In a few years we will hit one representative per MILLION population. That gives the average person about 3% of the pull with his congressman that the founders envisioned, before you even factor in campaign finance, partisan politics, gerrymandering, and all the other things that make your opinion completely irrelevant in the eyes of today's congress. While technology may or may not be ready to facilitate direct democracy, it absolutely can facilitate the effective operation of an ordered body of tens of thousands of representatives. So I would argue that at some point in the last 30 years the constitution should have been amended to fix representation at one per 10,000.

The interstate commerce clause is whole other breed of anachronistic monster. Not only has it justified massive oversteps from the original bounds of government, but it has not been given any direction- there is no definition of how or to what end commerce is to be regulated, which if done could have made it unconstitutional for Wall Street to sell Main Street to China for credit, among other things.

Both of these issues, as well as others, suggest to me that the "we'll see what happens then we'll adjust accordingly" spirit of the constitution is perhaps its primary inherent weakness, because the document is nowhere near as alive or as flexible as it was intended to be- the reaction never comes and consequently everyone just wings it and then hashes it out in court after the fact. The solution I would propose for that fundamental weakness is that the constitution loosen the requirements for legal action, both passing of laws and of amendments, checked by an irrevocable ballot veto in the hands of the people.

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:55 AM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Nothing should be changed in the Constitution. Not a darn thing. Know why? Because if some Democrats got together and pushed through a change, then the next thing you know the Republicans would want to put their fingerprints on it and change it as well. Then the next thing you know the Teachers Unions would buy a change. And then Jesse Jackson would race bait a change. etc etc Then we would have just a stink'n mess.

Leave the Constitution alone. If things need tweaking then pass laws ... but don't touch the original document.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 11:44 AM
a reply to: FlyersFan

Well, we can't pass laws that contradict the constitution. I mean, we could, but I'm not in reference to ability, I'm in reference to constitutional integrity. If we passed the laws that we desire regarding the 14th amendment, then they would violate the 14th amendment. Thus, the only way to legitimize our idea is to redact or exclude the prior mentioned text (in this thread).

Typically, in the past when amendments have been "re-ratified" and/or edited, there isn't a sudden resurgence of constitutional tinkering.

Though your concern is plausible in possibility, I don't think it is reasonable based on a historical retrospection of past edits.

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:05 PM
a reply to: skynet2015

I concur with what you have done with the 1st amendment.

I disagree with your other nomothetic propositions.

I'm not sure what you are presenting with the 9th. The 9th spells out equal constitutional rights. Privacy is found elsewhere, including in the fourth. I don't think we should be redundant and tautological. Each amendment should serve its own purpose. I don't think the same thing needs to be restated in multiple amendments or articles.

I like your energy and presentation. It's clear that you've put thought and time into this.

Thank you for sharing.
edit on 14-8-2014 by PansophicalSynthesis because: inserted "constitutional

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:46 PM
a reply to: NavyDoc

ooh, i like that one...

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:53 PM
a reply to: 5thNovember

i really gotta give you a slow clap for this one....

you have managed to condense, into one convenient post, just about EVERY troll/shill/disinfo agent talking point, currently used...i really hafta congratulate you on your great effort...i don't think i've ever seen anyone do that before...
edit on 8-14-2014 by Daedalus because: *note to mods: i'm not actually calling this poster a troll, shill, or disinfo agent. i'm simply pointing out what he's done here, which is to pack all their greatest hits talking points into a single nonsensical post. it's sad that i even need to leave a note for y'all, making that clear..

new topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in