NationStates Jolt Archive

Fellow American:

You have been named as a delegate to the Second Constitutional Convention, to be held in Independence, Missouri beginning on June 1, 2010. The SCC has been called by the required 37 state legislatures.

The following amendments have been proposed (additions underlined, deletions bracketed):

1) Article I, Section 1, clause 3: To regulate direct Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes, such direct Commerce crossing a boundary of the United States, one of the several states, or the territory of an Indian Tribe;

2) Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; but no State shall be compelled to recognize any public Act of any other State defining marriage or an institution approximating marriage that conflicts with any public Act of such State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

3) Article VI, clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, insofar as they do not conflict with this Constitution, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

4) Amendment I: Section 1. Congress shall make no law [respecting an establishment of religion, or] establishing an official religion of the United States, or prohibiting the free exercise [thereof] of religion. A law establishing an official religion of the United States shall consist solely in a law recognizing a specific religion or religions as the official religion or religions of the United States.
Section 2. Congress shall make no law 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.

5) Amendment IX: Section 1. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Section 2. No right not enumerated in the Constitution shall be inferred, implied, or construed from any rights so enumerated.

6) Amendment XIV: Section 1. All persons born in the United States to citizens of the United States 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 lawfully within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

7) Amendment XXVIII: Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.
Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year, in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.
Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.
Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.
Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.
Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.
Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 2012 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.

The foregoing proposed amendments may be further revised by the Convention, and additional amendments may be proposed by any delegate for consideration by the Convention.

How will you vote, and what additional amendments will you propose?

NB: serious responses only, please.

5) Amendment IX: Section 1. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Section 2. No right not enumerated in the Constitution shall be inferred, implied, or construed from any rights so enumerated.

not going into most of it, but shouldn't you try to avoid outright contradiction?

Giving up privacy, an attack on gays, and allowing the declaration of America as a Christian country.

No thanks, I like my freedoms just the way they are.

I'd burn the new copy of the "Constitution" as a mockery of American values and refuse to recognize the validity of any government working under such a Constitution.

I like Amendment XXVIII as a means to limit the spending of the Federal Government (although it really shouldn't be necessary). I would alter it to be waived during periods of extended National Emergency (3 months or longer), as well, though. The rest is conservative crap designed to limit the very things the Constitution was created to protect.

It takes a very special kind of person to want to amend the constitution of the united states in a way so very fundamentally against what the United States stands for.

We never even had a first constitutional convention, so a second would be something of a shock.

I have altered these alterations in a way I find acceptable. Enjoy:



1) Article I, Section 1, clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes, such direct Commerce crossing a boundary of the United States, one of the several states;

2) Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

3) Article VI, clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, [U]insofar as they do not conflict with this Constitution, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

4) Amendment I: Section 1. Congress shall make no law [respecting an establishment of religion, or] establishing an official religion of the United States, or prohibiting the free exercise [thereof] of religion.

[U]Section 2. The US Government shall make no law 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.

5) Amendment IX: Section 1. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Section 2. No powers not ascribed to the government of the United States of America shall be inferred, implied, or construed from any powers so enumerated.

6) Amendment XIV: Section 1. All persons born in the United States 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.

8) Amendment XXIX: Neither the Federal Government nor the government of any Member State or Territory shall make any Laws restricting the Freedom of Association [marriage] between persons of consenting age.

Just a start.

not going into most of it, but shouldn't you try to avoid outright contradiction?

Read carefully. The rights enumerated in the Constitution are federal in nature. The rights retained by the people are those that the people of the several states had at common law and/or according to the laws of the several states at the time the Constitution was ratified.

The intent is to prevent federal courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, from inventing/discovering "rights" that are nowhere enumerated in the Constitution and then imposing them on the states. That is, the amendment is intended to scrap the so-called "living Constitution" theory in general, and cases like Griswold v. Connecticut with its pernicious concept of "emanations" and "penumbras" in particular.

The Constitution is no more a "living document" than your contract with Visa. If the people of the United States--not five black-robed wanna-be social engineers with their own personal agendas--wish to create new rights, then the people can do it according to the prescribed Constitutional procedure, i.e., by amendment.

You're taking a lot of fun out of government, you know. :)

I have altered these alterations in a way I find acceptable. Enjoy:


1) Article I, Section 1, clause 3: To regulate direct Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes, such direct Commerce crossing a boundary of the United States, one of the several states, or the territory of an Indian Tribe;

2) Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; but no State shall be compelled to recognize any public Act of any other State defining marriage or an institution approximating marriage that conflicts with any public Act of such State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.



That's a no on items 1 and 2.


3) Article VI, clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, insofar as they do not conflict with this Constitution, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


Yes on item 3.



4) Amendment I: Section 1. Congress shall make no law [respecting an establishment of religion, or] establishing an official religion of the United States, or prohibiting the free exercise [thereof] [u]of religion.

Section 2. The US Government shall make no law 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.



In section 2, the branch of the US Government that makes laws is the Congress, so the original language is appropriate.


5) Amendment IX: Section 1. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Section 2. No powers not ascribed to the government of the United States of America shall be inferred, implied, or construed from any powers so enumerated.


The powers of the government include the powers of the judicial branch. It is precisely the abuse of judicial power that is to be eliminated by the proposed amendment.


6) Amendment XIV: Section 1. All persons born in the United States 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.


The proposed revision is redundant to the original language. Thus, a no on item 6.


8) Amendment XXIX: Neither the Federal Government nor the government of any Member State or Territory shall make any Laws restricting the Freedom of Association [marriage] between persons of consenting age.


At least you're honest enough to present such an amendment to the congress for consideration and ratification by the several states (which will fail, of course), rather than the usual judicial end-run imposed by advocates of this idea.

the spending part is great...


but the rest of it is a load of crap. I like my rights/liberties, thank you.

Oh, and why should America be able to state an official religion?


Worst Regards,
F-EN
:sniper:
CONS- :mp5:: :sniper:
TITU- :mp5::mp5::mp5: :sniper:
TION :mp5:: :sniper:
:sniper:

You're taking a lot of fun out of government, you know. :)

Naw, the way to have "fun" in government is to get a cushy government job with lots of perks and lots of money for very little work ;)

There's no way to eradicate that, no matter how you write a Constitution.

Read carefully. The rights enumerated in the Constitution are federal in nature. The rights retained by the people are those that the people of the several states had at common law and/or according to the laws of the several states at the time the Constitution was ratified.

no, they really weren't and aren't. and in any case, that is not what your retained 'section 1' says - making it do so requires that you engage in a rather large amount of creative reading to find something that plainly isn't there...

Giving up privacy, an attack on gays, and allowing the declaration of America as a Christian country.

No thanks, I like my freedoms just the way they are.

A perfect example of a non-serious response. Much as I expected.

And btw: item 4 specifically prohibits declaring America as a "Christian country." Such a declaration is clearly an establishment of an official religion. Sorry to spoil your paranoia :p

That's a no on items 1 and 2.

the words was supposed to be stricken out...


In section 2, the branch of the US Government that makes laws is the Congress, so the original language is appropriate.

It's more for intent than anything else.

The powers of the government include the powers of the judicial branch. It is precisely the abuse of judicial power that is to be eliminated by the proposed amendment.

It would have to be added as an additional amendment, just like everything else that's not currently in there (i.e., Executive Priviledge, Executive Orders (IIRC))

The proposed revision is redundant to the original language. Thus, a no on item 6.

Revising the revisions in the OP

At least you're honest enough to present such an amendment to the congress for consideration and ratification by the several states (which will fail, of course), rather than the usual judicial end-run imposed by advocates of this idea.

1) I prefer the proper, upfront way of doing things. Helps to prevent back-door "Order 66"-esque things.

So why didn't you take care of the Indian problem by indicating that since they are citizens of the US that the Indian Nations as a political force no longer exist.

Nice Star Wars reference ;)

First one to mind.

I prefer the proper, upfront way of doing things. Helps to prevent back-door "Order 66"-esque things.

Nice Star Wars reference ;)

So why didn't you take care of the Indian problem by indicating that since they are citizens of the US that the Indian Nations as a political force no longer exist.

Feel free to submit such a proposed amendment from the floor. I personally didn't see any compelling need to change the way Indians are dealt with. And besides, I like being able to go to Indian casinos.

no, they really weren't and aren't. and in any case, that is not what your retained 'section 1' says - making it do so requires that you engage in a rather large amount of creative reading to find something that plainly isn't there...

The rights enumerated in the Constitution apply to every US citizen. They didn't exist as US rights until the United States Constitution was adopted. Rights retained by the people are precisely the rights they had, under common law or according to the laws of the several states, before the adoption of the Constitution.

If you have any authority to the contrary, I'm waiting to read it. And in any event, the proposed construction is the one to be adopted by the convention.

Section 2 prevents construction of non-enumerated US Constitutional rights from one or more rights that are enumerated. It says nothing about common-law rights or rights accorded to the citizens of the several states.

System's about to go down, so I'm off probably until tomorrow. Unless I decide to stay up late *heh*

The rights enumerated in the Constitution apply to every US citizen. They didn't exist as US rights until the United States Constitution was adopted. Rights retained by the people are precisely the rights they had, under common law or according to the laws of the several states, before the adoption of the Constitution.

i don't believe you understand what a right is alleged to be under the framework of the constitution. because it certainly isn't that.

Section 2 prevents construction of non-enumerated US Constitutional rights from one or more rights that are enumerated.

indeed it does. or, to put it another way, it says that the enumeration of certain rights shall be construed to deny and disparage others retained by the people.

I think New Mitanni has confused NS and RL again.

Fellow American:

You have been named as a delegate to the Second Constitutional Convention, to be held in Independence, Missouri beginning on June 1, 2010. The SCC has been called by the required 37 state legislatures.

The following amendments have been proposed (additions underlined, deletions bracketed):

1) Article I, Section 1, clause 3: To regulate direct Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes, such direct Commerce crossing a boundary of the United States, one of the several states, or the territory of an Indian Tribe;

2) Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; but no State shall be compelled to recognize any public Act of any other State defining marriage or an institution approximating marriage that conflicts with any public Act of such State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

3) Article VI, clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, insofar as they do not conflict with this Constitution, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

4) Amendment I: Section 1. Congress shall make no law [respecting an establishment of religion, or] establishing an official religion of the United States, or prohibiting the free exercise [thereof] of religion. A law establishing an official religion of the United States shall consist solely in a law recognizing a specific religion or religions as the official religion or religions of the United States.
Section 2. Congress shall make no law 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.

5) Amendment IX: Section 1. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Section 2. No right not enumerated in the Constitution shall be inferred, implied, or construed from any rights so enumerated.

6) Amendment XIV: Section 1. All persons born in the United States to citizens of the United States 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 lawfully within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

7) Amendment XXVIII: Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.
Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year, in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.
Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.
Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.
Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.
Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.
Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 2012 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.

The foregoing proposed amendments may be further revised by the Convention, and additional amendments may be proposed by any delegate for consideration by the Convention.

How will you vote, and what additional amendments will you propose?

NB: serious responses only, please.

I'd vote it down. The changes to the first and ninth amendments are enough to vote it down. *nod*

Every proposed change makes the proposed document significantly inferior in power, scope, validity or all of the above. I could not support any of them.

1) Article I, Section 1, clause 3: To regulate direct Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes, such direct Commerce crossing a boundary of the United States, one of the several states, or the territory of an Indian Tribe;

In removing the trade control within the US you impose laissez-fire capitalism on us once again, since the Reserve Bank will no longer be valid and able to control the economy. Welcome back to boom-and-bust economics and the great depresssion every twenty years or so.

2) Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; but no State shall be compelled to recognize any public Act of any other State defining marriage or an institution approximating marriage that conflicts with any public Act of such State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.


If you allow one exception, how long before we must allow them all? Marriage is not important enough to break the fundamental relationship between the states over. If it was, so would have been slavery - and ultimately, allowing that exception led to blood and death.

4) Amendment I: Section 1. Congress shall make no law [respecting an establishment of religion, or] establishing an official religion of the United States, or prohibiting the free exercise [thereof] of religion. A law establishing an official religion of the United States shall consist solely in a law recognizing a specific religion or religions as the official religion or religions of the United States.
Section 2. Congress shall make no law 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.

This allows de facto establishment of a state religion while ostensibly prohibiting one de jure. It seriously reduces the protection against religion.

5) Amendment IX: Section 1. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Section 2. No right not enumerated in the Constitution shall be inferred, implied, or construed from any rights so enumerated.


This one is just downright foolish. The founders acknowledged that rights existed beyond what they had enumerated, and perhaps beyond what they understood, and that as society changes what are recognized as rights changes with it. By requiring all rights to be enumerated before the courts can consider it so, you ensure that such rights are always far behind their being recognized and needed.

6) Amendment XIV: Section 1. All persons born in the United States to citizens of the United States 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 lawfully within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The first modification, that the child of illegals not themselves be legal, might be tolerable. But to deny the basic rights granted under the constitution to visitors, immigrants and tourists, either legal or illegal, is but a step from making a dual class system - ctizens with rights, and underpeople.

Seems just a little too fascist to me.

Your amendment 28 seems reasonable.

A perfect example of a non-serious response. Much as I expected.

What? That's what it is.

And btw: item 4 specifically prohibits declaring America as a "Christian country." Such a declaration is clearly an establishment of an official religion. Sorry to spoil your paranoia :p

In all but name only. Removal of the [respecting an establishment of religion, or] statement would allow the assumption of a Christian country in all but name only. Much the way it was before evil secularist Liberals dared imposed equality on America.



What about removal of privacy? No safeguards against government intrusions into privacy?

Fellow American:

You have been named as a delegate to the Second Constitutional Convention, to be held in Independence, Missouri beginning on June 1, 2010. The SCC has been called by the required 37 state legislatures.

First thing's first - a small nitpick. It would take 38 states, not 37, to amend the Constitution. Three-fourths of 50 states is 37.5 states, rounded up to 38.

The following amendments have been proposed (additions underlined, deletions bracketed):

1) Article I, Section 1, clause 3: To regulate direct Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes, such direct Commerce crossing a boundary of the United States, one of the several states, or the territory of an Indian Tribe;

Not sure why this needs to be done...

2) Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; but no State shall be compelled to recognize any public Act of any other State defining marriage or an institution approximating marriage that conflicts with any public Act of such State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

No good. This would be way too confusing.

3) Article VI, clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, insofar as they do not conflict with this Constitution, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Not really necessary, I would say.

4) Amendment I: Section 1. Congress shall make no law [respecting an establishment of religion, or] establishing an official religion of the United States, or prohibiting the free exercise [thereof] of religion. A law establishing an official religion of the United States shall consist solely in a law recognizing a specific religion or religions as the official religion or religions of the United States.
Section 2. Congress shall make no law 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 good. We need less religion in government, not more.

5) Amendment IX: Section 1. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Section 2. No right not enumerated in the Constitution shall be inferred, implied, or construed from any rights so enumerated.

I don't think this is necessary.

6) Amendment XIV: Section 1. All persons born in the United States to citizens of the United States 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 lawfully within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

No good. Granted, we need immigration reform, but this won't help.

7) Amendment XXVIII: Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.
Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year, in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.
Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.
Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.
Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.
Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.
Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 2012 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.

The foregoing proposed amendments may be further revised by the Convention, and additional amendments may be proposed by any delegate for consideration by the Convention.

Too ripe for abuse.

I would say that the Constitution does not need any of these reforms. It needs some changes, sure, but we wouldn't recognize the government if we amended it in the ways many of us proposed.

Not sure why this needs to be done...

my guess is because the interstate commerce clause was used to stop segregation.

1) Article I, Section 1, clause 3: To regulate direct Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes, such direct Commerce crossing a boundary of the United States, one of the several states, or the territory of an Indian Tribe;

First, this is incorrectly cited, it is a modification of Article I, Section 8, clause 3, and an unnecessary and silly modification at that. It is overly restricting to the necessary regulatory powers of the Federal government.

2) Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; but no State shall be compelled to recognize any public Act of any other State defining marriage or an institution approximating marriage that conflicts with any public Act of such State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

I will not but say that this is a transparent and rather silly attack on gay marriage and has no place in the Constitution. If you want reasons as to why, I ask you start another thread as I do not think this thread has enough room for a discussion on gay marriage in addition too all else we have got here.

3) Article VI, clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, insofar as they do not conflict with this Constitution, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

May or may not be necessary, though I do not have any moral or logical objections particularly.

4) Amendment I: Section 1. Congress shall make no law [respecting an establishment of religion, or] establishing an official religion of the United States, or prohibiting the free exercise [thereof] of religion. A law establishing an official religion of the United States shall consist solely in a law recognizing a specific religion or religions as the official religion or religions of the United States.
Section 2. Congress shall make no law 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.

I'm sorry, but I'd really prefer not to be required to pray in school, or attend services, or do any of a huge number of things which the government would, according to this, be able to force me to do. Religious freedom, right.

5) Amendment IX: Section 1. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Section 2. No right not enumerated in the Constitution shall be inferred, implied, or construed from any rights so enumerated.

Translation: Section 1. Just because the right has not been explicitly stated does not mean you do not have that right.
Section 2. Just because the right has not been explicitly stated means that you do not have that right.

6) Amendment XIV: Section 1. All persons born in the United States to citizens of the United States 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 lawfully within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Well that's just silly. Perhaps the worst idea on immigration reform I have yet heard. In doing this you will create millions more illegal immigrants, and furthermore create a new class of people who are not citizens of any state (being now illegal here and not being born in their own country).

7) Amendment XXVIII: Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.
Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year, in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.
Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.
Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.
Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.
Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.
Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 2012 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.

Though I agree in principle that, generally speaking, the government should remain out of debt this seems a rather silly and unnecessary piece of legislation, which would in many cases hamstring the goverment, keeping it from appropriately aiding the people.

The foregoing proposed amendments may be further revised by the Convention, and additional amendments may be proposed by any delegate for consideration by the Convention.

How will you vote, and what additional amendments will you propose?

NB: serious responses only, please.

A solid universal 'Nay.' More's the pity, I was hoping these would be worthy additions, looks like I was wrong.

How will you vote, and what additional amendments will you propose?

NB: serious responses only, please.

If you managed to get any of that shit passed, you'd better be ready for a fight.

Conservative bullshit.

Vote them down. All of them.

God. What I find scary is that New Mitanni is actually less progressive than people working 218 years ago.

The Constitution is no more a "living document" than your contract with Visa. If the people of the United States--not five black-robed wanna-be social engineers with their own personal agendas--wish to create new rights, then the people can do it according to the prescribed Constitutional procedure, i.e., by amendment.

Your contract with Visa is a living document, at least from Visa's point of view. You might want to actually read the damn thing, as it includes bits that allows them to change the conditions of your account unilaterally, and your only option to avoid those changes is to cancel the account. That makes it a living document, and shows, once again, you don't have the first clue as to what you're talking about.

Translation: Section 1. Just because the right has not been explicitly stated does not mean you do not have that right.
Section 2. Just because the right has not been explicitly stated means that you do not have that right.

on the plus side, contradiction makes things fun. absolutely anything can legitimately be concluded from contradictory premises. therefore absolutely everything is constitutional.

Well that's just silly. Perhaps the worst idea on immigration reform I have yet heard. In doing this you will create millions more illegal immigrants, and furthermore create a new class of people who are not citizens of any state (being now illegal here and not being born in their own country).

its ok, i'm sure he'll have grand plans for rounding up the millions of undesirables and putting them in detention facilities somewhere. of course, there would be lots of people going into them, so we'd probably have to pack them in fairly densely to avoid having these camps take up too much room. what i'm trying to say is that we'd want to keep these underpeoples concentrated.

and shows, once again, you don't have the first clue as to what you're talking about.

isn't it amazing how regularly that occurs with essentially all of the posters over on that side of spectrum?

Vote them down. All of them.

God. What I find scary is that New Mitanni is actually less progressive than people working 218 years ago.

You see, he's seen what happens when the power of the white, landowning male elite is dissipated, and he's out to restore things to their rightful, natural state.

In removing the trade control within the US you impose laissez-fire capitalism on us once again, since the Reserve Bank will no longer be valid and able to control the economy. Welcome back to boom-and-bust economics and the great depresssion every twenty years or so.

Why is that? Serious question, btw

I would like to see a change to the interstate commerce clause, mainly to stop silly decisions like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn. However, there does need to be some sort of Federal regulatory body to regulate safety of goods (not that the FDA does it's job now, but whatever).

I'm probably more of an antifederalist than the OP is, but along with national defense I think the Federal government's job should be laying down and enforcing a minimum standard (not minimal standard) of human rights.

The vast majority of the OP's suggested amendments are simply to allow the same sort of social engineering that he decries so loudly.

I would like to see a change to the interstate commerce clause, mainly to stop silly decisions like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

this sort of case always makes me want to just go back and underline 'commerce' in the commerce clause. and the idea that if they didn't grow it themselves they would have had to engage in commerce to get it strikes me as completely off the point.

indeed it does. or, to put it another way, it says that the enumeration of certain rights shall be construed to deny and disparage others retained by the people.

You can "put it another way" all you like. Your construction remains wrong.

Any right retained by the people is still retained under the proposed amendment. Section 2 prevents federal courts from creating new "rights".

Take the following test: is the proposed non-enumerated "right" inferred from enumerated rights a right that the people have historically possessed, i.e., a right retained by the people? If yes, then the proposed non-enumerated right already exists and need not be added. If no, then the proposed non-enumerated right should only be added to the Constitution by recourse to the amendment procedure, rather than by the fiat of agenda-driven judges.

Alternatively, answer the following question: in what way does the proposed prohibition against the creation of non-enumerated Constitutional "rights" deny or disparage rights that already exist and are retained by the people?

I think the answer is clear: in no way.

What the "living Constitution" proponents are really saying is, let's let the courts create new "rights" that we think should exist, and then impose them on the states regardless of the rights of the people of the several states to govern themselves and notwithstanding the amendment procedure defined by the Constitution itself.

If you want to create some new "right", then do it by the amendment procedure.

You can "put it another way" all you like. Your construction remains wrong.

Any right retained by the people is still retained under the proposed amendment. Section 2 prevents federal courts from creating new "rights".

Take the following test: is the proposed non-enumerated "right" inferred from enumerated rights a right that the people have historically possessed, i.e., a right retained by the people? If yes, then the proposed non-enumerated right already exists and need not be added. If no, then the proposed non-enumerated right should only be added to the Constitution by recourse to the amendment procedure, rather than by the fiat of agenda-driven judges.

Alternatively, answer the following question: in what way does the proposed prohibition against the creation of non-enumerated Constitutional "rights" deny or disparage rights that already exist and are retained by the people?

I think the answer is clear: in no way.

What the "living Constitution" proponents are really saying is, let's let the courts create new "rights" that we think should exist, and then impose them on the states regardless of the rights of the people of the several states to govern themselves and notwithstanding the amendment procedure defined by the Constitution itself.

If you want to create some new "right", then do it by the amendment procedure.

So you believe there is no right to privacy?

Take the following test: is the proposed non-enumerated "right" inferred from enumerated rights

Where are you getting this "inferred from enumerated rights" thing?

Why is that? Serious question, btw

I would like to see a change to the interstate commerce clause, mainly to stop silly decisions like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn. However, there does need to be some sort of Federal regulatory body to regulate safety of goods (not that the FDA does it's job now, but whatever).

The proposed amendment is intended precisely to undo Wickard v. Filburn. Commentators at the time observed that this decision essentially removed all restraints on Congress when it comes to regulating any and every aspect of the economy. Something the Founders most certainly did not intend. The Founders intended a government of limited, not unlimited, powers.

Again, if you perceive a compelling need to regulate the safety of goods, or whatever, then either amend the Constitution to permit it or at least find an argument in favor of it that doesn't do violence to the intent of the Founders.

I'm probably more of an antifederalist than the OP is, but along with national defense I think the Federal government's job should be laying down and enforcing a minimum standard (not minimal standard) of human rights.

The rights enumerated in the Constitution and the amendments thereto do precisely that.

The vast majority of the OP's suggested amendments are simply to allow the same sort of social engineering that he decries so loudly.

Really? So, by proposing amendments reducing the powers of Congress and the federal judiciary, I am advocating "social engineering"? By preventing the courts from giving Congress unlimited regulatory powers over the economy (powers that never should have been allowed in the first place), preventing decisions that effectively amend the Constitution without the consent of the states, and reinforcing the sovereignty of this country and preventing dilution of the value of US citizenship, I am advocating "social engineering"?

Well, I can only say in reply: If this be social engineering, make the most of it!

Where are you getting this "inferred from enumerated rights" thing?

See the proposed amendment in the OP.

Alternatively, answer the following question: in what way does the proposed prohibition against the creation of non-enumerated Constitutional "rights" deny or disparage rights that already exist and are retained by the people?

by denying and disparaging those non-enumerated rights, refusing to protect them because they weren't written down.

you seem to be laboring under the stupid idea that an unrecognized right does not exist. this, of course, means that in places where rights aren't recognized, there are, by definition, no rights being violated, no matter what is done. this is clearly retarded.

While the constitution of the USA is hopelessly out-dated and notoriously poorly written, the OP actually wants to make it even more so instead of rectifying the situation. How odd, I would think, but then I catch in the corner of my eye who the OP is...

So you believe there is no right to privacy?

There is no enumerated "right to privacy" in the Constitution.

I might add that I am hardly alone in this opinion. For example, Justice Potter Stewart wrote in a dissenting opinion in Griswold in which he stated, "With all deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), at 530.

I reiterate: if you want to create such a "right", do it by the amendment procedure and not by judicial fiat.

There is no enumerated "right to privacy" in the Constitution.

section 1 of even your amendment 9 means that this statement is utterly irrelevant.

I reiterate: if you want to create such a "right", do it by the amendment procedure and not by judicial fiat.

in so far as rights exist at all (or in so far as we act as if they do), they do not exist at the whim of voters or legislatures.

You know the really important thing about Stewart's dissent?

It's a dissent.

by denying and disparaging those non-enumerated rights, refusing to protect them because they weren't written down.

you seem to be laboring under the stupid idea that an unrecognized right does not exist. this, of course, means that in places where rights aren't recognized, there are, by definition, no rights being violated, no matter what is done. this is clearly retarded.

An unrecognized Constitutional "right" in fact does not exist, whether you think it should or not.

Again, I refer to Justice Stewart's dissent in Griswold, which gave the better view on the unenumerated "right to privacy", and thus to all unenumerated "rights."

And btw: I might voice similar opinions concerning the quality of your own arguments, but I wouldn't want to be accused of violating forum anti-flaming policies.

There is no enumerated "right to privacy" in the Constitution.

I might add that I am hardly alone in this opinion. For example, Justice Potter Stewart wrote in a dissenting opinion in Griswold in which he stated, "With all deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), at 530.

I reiterate: if you want to create such a "right", do it by the amendment procedure and not by judicial fiat.

Then there is no reason, constitutionally, against a police state. Or legislating the bedrooms of America. Or controlling personal information.

Correct?

You would also remove the Supreme Court as protector of the rights of the people, correct?

in so far as rights exist at all (or in so far as we act as if they do), they do not exist at the whim of voters or legislatures.

Looks like you must have slept through whatever political science course you ever took. Constitutional rights exist precisely at "the whim of voters or legislatures." It is the Congress and the state legislatures, elected by the voters, who created and amended the Constitution in the first place. I suggest you not make that kind of argument before a judge.

If you want to argue natural rights, that's a different issue.

The proposed amendment is intended precisely to undo Wickard v. Filburn. Commentators at the time observed that this decision essentially removed all restraints on Congress when it comes to regulating any and every aspect of the economy. Something the Founders most certainly did not intend. The Founders intended a government of limited, not unlimited, powers.

Again, if you perceive a compelling need to regulate the safety of goods, or whatever, then either amend the Constitution to permit it or at least find an argument in favor of it that doesn't do violence to the intent of the Founders.

A Federal body to regulate goods can be justified by regulating goods that are sold (and I do mean actually sold, not the silliness in Wickard) across state/tribal lines. Given the interdependence of not only the US, but the global economy it would be in a supplier's best interest to comply with the Federal regulation.



The rights enumerated in the Constitution and the amendments thereto do precisely that.

As do the unenumerated rights.

Really? So, by proposing amendments reducing the powers of Congress and the federal judiciary, I am advocating "social engineering"? By preventing the courts from giving Congress unlimited regulatory powers over the economy (powers that never should have been allowed in the first place), preventing decisions that effectively amend the Constitution without the consent of the states, and reinforcing the sovereignty of this country and preventing dilution of the value of US citizenship, I am advocating "social engineering"?

Well, I can only say in reply: If this be social engineering, make the most of it!

Yes you are advocating social engineering, by specifically targeting marriage as an exemption to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. You're targeting one specific issue, gay marriage, which is a religious issue and thus has no place in a civil document.

See the proposed amendment in the OP.

Ah, I thought you were talking about the actual Constitution. My mistake.

You know the really important thing about Stewart's dissent?

It's a dissent.

And a pretty fucking stupid one at that. But NM doesn't mind, apparently.

Then there is no reason, constitutionally, against a police state.

Actually, there is. First Amendment. Second Amendment. Third Amendment (never litigated, but there nonetheless). Fourth Amendment. Fifth Amendment. Etc etc etc.

Or legislating the bedrooms of America.

Not in the US Constitution.

Once again: if you want a "right to privacy" that would prevent "legislating the bedrooms of America", then amend the Constitution according to the established amendment procedure.

The REAL reason people who share your view support decisions like Griswold is because they know they can't succeed in amending the Constitution as they would like. Since they can't do it legitimately, they seek to abuse the judicial process in order to end-run the amendment procedure and impose their illegitimate Constitutional constructions on the nation, regardless of the rights of the people via their state legislatures to approve of such alterations to the Constitution. And THAT is why the proposed amendment is needed.


Or controlling personal information.

Correct?

See above.

You would also remove the Supreme Court as protector of the rights of the people, correct?

First of all, the Supreme Court is not the "protector of the rights of the people". Nothing in the Constitution speaks to this issue, and I challenge you to cite anything that does. The Supreme Court's function is defined in Article III, which simply states, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

If you're referring the judicial review, Marbury v. Madison was probably rightly decided. That decision, however, in no way makes the Supreme Court the "protector" of anything other than the judicial power of the United States.

Looks like you must have slept through whatever political science course you ever took. Constitutional rights exist precisely at "the whim of voters or legislatures." It is the Congress and the state legislatures, elected by the voters, who created and amended the Constitution in the first place.

i'd like to say that the post above once again demonstrates the anti-federalists' point. you are the reason they had to list rights at all, contrary to hamilton's nonsense that no one would ever imagine the government had power to abridge anyone's rights so there was no need to list any of them specifically. unfortunately, you're also a demonstration that the federalists were right that there would be idiots who would try to make that listing be limiting rather than a baseline. but apparently neither side could imagine that anyone would be able to think that a listing of rights that explicitly stated these were not the only rights was actually a listing of all the rights we have. so congrats, you have outwitted the founders of your country.

Looks like you must have slept through whatever political science course you ever took. Constitutional rights exist precisely at "the whim of voters or legislatures." It is the Congress and the state legislatures, elected by the voters, who created and amended the Constitution in the first place. I suggest you not make that kind of argument before a judge.

If you want to argue natural rights, that's a different issue.

Ahh the sound of ignorant neocons, I love it:

Amendment I
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.

Amendment II

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.

Amendment IV

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

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Look at the language "shall not be infringed" "shall not be violated", "shall be preserved".

At numerous points the language of the constitution is clear. It is not CREATING rights, it is recognizing those rights exist, and prohibiting the government from infringing upon them. That's the whole point, the first amendment does not say "we create the freedom of speech" it says "the freedom of speech shall not be infringed". It recognizes that the right exists then prevents the government from denying it.

Failed. Failed HARD

The REAL reason people who share your view support decisions like Griswold is because they know they can't succeed in amending the Constitution as they would like. Since they can't do it legitimately, they seek to abuse the judicial process in order to end-run the amendment procedure and impose their illegitimate Constitutional constructions on the nation, regardless of the rights of the people via their state legislatures to approve of such alterations to the Constitution. And THAT is why the proposed amendment is needed.
I'll make you this guarantee--if Griswold is ever overturned, you'll see a right to privacy explicitly enshrined in the Constitution so quickly, it'll slap you in the face. Don't fuck with the ability of single people to buy contraception, bub--we're not going back to the stone age, no matter how badly you want it.

Sorry, marriage is not a "religious" issue. The definition of the fundamental unit of society is inherently a civil issue. Various religions attach varying degrees of significance to the institution, but it remains a civil institution.

So why aren't same-sex couples provided equal access to the institution? They're citizens, right?

A Federal body to regulate goods can be justified by regulating goods that are sold (and I do mean actually sold, not the silliness in Wickard) across state/tribal lines. Given the interdependence of not only the US, but the global economy it would be in a supplier's best interest to comply with the Federal regulation.

It would indeed be in the supplier's best interest. And as long as the commerce is actually interstate or international, such regulations would pass Constitutional muster.

As do the unenumerated rights.

Repeat after me: state and common-law rights are not Constitutional rights!

Yes you are advocating social engineering, by specifically targeting marriage as an exemption to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

No, I'm repairing a breach in the structure of the Constitution that has been created by illegitimate judicial activity. And thereby preventing four rogue judges in Massachusetts from imposing their corrupted definition of marriage on the rest of the states.

You're targeting one specific issue, gay marriage, which is a religious issue and thus has no place in a civil document.

Sorry, marriage is not a "religious" issue. The definition of the fundamental unit of society is inherently a civil issue. Various religions attach varying degrees of significance to the institution, but it remains a civil institution.

The REAL reason people who share your view support decisions like Griswold is because they know they can't succeed in amending the Constitution as they would like. Since they can't do it legitimately, they seek to abuse the judicial process in order to end-run the amendment procedure and impose their illegitimate Constitutional constructions on the nation, regardless of the rights of the people via their state legislatures to approve of such alterations to the Constitution. And THAT is why the proposed amendment is needed.

Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass what the bigoted populous of the US thinks about anything.
The current reality is, unfortunately, that the only protection of the minority from the majority is the Supreme Court.

No, I'm repairing a breach in the structure of the Constitution

No, you're some fascist schmuck on an internet forum who filled with sound and fury but accomplishing rather nothing.

Dillusions of grandeur are funny to watch, but at the end of the day, pretty sad.

I'll make you this guarantee--if Griswold is ever overturned, you'll see a right to privacy explicitly enshrined in the Constitution so quickly, it'll slap you in the face. Don't fuck with the ability of single people to buy contraception, bub--we're not going back to the stone age, no matter how badly you want it.

i'm of the opinion we should probably get one in anyways, and make it even more far-reaching.

also, we probably should write in a procedure for periodically making sure that we explicitly write down more rights retained by the people, just so we aren't always reliant on the massive labyrinth that is case law for all of that shit. basically, every 5 to 10 years we should have a "what's important that we haven't explicitly written down yet?" sort of deal.

and we need at least one more amendment that says "no, seriously, this list of rights cannot be used to deny the existence of other rights, you fucking morons"

Repeat after me: state and common-law rights are not Constitutional rights!

i know you'd like those words to be implied in the constitution, but it takes quite a bit of reaching to put them there. the plain meaning of the words certainly doesn't include them, nor do they fall out of the documentation of original intent that we have. what sort of theory of constitutional interpretation are you using to find them hiding in the penumbra?

At numerous points the language of the constitution is clear. It is not CREATING rights, it is recognizing those rights exist, and prohibiting the government from infringing upon them. That's the whole point, the first amendment does not say "we create the freedom of speech" it says "the freedom of speech shall not be infringed". It recognizes that the right exists then prevents the government from denying it.

Deliberate obtuseness.

At the risk of being tautological: There were no CONSTITUTIONAL rights prior to ratification of the CONSTITUTION! That is the heart of the issue.

The various rights you refer to may well have existed, but not as CONSTITUTIONAL rights until there was a Constitution. And I would question whether there was ever a natural or pre-existing right, for example, not to have troops quartered in one's home (Third Amendment), or to have a jury trial specifically for controversies the value of which exceeds twenty dollars (Amendment VII).

By your logic, anything I choose to do can be justified. I can always assert that "I have a right to do X because that right is retained by the people." Furthermore, I can go on to say that I have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to do X, and even more, EVERYONE has the right to do X.

If you were to make such an argument in any court in this land, the guaranteed result would be: Failed. Failed HARD.

By your logic, anything I choose to do can be justified. I can always assert that "I have a right to do X because that right is retained by the people."

no, you'd have to make an argument of some sort that X is in fact a right (or should be one, if we are treating rights as fictions that we pretend are existing universals). mere assertion is not enough. this really isn't that hard.

Not in the US Constitution.

Once again: if you want a "right to privacy" that would prevent "legislating the bedrooms of America", then amend the Constitution according to the established amendment procedure.

The REAL reason people who share your view support decisions like Griswold is because they know they can't succeed in amending the Constitution as they would like. Since they can't do it legitimately, they seek to abuse the judicial process in order to end-run the amendment procedure and impose their illegitimate Constitutional constructions on the nation, regardless of the rights of the people via their state legislatures to approve of such alterations to the Constitution. And THAT is why the proposed amendment is needed.

America's God forbid people obtain rights. An amendment convention would be called every four years to reverse the effects of the last opposing party's actions. The law would be in a slower-than-now constantly changing state that could not keep up with the people because we would need everybody to gather and bicker for seven months just to get shit done.

First of all, the Supreme Court is not the "protector of the rights of the people". Nothing in the Constitution speaks to this issue, and I challenge you to cite anything that does. The Supreme Court's function is defined in Article III, which simply states, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

If you're referring the judicial review, Marbury v. Madison was probably rightly decided. That decision, however, in no way makes the Supreme Court the "protector" of anything other than the judicial power of the United States.

Judicial (constitutional) review allows the SCOTUS to reject laws that go against the rights and laws enumerated in the Constitution. If stopping a bill that abridges the freedom of speech isn't protecting that right, I do not understand American gov't and should stop caring.

By your logic, the Supreme Court does not have judicial review. After all, it isn't in the Constitution. There are no bodies present to counteract congressional acts, especially if the President does not veto. No one remains to stop abuses of the Constitution, save the 2nd Amendment itself.

Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass what the bigoted populous of the US thinks about anything.
The current reality is, unfortunately, that the only protection of the minority from the majority is the Supreme Court.

Yes, of course, anyone who disagrees with you must be part of the "bigoted populous", not to mention the ignorant and illiterate "populous."

Unfortunately for you, the "populous" of the United States has a say in what kind of government they have, regardless of your opinion of them, their motives, or any of their other qualities. And, personally, they probably don't give a rat's ass for the opinions of self-righteous political theorists, iconoclasts, sociopaths, or high-school and college babies whose actual knowledge of the world is in inverse square relationship to what they think they know about the world.

Unfortunately for you, the "populous" of the United States has a say in what kind of government they have, regardless of your opinion of them, their motives, or any of their other qualities. And, personally, they probably don't give a rat's ass for the opinions of self-righteous political theorists, iconoclasts, sociopaths, or high-school and college babies whose actual knowledge of the world is in inverse square relationship to what they think they know about the world.

wow, anti-intellectualism that cuts off at junior high. i'm impressed.

Fellow American:

You have been named as a delegate to the Second Constitutional Convention, to be held in Independence, Missouri beginning on June 1, 2010. The SCC has been called by the required 37 state legislatures.

The following amendments have been proposed (additions underlined, deletions bracketed):

Should be fun.

1) Article I, Section 1, clause 3: To regulate direct Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes, such direct Commerce crossing a boundary of the United States, one of the several states, or the territory of an Indian Tribe;

Opposed. Things are already regulated for the Indian tribes.

2) Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; but no State shall be compelled to recognize any public Act of any other State defining marriage or an institution approximating marriage that conflicts with any public Act of such State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

OPPOSED to the added. It is stupid and violates full faith and credit.

3) Article VI, clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, insofar as they do not conflict with this Constitution, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

It has been tried but failed even though I would support that.

4) Amendment I: Section 1. Congress shall make no law [respecting an establishment of religion, or] establishing an official religion of the United States, or prohibiting the free exercise [thereof] of religion. A law establishing an official religion of the United States shall consist solely in a law recognizing a specific religion or religions as the official religion or religions of the United States.

There goes the freedom of religion clause. You want to tinker with it? Get a new nation. This opens the door for a state religion. No thanks.

Section 2. Congress shall make no law 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.

Goes without saying as it is a freedom. Why add Congress shall make no law? It is unnecessary.

5) Amendment IX: Section 1. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

um ok. Why repeat something that is already in the Constitution?

Section 2. No right not enumerated in the Constitution shall be inferred, implied, or construed from any rights so enumerated.

This goes without saying.

6) Amendment XIV: Section 1. All persons born in the United States to citizens of the United States 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 lawfully within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

To cluttered. Needs to be broken up. The current amendment is perfect.

7) Amendment XXVIII: Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

I like and could support

Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year, in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.
Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.
Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.
Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.
Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.
Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 2012 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.

To long. Break it up.

The foregoing proposed amendments may be further revised by the Convention, and additional amendments may be proposed by any delegate for consideration by the Convention.

How will you vote, and what additional amendments will you propose?

NB: serious responses only, please.

This is made of fail.

By your logic, the Supreme Court does not have judicial review. After all, it isn't in the Constitution. There are no bodies present to counteract congressional acts, especially if the President does not veto. No one remains to stop abuses of the Constitution, save the 2nd Amendment itself.

Have you read Marbury v. Madison? http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=5&page=137 Chief Justice Marshall makes the case for judicial review (not without criticism even today). I find the case persuasive and consistent with the Constitution. In any event, I would argue from the floor (if such argument were needed) that judicial review would not be a non-enumerated "right", but an inherent component of the judicial Power of the United States. Thus, your argument must fail.

And btw, since many of the Founders were still around when Marbury was decided, it is of interest that there was no apparent effort on their part (that I'm aware of) to amend the Constitution in order to overturn Marbury.

At least you seem to support the right to bear arms ;)

Yes, of course, anyone who disagrees with you must be part of the "bigoted populous", not to mention the ignorant and illiterate "populous."
Not necessarily. For instance, myself, free soviets and Vetalia disagree on a number of issues, but I wouldn't say that any of us are bigots or idiots.
Unfortunately for you, the "populous" of the United States has a say in what kind of government they have, regardless of your opinion of them, their motives, or any of their other qualities.
Unfortunate for me. Unfortunate for them. Unfortunate for most of the world really.

Have you read Marbury v. Madison? http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=5&page=137 Chief Justice Marshall makes the case for judicial review (not without criticism even today). I find the case persuasive and consistent with the Constitution. In any event, I would argue from the floor (if such argument were needed) that judicial review would not be a non-enumerated "right", but an inherent component of the judicial Power of the United States. Thus, your argument must fail.

My point is based on your strict constructionist view. If it isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is not a part of it. You would need an amendment in order to define the powers of judicial review you stated are an inherent component.

And btw, since many of the Founders were still around when Marbury was decided, it is of interest that there was no apparent effort on their part (that I'm aware of) to amend the Constitution in order to overturn Marbury.

Oh, it's the correct decision in fitting with the checks and balances ideals. But, your logic with regards to how the Constitution works would render it a non-entity in the checks and balances system.

At least you seem to support the right to bear arms ;)

Always a last resort to tyranny.

Should be fun.

Indeed.

Opposed. Things are already regulated for the Indian tribes.

The heart of the proposed amendment is the added word "direct." It's not really an Indian-related amendment.

OPPOSED to the added. It is stupid and violates full faith and credit.

The whole point of the amendment is to refine FF&C.

There goes the freedom of religion clause. You want to tinker with it? Get a new nation. This opens the door for a state religion. No thanks.

In what way does "Congress shall make no law establishing an official religion of the United States" open the door for a state religion?

Goes without saying as it is a freedom. Why add Congress shall make no law? It is unnecessary.

The section reference was added solely for clarity. The original text of the First Amendment doesn't include sections, and states that "Congress shall make no law" pertaining to the enumerated subjects.

um ok. Why repeat something that is already in the Constitution?

Same reason.

This goes without saying.

I agree! :D



To long. Break it up.

This isn't original to me, it's the actual text of the amendment that was voted on by the Senate back in the day. It failed by one vote. IIRC there are currently a significant number of state legislatures on record as calling for a Constitutional Convention to consider this very amendment.

My point is based on your strict constructionist view. If it isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is not a part of it. You would need an amendment in order to define the powers of judicial review you stated are an inherent component.

There is a difference between construing "judicial Power" to include the power of judicial review, and construing "interstate commerce" to include commerce that never leaves a state. One determines what the power actually is, and the other creates a whole new power.

However, I would support an amendment from the floor to explicitly include judicial review ala Marbury in Article III.

wow, anti-intellectualism that cuts off at junior high. i'm impressed.

Of course.

There is a difference between construing "judicial Power" to include the power of judicial review, and construing "interstate commerce" to include commerce that never leaves a state. One determines what the power actually is, and the other creates a whole new power.

However, I would support an amendment from the floor to explicitly include judicial review ala Marbury in Article III.

The Federalist Papers even talk about the power of judicial review. It is inherent in our judicial system that it is a right.

There is a difference between construing "judicial Power" to include the power of judicial review, and construing "interstate commerce" to include commerce that never leaves a state. One determines what the power actually is, and the other creates a whole new power.

However, I would support an amendment from the floor to explicitly include judicial review ala Marbury in Article III.

The overall point is how much time you spend arguing amendments instead of actual laws. You're wasting time defining everything through amendment instead of law. Notice the blunder of Prohibition. A simple law would have been less of a stain on American history.

The concept of a living document allows for change instead of anchoring the document in place for decades. Change is too difficult under your interpretation.

Powerfully anti-American piece of garbage you've posted here, so I'd vote no on all counts.

alright, enough nonsense from new mit, we should do something useful with his thread. what parts of the us constitution would people actually want to change/scrap/add to/etc?

i've mentioned one of my reformist ideas back in post 63 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12904392&postcount=63), though i'd much rather scrap the whole thing and start over.

Constitution needs:

1) Clarification of the second amendment.

2) Enumeration of the unenumerated right to privacy.

Unfortunately, the people who can clarify the original intent of the second amendment are long dead and the right to privacy shouldn't have to be enumerated.

Constitution needs:

1) Clarification of the second amendment.

2) Enumeration of the unenumerated right to privacy.

Unfortunately, the people who can clarify the original intent of the second amendment are long dead and the right to privacy shouldn't have to be enumerated.

If the right to privacy "shouldn't have" to be enumerated, then it is a right so important that is absolutely must be enumerated.

People shouldn't need to eat, for that matter. Imagine a world without starvation!

The 'original intent' of the 2nd amendment isn't as relevant as the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is basic and essential.

I'm not a US citizen, but it strikes me that if you are going to bother with a Constitutional Convention at all then the result shouldn't have any amendments. The existing amendments apart from prohibition/de-prohibition should be put into the new Constitution. You can get around the Civil Rights amendment by just firming up the language concerning the rights of US citizens to specifically mention that they apply to ALL citizens. It would be a much tidier document. You also need to take out the right to arm bears.

Repeat after me: state and common-law rights are not Constitutional rights!

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Read it.
Read it again.
Do you understand yet? This clearly states that the people have rights which are not enumerated in the Constitution. It says, in fact, that sometimes state and common-law rights are Constitutional rights.

No, I'm repairing a breach in the structure of the Constitution that has been created by illegitimate judicial activity. And thereby preventing four rogue judges in Massachusetts from imposing their corrupted definition of marriage on the rest of the states.

I'm afraid that you are creating a "breach" which does not exist. The concept of breach in the Full Faith and Credit clause is absurd. The only way one could breach the Full Faith and Credit clause is by doing exactly what you are advocating, i.e. making an exception.

Sorry, marriage is not a "religious" issue. The definition of the fundamental unit of society is inherently a civil issue. Various religions attach varying degrees of significance to the institution, but it remains a civil institution.

I'm afraid the "fundamental unit of society" is in fact, the citizen, not a marriage. If marriage is in fact a civil institution, then why can homosexual couples not utilize it as heterosexual couples can? That seems slightly discriminatory to me.

You also need to take out the right to arm bears.


Going to have to ask why you think we need to take out the right to bear arms. Care to expand on this?

There is no enumerated "right to privacy" in the Constitution.

I might add that I am hardly alone in this opinion. For example, Justice Potter Stewart wrote in a dissenting opinion in Griswold in which he stated, "With all deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), at 530.

I reiterate: if you want to create such a "right", do it by the amendment procedure and not by judicial fiat.



I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unneccessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than they were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the rpess shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions might be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

Thank you for proving the founding fathers' wisdom correct through your own lack of sagacity, Mitanni. As the above quote explains, I think fairly clearly, the Constitution originally lacked a Bill of Rights specifically because they feared that, in the absence of a clear prohibition against action, some people would propose that the government had a right to act, and further, that it was impossible to iterate all rights. In other, simpler terms, they knew they could never create a list of rights that would comprehensively limit the government from acting to usurp the liberties of the people, so they didn't bother and retained the assumption that if the government isn't explicitly authorized to do it, the assumption is that they can't. Once it became necessary to put a Bill of Rights in, they included the 9th amendment specifically to ensure that such an assumption was never made.

As a personal note, I find it a combination of hilarity and deep sadness that a person ostensibly acting to prevent creeping governmental tyranny would seek to deprive us of the following (as a starter list, I'm only going off what I can think of off the top of my head):

The Right to Presumption of Innocence
The Right to an Attorney
The Right to Remain Silent
The Right to be apprised of the fact that you have rights to an attorney and silence
The Right to exclusion of evidence gathered in violation of the Constitution
The Right to intellectual property protection
The Right to form corporations, trusts, and businesses
The Right to secure a means of livelihood consistent with the law
The Right to access of all materials gathered by the prosecution in the defense of a client

I'm sure with a little work, I could go on, but that right there is a pretty hefty list of things that had to be added, by Court interpretation mind you, because some would-be usurper assumed that because they were not in the Constitution, they are not rights and do not count. They are all also necessary to securing the rights listed: a right to trial by jury does you no good if you can't defend yourself properly and the presumption is of guilt, for instance. Which is why, *gasp* the horror!, we use the 9th Amendment to secure our liberties, and why your effective revocation of the 9th is so galling. Privacy falls under this same general standard: it is necessary for us to be secure in our persons (4th amendment), and to be assured of an impartial trial (6th amendment), that we assume some measure of privacy.

Thank you for proving the founding fathers' wisdom correct through your own lack of sagacity, Mitanni. As the above quote explains, I think fairly clearly, the Constitution originally lacked a Bill of Rights specifically because they feared that, in the absence of a clear prohibition against action, some people would propose that the government had a right to act, and further, that it was impossible to iterate all rights.

though on the other hand, he also specifically proves one of jefferson's (and the anti-federalists more generally) points, namely that if we didn't list anything down, these same people would take that to mean we got nothing. these people are out to limit our rights by whatever means are convenient.

I'm not a US citizen, but it strikes me that if you are going to bother with a Constitutional Convention at all then the result shouldn't have any amendments.

not at first, anyway. new mit really just wants to take the existing document and black stuff out and insert some other stuff. i don't know if this is for lack of imagination or what, but it is rather silly.

I submit the following amendment:

Since the ideal of the US is to give everyone as much freedom and as many rights as possible, this constitution shall be interpreted as giving everyone as many rights and freedoms as possible only limited at the point where the actions of one person infringes on the freedoms and rights of another person.

I submit the following amendment:

Since the ideal of the US is to give everyone as much freedom and as many rights as possible, this constitution shall be interpreted as giving everyone as many rights and freedoms as possible only limited at the point where the actions of one person infringes on the freedoms and rights of another person.

Although not a bad thought. Do you not think there is a large gray area with that last part? I think that would open a huge can of worms even if the intentions were good.

Although not a bad thought. Do you not think there is a large gray area with that last part? I think that would open a huge can of worms even if the intentions were good.

There are gray areas as we have now. Note: the second amendment, or religion. The Supreme Court would have to sort that out. But on an issue such as gay marriage, I would think that anyone who would want to take freedom and rights away from someone would have to show a harm to someone else.

Fellow American:

You have been named as a delegate to the Second Constitutional Convention, to be held in Independence, Missouri beginning on June 1, 2010. The SCC has been called by the required 37 state legislatures.

The following amendments have been proposed (additions underlined, deletions bracketed): I weep for my State and the situation that put me with this much power.

I will then put it to vote with my state, voting on the majority outcome of said vote. my voice will be the voice of my State and not mine alone.

so the following will be how I would vote in such an Emergency State Referendum.

1) Article I, Section 1, clause 3: To regulate direct Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes, such direct Commerce crossing a boundary of the United States, one of the several states, or the territory of an Indian Tribe; Sorry, No. without defining who would do the regulating... no.

2) Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; but no State shall be compelled to recognize any public Act of any other State defining marriage or an institution approximating marriage that conflicts with any public Act of such State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. I'm kinda leaning for this. However I would vote no because then if I get married in Hawaii then move to Nevada, my marriage could be considered void. Controversy or no.

3) Article VI, clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, insofar as they do not conflict with this Constitution, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. dunno about this one. I think it puts too much power in Federal Judges and Lawyers... Gonna go with 'No' for this.

4) Amendment I: Section 1. Congress shall make no law [respecting an establishment of religion, or] establishing an official religion of the United States, or prohibiting the free exercise [thereof] of religion. A law establishing an official religion of the United States shall consist solely in a law recognizing a specific religion or religions as the official religion or religions of the United States.
Section 2. Congress shall make no law 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.nope... sorry. but I enjoy my Religion because I choose to partake of my Religion. Also a contradiction is present.

Amendment I: Section 1. Congress shall make no law establishing an official religion of the United States, or prohibiting the free exercise [thereof] of religion. A law establishing an official religion of the United States shall consist solely in a law recognizing a specific religion or religions as the official religion or religions of the United States.

umm... your first part of your modified proposal says Congress shall make no law establishing an offical religion of the United States.
yet immediately following is
A law establishing an an official religion of the United States shall consist solely in a law recognizing a specific religion or religions as the official religion or religions of the United States.
a direct contradiction in and of itself... so... sorry. NO.


5) Amendment IX: Section 1. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Section 2. No right not enumerated in the Constitution shall be inferred, implied, or construed from any rights so enumerated.while it may be nice to have the lawyers snipped... I would rather not this pass. NO.

6) Amendment XIV: Section 1. All persons born in the United States to citizens of the United States 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 lawfully within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ... I'm leaning for this. but I'll have to vote no. A child born on US soil is considered a citizen. even if their parents are nationals from another country visiting us. so no.

7) Amendment XXVIII: Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.
Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year, in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.
Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.
Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.
Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.
Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.
Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 2012 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later. no, too much power to Congress. unbalanced, and thus NO.

I weep for my State and the situation that put me with this much power.

well, the real delegation was gonna go to the constitutional convention, but, you know, surfs up

Why is that? Serious question, btw

I would like to see a change to the interstate commerce clause, mainly to stop silly decisions like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn. However, there does need to be some sort of Federal regulatory body to regulate safety of goods (not that the FDA does it's job now, but whatever).

I'm probably more of an antifederalist than the OP is, but along with national defense I think the Federal government's job should be laying down and enforcing a minimum standard (not minimal standard) of human rights.

The vast majority of the OP's suggested amendments are simply to allow the same sort of social engineering that he decries so loudly.

Without the interstate trade clause, the Reserve Bank could not validly set such things as required deposits by private banks (the ones that protect your savings if the bank folds), impose a uniform lending and borrowing rate for financial transactions, or do any of the thousand and one small adjustments it makes every day to regulate the national economy.

There was a time when this was the actual case, roughly from the end of the US Civil War to WWII. This period of Laissez-Faire capitalism was characterized by boom periods of fantastic wealth, followed by dramatic and seriously damaging busts, such as the Great Depressions of 1895 and 1929. These busts actually seem to have occurred on a regular cycle of roughly 15-20 years; this isn't obvious because we missed one, which should have occurred in roughly 1915. The positive economic impetus of WWI (positive to the US, of course, since we were making scads of money off selling stuff to both sides) neutralized the crash.

Without the interstate commerce clause, the Reserve Bank would not be a valid institution. Capitalism would be free to run rampant; and without proper regulation, capitalism is too damaging.