I came across this poll early back in 2004. I thought it posed an interesting question and that it could lead to a good discussion and it's more relevant today than it was back then. At the time, a constitutional amendment regarding homosexual marriage was being discussed. I've recreated the poll and posted it here-
There have only been 27 amendments to our Constitution. The last basically said that the congress couldn't raise its own pay without an intervening election. Now there was a Constitutional amendment that recognized the essential truth about today's breed of politicians. Our founding fathers didn't put that in the original because they couldn't think in terms of elected officials staging raids on the taxpayers funds to the extent that they do today.
The American people have shown that they don't want to trivialize our Constitution with an endless succession of amendments. The unnecessary so-called Equal Rights Amendment was turned away, and amendments like one banning flag burning have never even made it off the launching pad. Americans aren't going to get behind this gay marriage thing either.
But .. since the subject has been broached, here are a few ideas for Constitutional amendments that I think would be a grand idea.
First on my list is an amendment to repeal an amendment.
The 17th Amendment, to be more specific. I believe the argument can be made that the 17th Amendment has done more to promote the growth of federal government than any other action in our country's history. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, provided for the popular election of U.S. Senators. Our original Constitution created a system whereby the people of the United States were represented in Washington by the members of the House of Representatives, while the state governments were represented by Senators. Each state legislature would appoint two people to serve staggered terms in the Senate. The people had their voice in Washington, and so did the States. Tell me, do you think that the federal government would have successfully usurped so many powers from State governments? Would the U.S. Congress have placed so many unfunded mandates on the backs of the states? Our founding fathers (the politically correct term is now "framers") felt that in times of peace 90% of all government should emanate from state and local levels, and only 5% from the federal level. The growth of the federal sector at the expense of local power can be traced back to the ratification of the 17th Amendment. Repeal it. Return the power to the local governments.
Second .. The Bricker Amendment.
The Bricker Amendment was introduced into the Senate in 1952. Some Americans actually think that our Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That may not be so. There have been federal court rulings which state that treaties duly ratified by the Senate can have a force under law that is superior to that of our Constitution. Some argue that this application is severely limited, others say that today's activist courts could expand this doctrine to the point that our Constitution takes second place in the "law of the land" list to treaties. Some examples? How about the Kyoto treaty? To what extent would our economic liberties be violated if Kyoto became the supreme law of the land?
OK ... back to the Bricker Amendment. Here it is, in its entirety:
Section 1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.
Section 2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.
Section 3. Congress shall have power to regulate all executive and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization. All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article.
Section 4. The congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Does anyone see a real problem with this? How could anyone really object to an amendment that cements our Constitution in place as the supreme law of the land? Well ... the Bricker Amendment was defeated in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 42-50. Republicans for ... Democrats against.
An amendment limiting the government's right to seize private property
It is an abomination that our Supreme Court has now given the green light to government to seize the private property of citizens without any due process at all. If you are found in an airport, a bus terminal, on an interstate highway ... virtually anywhere ... with a wad of cash in your pocket, the police can simply take the cash and send you on your way. In this case the government assumes that you have committed a crime, administers punishment, and sends you packing.
How about a Constitutional amendment to protect your property against government seizure without due process?
Eminent domain abuse
Again, thanks to a ruling from the Supremes, governments across the country can now take your real estate from you and hand it over to another private citizen or developer simply because the government believes that the new owner will pay more in property taxes than you do. We need a Constitutional amendment to clearly define "public use" and set strong new limits on eminent domain.
Now ... how many of you would put an amendment banning gay marriage above those items?
There have only been 27 amendments to our Constitution. The last basically said that the congress couldn't raise its own pay without an intervening election. Now there was a Constitutional amendment that recognized the essential truth about today's breed of politicians. Our founding fathers didn't put that in the original because they couldn't think in terms of elected officials staging raids on the taxpayers funds to the extent that they do today.
The American people have shown that they don't want to trivialize our Constitution with an endless succession of amendments. The unnecessary so-called Equal Rights Amendment was turned away, and amendments like one banning flag burning have never even made it off the launching pad. Americans aren't going to get behind this gay marriage thing either.
But .. since the subject has been broached, here are a few ideas for Constitutional amendments that I think would be a grand idea.
First on my list is an amendment to repeal an amendment.
The 17th Amendment, to be more specific. I believe the argument can be made that the 17th Amendment has done more to promote the growth of federal government than any other action in our country's history. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, provided for the popular election of U.S. Senators. Our original Constitution created a system whereby the people of the United States were represented in Washington by the members of the House of Representatives, while the state governments were represented by Senators. Each state legislature would appoint two people to serve staggered terms in the Senate. The people had their voice in Washington, and so did the States. Tell me, do you think that the federal government would have successfully usurped so many powers from State governments? Would the U.S. Congress have placed so many unfunded mandates on the backs of the states? Our founding fathers (the politically correct term is now "framers") felt that in times of peace 90% of all government should emanate from state and local levels, and only 5% from the federal level. The growth of the federal sector at the expense of local power can be traced back to the ratification of the 17th Amendment. Repeal it. Return the power to the local governments.
Second .. The Bricker Amendment.
The Bricker Amendment was introduced into the Senate in 1952. Some Americans actually think that our Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That may not be so. There have been federal court rulings which state that treaties duly ratified by the Senate can have a force under law that is superior to that of our Constitution. Some argue that this application is severely limited, others say that today's activist courts could expand this doctrine to the point that our Constitution takes second place in the "law of the land" list to treaties. Some examples? How about the Kyoto treaty? To what extent would our economic liberties be violated if Kyoto became the supreme law of the land?
OK ... back to the Bricker Amendment. Here it is, in its entirety:
Section 1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.
Section 2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.
Section 3. Congress shall have power to regulate all executive and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization. All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article.
Section 4. The congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Does anyone see a real problem with this? How could anyone really object to an amendment that cements our Constitution in place as the supreme law of the land? Well ... the Bricker Amendment was defeated in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 42-50. Republicans for ... Democrats against.
An amendment limiting the government's right to seize private property
It is an abomination that our Supreme Court has now given the green light to government to seize the private property of citizens without any due process at all. If you are found in an airport, a bus terminal, on an interstate highway ... virtually anywhere ... with a wad of cash in your pocket, the police can simply take the cash and send you on your way. In this case the government assumes that you have committed a crime, administers punishment, and sends you packing.
How about a Constitutional amendment to protect your property against government seizure without due process?
Eminent domain abuse
Again, thanks to a ruling from the Supremes, governments across the country can now take your real estate from you and hand it over to another private citizen or developer simply because the government believes that the new owner will pay more in property taxes than you do. We need a Constitutional amendment to clearly define "public use" and set strong new limits on eminent domain.
Now ... how many of you would put an amendment banning gay marriage above those items?
