Propose changes to the U.S. Constitution

Post Reply New Topic

I don't know about a dictatorship but I agree that we should chunk the constitution. Go ahead and call me blasphemous, but the thing has had zero influence in my life as a human being.

I am personally so sick of countless people saying that free speech gives people the right to literally say whatever they want to the point where I grown to despise it. The first amendment protects people from government censorship, nothing more or less. So the next time some imbecile announces that my sexual curiosity is either sinful, disgusting, unnatural, or leads to bestiality and pedophilia, for instance, I am going to tell that person to get bent and that he or she can take his or her so-called opinion and shove it because it's my life and I live how I want to.

How would a dictatorship work for you?

But doesnt the same constitution that gives them the right- also give you the right to tell them to "get bent", and "shove it" etc?

I can think of some improvements, but first we ought to try following the Constitution as it is. All of it, including the 9th and 10th amendments. Most of what the federal government is currently doing isn't legally authorized at all.

The first amendment protects people from government censorship, nothing more or less. The constitution does not "give" anybody rights but protects people from government interference and it was designed so the people could rule themselves. It does not literally give people the ability to do whatever in the world they please.

http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2 ... nt-or-god/

Well-Okay- so the same government that cant stop them from calling you a sinner, cant stop you from telling them to get bent!

It would work like this

1) I'm put in charge
2) Everyone does what I say or I crush them like maggots

I might be being unnecessarily nitpicky after my far-from-watertight suggestions, but to me this implies that it wouldn't be OK to treat white people better than everyone else, but it would be OK to treat black people worse than everyone else.

In my experience that sentiment usually lies hidden somewhere in those arguments, if you dig hard enough.

While I think private firms have the right to discriminate as a consequence of voluntary association (and you're generally an asshat if you do excercise that freedom), public institutions should not have any such right, for or against those categories.

Do away with the Electoral College. Choose the president by direct popular vote. Make everyone's presidential vote equal, and stop allowing about 10 "swing" states to decide elections. It will also allow the growth of multiple parties, rather than having to choose between two subsidiary companies of the same parent corporation.

1992, Ross Perot, 19% of the national popular vote, zero electoral votes. It's impossible to elect anyone except a D or R. 20% of the electorate was essentially disenfranchised. Symbolism doesn't cut it.

And no, I wasn't a Perotista.

Yep, I agree with this.

As a libertarian I don't advocate voluntary discrimination per se, but I oppose coercively state-enforced anti-discrimination laws in the private sector as I find it unpropertarian (private property infringement); nevertheless, discrimination laws should be applicable for public institutes at the very least.

Abolish or re-write the 2nd amendment. Get rid of all the ambiguity that it contains. If the militia bit is separate and unrelated to the right to bear arms, state it clearly. Also clarify what is meant by "arms" in the context of the amendment - hand guns? Automatic weapons? Warships? Nuclear Weapons? - in a way that can adapt to new types of weapons that may be invented in the future.

And add something to outlaw the entire idea of a federal government 'debt limit' - some say the 14th amendment already does, but its not been tested and the issue should be put to rest before it does get tested. If congress authorizes money to be spent for something, then it authorizes the money to be spent and should not be able to enact conflicting legislation in the form of a debt limit.

All it really needs is some clarification and stronger wording, as it is the courts have been chipping away at it for centuries, and you could drive a truck through some of the loopholes they've made in the Bill of Rights. Perhaps surprisingly to some people, I think it's the 4th Amendment that's the most in need of immediate strengthening, followed by the Commerce Clause, and perhaps an amendment recognizing an enumerated right to privacy.

I personally find the first amendment as it is currently used incredibly overrated and irrelevant. The way I see it, it's an excuse for people to skip personal responsibility and promote uniformity. I also find it stupefying that people would demand the right to invade on certain people when they've always had the ability to think for themselves. Democracy and free speech are both overrated.

Among many other concepts and all aside from their incessant glorifying, these two both needlessly promote a cycle of collective competition of popularity and productivity and demote personal independence and responsibility. Indeed, they are responsible for what is presently our broken, brutal, and bloody two party system of Democrat vs. Republican and Liberal vs. Conservative. I find the notion that humans are required to duel their ideas under the score of dominance is ironically no different than the nationalism of the Britain of yore. Pardon my revisionism, if it be judged so, but instead of as this brilliant beacon of universal freedom, was America not founded on solely as a nation that separated from its dominant collective so that its people could rule themselves?

For what is popular, I can also say the same for what is unpopular. I must reemphasize that we never needed to submit our lifestyles or ideas for nobody?s sake except our own private one. We made them for ourselves and ourselves alone and if we liked them, then we liked them, and if we didn?t then we simply changed them. Just because something is considered popular or unpopular does not make them any more or less significant except perceptively in the culture that they form in.

In the end, it does not come down to which is popular or not, and all of our ideas can be considered arbitrary to the outside if found undesirable. Instead of merely serving the ego, it ultimately comes down to simply living our lives to our choosing. If all of this be deemed ?Un-American,? ?unpatriotic,? or even ?unpopular,? in which case I feel that my point has been proven, then go and deem it so.

That's the idea, the people fight there own battles.

for starters, public financing of elections, and true direct democracy [at all levels] with mandatory voting. all ballots would include the provision for "none of the above" which would have to count the same as the other selections, IOW if NOTA got a plurality then another election would have to happen, with different candidates. there would also be national initiatives [like state initiatives] requiring a simple majority for passage- these initiatives could be launched by any private citizen, ONLY private citizens, no lobbies allowed. corporations would NOT count as people. this is intended to replace the house of representatives. there would still be a senate but it could only rubber-stamp the people's vote unless a supermajority voted against it. then they would have to justify any no-vote come national election time. no more electoral college, either. corporations would be strictly limited and micromanaged, with the goal of discouraging big business from getting too large and powerful sufficient to start buying government. any lobbies would be registered and have all their information public free for the asking. they would be banned if they were found to be abusing their charters by secret collusion with elected/appointed officials. registered and public lobbies could propose laws in the senate but they would have to be approved at the national level by every citizen in a public vote. all political parties would have to register as lobbies. all elections would be held on national holidays. people on shiftwork/holiday work would have to be allowed time off to vote. I AM allowed to still dream, right?

Who wants to spend their weekends at council meetings? Not me.