slug.com slug.com

2 4

Here are a few ideas on amending to Constitution of the United States to protect and defend its core principles from those who want to eliminate it.

  1. A person whose rights are defended by the Constitution is to be defined as an individual human being, corporations only have rights through the rights of their constituent members.
  2. No money may be donated to a political candidate from outside of that candidate's district. Indirect donations by persons outside the district are sufficient to disqualify that candidate from office.
  3. Congress is the sole legislative authority in the Federal government and has no power to delegate said authority.
  4. Any executive branch agency that tries to make rules bearing the weight of law, up to and including Executive Orders by the President of the United States, must submit them to Congress for ratification by majority vote and then return to the president's desk for signature before they may come into effect.
  5. Judicial decisions that alter laws must be ratified by Congress and signed by the President.
FuzzyMarineVet 8 May 16
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Number 2 - seems a bit unfair - some districts are far wealthier than others and some are almost destitute in their poverty.

All the others are great IMHO.

Having said that I also will say that calling an article 5 constitutional convention frightens me - big time!
I think our Constitution is as close to perfect as it can be - as it stands. We only need politicians and judges AND the People to acknowledge and to recognize the US Constitution as the one and only fixed/established law of the land and to faithfully adhere to it.

If the district is cash poor and no one can raise money from outside the district then all candidates are on a level playing field. This is not supposed to be a contest about who can raise the most special-interest money, but who can garner the most support among the electorate.

I must disagree that our Constitution is fine as it stands.

  1. The 17th Amendment has turned a circumspect Senate into an extension of the "flash in the pan" House. Foolish legislation like studying earthworms would never have made it past the early Senate. Nor would massive omnibus bills in which boondoggles were buried that have allowed Democrats to siphon off billions for their campaigns, and eventually could not resist directing it into their personal accounts. Check out all the Democrat millionaires who were nearly destitute when elected, like John Kerry, Harry Reid, the Clintons....
  2. The Commerce Clause is defunct, as of the coerced decision Wickard v Filburn, even though it is still in the Constitution. As long as politicians are allowed to disregard parts that are inconvenient, the Constitution as it stands, stands for very little.

A Constitutional Convention is not nearly as open ended as it sounds, and even calling such a Congress will be extraordinarily difficult. If it were to produce even one Amendment, I would be surprised, but that Amendment should be a repeal of the 17th, restoration of the full Commerce Clause, and the 10th Amendment, which reads: "The powers NOT delegated to the Unites States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."

This would mean Obamacare, Federal control of farming, the HSS, Dept of Education, and hundreds of Federal agencies would be dissolved overnight, and most States would then start restoring their Constitutional right to establish them - or not. And local control of all of those agencies would improve the responsiveness and accountability of them.

@TimTuolomne Amendment XVII is the first successful attack on the principles of the Constitution that used constitutional means to bring it about.

3

As you correctly point out, all of the listed provisions are already in the US Constitution. Our problem is that there are so many Americans who are unaware of Constitutional principles, and why they matter to them, that no additional Amendment nor restatement of those principles will make any difference. As was once said: the only way for some Americans to recognize the value of their Constitutional Republic, is to lose it.

It is just like the song by Melanie, "Big Yellow Taxi." "Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got til it's gone? They paved Paradise and they put up a parking lot!"

@FuzzyMarineVet Big Yellow Taxi was by Joni Mitchell.

Unaware of constitutional principles? True. That irresponsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the Teacher's Unions. Teacher's have not even realized their socialist and anti-American proclivities. Mainly because the Union has bought them their privileges from the taxpayer....hmmm... Unions and socialism good. As the US loses its standard of living and becomes increasingly impoverished by all the government promises it buys votes with intends to fund, it will fall into tyranny.

People don't realize that loss of their freedoms are the result of individual responsibilty being transferred to government responsibility. The 2nd amendment is the right to bear arms. The freedom lies in the individual's responsibility to respect everyone's right to bear arms. Every abandonment of that responsibility, act of aggression committed with firearms that is proven to not be a defensive act, ends that individuals freedom to bear arms. He loses the right. His right is infringed upon. If too many incidences of these acts of aggression occur, politicians, weak on understanding the concept of freedom will call for an infringement on the right to bear arms for the general populace.

The right to free speech means the responsibility for speech lies with the individual and he must self-censor. If he does not, first others will try and censor him. The individual has to be able to determine for himself what is appropriate speech for the time and circumstances because free speech is not just about saying what one wants when ever he wants. In order to maintain the right of free it is he who must infringe upon the right or government will. Free speech is not just a contrary view. It is inappropriate for the intended audience. Today, some argue the right of free speech to indoctrinate kindergarten children about gender identities. This is totally inappropriate in our western society. Who decides what is appropriate speech? The individual. Can we allow government to determine what is appropriate? If we do we lose that freedom. A group of individuals wanting to dictate to us their worldview and quash dissent by appealing to government is an appeal for the loss of the right to free speech.

@FrankZeleniuk I wasn't going to go there but - ok - aha!

@FrankZeleniuk The march of Socialism (see CPUSA) began decades before the Teachers Union came along.
Its no coincidence that it started about the same time that the "Industrial Revolution" came into being.
Labor Unions were the easiest and most obvious vehicle for fomenting class warfare (which is really the very foundation of Marxist ideology)
The growth and influence of CPUSA was moving along quite rapidly (Joe McCarthy was right by the way) but WWII slowed it down a bit. Although FDR was a true Socialist in principle and in his actions as POTUS for 2 and a half terms in office.

@FrankZeleniuk I stand corrected. It was Melanie's cover that I heard the last.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:338483
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.