home

Constitutional Amendments

By Jeralyn, Section Constitution
Posted on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:08:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Kevin Drum reports there have been 47 constitutional amendments proposed in the last year. He lists them all.

The Constitution is not a rough draft. We don't need any of them.

< Repeat: Will Link for Laptop | Tom Delay's Venue Hearing Set for Nov. 22 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Constitutional Amendments | 31 comments (31 topical)
    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:49 PM EST
    I don't agree. We need a few of them. We need several that aren't on that list. I originally wrote those up, but figured it wasn't worth a knock on my door from the Secret Police in another 20 years.

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#2)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:49 PM EST
    So modifying the meaning of the Constitution by judicial decision = good, changing the text by more-or-less democratic action = bad?

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:49 PM EST
    This is the one of the few posts on TalkLeft I've really disagreed with, so here is my first post. Please be gentle with me. The Constitution is not a rough draft. I'm not sure slaves would have agreed with that statement prior to the 13th amendment, or women prior to the 19th. Don't get me wrong, I think the linked proposed amendments are mostly crap...the GOP's greatest hits, if you will...but the framers intended the Constitution to be a living document. We can't pretend otherwise because of these bad ideas the current majority keeps beating us over the head with. Oh, and TalkLeft rocks! :)

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#4)
    by eric on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:49 PM EST
    I would favor repealing the 22nd Amendment, which limits the president to two terms. Another four years of Clinton almost certainly would have been a good thing, and I don't see why an arbitrary two-term limit is better than say, four. To exclude a popular and successful president from continuing his work does not seem to make sense to me.

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:49 PM EST
    Sure, the Constitution is not a rough draft, but it also not the final word for all eternity. The founders of this country understood that they too were imperfect beings and that the system they had designed had its falws, and as such they placed within that system a mechanism for correcting those flaws over time. The sad thing is how quickly this degenerates into a partisan issue, with those on the left claiming that the problem is on the right, and those on the right claiming that the problem is on the left. The obvious truth (obvious to anyone who reads the proposed amendments and does not cimply assume that any amendment they personally oppose was introduced by those they also oppose), is that both sides of the polticial divide, and probably everyone in between, shares in the general idiocy that pervades Capitol Hill these days. And as if to highlight this idiocy, we have a private section for Jesse Jackson Jr., who is a microcosm example of what is really going on here. Most of these proposed amendments are introduced for campaign purposes only. The people involved are well aware that they will never pass within the Congress, let alone within the states. It's all for the TV cameras and the stump speeches. Meanwhile, Congress continues to fail in its most basic responsibilities, like passing a budget on time. If you want to complain about these proposals, which at least have the advantage of being a legitimate part of the process, however misguided, you should complain about the time they take from the actual business those men and women were sent to Washington to do.

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:49 PM EST
    You speak too quickly, TalkLeft. A line item veto would be useful to both parties as a mechanism to cut pork and limit excesses by the opposing party (assuming congress and the white house are held by different parties). And I'm very sorry to hear that you oppose the equal rights amendment.

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:49 PM EST
    justpaul... Good post... I would add to it only that we need to apply simple common sense ( a rare commodity these days)... If we look at these and not consider the left or right and simply apply common sense... things would work out ok. For example...good ones would be? Line item veto (5 versions) Gay marriage (3 versions) School prayer (2 versions) Limit use of personal funds in campaigns Balanced budget Allocate House seats by number of citizens, not number of residents Maintenance of Social Security Equal rights for women Continuity of operations in case 25% of Congress is killed (2 versions) Term limits for judges Common sense...yes? Examples of ones that make me scratch my head..... Allow God in the Pledge of Allegiance Allow? Is he already mentioned there? What moron pproposed this? Allow naturalized citizens to become president (3 versions) Not a good idea... Allow residents of U.S. territories to vote for president Again... not a good idea Declare English the official language of the United States Duh! Is another language being considered? And yet others that may need some debate & clarification... In other words... these are ones that should actually be considered and talked about... Repeal the 22nd amendment (would allow presidents to serve more than two terms) (2 versions) Repeal the 16th amendment (would outlaw the income tax) Flag desecration (3 versions) Eminent domain Make the filibuster part of the constitution Term limits (2 versions) Right to life Repeal birthright citizenship (2 versions) Abolish income, estate, and gift taxes

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#8)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:49 PM EST
    Continuity of operations in case 25% of Congress is killed
    Is probabally needed. If a WMD were to ever go off in Washington, we would need a way to continue our government. Yes, specail elections could be rushed in, or temporary appointments made by governors, but there would still be a lag. Some other good ideas, but not necessallary needed are Line item veto Eminent domain (an anti Kelo measure)

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:49 PM EST
    Declare English the official language of the United States Duh! Is another language being considered?
    Spanish is currently an official language in New Mixico, although not the only one. Think also, Puerto Rico.

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:49 PM EST
    Posted by eric: "I would favor repealing the 22nd Amendment, which limits the president to two terms." This is coming right on up, though not by repeal. If Bush can hang in for another three years, the 22nd will be declared unconstitutional. We do need a constitutional amendment to specify our public right to vote for president.

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#11)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:49 PM EST
    No one can declare an amendment unconstitutional, and the President is no where near popular enough to rush an amendment through to allow him to serve a 3rd term. Time to come back to reality.

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#12)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:49 PM EST
    Maybe we should address baser election issues before worrying about changing term limit rules. How 'bout an Amendment saying an election has to have a paper trail in order to be certified at a federal level?

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#13)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:50 PM EST
    Roy, Why stop at the federal level? Are not state and local elections just as important in terms of ensuring that the person who "wins" the election actually did, in fact, win? But with that said, any federal requirement for a "paper trail" should start with a verifiable paper trail of who is eligible to vote and who actually voted. A paper trail of the votes cast with no certainty that they are legal votes is meaningless, even if it is a popular dream of certain party operatives.

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:50 PM EST
    Posted by BigTex: "No one can declare an amendment unconstitutional, and the President is no where near popular enough to rush an amendment through to allow him to serve a 3rd term." Add a "terrorist attack" in 2007. Rinse. Apply again. They can declare anything they want at that point, including martial law. Why is it that people want to go back to sleep, when they wake up in burning beds?

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:50 PM EST
    justpaul: "A paper trail of the votes cast with no certainty that they are legal votes is meaningless," Utter nonsense. A papertrail, WITHOUT REGARD TO RIGHT TO VOTE, is still a valid audit of the vote counting by e-voting SECRET SOFTWARE machines. If a papertrail shows ten million votes were flipped to the opposite candidate by the machines, that would be significant even without addressing the issue of who should be able to vote. As should be obvious to anyone with an IQ above 50, justpaul.

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#16)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:50 PM EST
    As should be obvious to anyone with an IQ above 50 Which no doubt explains why you failed to understand the issue at all, PIL. A paper trail of illegal votes is just a paper trail of illegal votes and has no reference to a legal election. I understand that in La-La Land illegal votes are just fine, as long as they are for your preferred candidate, but those who profess to be concerned with caring about the right of everyone to vote and have their vote counted should first be concerned with ensuring that only those who actually enjoy that right excercise it. Otherwise your paper trail looks like nothing more than an attempt to cloud the issue when it comes time to ask, yet again, how more people voted in a given district than actually live in it. As usual, your canned responses don't actually relate to anything beyond your own personal paranoia. But hey, you get two points for consistency!

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:50 PM EST
    Justpaul.. LOL. La La Paulie has voter fraud on the brain. In fact, if it wasn't for that, no Repubs would ever be elected. Just ask him.

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#18)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:50 PM EST
    Side-Show Paul, I might add as well that the two issues are hardly incompatible. One Amendment could put in place requirements for both a paper trail and accurate voter registration. Even an imbecile can see that. Maybe you should ask one to explain it to you.

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:51 PM EST
    Posted by justpaul: "A paper trail of illegal votes is just a paper trail of illegal votes and has no reference to a legal election." Again, utterly untrue. A papertrail audit of voting machines DIRECTLY refers to the legality of the election, as I stated. Try remedial reading classes, "just." "A papertrail, WITHOUT REGARD TO RIGHT TO VOTE, is still a valid audit of the vote counting by e-voting SECRET SOFTWARE machines." While I agree that democracy requires legal voting as well as legal counting, the fact is that the machines can be audited, the vote validated, by comparison to (a statistically valid percentage of) the papertrail. Auditing the machines is basic to a legal election. Vote-flipping, for instance, is STATUTORILY ILLEGAL regardless of whether the voters were legal voters. You have confused the issue, and your original statement was at least half wrong. Deal with it.

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#20)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:51 PM EST
    Nicely spun, PIL. I guess you went out and found an imbecile to explain it to you? Problem is, I never said anything about not going forward with a paper trail. In fact, I merely suggested that doing it at the federal level only was not enough. Had you bothered to read the comment I made, you might have known that. Since you clearly didn't, even remedial reading won't help. I would note as well that your focus on the validity of the vote count given by the machines serves only to test the accuracy of the machines (which does seem to be a pet peeve you have firmly stuck in your craw). Without first ensuring that the votes the machines are counting are legitimate votes, all your requirement does is to provide a testing service to the manufacturers of the machines; we are still without a way to determine if we can depend on the vote counts even if they agree with your paper trail. As stated above, your standard canned response to all issues regarding voting doesn't even begin to deal with reality; at least not as the rest of us know it. Just as your constant harping on stolen elections with no real facts to support you(just factoids from the Kerry campaign and MoveOn.org) has no resemblance to the truth. Enjoy.

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:51 PM EST
    I've monitored this thread but not read all of it. Can I take it that there is a consensus on requiring a paper trail for voting?

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#22)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:51 PM EST
    State legislatures, or voters, should enact laws to require photo ID or some other effective mechanism (i.e. not a utility bill) to tell who's allowed to vote legally. They should also improve efforts to keep voter rolls accurate. The U.S. Constitution shouldn't. Changing it is too much work, we wouldn't be able to keep up with changing technologies and criminal habits if we tried to write specifics into the Constitution. Every state already makes some effort to prevent illegal votes (maybe ineffective or prone to stopping legal votes), so a vague "you have to try" Constitutional clause in the U.S. Constitution wouldn't change anything. Plus, we'd never get enough agreement to come up with a nation-wide standard on who to prevent from voting. Recountability, on the other hand, can be coded as a "you have to try" clause to create real change. It's also relatively uncontroversial. I've heard some people claim printing receipts would make it too easy to sell votes, but that's A) not a common complaint and B) silly in the era of Polaroid and cell-phone cameras. Recountability won't eliminate all vote fraud, but it would be an improvement, and it's the sort of improvement it makes sense to impose at a federal level. As to whether to include purely state & local elections in the requirement, I dunno, I've reached the limit of my political literacy.

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:51 PM EST
    Posted by justpaul: "Problem is, I never said anything about not going forward with a paper trail." "Posted by justpaul: "A paper trail of illegal votes is just a paper trail of illegal votes and has no reference to a legal election." Do you need me any more, justpaul? You're doing a good job of contradicting yourself, and I have other duties. And I wrote: "A papertrail, WITHOUT REGARD TO RIGHT TO VOTE, is still a valid audit of the vote counting by e-voting ... machines." *Please make a note of it.*

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    Posted by justpaul: "Problem is, I never said anything about not going forward with a paper trail." "Posted by justpaul: "A paper trail of illegal votes is just a paper trail of illegal votes and has no reference to a legal election." Okay PIL, please explain the contradiction you claim exists between these two statements. Your explanation should be an interesting window into how your mind works, or doesn't, as the case may be. Please be specific. How is a comment on the nonusefulness of a paper trail of potentially illegal votes as it regards deciding the winner of an election a statement that no paper trail should be kept of those votes? Don't run away now PIL. You've finally said something interesting.

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#25)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    The constitution was made to be ammended, but we need to be careful to not ammend it to give the government more power. The idea of the constitution was to keep the government from getting too powerful and recently we have been allowing the govt to take over way too much.

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#26)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    peacrevol, The only argument you'll get from me is on your use of the word "recently". The government has been grabbing power it was never given through the incredibly elastic commerce clause for almost 100 years, if not longer. Before we even consider another amendment, we should first enforce those already in place, beginning with the Tenth.

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#27)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    How about a "no, really" amendment to pin down the significance of Enumerated Powers, the Commerce Clause, and whether the 2nd Amendment describes an individual or collective right?

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#28)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    Agreed and pardon my reckless use of "recently"...it's a fun word I guess...what can I say? The government has gone to great lengths to stretch out the meaning of necessary and proper to include things like reviews of steroid use in baseball. Maybe we should try to push for an amendment that more clearly defines necessary and proper.

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    Posted by justpaul: "please explain the contradiction you claim exists between these two statements." • You state a concern for legal voters. I agree -- voters should be citizens. • You dismiss auditing of elections until auditing to determine citizenship. That's confusing the issue. • Auditing voting machines is normal, and has gone on since there have been voting machines. • REGARDLESS OF LEGAL VOTER AUDITS, MACHINE AUDITS WILL INDEED CHECK THE MACHINE TOTALS. Vote-flipping is a primary tool of e-voting FRAUD. If votes, legally placed OR illegally placed, are audited by papertrail against machine tallies, any (statistically-significant) vote-flipping will be exposed. "Your explanation should be an interesting window into how your mind works, or doesn't, as the case may be." My mind functions along normal lines, and in this regard, logically. Most of your comments are windows into bigotry.

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#30)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    PIL adds to his confusion with: • You state a concern for legal voters. I agree -- voters should be citizens. If you do agree, it's the first time you've ever admitted it. Nice backpedal. • You dismiss auditing of elections until auditing to determine citizenship. That's confusing the issue. No, PIL, it's confusing you, because you're a one-track broken record with no imagination and extremely prone to jumping to conclusions. YOUR issue is the accuracy of electronic voting machines. MY point was that the accuracy of voting machines is irrelevant in terms of holding elections if there is no way to ensure that the votes we are so concerned about counting accurately are valid votes. Perhaps if you stopped responding to every thread with the same rant about Diebold you would have picked this before now. Nor did I "dismiss" the issue of a paper trail. I said that it was not enough. Is your mind really so small that you can't grasp that? • Auditing voting machines is normal, and has gone on since there have been voting machines. Who said it hadn't? • REGARDLESS OF LEGAL VOTER AUDITS, MACHINE AUDITS WILL INDEED CHECK THE MACHINE TOTALS. Which just goes to show that you are, once again, confusing the issue in your own clouded mind. The vote count is irrelevant if the votes are not legal. Here in America, as opposed to La-La Land, we aim to hold valid elections, with the voting done by legal citizens voting in their respective electoral districts. Your narrow focus on the accuracy of the machines and total disregard (at least until now) with the validity of the votes being counted, does nothing to ensure valid, legal elections. It serves only to test the machines, which may be standard procedure, but that, by itself, and by your other constant rant about stolen election, means nothing. The machines can be 100% accurate in their vote counts and we are still without a valid election if the people casting the votes are doing so illegally. You might note, PIL, that the issue was raised by someone who suggested an amendment to the Constitution requiring a paper trail for electronic voting machines used in federal elections. I asked why stop there? I didn't say don't require paper trails for audit purposes. You simply assumed that sentiment as an excuse to climb up on your soapbox again and regurgitate your rant one more time. And you still haven't found a contradiction in what I said, only in what you chose to claim that I was saying. How typical of you.

    Re: Constitutional Amendments (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:55 PM EST
    Posted by justpaul: "If you do agree, it's the first time you've ever admitted it. Nice backpedal." Admitted? Only citizens are allowed to vote in the United States, 'paul. YOU are saying that voter audits take precedence over machine audits, and that is a bigoted perspective, and also WRONG. "MY point was that the accuracy of voting machines is irrelevant in terms of holding elections" And there you go. PROPRIETARY software must under law be tested and certified, AND AUDITED. That's the law. "if there is no way to ensure that the votes we are so concerned about counting accurately are valid votes." The validity of the vote is one issue; the ACCURACY of the vote is the machine audit issue, and it exists quite apart from voter audits. "Perhaps if you stopped responding to every thread with the same rant about Diebold you would have picked this before now." Perhaps if you gave a damn about fairly-counted elections you would care about Diebold's FELONIES. • REGARDLESS OF LEGAL VOTER AUDITS, MACHINE AUDITS WILL INDEED CHECK THE MACHINE TOTALS. "Which just goes to show that you are, once again, confusing the issue in your own clouded mind. The vote count is irrelevant if the votes are not legal." Again, that's not correct. Auditing the voting equipment affects ALL legal voters. It is a basic right. If you believe there are huge numbers of voters who should not vote, then you have an issue that I recommend you take up with the registrar in your county or state Attorney General/SecState. "You might note, PIL, that the issue was raised by someone who suggested an amendment to the Constitution requiring a paper trail for electronic voting machines used in federal elections." I'm not sure how urgent such a law is, since most states already require manual audits. This law was obviated by Diebold et al., and by election officials who should be thrown out of government. "I asked why stop there? I didn't say don't require paper trails for audit purposes." If you support papertrails, then you OPPOSE Diebold and what they did to THIRTY states in 1999, in order to push rightwing politicians into government to serve a COUP. Yet you continue to ridicule those FACTS. "And you still haven't found a contradiction in what I said, only in what you chose to claim that I was saying. How typical of you." The contradiction is that you claim that machine audits are moot unless there is a voter audit as well. That is your confusion -- the machine audits are in the law, they are basic to legal elections. And they are NOT being done in thirty states. Your claim, that massive voter audits are needed, is otherwise unsubstantiated. YOU HAVE NOT MET YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF, or evinced a SINGLE fact. One thing is a recent, known, and 'pandemic' problem which invalidates all our major elections since 1999. The other is a fear, and propaganda, based on your bigotry, and used in order to ignore and trivialize VOTE FRAUD by Diebold and election officials in order to promote YOUR political ideas to an undemocratic power. And you totally ignore the massive disenfranchizement that has been the history of voting in America.

    Constitutional Amendments | 31 comments (31 topical)