Are there any amendments you dislike?

[Smoblikat]

Hey guys, I was just reading the constitution and all of our amendments and I was wondering if there are any amendments that you think need to be abolished or that are just stupid (excluding the 18th amendment of course, that one is a given.)

 

[nehalem256]

The anchor-baby and birth-tourism citizenship provision.

It seems like if at least one parent is not permanent or at the very least long-term(think H1B visa) resident it is silly to give citizenship to their children. The children should be citizens of the parents home country.

 

[TerryMathews]

Hey guys, I was just reading the constitution and all of our amendments and I was wondering if there are any amendments that you think need to be abolished or that are just stupid (excluding the 18th amendment of course, that one is a given.)

Well, our government is acting as though the 4th doesn't exist so we should probably start there.

 

[IronWing]

The Second.

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.

should be:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, tThe right of the peoplecitizens to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Get rid of ambiguity, reserve the right to citizens not all persons. I'm okay with states granting gun priviledges to non-citizen persons but it need not be a right for non-citizens.

 

[JTsyo]

The anchor-baby and birth-tourism citizenship provision.

It seems like if at least one parent is not permanent or at the very least long-term(think H1B visa) resident it is silly to give citizenship to their children. The children should be citizens of the parents home country.

agree with you there. Surprised no one is against the 16th (income tax), though I guess the thread is still young. Also I'm not sure I agree with the 11th (sovereign immunity) but haven't really looked into why it was placed in there.

 

[Smoblikat]

These are all great answers.

I agree with all of them so far. I also looked into the 11th amendment, and it makes sense (so far, I havent done extensive research). I think it prevents the federal government from forcing states to adhere to specific laws.

 

[Atreus21]

10th. Since it's been rendered entirely meaningless, we may as well get rid of it.

 

[fskimospy]

10th. Since it's been rendered entirely meaningless, we may as well get rid of it.

I'm interested to hear of when you think the 10th amendment wasn't meaningless, what it meant, and how that was applied in the law at that time.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I'd be fine with them all if they were STRICTLY protected/interpreted/enforced. As it is they've all been rendered toothless/irrelevant.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The 18th.

 

[Anarchist420]

I hate Amendments 14-27 except 21.

12 and 13 were a missed oppurtunity.

The 12th should've abolished the electoral college and required Presidential candidates to win the legislatures of >=9/13 of the States.

The 13th was a missed oppurtunity because it kept the slavery issue centralized.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

The Second.



should be:



Get rid of ambiguity, reserve the right to citizens not all persons. I'm okay with states granting gun priviledges to non-citizen persons but it need not be a right for non-citizens.

There is absolutely no ambiguity in the 2nd amendment and it is pretty clear as daylight. As for the term "people" no court has ever ruled that it refers to and can included non-citizens.

 

[nageov3t]

probably the anchor baby clause to the 14th amendment.

it just makes no sense to me that if a woman on vacation in the US goes into premature labor, her baby is automatically an American citizen. would make more sense if the baby was considered to be a citizen of whatever country the mother holds citizenship for.

 

[ichy]

Agree about anchor babies.

To be honest I'm not a fan of the prohibition against cruel & unusual punishment. All it does nowadays is give death penalty defense lawyers yet another way to generate endless bullshit appeals.

 

[IronWing]

There is absolutely no ambiguity in the 2nd amendment and it is pretty clear as daylight. As for the term "people" no court has ever ruled that it refers to and can included non-citizens.

200 years of legal argument suggests that you are wrong. The recent Supreme Court decision interpreting an individual right suggests that you are wrong. People is a collective term yet the Supremes as of late decided that "people" really means persons even though the term people is not interpreted that way anywhere else in the Constitution. The next court may restore the older interpretation. Cleaning up the amendment to be crystal clear would provide a better legal defense against attempts to curtail the right.

 

[Anarchist420]

200 years of legal argument suggests that you are wrong. The recent Supreme Court decision interpreting an individual right suggests that you are wrong. People is a collective term yet the Supremes as of late decided that "people" really means persons even though the term people is not interpreted that way anywhere else in the Constitution. The next court may restore the older interpretation. Cleaning up the amendment to be crystal clear would provide a better legal defense against attempts to curtail the right.

They'd just use the elastic clause or the interstate commerce clause.

 

[lopri]

The 2nd, obviously. "Militia" is such a ridiculous concept in 21th century, don't you think? Hard to fault them for not foreseeing modern weaponry (and the scale of modern states), though.

 

[lopri]

200 years of legal arguments did not resolve the meaning of the 2nd amendment. Recent SCOTUS decision sort of settled its meaning for the first time in 200 years. That fact in and of itself should counsel the clause' ambiguity.

I won't go into the ridiculousness of the merits of recent SCOTUS decision.

 

[thraashman]

Well I'm not a Ron Paul fan, so I don't have a problem with the Amendments ending slavery, making black people equal citizens, or giving them the vote. I'm not a religious right nutball, so I don't have a problem with the First Amendment's establishment clause that separates church and state or giving women the vote. I'm not a Bush supporter so I'm pro 8th Amendment's ban on torture. I'm against the NSA shit so I'm pro 4th Amendment. I have a minor problem with the 10th Amendment when states try to use it to practice discrimination. And while I'm ok with the 2nd Amendment, I'm pro what the wording and intent of it is and not pro what the current conservative interpretation is. Two words that current conservatives ignore are "well-regulated" and "militia". Check the link in my sig to understand why the current conservative definition is dead fucking wrong.

 

[Atreus21]

I'm interested to hear of when you think the 10th amendment wasn't meaningless, what it meant, and how that was applied in the law at that time.

I'd say it wasn't meaningless until United States v. Darby rendered it so.

I would think any casual reader would interpret it as saying all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government are the dominion of state governments.

I have no idea how it was applied in the law.

 

[Zebo]

Th bill of rights is most perfect document in the history of man to the degree it's followed.

16th amendment im not to fond of but who is
18th which was repealed
22nd congress power grab

 

[DucatiMonster696]

200 years of legal argument suggests that you are wrong. The recent Supreme Court decision interpreting an individual right suggests that you are wrong. People is a collective term yet the Supremes as of late decided that "people" really means persons even though the term people is not interpreted that way anywhere else in the Constitution. The next court may restore the older interpretation. Cleaning up the amendment to be crystal clear would provide a better legal defense against attempts to curtail the right.

Maybe in your false narrative it has been 200 years of "legal arguments". However the debate on the 2nd amendment has only arisen as a matter due government and special interest groups attempting to redefine a crystal clear amendment and it wording to undermine and distort it along with other amendments to suit their agenda.

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.

The first part essentially describes that a "well regulated militia" or in today's case an army is necessary for the preservation of a free state/nation. While the second portion matter of factly and directly states that the right of the "people" (citizens of that free state) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It could not be anymore clear. Hence those attempting to seek more "clarity" are only doing so in order to inject more restrictions and control.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd say it wasn't meaningless until United States v. Darby rendered it so.

I would think any casual reader would interpret it as saying all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government are the dominion of state governments.

I have no idea how it was applied in the law.

It has never been applied in the law to any meaningful extent that I am aware of. It, like the 9th amendment, is not an independent source of rights.

ie: it's always been basically meaningless. It simply restates what was already there.

 

[bradly1101]

Not the way the 2nd was worded (but seriously virtually universal gun ownership written as a basic right?), but rather the way it was interpreted not to be only applied to the state's militia. And yes I disagree with the SCOTUS's decision on this. No flame please... it's just what I believe.

 

[IronWing]

Maybe in your false narrative it has been 200 years of "legal arguments". However the debate on the 2nd amendment has only arisen as a matter due government and special interest groups attempting to redefine a crystal clear amendment and it wording to undermine and distort it along with other amendments to suit their agenda.



The first part essentially describes that a "well regulated militia" or in today's case an army is necessary for the preservation of a free state/nation. While the second portion matter of factly and directly states that the right of the "people" (citizens of that free state) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It could not be anymore clear. Hence those attempting to seek more "clarity" are only doing so in order to inject more restrictions and control.

Rubbish.