XCR Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,067 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Over the years I think we all have noticed that because of the way our founding fathers spoke and thought, which at the time was plain and simple, being different from the manner in which we speak and think today, that it is not real clear in the sense that people can argue what it really meant and there are people who feel certain parts do not apply today. There are some in this very forum who feel some of it is not applicable today.

I believe there is a need for a new Constitution. One that is written in such a way that it is not arguable by any reasonable person.

Please pick one or two "Amendments" to create. Feel free to add articles to each amendment. List your amendment number and article numbers.

Let us try to be serious here. You never know this may catch on and become something one day. I do have a few political contacts (abeit they are the minority in both houses now).


I will start with a new 1st Amendment:

Amendment 1 - This amendment applies to Federal, State, and local governments. No law shall establish a particular religion. Government shall not interfere with the affairs of a religious organization. No law shall interfere with the freedom of speech. No law shall interfere with the freedom of the press. No law shall interfere with the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2 - This amendment applies to Federal, State, and local governments. The right of the people to own and carry arms about their person shall not be infringed in any way. No taxes, fees, or likeness thereof shall be imposed that would burden even the poorest person. Each state shall maintain a militia of the people which will remain under the sovereign control of that sate. The federal government shall provide each state same military equipment of the standing U.S. Military. This amendment is necessary to protect the states from over reaching government power.


Feel free to post your versions. Also, lets create other amendments that deal with all the aspects of the current constitution and maybe even create a few that are not present yet and perhaps should be. When all this is said and done I will compile the amendments together in a few different version maybe, and we can then have a vote.
 
G

·
The current version is fine. WE just are not enforcing it.

You can write whatever you want on a piece of paper and I'll produce 10 lawyers to say that it means the opposite of what you think it does.


You have no rights but those you take.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
503 Posts
Arizona has a great law on stupid drivers that I think should be universal to life. If you screw something up that common sense should have prevented you from doing, it's your fault and YOU are liable. Their law would apply in situations where you drive through a flooded road and get swept away. The road was flooded, you should have known better and you have to pay for the recovery fees. So if you blow your house up reloading because you improperly stored your powder on top of your space heater, you or your insurance is paying the fire department-not MY tax dollars. I'll work on it, but that's the gist...
 
G

·
It should have a ban, or at least a limit on lawyers. :)
Now THAT i could get on board with.

"No person who has ever been employed or worked at the field of law, held a law degree or been a member at the bar, shall ever hold public office except for attorney's general, Public defenders, and prosecutors whom may only serve a total of two terms in any public office whether federal, state or local. "
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
The current version is fine. WE just are not enforcing it.

You can write whatever you want on a piece of paper and I'll produce 10 lawyers to say that it means the opposite of what you think it does.

You have no rights but those you take.
Correct on all three points. If XCRFan somehow got his new Bill of Rights, they'd still be "interpreted" by judges and attorneys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,623 Posts
Why draft a new one that will be ignored,stomped on,disemboweled,twisted into obscurity,and spat on? Maybe we need to put an end two party system,and the elected morons that brought us to this point.The constitution while not perfect(nothing written by the hand of man is)is fundamentally sound,if not perverted.All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.When is it time for us all to stop doing nothing,what will be the breaking point in our nations history that will cause us to stop the insanity?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
We need to elect a congress full of Ron Paul's and the current constitution would be just fine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
919 Posts
If you run for office all records regarding residency, financial history and affiliations with public or private organizations can not be held from public scrutiny.

No bill or law can be VOTED on without it having been READ to congress. No more 1000 page legislation with hidden shit that no one reads. You want to get a law or budget passed, it better be short enough to read out loud before the vote takes place.

And like in the amendment I posted before, people need to have the power, via some form of national vote, to veto and repeal legislation, dismiss representatives, and force issues on the courts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,533 Posts
OK, for a change of pace, you're going to hear me criticize the Founding Fathers.
:eek:

Take a deep breath, and wade in with me.
The first 10 Amendments of the Constitution are called the Bill of Rights, eh?

That's just DUMB.

Amendment One: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does that sound like a RIGHT to you? Doesn't to me - it sounds like a deliberate limitation on what the government can do.

Let's assume the First Amendment is an 'outlier'. An aberation. That the rest of the Amendments are Rights. We'll check with BOB (Back Of Book) for the next answer.

Amendment Ten: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Hmmmm. Again, that doesn't sound like a Right, it sounds like a deliberate limitation on what the government can do.

Maybe for once, BOB is wrong. Let's go with an oddball right hardly anyone remembers - Three:
Amendment Three: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Is that a Right? Wow. I've got the right to not have strictly defined houseguests against my will as pertaining to....... nope. It's a deliberate limitation on what the government can do.

Oddly, so does every other Amendment in the Bill of Rights that I just HAPPEN to carry around.

My criticism of the Founding Fathers?

The Bill of Rights should have been called what it really is, from the get-go: The Bill of Governmental Restrictions.

Looking at it this way, Amendment Two doesn't have much in the way of controversy, does it?
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.

Wow. If it had been called the Bill of Governmental Restrictions, there NEVER would have been a question about whether the "right" applied to individuals or just the government (National Guard) eh?

A more plainly worded complaint would be as George Orwell said, "Clear language leads to clear thinking". Let's call it what it really is, and forget about all this "rights" stuff.

Besides, the Founding Fathers already explained that these rights were an enumeration of what God granted all men. Enumeration means "counting" or "listing", not "giving" - the Bill of Rights gives no rights, as the Constitution has no power in and of itself.

Silly antagonists, Constitutionalism is for Patriots.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
512 Posts
Friends & Family



The following message from a law student is brilliant in its conceptual analogy of basic political disparity.



Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists, Obama supporters, et al:



We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile, slate it up to irreconcilable differences, and go on our own ways.



Here is a model dissolution agreement:



Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement.



After that it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.



We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.



Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O'Donnell (you are however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move them).



We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies, and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's, and ********. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.



You can make nice with Iran, Palestine, and France and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protestors. When our allies or way of life are under assault, we'll provide them job security.



We'll keep our Judeo-Christian Values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, and Shirley McClain. You can have the U.N. But we will no longer be paying the bill. We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.



You can give everyone healthcare, if you can find any practicing doctors that are still practicing.?



We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and The National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.



We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty its best shot.



Since it often so offends you we'll keep our History, our Name, and our Flag.



In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR on who will need whose help in 15 years.



Sincerely,



John J. Wall

Law Student and an American



P.S. Please take Barbra Streisand.



[Would you agree to this? If so please pass it along to other likeminded patriots and if you do not agree just hit delete and hang on.]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion.
I'd like there to be a third division, free of both left wing loons and right wing nuts.

I want to keep my guns, but don't want "trickle down" economics. I know that some people enjoy golden showers, but personally I prefer to not be trickled on. ;) :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,390 Posts
OK, for a change of pace, you're going to hear me criticize the Founding Fathers.
:eek:

Take a deep breath, and wade in with me.
The first 10 Amendments of the Constitution are called the Bill of Rights, eh?

That's just DUMB.

Amendment One: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does that sound like a RIGHT to you? Doesn't to me - it sounds like a deliberate limitation on what the government can do.

Let's assume the First Amendment is an 'outlier'. An aberation. That the rest of the Amendments are Rights. We'll check with BOB (Back Of Book) for the next answer.

Amendment Ten: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Hmmmm. Again, that doesn't sound like a Right, it sounds like a deliberate limitation on what the government can do.

Maybe for once, BOB is wrong. Let's go with an oddball right hardly anyone remembers - Three:
Amendment Three: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Is that a Right? Wow. I've got the right to not have strictly defined houseguests against my will as pertaining to....... nope. It's a deliberate limitation on what the government can do.

Oddly, so does every other Amendment in the Bill of Rights that I just HAPPEN to carry around.

My criticism of the Founding Fathers?

The Bill of Rights should have been called what it really is, from the get-go: The Bill of Governmental Restrictions.

Looking at it this way, Amendment Two doesn't have much in the way of controversy, does it?
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.

Wow. If it had been called the Bill of Governmental Restrictions, there NEVER would have been a question about whether the "right" applied to individuals or just the government (National Guard) eh?

A more plainly worded complaint would be as George Orwell said, "Clear language leads to clear thinking". Let's call it what it really is, and forget about all this "rights" stuff.

Besides, the Founding Fathers already explained that these rights were an enumeration of what God granted all men. Enumeration means "counting" or "listing", not "giving" - the Bill of Rights gives no rights, as the Constitution has no power in and of itself.

Silly antagonists, Constitutionalism is for Patriots.
Exactly! Anyone read Jeff Snyder? He makes some very compelling arguments that our "rights" are not those listed in the BoR at all. For example, the mere fact that you have to have a CCW permit to carry your sidearm for self defense proves that we really don't have the right to carry in the first place. We are only free if we act like free men. If that means civil disobedience, so be it.

Sean
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,059 Posts
Three words: Line-item veto.

Reagan and Clinton both tried to get the Presidential line-item veto approved to make the President's office accountable for items passed in bills sent to that office by Congress. While it was approved in 1996 and used 11 times by President Clinton, it was eventually ruled unconstitutional in 1998. The only way to get it back would be a constitutional amendment.

What's the benefit? No one entity would be able to pint the finger at another and claim a controversial law was passed only because it was added to a bill at the eleventh hour or hidden inside reams of unread bureaucratic paperwork.

So, if some congressman decides he wants to add a pet-project to a bill, that one item can be deleted by the President before he signs the bill into law. If the Congress then decides that it should have been left in the bill, they could overturn the veto by a two-thirds vote, just as they can now.

Likewise, if the President lets a gun ban pass into law, he can be held solely responsible for its passage as he didn't use his line-item veto power to delete the ban from the bill on his desk.

The only way to get real change is to get accountability in government. The elected officials know all too well that they can do and say anything and always have plausible deniability due to the ins and outs of government loopholes and red tape.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top