You have to get rid of one of the amendments to the Constitution - which one?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:55:57 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  You have to get rid of one of the amendments to the Constitution - which one?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Poll
Question: Which amendment would you get rid of if forced to pick one for elimination?
#1
1
 
#2
2
 
#3
3
 
#4
4
 
#5
5
 
#6
6
 
#7
7
 
#8
8
 
#9
9
 
#10
10
 
#11
11
 
#12
12
 
#13
13
 
#14
14
 
#15
15
 
#16
16
 
#17
17
 
#18
19
 
#19
20
 
#20
22
 
#21
23
 
#22
24
 
#23
25
 
#24
26
 
#25
27
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 87

Author Topic: You have to get rid of one of the amendments to the Constitution - which one?  (Read 4753 times)
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: August 30, 2014, 03:36:40 PM »

Are me and TJ seriously the only people voting to get rid of the 9th?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: August 30, 2014, 03:41:34 PM »

Are me and TJ seriously the only people voting to get rid of the 9th?

The 9th is a fairly pointless amendment, but it does no harm.  The only reason to vote for the 9th is if there is no other amendment you wish to eliminate.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: August 30, 2014, 03:53:42 PM »

I'm not quite sure at this moment but people picking the 22nd of all the amendments is so Atlas.
As is your bitching about such activity.
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: August 30, 2014, 03:55:15 PM »

10th
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,706
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: August 30, 2014, 04:46:00 PM »

I've always seen the Ninth Amendment's purpose as a statement against Inks-esque enforcing the exact literal letter of the law in all cases and not taking into account intent or further implications. It might not always end up that way but I don't have a problem with it in that sense.

The Tenth may have been abused by states trying to defend Jim Crow, but if it didn't exist there'd be some ambiguity in the Constitution and it's not likely courts would interpret things any differently. Saying the Tenth is bad because it was used to justify bad things in the past strikes me as Insane Troll Logic. If you oppose federalism and want a unitary system, then the whole Constitution needs to be re-written, not just repealing the Tenth.

The Second in my view is just a badly written amendment, and is just bad no matter what your opinion of guns are. I don't have a problem with DC v. Heller really, the idea that it doesn't apply to DC because it's not a state also strikes me as Insane Troll Logic (and a misreading of the 18th century definition of the term "militia"), the gun laws of DC weren't doing any good and saying that something that's completely legal in all 50 states needs to be legal in DC as well isn't a far reaching statement, and I wouldn't even care if there was an amendment that stated in more clear wording the government couldn't fully prohibit gun ownership. But the Second doesn't do this. It's also not that important since it was generally ignored due to the vagueness prior to DC v. Heller which as stated before wasn't a particularly revolutionary decision with big implications either and I doubt did much to affect how many guns are owned in DC. That's the real reason it should go and if you support gun rights replaced with something better.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: August 30, 2014, 07:10:04 PM »

The reason why I really dislike the 9th is that having an amendment as such defeats the point of having a written Bill of Rights at all: to actually define what rights are protected by the government. The Supreme Court, if sufficiently politicized, could interpret the 9th Amendment to mean literally whatever it wants it to mean. It hasn't been a problem so far, but it's still a terrible thing to have in a constitution.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,706
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: August 30, 2014, 09:04:00 PM »

The reason why I really dislike the 9th is that having an amendment as such defeats the point of having a written Bill of Rights at all: to actually define what rights are protected by the government. The Supreme Court, if sufficiently politicized, could interpret the 9th Amendment to mean literally whatever it wants it to mean. It hasn't been a problem so far, but it's still a terrible thing to have in a constitution.

Most constitutional scholars agree that the idea behind the 9th is to shift the burden of proof as to whether a violation of rights is constitutional onto the government rather than the individual. If someone sues against a law with the argument their "rights" are violated, the government can't simply say "Well there is no right to X in the Constitution so the law is valid", it must argue the Constitution explicitly powers it to do so. Perhaps not all that well worded, but I don't have a fundamental problem with this sort of idea. Or as some have put it, the Ninth is more of a guide to reading the Bill of Rights than one that establishes rights itself.
Logged
The Dowager Mod
texasgurl
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,973
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.48, S: -8.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: August 30, 2014, 09:46:23 PM »

21st, but it wasn't an option. :/
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,063
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: August 30, 2014, 09:52:02 PM »


You support prohibition?! Huh
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,624
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: August 30, 2014, 10:35:25 PM »

The twenty-second; it seems to me to hinder rather than aid democracy. Obviously the 2nd and 9th and other frequent answers in this thread should be preserved.
Logged
Mordecai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,465
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: August 31, 2014, 09:10:54 AM »

22nd.
Logged
The Dowager Mod
texasgurl
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,973
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.48, S: -8.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: August 31, 2014, 09:32:35 PM »

Yup.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: August 31, 2014, 09:42:53 PM »

The one that has half of the country convinced that they must be prepared to fight tyranny with deadly weapons.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: August 31, 2014, 11:18:41 PM »

Definitely the 10th. State governments should have next to no power.

That is where you are sorely mistaken. I'd say the 16th and the 17th equally. The states are meant to be a check on federal power. That's how duel federalism works. I get your desire for massive federal power but it's proven to massively fail in terms of civil rights and liberties.
Logged
Illuminati Blood Drinker
phwezer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,528
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.42, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: August 31, 2014, 11:26:47 PM »


ahahahahahaha
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: August 31, 2014, 11:28:18 PM »

Definitely the 10th. State governments should have next to no power.

That is where you are sorely mistaken. I'd say the 16th and the 17th equally. The states are meant to be a check on federal power. That's how duel federalism works. I get your desire for massive federal power but it's proven to massively fail in terms of civil rights and liberties.

Jim Crow
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: September 01, 2014, 12:07:02 AM »

Definitely the 10th. State governments should have next to no power.

That is where you are sorely mistaken. I'd say the 16th and the 17th equally. The states are meant to be a check on federal power. That's how duel federalism works. I get your desire for massive federal power but it's proven to massively fail in terms of civil rights and liberties.

Jim Crow

The federal government got some of it wrong. Like forced bussing and affirmative act. Weren't those struck down as unconstituitional?
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,236
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: September 01, 2014, 12:25:12 AM »

Definitely the 10th. State governments should have next to no power.

That is where you are sorely mistaken. I'd say the 16th and the 17th equally. The states are meant to be a check on federal power. That's how duel federalism works. I get your desire for massive federal power but it's proven to massively fail in terms of civil rights and liberties.

Thomas Jefferson is dead, you know.
Logged
Pessimistic Antineutrino
Pessimistic Antineutrino
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,896
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: September 01, 2014, 12:33:48 PM »

16th, but accidentally voted 17th.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: September 01, 2014, 12:38:05 PM »

Definitely the 10th. State governments should have next to no power.

That is where you are sorely mistaken. I'd say the 16th and the 17th equally. The states are meant to be a check on federal power. That's how duel federalism works. I get your desire for massive federal power but it's proven to massively fail in terms of civil rights and liberties.

Jim Crow

The federal government got some of it wrong. Like forced bussing and affirmative act. Weren't those struck down as unconstituitional?

The states got vastly more of it wrong. Like Jim Crow. Wasn't that struck down as unconstitutional?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: September 01, 2014, 02:56:04 PM »

Definitely the 10th. State governments should have next to no power.

That is where you are sorely mistaken. I'd say the 16th and the 17th equally. The states are meant to be a check on federal power. That's how duel federalism works. I get your desire for massive federal power but it's proven to massively fail in terms of civil rights and liberties.

Jim Crow

The federal government got some of it wrong. Like forced bussing and affirmative act. Weren't those struck down as unconstituitional?

The states got vastly more of it wrong. Like Jim Crow. Wasn't that struck down as unconstitutional?

Technically, the court never struck down the concept of "separate but equal" per se, but instead found that when it came to race and our attitudes to it, separate always led to inequality.  In theory, if society reached the point where people were generally indifferent to race to the point that separate did not lead to inequality, separate facilities for the races would be constitutional.  However, in what has to count as a rare positive version of Catch-22, expressing a desire for separate facilities would be judged as indicating that there was not indifference to race and thus having separate facilities would lead to unequal facilities and thus be constitutionally prohibited.
Logged
Sopranos Republican
Matt from VT
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,175
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.03, S: -8.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: September 01, 2014, 10:12:53 PM »

The 22nd with the 10th amendment in second. If The People want a 3 or 4 term president, then they shouod be able to have it. The 10th amendment to me, can be good or bad. Since our federally elected officials are for the most part awful, left leaning states would also not have rights to set their own laws, meaning draconian marijuana laws would exist everywhere, instead of only in certain jurisdictions. Or we'd still have muh sancitity of marriage laws everywhere, instead of only in certain states.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 15 queries.