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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

27th.  It's essentially symbolic in its impact but ic causes all sorts of problems when a President wishes to appoint someone from Congress to a Cabinet post.

17th is a close second, but realistically, even if it were removed, I can't imagine any State not deciding on its own to use popular election as many States had already done on their own before the 17th passed.  Even if the legislatures did chose to elect Senators themselves, I don't see that having much impact on the balance of power between the State and Federal governments.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm not an anti gun nut but the vague wording of the 2nd is quite problematic. Has to be that.

That's basically how I feel.  If the Supreme Court correctly interpreted the Second Amendment, it would be perfectly fine.  If the Second Amendment means that we can't enact reasonable gun regulation, it's crazy.

What reasonable gun regulation that wasn't a de facto gun ban has the Court ever struck down?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm not an anti gun nut but the vague wording of the 2nd is quite problematic. Has to be that.

That's basically how I feel.  If the Supreme Court correctly interpreted the Second Amendment, it would be perfectly fine.  If the Second Amendment means that we can't enact reasonable gun regulation, it's crazy.

What reasonable gun regulation that wasn't a de facto gun ban has the Court ever struck down?

Heller is the obvious example.  That was a laughable decision on so many levels.

You're kidding right?  I can just barely see someone who believes that there should be no private gun ownership thinking that striking the portion of DC's Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 that guns had to be kept in an unusable state within one's home was an overreach, but the portion that banned any guns not already registered in 1975 absolutely was a ban.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Second Amendment is about state militias.  DC is not a US state so the Second Amendment doesn't apply to DC.  That's the clear legal answer to me.  But, on a more practical level, there's no Second Amendment reason that a particular type of firearm needs to be legal for anyone to own. 

Even if one holds that the introductory clause serves to limit arms access to the militia, the idea that it applies only to the states and not to the territories is absurd.  "State" is clearly being used in the 2nd amendment in sense of government in general and not in the sense of one of the constituent polities that make up the United States of America.

Furthermore, in the sense of late 18th century America, as made clear by the drafting history of the amendment, if you were an able-bodied adult citizen, you were part of the militia.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.