If you had the opportunity to change the Constitution in one way in order to improve it, what would you propose? Explain your proposal and discuss why you think the Constitution will be a stronger, better document with this change.
I would amend the constitution to add the equal pay for equal work act. I find this to be an important amendment to make as in a market economy, money often translates to influence. True equality cannot be attained until equality in pay along with personal freedoms is given to all.
If I had the opportunity to change the Constitution in one way in order to improve it, I would propose that we change who can be president. The fact that the president has to be a "natural-born" citizen eliminates a plethora of remarkable Americans who are capable of leading the nation. Instead, the presidency should be open to ALL citizens, both natural-born and naturalized. It's only logical that all citizens share the same rights, regardless of how they obtain citizenship. This amendment will serve to provide equality among the citizens of the United States and will open the oval office to any United States citizen who is able to properly govern the country.
I would amend the constitution to limit the amount of money spent on political campaigning and ban super PACs (even though they cannot contribute to the candidate directly). It is practically impossible for a common man to become a presidential candidate, no matter how much he may be qualified, simply because he does not have the money to campaign. The winner of an election should be based on who the people feel will lead the country best, not who has the most money.
I'd propose an amendment to tighten standards of neutrality in the drawing of Congressional districts. Such an amendment would produce more competitive elections, dissuading politicians from casting votes and endorsing policies strictly to preserve their reelection prospects in ideologically homogenous districts. Members of Congress make policies that affect the entire nation, not just those who directly elect them. Gerrymandering just makes it more difficult to maintain the open-mindedness and compromise needed in the government of such a large and diverse country.
Personally, I would amend the constitution by equalizing the number of democrats and republicans in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This is to ensure the possibility of new laws to get through to Congress and the President so that we may actually ratify and issue new laws. If one party owns a majority of the Senate and the other party owns a majority of the House, then nothing will get done as evident of the administration today. This change will allow for a more equal and effective method to pass new laws so that we may issue beneficial changes in the future.
It is not uncommon for people to vote for either the Democratic or Republican party because voters believe they are throwing away their votes so, I would amend the constitution to remove the first past-the-post election style and instead replace it the alternative voting method (instant run-off or ranked choice voting are other names for it). Under this system, voters rank the candidates in the election in order of preference. This would result in more people actually voting for their primary parties and make American democracy more representative of its peoples.
I would amend the 2nd amendment, the right to bear and keep arms. I believe it is misinterpreted and misused. Some people may say that a criminal isn't thinking about a gun law when he commits a crime;however, if guns became less accessible overall, then I don't understand how it couldn't lower the crime rate. A national registry wouldn't be difficult to go through for the citizens who claim their right to bear arms. This amendment isn't taking away any right by any means, but it would make an attempt to lower crime in this country.
If I had the opportunity to make an amendment to the Constitution I would propose term limits for congressman and senators. If these representatives had limited terms they wouldn't be as influenced by special interests and lobbyists. This would make them more effective while in office and more aware of public sentiment.
I would amend the constitution to give the president all encompassing power of the federal government during times of shutdown and depression. If you look at the shutdown crisis that ensued a year ago, congress' stalemate and failure to compromise on the budget was the main reason why the federal government didn't resume action earlier than it did. An argument could be made that this would be one sided and would deliver a great deal of stress on the presidents position, but he would proceed under the advisement of the cabinet and it would be fitting to have the commander in chief lead the way in driving the nation out of a dark time. This would act as a "backup plan" for the republic and would ultimately strengthen the constitution and the democracy.
I would amend the constitution for the ban on your rights to online privacy. The Government itself has become to conflicted and fixated on tapping into the personal electronic devices used by all Americans, looking for any threats or possible suspicious acts of terrorism that it has become out of control. If they just cut back on the amount of time they spend peeking into the personal lives of the people, more problematic issues could be addressed.
I would add some kind of restricted campaign financing. Our political system is very corrupt, probably the worst it has ever been; mainly because money is the key in our govt. Each candidate should get a fixed amount of money from the govt. Lets say 25 mil for example. They can't spend any more than amount and any money left over is returned to the govt; while every dollar they spend must be accounted for. This will create a more even playing field for candidates. This greatly supports the theory of elitism. Which I believe is a very big problem in our govt. Our elections have turn into auctions.
In my opinion the constitution needs major changes and revision. A major change we need to consider would be a balanced budget amendment. By enforcing a balanced budget it would require federal spending not to exceed federal receipts. The amendment would make it unconstitutional for the federal government to run annual budget deficits. This will hopefully help maintain the economy and help with our treacherous debt.
I would change the right of people to peacefully assemble. Protesting peacefully can be interpreted in many different ways. I believe that protests themselves are never truly peaceful. I think that by restricting the right to peacefully protest, there would be less of a chance for a violent outbreak
I would amend the constitution to give Congressmen a term limit. Many Congressmen serve for years and this takes away the opportunity for new Congressmen to serve for their state. Congressmen should be limited to 2 terms, just like the President. Making it unconstitutional to serve more than 2 terms would give other Americans a chance to become a Congressmen.
If I had the chance to change the constitution I would amend the gun laws. I think people should have the right to own a gun but should go through stronger tests or give like a mental test to make sure there not giving guns out to anybody. It would make us stronger because maybe the death rate on guns would go down.
An amendment to the constitution I would like to see added is one that has been an old, prevalent issue that was never resolved. It has slowly been forgotten over time. Yet, I believe it is important in preserving the equality of our society. We all heard the quote in the Constitution stating "All men are equal." But what about women? Women still don't have all the rights that men in this country enjoy. I believe the statistic was: for every dollar a man earns, a woman only earns 75 cents (for the same job).Now this may not seem like a big deal, only a quarter less, however it translates into the idea that women are inferior and leads to many domestic violence and other issues. Women have been an important part in America's history and have made many contributions to society. It is only fair that they are viewed as equals. After all, they are human too. That is amendment that I would like to see made and I think it will benefit society as a whole.
If I had the chance to change the Constitution I would have an equal ratio of Republicans to Democrats in the House and the Senate. Laws never get passed as a result of one party dominating the House and the other dominating the Senate. Both vote against the other and retaliate each other's actions. This is an ineffective law making process.
An amendment I would make to the constitution would be to allow the president an extended period of time, over which he would preside as the head of state with absolute power. In ancient Rome there was a process; when under severe threat the Republic would suspend government and elect one man to lead the entirety of the country, this one man would act as dictator until the threat subsided. The famous example is that of Cincinnatus, a farmer who, due to his previous job as a senator, was chosen as dictator. He did his duty and expelled the invaders and after 2 weeks resigned his post and returned to his farm. George Washington is held similarly - being offered the dictatorship, he declined and returned to his normal life, rather than become an absolute ruler. With an amendment like this the President has the ability to - in an emergency - overcome the inefficiency of democracy and protect the nation from outside threats. Democracy is a great system, but it is SLOW to respond, and in an emergency we need to act. There were obvious limits - the President couldn't simply say "I'm dictator for life now", he would only have power as long as it was needed, and after his duty was completely would be expected to return to his post as head of executive branch. While this may sound awful to some, and while others may say "Rome also collapsed" 2 things: 1. The Roman Republic DID NOT collapse, the Roman Empire did - when people were put in charge for life and held absolute power passed to their sons, this isn't like that, it would only be temporary and would be awarded to the president and ONLY the president, should he be killed in office the Vice President would be sworn in and then THAT president would hold the power -- not the president's kids. Second, those thinking that it could be abused - the president of the United States of America SHOULD be an outstanding individual, one who we see as the embodiment of everything we stand for and one who we believe can represent our country on an international scale. If democracy really does work - the President should be an individual who can handle that power effectively and responsibly. To achieve a good president an amendment I would propose first would be to take money out of politics so we can actually GET a good and honest president, one who would handle the responsibility of absolute power like George Washington or Cincinnatus before him. Absolute power is dangerous and risky but when used correctly and responsibly it can be EXTREMELY effective.
If I had the opportunity to amend the Constitution, I would probably establish that the number of Republicans and Democrats be even in the House and in the Senate, with three unbiased and unaligned Senators and House Representatives to break up any ties. Evening the number of Republicans and Democrats will more than likely result on most issues being set in gridlock, which is where the three unaligned representatives come in to discuss whatever the issue is and the vote on what should be done. Also, I would choose three because people might feel that one is too little and two could result in another tie. 5 and higher would cause even more problems with too many opinions.
The United States Constitution, a document written in 1788. One can presume that there are need for changes to a document written well over 226 years ago. If it was up to me, I would take a look at said document from a constructionist point of view. One change, would possibly be to amend the legal drinking age to 18, thus equalizing us with the populous of the world. Another change, would be to change the Legalization requirements for those of which arrived in this nation legally, wanting to become american citizens...as the requirements to this day are large and very expensive. This does not mean granting permanent residency to all immigrants; however, it does allow for a simpler form to become part of the United States of America.
Amendments are necessary to our constitution because they allow our government to change with the times. A change the needs to be amended, one due to the technological innovation we've experience tenfold in the past two decades, is American's right to privacy. Yes, we're all entitled to private property and such, however, we should not be under surveillance every time we go on the Internet, unless there is irrefutable doubt that it is a necessity. There are certain amendments to the constitution under which this could fall, but I think with the daunting technology and easy access, Americans should be allowed to surf the web without government surveillance.
If I had the ability to change the constitution, I would ensure that the opportunities, freedoms, and securities of the constitution provided to the citizens which uphold it, are not abused. This meaning such issues as illegal citizens, drug offenders, or those who thoughtfully commit felonies, are held accountable and are not entitled to abusing the programs set in place by the government to ensure quality of life. While these programs do have great purpose in providing for an equal society, many people abuse and cheat the system. In a conscious society everyone would do their part to create the lifestyle in which they desire, and not break these very rules set in place in which jeopardizes the liberty, freedom, and happiness of society as a whole.
An amendment I would add to the constitution, would be that a person does not need to be born in America to be the president. If a person has lived in America for the majority of their life they would soon come to learn the ins and outs of American government.Due to the fact they should be able to run for president if they have lived in America for 10 years and are citizens.Any qualified citizen should be allowed to run for office to help better their country.
The framers of our government allowed for amendments to be made within the Constitution because they specifically knew that opinions can tend to change. What we believed 50 years ago might be the same as what we'll believe 50 years from now, but that concept seems like more like an off-chance situation instead of a reality. But what do we do about political apathy? As we discussed in class, baby boomers tend to control public policy as well as politics in general, while only a small fraction of young adults feel compelled to participate in creating and editing the political agenda. Young adults think that becoming involved in politics would take too much time out of their lives; they have plenty to worry about between college, school loans, jobs, starting families, and so on, so why add something else to think about? The thing is, so many people that are in their 20's tend to think that politics is this complex structure that has to be researched, but sometimes it's much simpler than we think. How many young adults own smartphones, or have access to a computer? For a large majority, the technology is right there at our fingertips. If I were to propose an idea for the 28th Amendment, I would suggest the more active use of referendums, both web-based and paper-based, in order to increase the general population's ability to shape the political agenda. By allowing U.S. citizens to vote on simple, to-the-point questions rather than researching a candidate and voting for him or her in full, citizens, especially young adults, may feel as though a task like this would be less overwhelming compared to researching the candidates in an election and what they stand for. Who says we can't develop an app or a website, as well as having monthly “referendum days”, that each lets us check a "yes" box or a "no" box to straightforward questions about public policy when Congress experiences a policy gridlock, let alone regulating the use of referendums when we truly need them? As long as the citizens participating are informed, it could potentially be a good start to getting America's youth involved in politics.
The constitution was written in 1788. For that time, the laws were deemed reasonable, but in the 21st century we have become so advanced that there are some laws that should be amended. The second amendment, which is the right to bear arms is being miss used by civilians. When that amendment was made, it was made with the intention of protection not destruction. Recent events have shown that people cannot be trusted with weapons and they are more dangerous than the 'criminals'. I believe that civilians should not have weapons because crime rates would decrease and less innocent lives taken.
The Constitution has had a total of twenty-seven amendments over the two centuries it has been in affect. One change that has yet to be made in order to adjust to the changing culture of our society is a limit on governmental tapping of technological devices. Although it is important to keep the country's safety in mind, the American people have a right to privacy whether it be emails, text messages, or phone calls. Not only would it put various conspiracy theories against the government to rest, but it would make citizens more comfortable with their use of modern technology.
The fundamental flaws of the constitution are mainly found in it's subjectivity. That being said, I would more closely specify who the constitution recognizes as people, including homosexual/trans people, women (pay, voting, etc)...also make it more easily changeable; after all, it is a historical document, and should be able to be as fluid as our nation is, not expected to hold true forever--it blocks progress much too frequently
Honestly, I believe that the Constitution is satisfactory as it is; America has endured the centuries as a [democratic] world power and is none the worse for wear, though [it is] grossly debt ridden. With that said, If I were to change anything it would be the lifetime tenure of Supreme Court Justices. The Constitution was made to withstand the centuries and evolve over time; the same cannot be said about our justices. My two main concerns are as follows: 1) the mental faculties of Supreme Court Justices undoubtedly deteriorate over time, and 2) justice viewpoints do not adapt to judge [with moderate bias] the ideas materializing in this Progressive Age. I do believe that justices should have lengthy appointments...within the time constraints of 15-25 years. If this were to happen, the Supreme Court would have a steady influx of fresh ideas and insights that would be attuned to ever-changing ideas, paralleling the Constitution's own construction.
Assuming that this wouldn't be changeable by the Bill of Rights I would remove the right to bear arms outside of permitted usage or times of war. A lot of gun incidents in the use are blamed on the people not the guns but serious shooting incidents may not have been able to go as far without the use of guns. For example the the shooting in Columbia Mall (Maryland January 25, 2014) would have never been as severe without the use of a gun with only a knife the ability for civilians nearby to resist would have been much greater and many fewer moralities would have occurred. This has already been proven to be the case in England after the Dunblane school massacre (march 13, 1996) Britain introduced the Fire Arms Amendment (no.2) official banning any guns that were not owned by the state (military,police,riot control,certified hunters) . Since introducing this amendment it is needless to say that the shootings in the country went down as well as deaths from shootings. We ignored the sandy hook shooting in reality while we like to have think it had any impact on decisions for gun control in the US the impact only lasted as long as the american attention span (meaning when people stopped caring gun control went back to normal). I think that this decision would have been the wisest decision in terms of modern day gang shootings that happen so often they don't even end up in the local news. The Constitution was made to make us stronger and keep us safer than the Articles of Confederation but removing the right to bear arms would keep us safe from ourselves and that would have perfected the document.
I think the requirement for the president having to be a natural born citizen should be changed to perhaps even a naturalized citizen. In this day and age there have been multiple politicians who weren't able to run for presidency, such as Arnold Schwarzanegger, due to not being natural born citizens. I think there should be an amount of years one must have been naturalized for before they are able to run for presidency, as there are over 10 million naturalized citizens who may want to run for president, but cannot.
After reading a lot of these responses I feel that a constitutional amendment barring the federal government or the courts from overturning state marriage laws need to be something on the agenda. States having individual rights is a fundamental ideal this country was founded on. In terms of civil rights, though, the United States needs to set a standard for all states to follow. In previous cases of civil rights, taking action through the federal government has proved beneficial. For instance if we take the ratified amendment when all women were allowed to vote, they immediately were able to enjoy both federal and state benefits just like how legalizing same sex marriage would do. I cannot agree with Abby more when she says the constitution needs to be more specific when stating who the constitution recognizes as people. When we’re living in the rapidly changing world, in terms of technology, ideas, and basic principles its hard to abide by a 225 old document. If you believe in marriage or not, the majority can pretty much agree it should be a fundamental right to marry who ever we want, whether straight or gay like black or white. Gay marriage is protected and should continue to be, by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. We all fear it, but a change is never something we should fear.
I would amend the Constitution to include a ban on political parties. I think the partisanship that has resulted from our current system has stagnated political development and leads to more issues than it resolves. It would be easy enough to have each candidate run according to their beliefs instead of running for "the party." Preliminary elections could be held to establish the primary candidates and each person would vote for who they agree with, without a thought to whether or not it's the "good republican choice" or vice versa. Political parties and the partisanship that they bring are the reason our current Congress is the least efficient in the history of this country. It is a real and growing problem.
I would amend the constitution in many different ways. I believe that George Washington was correct in his statement that political parties would tear the US into two separate groups which essentially it has. They may not have to be banned but they could at least be based on beliefs of just the candidate not the beliefs of the party to acquire more votes. I would also amend the amendment for the right to bear arms seeing as guns now are too accessible to the criminally insane in way to many cases. Shootings at public elementary schools, movie theaters, and so on should NOT be occurrences people should have to worry about. These places should be safe enough for families or children to attend without a fear that they could potentially not come back. If people have guns and use them for purposes of hunting and so on then It makes sense however those who have ownership over weapons such as guns should at least be kept track of and checked up on ever 5 to 10 years. Guns should only be used by our trained US military in times of war. I believe that the freedom of speech amendment should be changed so that no form of protest in the United States can use the burning of our US flag. Not only is it a sign of disrespect it is mocking the own country that we all and even they live in. I believe that marriage laws should allow anyone to marry anyone else. If you are not affected by it then why should it matter so much to you?
I believe that an education is the most important thing we can provide for the younger generations of our nation. With this said I would add free education through universities to our Constitution. Not only would this allow those who can't afford college an opportunity to go, but it would also make education so much more valuable by being able to focus on the education rather than the financial stress it comes with.
I would amend the Constitution to allow naturalized U.S citizens to run for the presidency. Limiting the presidency to only those born in the U.S eliminates many qualified candidates for the position. There are many people who possess the abilities to lead and govern the nation who are stripped of the opportunity to run for the presidency simply due to the fact that they weren't born on American soil. Allowing all citizens to run for the presidency provides America with the chance to diversify and also provides more equality in terms of our rights.
If I were to amend the constitution, I would do so by changing the voting process. When people describe the United States, they describe it as a "democracy" although we are only a democracy in a sense. We have representatives to cast our votes for us. Although this change would not heavily affect American politics or government, it would shift our constitution to a more American standpoint. If we are to press democratic views onto other countries, we should adhere to them completely ourselves.
if i could change the constitution, i would make a clause that puts a limit on the amount of money the US can borrow from other countries in order to prevent a huge debt in the future. Also, i would limit US involvement in world affairs because too much involvement can lead to entangling relations that cannot be good for the country. The US should be able to be self sufficient in both resources and diplomacy , with only a certain amount of interference from other countries (trade, commerce).
If I were to amend the constitution I would add an act that would equally pay all men and women. To me if two people, regardless of gender or race, do the same exact job over the same amount of time, the it only seems fair that they should earn the same exact amount of money. Although woman are paid a little but less then men it does send a strong message to our society that men are more dominate then females,and in this day society this message is totally wrong and should never be portrayed.
if I could amend the Constitution I would put a cap on Government borrowing, this nation is in a bottomless pit of debt because the government acts like a teenage girl who just got credit card and thinks that is okay to max out the card. if we keep borrowing money especially from China soon enough they will own us... might seem far fetched but if you borrow money for college and it will take you twenty years after college to pay it off you are enslaved in a way until you pay it off. This cap on government borrowing will help lessen the load of money that generations from now will have to pay because we allowed the government to borrow as much as their hearts desire.
On June 12th 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Loving in the court case Loving v. Virginia. The Supreme Court's response to the ruling was that the denial of these people's right to marry solely because of racial differences was a denial of the "freedom to marry" and violated the central meaning of "equal protection of the laws". In my opinion, I feel that the United States should re-write the 14th amendment and address the importance of equal rights in marriage to include gay marriage. Although ultimately it's individual states decisions on whether or not they wish to legalize gay marriage, I feel that by including this important idea in our Constitution, it would help to set an example for states as to what should truly be defined as "freedom of marriage". Why should we restrict others of their freedom, equality and ultimately, their pursuit of happiness?
If I were able to propose a change to the constitution I would put extreme limits on what the government can be able to borrow money for. While I do think it is very important that we give aid to countries in need, there are some military expenditures that have given no advantages to our benefit. I am not suggesting we only give aid to countries that offer us something in return, but occasionally the U.S. government borrows high amounts of money in order to stick their nose in places it doe not belong.
I would give the District of Columbia representation in the House of Representatives and the Senate. They would get two senators, and based on their population, one congressman. It is unfair for DC to not be represented. Every US citizen should have congressman and senators to represent them in the federal government. Currently, it is more like being a foreigner than a US citizen for people living in DC.
If I were allowed to amend the constitution I would change the way the government goes about "protecting" the people with the police force. In today's world many citizens would admit that they feel paranoid when they see an officer instead of safe. That is not what it meant to be. The police force should be there to protect people from other people and harmful acts. They shouldn't be degrading our every move and analyzing our cars to make sure they are within code. They should be protecting people instead of worrying about little things.
If I were to amend the Constitution, I would make it so that political parties could not exist. I didn't understand why George Washington felt that political parties would lead the country down the wrong path, but now I do. Because of parties, politics has become nothing more than a competition. It's more about winning than making actual change, and this country will not be able to move forward if our leaders care about nothing more than winning the next election. We could be so much more productive if politics was not about winning it all, but instead about compromising and doing what's best for the people and the country.
I would amend the constitution to add the equal pay for equal work act. I find this to be an important amendment to make as in a market economy, money often translates to influence. True equality cannot be attained until equality in pay along with personal freedoms is given to all.
ReplyDeleteIf I had the opportunity to change the Constitution in one way in order to improve it, I would propose that we change who can be president. The fact that the president has to be a "natural-born" citizen eliminates a plethora of remarkable Americans who are capable of leading the nation. Instead, the presidency should be open to ALL citizens, both natural-born and naturalized. It's only logical that all citizens share the same rights, regardless of how they obtain citizenship. This amendment will serve to provide equality among the citizens of the United States and will open the oval office to any United States citizen who is able to properly govern the country.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would amend the constitution to limit the amount of money spent on political campaigning and ban super PACs (even though they cannot contribute to the candidate directly). It is practically impossible for a common man to become a presidential candidate, no matter how much he may be qualified, simply because he does not have the money to campaign. The winner of an election should be based on who the people feel will lead the country best, not who has the most money.
ReplyDeleteI'd propose an amendment to tighten standards of neutrality in the drawing of Congressional districts. Such an amendment would produce more competitive elections, dissuading politicians from casting votes and endorsing policies strictly to preserve their reelection prospects in ideologically homogenous districts. Members of Congress make policies that affect the entire nation, not just those who directly elect them. Gerrymandering just makes it more difficult to maintain the open-mindedness and compromise needed in the government of such a large and diverse country.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I would amend the constitution by equalizing the number of democrats and republicans in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This is to ensure the possibility of new laws to get through to Congress and the President so that we may actually ratify and issue new laws. If one party owns a majority of the Senate and the other party owns a majority of the House, then nothing will get done as evident of the administration today. This change will allow for a more equal and effective method to pass new laws so that we may issue beneficial changes in the future.
ReplyDeleteIt is not uncommon for people to vote for either the Democratic or Republican party because voters believe they are throwing away their votes so, I would amend the constitution to remove the first past-the-post election style and instead replace it the alternative voting method (instant run-off or ranked choice voting are other names for it). Under this system, voters rank the candidates in the election in order of preference. This would result in more people actually voting for their primary parties and make American democracy more representative of its peoples.
ReplyDeleteI would amend the 2nd amendment, the right to bear and keep arms. I believe it is misinterpreted and misused. Some people may say that a criminal isn't thinking about a gun law when he commits a crime;however, if guns became less accessible overall, then I don't understand how it couldn't lower the crime rate. A national registry wouldn't be difficult to go through for the citizens who claim their right to bear arms. This amendment isn't taking away any right by any means, but it would make an attempt to lower crime in this country.
ReplyDeleteIf I had the opportunity to make an amendment to the Constitution I would propose term limits for congressman and senators. If these representatives had limited terms they wouldn't be as influenced by special interests and lobbyists. This would make them more effective while in office and more aware of public sentiment.
ReplyDeleteI would amend the constitution to give the president all encompassing power of the federal government during times of shutdown and depression. If you look at the shutdown crisis that ensued a year ago, congress' stalemate and failure to compromise on the budget was the main reason why the federal government didn't resume action earlier than it did. An argument could be made that this would be one sided and would deliver a great deal of stress on the presidents position, but he would proceed under the advisement of the cabinet and it would be fitting to have the commander in chief lead the way in driving the nation out of a dark time. This would act as a "backup plan" for the republic and would ultimately strengthen the constitution and the democracy.
ReplyDeleteI would amend the constitution for the ban on your rights to online privacy. The Government itself has become to conflicted and fixated on tapping into the personal electronic devices used by all Americans, looking for any threats or possible suspicious acts of terrorism that it has become out of control. If they just cut back on the amount of time they spend peeking into the personal lives of the people, more problematic issues could be addressed.
ReplyDeleteI would add some kind of restricted campaign financing. Our political system is very corrupt, probably the worst it has ever been; mainly because money is the key in our govt. Each candidate should get a fixed amount of money from the govt. Lets say 25 mil for example. They can't spend any more than amount and any money left over is returned to the govt; while every dollar they spend must be accounted for. This will create a more even playing field for candidates. This greatly supports the theory of elitism. Which I believe is a very big problem in our govt. Our elections have turn into auctions.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the constitution needs major changes and revision. A major change we need to consider would be a balanced budget amendment. By enforcing a balanced budget it would require federal spending not to exceed federal receipts. The amendment would make it unconstitutional for the federal government to run annual budget deficits. This will hopefully help maintain the economy and help with our treacherous debt.
ReplyDeleteI would change the right of people to peacefully assemble. Protesting peacefully can be interpreted in many different ways. I believe that protests themselves are never truly peaceful. I think that by restricting the right to peacefully protest, there would be less of a chance for a violent outbreak
ReplyDeleteI would amend the constitution to give Congressmen a term limit. Many Congressmen serve for years and this takes away the opportunity for new Congressmen to serve for their state. Congressmen should be limited to 2 terms, just like the President. Making it unconstitutional to serve more than 2 terms would give other Americans a chance to become a Congressmen.
ReplyDeleteIf I had the chance to change the constitution I would amend the gun laws. I think people should have the right to own a gun but should go through stronger tests or give like a mental test to make sure there not giving guns out to anybody. It would make us stronger because maybe the death rate on guns would go down.
ReplyDeleteAn amendment to the constitution I would like to see added is one that has been an old, prevalent issue that was never resolved. It has slowly been forgotten over time. Yet, I believe it is important in preserving the equality of our society. We all heard the quote in the Constitution stating "All men are equal." But what about women? Women still don't have all the rights that men in this country enjoy. I believe the statistic was: for every dollar a man earns, a woman only earns 75 cents (for the same job).Now this may not seem like a big deal, only a quarter less, however it translates into the idea that women are inferior and leads to many domestic violence and other issues. Women have been an important part in America's history and have made many contributions to society. It is only fair that they are viewed as equals. After all, they are human too. That is amendment that I would like to see made and I think it will benefit society as a whole.
ReplyDeleteIf I had the chance to change the Constitution I would have an equal ratio of Republicans to Democrats in the House and the Senate. Laws never get passed as a result of one party dominating the House and the other dominating the Senate. Both vote against the other and retaliate each other's actions. This is an ineffective law making process.
ReplyDeleteAn amendment I would make to the constitution would be to allow the president an extended period of time, over which he would preside as the head of state with absolute power. In ancient Rome there was a process; when under severe threat the Republic would suspend government and elect one man to lead the entirety of the country, this one man would act as dictator until the threat subsided. The famous example is that of Cincinnatus, a farmer who, due to his previous job as a senator, was chosen as dictator. He did his duty and expelled the invaders and after 2 weeks resigned his post and returned to his farm. George Washington is held similarly - being offered the dictatorship, he declined and returned to his normal life, rather than become an absolute ruler. With an amendment like this the President has the ability to - in an emergency - overcome the inefficiency of democracy and protect the nation from outside threats. Democracy is a great system, but it is SLOW to respond, and in an emergency we need to act. There were obvious limits - the President couldn't simply say "I'm dictator for life now", he would only have power as long as it was needed, and after his duty was completely would be expected to return to his post as head of executive branch. While this may sound awful to some, and while others may say "Rome also collapsed" 2 things: 1. The Roman Republic DID NOT collapse, the Roman Empire did - when people were put in charge for life and held absolute power passed to their sons, this isn't like that, it would only be temporary and would be awarded to the president and ONLY the president, should he be killed in office the Vice President would be sworn in and then THAT president would hold the power -- not the president's kids. Second, those thinking that it could be abused - the president of the United States of America SHOULD be an outstanding individual, one who we see as the embodiment of everything we stand for and one who we believe can represent our country on an international scale. If democracy really does work - the President should be an individual who can handle that power effectively and responsibly. To achieve a good president an amendment I would propose first would be to take money out of politics so we can actually GET a good and honest president, one who would handle the responsibility of absolute power like George Washington or Cincinnatus before him. Absolute power is dangerous and risky but when used correctly and responsibly it can be EXTREMELY effective.
ReplyDeleteIf I had the opportunity to amend the Constitution, I would probably establish that the number of Republicans and Democrats be even in the House and in the Senate, with three unbiased and unaligned Senators and House Representatives to break up any ties. Evening the number of Republicans and Democrats will more than likely result on most issues being set in gridlock, which is where the three unaligned representatives come in to discuss whatever the issue is and the vote on what should be done. Also, I would choose three because people might feel that one is too little and two could result in another tie. 5 and higher would cause even more problems with too many opinions.
ReplyDeleteThe United States Constitution, a document written in 1788. One can presume that there are need for changes to a document written well over 226 years ago. If it was up to me, I would take a look at said document from a constructionist point of view. One change, would possibly be to amend the legal drinking age to 18, thus equalizing us with the populous of the world. Another change, would be to change the Legalization requirements for those of which arrived in this nation legally, wanting to become american citizens...as the requirements to this day are large and very expensive. This does not mean granting permanent residency to all immigrants; however, it does allow for a simpler form to become part of the United States of America.
ReplyDeleteAmendments are necessary to our constitution because they allow our government to change with the times. A change the needs to be amended, one due to the technological innovation we've experience tenfold in the past two decades, is American's right to privacy. Yes, we're all entitled to private property and such, however, we should not be under surveillance every time we go on the Internet, unless there is irrefutable doubt that it is a necessity. There are certain amendments to the constitution under which this could fall, but I think with the daunting technology and easy access, Americans should be allowed to surf the web without government surveillance.
ReplyDeleteIf I had the ability to change the constitution, I would ensure that the opportunities, freedoms, and securities of the constitution provided to the citizens which uphold it, are not abused. This meaning such issues as illegal citizens, drug offenders, or those who thoughtfully commit felonies, are held accountable and are not entitled to abusing the programs set in place by the government to ensure quality of life. While these programs do have great purpose in providing for an equal society, many people abuse and cheat the system. In a conscious society everyone would do their part to create the lifestyle in which they desire, and not break these very rules set in place in which jeopardizes the liberty, freedom, and happiness of society as a whole.
ReplyDeleteAn amendment I would add to the constitution, would be that a person does not need to be born in America to be the president. If a person has lived in America for the majority of their life they would soon come to learn the ins and outs of American government.Due to the fact they should be able to run for president if they have lived in America for 10 years and are citizens.Any qualified citizen should be allowed to run for office to help better their country.
ReplyDeleteThe framers of our government allowed for amendments to be made within the Constitution because they specifically knew that opinions can tend to change. What we believed 50 years ago might be the same as what we'll believe 50 years from now, but that concept seems like more like an off-chance situation instead of a reality. But what do we do about political apathy? As we discussed in class, baby boomers tend to control public policy as well as politics in general, while only a small fraction of young adults feel compelled to participate in creating and editing the political agenda. Young adults think that becoming involved in politics would take too much time out of their lives; they have plenty to worry about between college, school loans, jobs, starting families, and so on, so why add something else to think about? The thing is, so many people that are in their 20's tend to think that politics is this complex structure that has to be researched, but sometimes it's much simpler than we think. How many young adults own smartphones, or have access to a computer? For a large majority, the technology is right there at our fingertips. If I were to propose an idea for the 28th Amendment, I would suggest the more active use of referendums, both web-based and paper-based, in order to increase the general population's ability to shape the political agenda. By allowing U.S. citizens to vote on simple, to-the-point questions rather than researching a candidate and voting for him or her in full, citizens, especially young adults, may feel as though a task like this would be less overwhelming compared to researching the candidates in an election and what they stand for. Who says we can't develop an app or a website, as well as having monthly “referendum days”, that each lets us check a "yes" box or a "no" box to straightforward questions about public policy when Congress experiences a policy gridlock, let alone regulating the use of referendums when we truly need them? As long as the citizens participating are informed, it could potentially be a good start to getting America's youth involved in politics.
ReplyDeleteThe constitution was written in 1788. For that time, the laws were deemed reasonable, but in the 21st century we have become so advanced that there are some laws that should be amended. The second amendment, which is the right to bear arms is being miss used by civilians. When that amendment was made, it was made with the intention of protection not destruction. Recent events have shown that people cannot be trusted with weapons and they are more dangerous than the 'criminals'. I believe that civilians should not have weapons because crime rates would decrease and less innocent lives taken.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution has had a total of twenty-seven amendments over the two centuries it has been in affect. One change that has yet to be made in order to adjust to the changing culture of our society is a limit on governmental tapping of technological devices. Although it is important to keep the country's safety in mind, the American people have a right to privacy whether it be emails, text messages, or phone calls. Not only would it put various conspiracy theories against the government to rest, but it would make citizens more comfortable with their use of modern technology.
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental flaws of the constitution are mainly found in it's subjectivity. That being said, I would more closely specify who the constitution recognizes as people, including homosexual/trans people, women (pay, voting, etc)...also make it more easily changeable; after all, it is a historical document, and should be able to be as fluid as our nation is, not expected to hold true forever--it blocks progress much too frequently
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I believe that the Constitution is satisfactory as it is; America has endured the centuries as a [democratic] world power and is none the worse for wear, though [it is] grossly debt ridden. With that said, If I were to change anything it would be the lifetime tenure of Supreme Court Justices. The Constitution was made to withstand the centuries and evolve over time; the same cannot be said about our justices. My two main concerns are as follows: 1) the mental faculties of Supreme Court Justices undoubtedly deteriorate over time, and 2) justice viewpoints do not adapt to judge [with moderate bias] the ideas materializing in this Progressive Age. I do believe that justices should have lengthy appointments...within the time constraints of 15-25 years. If this were to happen, the Supreme Court would have a steady influx of fresh ideas and insights that would be attuned to ever-changing ideas, paralleling the Constitution's own construction.
ReplyDeleteAssuming that this wouldn't be changeable by the Bill of Rights I would remove the right to bear arms outside of permitted usage or times of war. A lot of gun incidents in the use are blamed on the people not the guns but serious shooting incidents may not have been able to go as far without the use of guns. For example the the shooting in Columbia Mall (Maryland January 25, 2014) would have never been as severe without the use of a gun with only a knife the ability for civilians nearby to resist would have been much greater and many fewer moralities would have occurred. This has already been proven to be the case in England after the Dunblane school massacre (march 13, 1996) Britain introduced the Fire Arms Amendment (no.2) official banning any guns that were not owned by the state (military,police,riot control,certified hunters) . Since introducing this amendment it is needless to say that the shootings in the country went down as well as deaths from shootings. We ignored the sandy hook shooting in reality while we like to have think it had any impact on decisions for gun control in the US the impact only lasted as long as the american attention span (meaning when people stopped caring gun control went back to normal). I think that this decision would have been the wisest decision in terms of modern day gang shootings that happen so often they don't even end up in the local news. The Constitution was made to make us stronger and keep us safer than the Articles of Confederation but removing the right to bear arms would keep us safe from ourselves and that would have perfected the document.
ReplyDeleteI think the requirement for the president having to be a natural born citizen should be changed to perhaps even a naturalized citizen. In this day and age there have been multiple politicians who weren't able to run for presidency, such as Arnold Schwarzanegger, due to not being natural born citizens. I think there should be an amount of years one must have been naturalized for before they are able to run for presidency, as there are over 10 million naturalized citizens who may want to run for president, but cannot.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading a lot of these responses I feel that a constitutional amendment barring the federal government or the courts from overturning state marriage laws need to be something on the agenda. States having individual rights is a fundamental ideal this country was founded on. In terms of civil rights, though, the United States needs to set a standard for all states to follow. In previous cases of civil rights, taking action through the federal government has proved beneficial. For instance if we take the ratified amendment when all women were allowed to vote, they immediately were able to enjoy both federal and state benefits just like how legalizing same sex marriage would do. I cannot agree with Abby more when she says the constitution needs to be more specific when stating who the constitution recognizes as people. When we’re living in the rapidly changing world, in terms of technology, ideas, and basic principles its hard to abide by a 225 old document. If you believe in marriage or not, the majority can pretty much agree it should be a fundamental right to marry who ever we want, whether straight or gay like black or white. Gay marriage is protected and should continue to be, by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. We all fear it, but a change is never something we should fear.
ReplyDeleteI would amend the Constitution to include a ban on political parties. I think the partisanship that has resulted from our current system has stagnated political development and leads to more issues than it resolves. It would be easy enough to have each candidate run according to their beliefs instead of running for "the party." Preliminary elections could be held to establish the primary candidates and each person would vote for who they agree with, without a thought to whether or not it's the "good republican choice" or vice versa. Political parties and the partisanship that they bring are the reason our current Congress is the least efficient in the history of this country. It is a real and growing problem.
ReplyDeleteI would amend the constitution in many different ways. I believe that George Washington was correct in his statement that political parties would tear the US into two separate groups which essentially it has. They may not have to be banned but they could at least be based on beliefs of just the candidate not the beliefs of the party to acquire more votes. I would also amend the amendment for the right to bear arms seeing as guns now are too accessible to the criminally insane in way to many cases. Shootings at public elementary schools, movie theaters, and so on should NOT be occurrences people should have to worry about. These places should be safe enough for families or children to attend without a fear that they could potentially not come back. If people have guns and use them for purposes of hunting and so on then It makes sense however those who have ownership over weapons such as guns should at least be kept track of and checked up on ever 5 to 10 years. Guns should only be used by our trained US military in times of war. I believe that the freedom of speech amendment should be changed so that no form of protest in the United States can use the burning of our US flag. Not only is it a sign of disrespect it is mocking the own country that we all and even they live in. I believe that marriage laws should allow anyone to marry anyone else. If you are not affected by it then why should it matter so much to you?
ReplyDeleteI believe that an education is the most important thing we can provide for the younger generations of our nation. With this said I would add free education through universities to our Constitution. Not only would this allow those who can't afford college an opportunity to go, but it would also make education so much more valuable by being able to focus on the education rather than the financial stress it comes with.
ReplyDeleteI would amend the Constitution to allow naturalized U.S citizens to run for the presidency. Limiting the presidency to only those born in the U.S eliminates many qualified candidates for the position. There are many people who possess the abilities to lead and govern the nation who are stripped of the opportunity to run for the presidency simply due to the fact that they weren't born on American soil. Allowing all citizens to run for the presidency provides America with the chance to diversify and also provides more equality in terms of our rights.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to amend the constitution, I would do so by changing the voting process. When people describe the United States, they describe it as a "democracy" although we are only a democracy in a sense. We have representatives to cast our votes for us. Although this change would not heavily affect American politics or government, it would shift our constitution to a more American standpoint. If we are to press democratic views onto other countries, we should adhere to them completely ourselves.
ReplyDeleteif i could change the constitution, i would make a clause that puts a limit on the amount of money the US can borrow from other countries in order to prevent a huge debt in the future. Also, i would limit US involvement in world affairs because too much involvement can lead to entangling relations that cannot be good for the country. The US should be able to be self sufficient in both resources and diplomacy , with only a certain amount of interference from other countries (trade, commerce).
ReplyDeleteIf I were to amend the constitution I would add an act that would equally pay all men and women. To me if two people, regardless of gender or race, do the same exact job over the same amount of time, the it only seems fair that they should earn the same exact amount of money. Although woman are paid a little but less then men it does send a strong message to our society that men are more dominate then females,and in this day society this message is totally wrong and should never be portrayed.
ReplyDeleteif I could amend the Constitution I would put a cap on Government borrowing, this nation is in a bottomless pit of debt because the government acts like a teenage girl who just got credit card and thinks that is okay to max out the card. if we keep borrowing money especially from China soon enough they will own us... might seem far fetched but if you borrow money for college and it will take you twenty years after college to pay it off you are enslaved in a way until you pay it off. This cap on government borrowing will help lessen the load of money that generations from now will have to pay because we allowed the government to borrow as much as their hearts desire.
ReplyDeleteOn June 12th 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Loving in the court case Loving v. Virginia. The Supreme Court's response to the ruling was that the denial of these people's right to marry solely because of racial differences was a denial of the "freedom to marry" and violated the central meaning of "equal protection of the laws". In my opinion, I feel that the United States should re-write the 14th amendment and address the importance of equal rights in marriage to include gay marriage. Although ultimately it's individual states decisions on whether or not they wish to legalize gay marriage, I feel that by including this important idea in our Constitution, it would help to set an example for states as to what should truly be defined as "freedom of marriage". Why should we restrict others of their freedom, equality and ultimately, their pursuit of happiness?
ReplyDeleteIf I were able to propose a change to the constitution I would put extreme limits on what the government can be able to borrow money for. While I do think it is very important that we give aid to countries in need, there are some military expenditures that have given no advantages to our benefit. I am not suggesting we only give aid to countries that offer us something in return, but occasionally the U.S. government borrows high amounts of money in order to stick their nose in places it doe not belong.
ReplyDeleteI would give the District of Columbia representation in the House of Representatives and the Senate. They would get two senators, and based on their population, one congressman. It is unfair for DC to not be represented. Every US citizen should have congressman and senators to represent them in the federal government. Currently, it is more like being a foreigner than a US citizen for people living in DC.
ReplyDeleteIf I were allowed to amend the constitution I would change the way the government goes about "protecting" the people with the police force. In today's world many citizens would admit that they feel paranoid when they see an officer instead of safe. That is not what it meant to be. The police force should be there to protect people from other people and harmful acts. They shouldn't be degrading our every move and analyzing our cars to make sure they are within code. They should be protecting people instead of worrying about little things.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to amend the Constitution, I would make it so that political parties could not exist. I didn't understand why George Washington felt that political parties would lead the country down the wrong path, but now I do. Because of parties, politics has become nothing more than a competition. It's more about winning than making actual change, and this country will not be able to move forward if our leaders care about nothing more than winning the next election. We could be so much more productive if politics was not about winning it all, but instead about compromising and doing what's best for the people and the country.
ReplyDelete