• TinSoldier said on Jan 17, 2008....

  I'll have to think about that. Nothing comes to mind immediately (which is probably a good thing).

• beyondtheveil said on Jan 17, 2008....

  Ed- Not an easy question as you well know. I just read this and have no answer as yet but I'll tell you what the first thing was that came to mind- a rather inclusive privacy amendment. 

• TinSoldier said on Jan 17, 2008....

  I was browsing Wikipedia's list of proposed amendments, and then I realized my answer:
  
  No person who has served a combined number of terms as a member of either the House of Representatives or the Senate, or any combination of the two, that equals or exceeds twenty-four years of membership, shall be eligible to be elected or appointed to the Senate or the House of Representatives.
  
  Basically, some kind of reasonable term limitations for members of Congress.
  

• wakingharmony said on Jan 17, 2008....

  Gosh sw~ I have to look again later cause my brain is fogged in...But want to let you know I stopped by. Hope you have a great Day! WH aka Margaret

• the_infernal_optimist said on Jan 17, 2008....

  I...have no idea. Well, that's not true, but I'm not sure on the wording to achieve the intended scope of what I'd like to see. I might give it a shot later. :)
  
  ~Infernal
  

• rightwingwizard said on Jan 17, 2008....

  I don't particularly like the idea of tampering with the constitution.  It is usually done to address a single issue which is often a partisan in nature.  While there has only been one amendment reversed in our storied history, there are others which might have reason to be reconsidered.

  I might offer an amendment which would make the amending process even more difficult which would make the offering of frivolous amendments for consideration even less desireable.

  There have been calls for a constitutional convention over the years.  This idea frightens me more and more as time passes.  Some of the guarantees we now enjoy and take for granted would most certainly be lost.

   

• Cussane said on Jan 17, 2008....

  Removal of the requirement for only american born citizens to hold the presidency
   
  Cussane

• kelly said on Jan 17, 2008....

  We don't need an amendment.  We only need to restore the rights that were supposedly guaranteed by the existing one.  I would love to see habeas corpus restored and the bastards that stole it pilloried.

• crybabylu said on Jan 17, 2008....

  No person, entity, or goverment shall prohibit or make an agreement to prevent marriage, between male-female, male-male,female-female, male-female-female-female-female-female-female-female-female-female, etc.  furthermore, any persons requesting marriage other than close blood relationships from this day forward, are hereby allowed to marry, with full benefits that accompany such a union.

• lfbno7 said on Jan 18, 2008....

  I like Crybaby's. An amendment making it clear that homosexuals CAN marry. I would also like one that insisted on ethical behavior from government leaders, meaning that certain things will not be tolerated and will be punished by expulsion and loss of pension. The kind of thing I'm talking about, though not expressing clearly, would have to do with taking an action that would hurt the citizens but that helps the lawmaker in some way, like bribery. I'd want that to be classed under the term "treason", and punished, not necessarily with the death penalty, but with permanent (lifelong) expulsion from office and loss of pension.

• crybabylu said on Jan 18, 2008....

  I finally caught up with you, Lennie.  I'm one minute behind you.

• silverwhisper said on Jan 18, 2008....

  TS: honestly, while i like it i'm not sure that i like it more than some alternatives.
  
  beyond: i'm liking that idea, myself--a privacy amendment would indeed be good to see, i agree.
  
  WH: well, if you think of something, i guess we'll see it then, huh? :>
  
  infernal: take your time!
  
  rww: the amendment process requires a super-majority of 75% IIRC. it's the hardest legislative option in US governance. i don't think making a very rarely-used option harder to use particularly desirable, myself. JMHO.
  
  cussane: i've always thought that little requirement goofy, myself. i think it puts children of servicemen and women at a disadvantage.
  
  kelly: i agree re: restoring habeas corpus, naturally, although i don't see that as necessarily an either/or proposition, myself.
  
  dee: interesting, a pro-gay marriage amendment. that's pretty nifty!
  
  lbf: i like the idea of expanding what we currently legally call treason a great deal!
  
  me, i'm thinking that what i would really love is the privacy amendment that beyond mentioned. legally, i think it would expand the existing fifth amendment protections against self-incrimination, although i'm not sure how it needs to be structured to prevent making law enforcement impossible.
  
  ed

• Eilan said on Jan 18, 2008....

  I'll answer this in a bit.  I'm just waiting for God to tell me what He wants.
  
  *crickets*
  

• silverwhisper said on Jan 18, 2008....

  [trout-smack!]

Comment on "poll: the 28th US constitutional amendment"

Currently tagged	US constitution constitutional amendments politics polls (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment