The thought of a ConCon being thrown open in an age of low-info voters scares the literal crap out of me.
We need one, but as the Constitution is inactive, it won’t help.
Like privacy? Like RKBA?
er do we not have the 4th oh wait even a couple of sheep freepers think it’s alright to spy and would rather attack the guy who told the world the NSA and the obama Govt is spying on us all .
We have enough laws and rules and we have a constitution , how about going by it and if the obama Govt can’t abide by the laws then why should we
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seizedOh wait....
hell we need aconstitutional amendment to protect our constitution- like judge napolitano said htism ornign basically that what we’re seeign with hte abuses of power was the very reasons our constitutionwas set up i nthe first place- and he said, this is exactly what you see when there are no reigns on executive power- the constitution is no longer even a barrier to them
That’s how abortion became legal in the US. The Supreme Court found a right to privacy in the Constitution.
You need a Constitution Police ,go against the constitution and you will be investigated by the IRS ,NSA, DHS ,SS and the FBI ,reverse of what Obama is doing LOL sorry
We already have a Supreme Court ruling that recognizes the right to privacy (although i would argue that the 9th amendment does as well). It’s called Roe v. Wade.
About time that conservatives started citing that ruling to support conservative arguments against government intrusions into other aspects of our lives — the NSA surveillance, and while we’re at it, intrusive IRS audits, investigations and tax return requirements.
We’ve got one. Its called the 4th amendment.
No. We already have one.
No Constitutional amendment about privacy will affect the spying. It is the nature of government. In matters of collecting information, if it can be done it will be done. The only amendment that might help, if it did not lead to the formal abrogation of the Constitution and a full on Coup would be one limiting the government revenue and spending to a 5% cut of the GDP and/or one that reduces the government agencies to the four cabinet positions of the first Administration and limits government employment to .5% of the employed population and some et ceteras.
We already have the 4th Amendment, and it is being violated. If we cannot hold our government accountable for that amendment we cannot hold it accountable for anything else.
Wasn’t the Roe v. Wade decision based mostly on the woman’s right to privacy?
There is already one.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]
The idea that there exists a "right to privacy" that permits the taking of an innocent life is the apex of sophistry -- the absolute nadir of philosophy. The right to be left alone is inherent in the dignity of the individual. So inherent, it was understood to be so and perhaps for that reason there was seen no need to enumerate it. However, in a day which is properly said to have embraced a "Culture of Death" -- that is, a culture which is anti-life, such inherent dignity can no longer be assumed to be understood, nor to be present in the interpretation of its laws, any more than can be expected the same understand of the "Creator" from which flow inalienable rights as understood by the Founders.
What we need is a way to rid ourselves of terrorists without a police state. It's simple: Let the "well regulated militia" function as intended. Put a bounty on them with stiff penalties for false arrest.
Needed constitutional amendments.
1) To distinguish civil rights, that are natural and God-given to individuals, from corporate rights, that are granted by government. Corporations need some rights, but they do not need civil rights, which are reserved for human persons.
2) Since the senate will never agree to the repeal of the 17th amendment, a new system is needed to restore federalism, the power of the states. The best means to do so would be the creation of a Second Court of the United States, based on the original organization of the senate.
*Not* a federal court, but a court of 100 appointed by legislature only, state judges, on terms similar to those of their senators, who would *not* review constitutionality, which is a federal court purpose, but to review *jurisdiction*. That is, after the lower federal courts have reviewed cases for constitutionality, the 2nd Court would determine if they are truly a federal issue, or if they should be returned to the state courts, as *not* a federal issue. This would strongly reign in all three national branches of government.
Their other purpose would be that of original jurisdiction to all lawsuits between the national government and the states. So instead of federal courts hearing these cases at first, it would give the states considerable power over the national government.
Importantly, while the Supreme Court *could* hear appeals from the 2nd Court, if 2/3rds of the states found one way, the Supreme Court could not overturn their decision.
3) A prohibition of federal largess amendment, in which all federal funding to individuals must go through their state government, as block grants. The only direct payment to individuals from the US government should be for paychecks and retirement pay for former USG employees.
Ten more amendments for the tyrants to ignore are not worth the pen and paper needed to write them down.
We’re past pen and paper and the time is come for fortitude, determination, mettle, and nerve.