Skip to comments.Yes, the Constitution and its amendments are outdated.
Posted on 10/09/2013 1:16:05 PM PDT by A'elian' nation
In Arkansas a class of sixth graders were asked to prune the Constitution and its amendments. Glenn Beck decried the notion of an outdated Constitution in his radio program. Like a true patriot he defended it, but he was wrong. The Constitution is outdated as are many of its amendments.
Here are some amendments that need instant pruning or decapitation:
The 16th amendment allowing the federal government to collect income tax. If that were abolished, so would Obamacare, according to Chief Justice John Roberts.
The 17th amendment establishing the direct election of United States senators. The Founders were correct in granting this power of appointment to the individual states.
The 26th amendment granting the right to vote to 18 yr olds. The right to vote should be raised to age 27 when one is no longer a child.
The 24th amendment abolishing poll taxes. Democrats say that voter ID cards are a form of poll tax. This amendment should be revised so that states can issue voter ID cards to legal citizens only. I would even require some minimal literacy test.
I am sorely tempted to forage into the 19th amendment, but I have a better half to contend with.
As for the Constitution itself, lets eliminate the outdated Commerce Clause. It served its purpose for its time to help form the union. I doubt there is any state today that would impose tariffs once you cross its state line. The Commerce Clause has been abused by the courts to the point that what you grow in your back yard can be regulated.
Oh, and one more.
The 28th amendment. Congress can only enact legislation during the months of June, July, and August. Legislation can be repealed at any time of the year.
(Excerpt) Read more at twitchy.com ...
No journalist or blogger can work for a current federal administration.
The planted axiom of your stricture is that journalism is the Fourth Estate, a thing apart from the people and the government. No sale.
The First Amendment is not predicated on the assumption that the press is objective, any more than free speech would be assumed to be objective. In reality, it is wire service journalism which has distorted the relationship between the press and the people and politicians. Adam Smith explains how the wire services unify and homogenize journalism:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Book I, Ch 10)Wire services produce a continuous meeting among journalists who are nominally competitors; in the case of the Associated Press that meeting traces back to before the Civil War. The result is a conspiracy against the public just as Smith predicted. The conspiracy helps journalists by promoting the idea upon which your proposed amendment is predicated - the conceit that journalism is, or ought to be considered, objective. When journalism is considered objective, journalists are placed in the position of the ancient Sophists - they persuade by reputation. None dares to question the wise sophist - and none dare question the objective journalist.
“One year “cooling-off” period on lobbying. Generally, former Members of Congress and senior level staff of both the executive and legislative branches are prohibited from making direct lobbying contacts with former colleagues for one year after leaving public service.”
How are sympathetic journalists any different from a lobbyist for whom legal strictures do exist? If a law can be made against one; why not the other?
It doesnt matter if you have a problem or not, it is unconstitutional.
That fee is a tax on trade it is prohibited by Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution.
If you poses a DD214 (honorable) then your vote counts double.
I’m sorry that you didn’t understand the gist of the article.
The students were asked to make changes to the Bill of Rights.
I expanded it to make changes that I’d like to see in the Constitution and all the amendments. Some in a humorous vein.
I don’t like the commerce clause, because the EPA uses it to call a trickle in your back yard a navigable river. The gov’t has a say in what you grow in your backyard. I believe the commerce clause has served its usefulness, and natural unimpeded competition will take care of any tariff and tax wars between the states.
I just want the federal government out of my backyard.
Good One! I will make yours the 31st Amendment.
You might want to make your vote count double if you are a property owner. Originally, only men of gentry could vote.