Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Which Constitutional Amendments Would You Change or Repeal?

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by nolancarey, Sep 15, 2020.

  1. nolancarey

    nolancarey GC Hall of Fame

    4,140
    827
    418
    Aug 16, 2009
    This is slightly older news, but I've been thinking about it lately. Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse is in favor of abolishing the 17th Amendment (related to direct election of Senators). He is of the opinion that it would allow the Senate to function in a more streamlined and less overtly partisan manner. I respect Sasse and see his point, but I don't think it would ultimately lead to the outcome he imagines.

    My question to you is, well it's in the title of the thread, which Constitutional amendments would you change or repeal? Or we can make it more general: which sections of the Constitution deserve an amendment? If you had sole power of discretion (and you can use whatever criteria you wish to employ) what would you change? The 1st Amendment? 2nd? 17th? 22nd? The Electoral College? Full Faith and Credit? What do you think would make the country better, in your estimation? Not necessarily a new addition, like the abolition of abortion, but something already covered that needs reevaluation.

    Or if you just want to discuss the merits of Sasse's idea, here's the article:
    Ben Sasse Calls for Repealing 17th Amendment, Eliminating Popular-Vote Senate Elections
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    26,554
    1,764
    1,968
    Apr 19, 2007
    A Van Down By the River
    Maybe it doesn't count as an amendment, but I'd abolish the Senate before I abolished any of the amendments, especially the 17th.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. nolancarey

    nolancarey GC Hall of Fame

    4,140
    827
    418
    Aug 16, 2009
    Unicameral?
     
  4. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    26,554
    1,764
    1,968
    Apr 19, 2007
    A Van Down By the River
    Yeah, and abolish the Apportionment Act of 1911 (and the Reapportionment Act of 1929) which caps the House at 435. And while I'm at it, demote the SCOTUS to not a co-equal branch of government and legislate away their power of nullification. But at this point, why not just scrap it and set up a much more functional parliamentary system of government?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. bgator85

    bgator85 Premium Member

    6,238
    747
    368
    Apr 3, 2007
    Sarasota
    I do believe to get good governance we need significant structural change, the current path we are on is not sustainable. Popular majorities should translate into governing majorities. So, I guess I'd start with the elimination of the Electoral College.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  6. nolancarey

    nolancarey GC Hall of Fame

    4,140
    827
    418
    Aug 16, 2009
    (Regarding SCOTUS: ) In your opinion, would that create the potential for a revolving door of legislation? Every few years legislative items are reversed before they are funded or implemented?
     
  7. channingcrowderhungry

    channingcrowderhungry Premium Member

    7,618
    2,173
    1,528
    Apr 3, 2007
    Bottom of a pint glass
    The 3rd. I'm pro quartering of soldiers.
     
    • Funny Funny x 9
  8. docspor

    docspor GC Hall of Fame

    4,120
    1,461
    633
    Nov 30, 2010
    change the national anthem...bad lyrics, Waltz rhythm, range is too wide for most to sing it. IMO, a national anthem should never be a waltz (though there are some mighty fine waltzes - Norwegian wood, Manic Depression, Waltz #2, etc.)
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 2
  9. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    26,554
    1,764
    1,968
    Apr 19, 2007
    A Van Down By the River
    Isn't that how representative democracy should work? Also, given that possibility, wouldn't that make sweeping legislation less likely unless you held large majorities? And if you did risk it to pass something controversial, the system is much more able to respond to narrow majoritarian law making.
     
  10. jmac83

    jmac83 GC Hall of Fame

    1,185
    179
    278
    Apr 9, 2007
    The Second Amendment, revised to remove the long-outdated and distracting language about militias and to write into the Constitution the ability of the government to restrict gun ownership in the name of public health, safety and welfare.
     
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 6
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  11. gatorpika

    gatorpika GC Hall of Fame

    9,833
    1,770
    1,383
    Sep 14, 2008
    I would repeal the 19th amendment. Everything started going downhill from that point.:devil:
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. nolancarey

    nolancarey GC Hall of Fame

    4,140
    827
    418
    Aug 16, 2009
    I guess it would be an initial steep learning curve, but would even out over time.
     
  13. WC53

    WC53 GC Hall of Fame

    3,654
    825
    388
    Oct 17, 2015
    Old City
    Um
    Term limits
    Make defendants take the 5th on the stand
    Outlaw all political contributions
    Criminalize ethics and lobbying violations
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    10,784
    1,224
    818
    Jun 14, 2007
    1st Amendment. Freedom of the press.

    Trash it. Ain't worth a shit anymore, with our crap press corps. :cool:


    (Totally kidding..:D:p:D..).
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  15. nolancarey

    nolancarey GC Hall of Fame

    4,140
    827
    418
    Aug 16, 2009
    Would certainly clarify some of the clunky language. Make it concrete and hard to create more than one interpretation.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. nolancarey

    nolancarey GC Hall of Fame

    4,140
    827
    418
    Aug 16, 2009
    Since ours is currently to the tune of an old English pub song, I guess Norwegian Wood could make sense.
     
  17. carpeveritas

    carpeveritas GC Hall of Fame

    1,905
    399
    303
    Dec 31, 2016
    I would change the 17th amendment to limit senators to 2 terms in office for a maximum of 12 years. I would also change the amendment to require the states to elect an alternate for senator during the election cycle in the event the senator can no longer serve the term. Each election cycle will be voting for a pair primary and alternate. I would also have language that states if the alternate is required with in the 1st 2 years of service the alternate will be considered as having served 2 terms if elected as primary in a future election cycle. In other words an alternate cannot serve as primary senator for 10 or more years total.

    The house of representatives needs to be addressed as well but that would require an additional amendment which is not the table.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  18. nolancarey

    nolancarey GC Hall of Fame

    4,140
    827
    418
    Aug 16, 2009
    trump is one who has at least called for a judicial reinterpretation of libel and slander. Would you change anything regarding that?
     
  19. nolancarey

    nolancarey GC Hall of Fame

    4,140
    827
    418
    Aug 16, 2009
    It's within the scope of the original post. What would you like to change?
     
  20. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    11,411
    1,642
    1,668
    Dec 9, 2010
    Getting rid of the electoral college. Its initial goal, which was to have the learned between the idiots and government, has been largely eliminated by the anti-faithless elector clauses in many states. And even the revisionist reasons are largely inaccurate. In a modern marketing environment, the number of people that matter in the election has shrunk to maybe 1-2 million out of hundreds of millions of eligible voters. Is it any wonder that most people feel more and more isolated from their government? If moderate voters in Kansas and Vermont mattered, both parties would have to expand their outreach (there is currently a Democratic governor in Kansas and a Republican governor in Vermont, but they don't matter in a Presidential contest). Instead, we have a system where if you aren't an occasional voter in a swing state (years of advertising has largely limited the true moderates/swing voters in these states), you don't matter. Not even a little. Regardless of where you reside.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1