Should The United States Constitution Be Altered?

John_C_87

The New Idea of a Nation As United State Constitutional Democratic Republic to form a more perfect union.

Constitution is constantly altered by its nature and understanding. Democratic ratification into legislation does not insure legislation as a United State of Constitutional common defense to a general welfare. Should there be additional Amendment? Or should Amendments be altered or abolished? Most acts of alteration or abolishment of United States Constitution take place by judicial separation in a court of law. This is as basic principle changes slower than legal precedent in a order of common defense to the general welfare.

That is unless the judicial process is used as a religious test to hold office in order to find issues of legality.

MayCaesar

I would propose the following changes for starters:

1. Replace "Congress" with "no government, federal or local" in the text of the 1st Amendment.
2. Remove everything before "the right..." in the text of the 2nd Amendment.
3. Repeal the 16th Amendment.

The first two proposals will ensure that individual human rights are ultimate and hold on all levels, just as the Founding Fathers suggested. The third proposal will prohibit the government from collecting tribute from people by violating their property rights.

WordsMatter

I would change the 13th amendment to remove slavery as a legal option to be used for convicted criminals.

TTKDB

You don't have to alter the Constitution.

Because freedom is and will continue to be abused by some.

The freedom of speech will continue to be abused by some.

How one individual views their civil rights, will hold it over the head of another individual, and will make demands that their interpretation of their civil rights, should be altered or changed to suit their needs over another or millions of others? 

The point, The Civil Rights of others will continue to get abused by various individuals because of how they individually view their civil rights over others.

Wether the Constitution, the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the law itself, or whether millions of the citizens of this country themselves like it or not.

John_C_87

@MayCaesar ;

The United States Congress is a network to which state can File Grievance.

John_C_87

@TTKDB ;

What is the difference between a Civil Right and a Constitutional Civil Right?

George_Horse

Depends on the Amendment.

TTKDB

@John_C_87

"What is the difference between a Civil Right and a Constitutional Civil Right?"

("From HG.org  Legal Resources

In simplest terms, the difference between a human and civil right is why you have them. Human rights arise simply by being a human being. Civil rights, on the other hand, arise only by virtue of a legal grant of that right, such as the rights imparted on American citizens by the U.S.Constitution.")

funperson

@WordsMatter
Why

I'd also change Article I so it creates a unicameral house. Lower the age requirements too, census every five years, other stuff I can't think of rn

John_C_87

@TTKDB ;

Again the question is what is the difference between a Civil Right and Constitutional Civil Right? This question can be applied to Human Right as well, what is the difference between Human Right and Constitutional human Right? A Civil, or Human Right may be found to be Unconstitutional meaning nothing more than it is beyond basic principle, and is explained in a complicated way so it will never be understood in context to being placed in united State.

TTKDB

@John_C_87

https://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/civil-rights-vs-civil-liberties.html

YeshuaBought

Yes. The Constitution should protect healthcare rights.

John_C_87

@TTKDB

Again the answer is not to the question asked. What is the difference between Constitutional Civil-Right, and Constitutional Civil Liberty?

An example of a Constitutional Civil Right is the Democratic Right to Vote. This is a Constitutional Civil Right as it is a basic principle and a legal precedent.

@ YeshuaBough

Health care is not a basic principle it is simply a united state. Health care is covered under United States constitution by legislations made against murder or intentional harm.

cheesycheese

John_C_87 said:

@TTKDB

Again the answer is not to the question asked. What is the difference between Constitutional Civil-Right, and Constitutional Civil Liberty?

An example of a Constitutional Civil Right is the Democratic Right to Vote. This is a Constitutional Civil Right as it is a basic principle and a legal precedent.

@ YeshuaBough

Health care is not a basic principle it is simply a united state. Health care is covered under United States constitution by legislations made against murder or intentional harm.

however not helping someone because they can't pay you is not counted as intentional harm

John_C_87

@cheesycheese

“However not helping because they can’t pay you is not counted as intentional harm. “

Realistically in constitution that is not all that is happening. The trauma in the form of harm has been done before medical treatment has taken place. It is the course of harm, and who can direct a change in its outcome that is in question against payment. The debates in payment issue are created by a process of licensing for medical practice as some patients now pay in advance for treatments of illness, unknowingly. Taxation is used for training cost, and research funding, then a group of person who pay taxation also pay medical insurance cost, then deductible. The insurance in effect has become a way to preset limits of treatment already absorbed by medical training cost they have received as loan or grant.   

This places many medical personnel as indentured laborers to their society while just a few decades ago they were mostly people who invested in their own future. The lure of money as incentive to profession has a risk.

TTKDB

Do some maybe dislike the Constitution as it is? 

The reason I express the above?

I've seen how some have treated some of the laws in the United States.

Every year, crimes get committed, various citizens have lost their lives to how some abuse their individual right rights, and broke laws to commit the various crimes that the various offenders have caused.

So if you change a law to suit an offender (the non violant offender as an example) might that law change maybe make the past tense offender a better and individual and law abiding citizen?

So the previous offender, is now  law abiding citizen because a law was done away with that could have gotten them into trouble previously, but since the law was done away with, they now have one less avenue of trouble, that they could have gotten themselves into trouble with? 


The law making alcohol legal, 1.6 million innocent people plus, have been killed by drunk drivers since the legalization of alcohol took place.

(Some are going to say, the law has saved lives, because the apparent legalization of alcohol, has saved lives, by apparently lessening the number of people who could have driven drunk if alcohol wasn't legalized?) 

The lesser of two evils philosophy.

Weed has been legalized in some places, and now drunk driving, has begun to lower in some places, only to have the drugged driving offenders take the place statistically of the drunk drivers? 

The under aged weed smokers, are still in some places able to smoke weed, even after the legalization of weed has taken place?

You have some individuals who are driving while under the influence of both weed and alcohol? 

That would maybe suggest the laws making alcohol and weed legal, have been ignored just like the previous laws that made both alcohol and weed illegal) 

So when the question about altering the Constitution came up via this forum, I look at the statistics in how some of the laws that were changed to benefit the various individuals who got themselves into trouble beforehand, and the question that comes to mind is this, (those changed laws benefit those individuals, but how does those changes benefit the rest of society as a whole?) 

(The Taxation and revenue conversations are the probable answers.) 

So the rest of society gets to live with legalized weed use, and then pick up the pieces afterwards, because some of the weed users break this or that law, and innocent people get hurt because of the actions of the illegally acting legalized weed user? 

If hypothetically speaking the Constitution could be amended,  will society as a whole benefit from those changes? 

John_C_87

The consumption of alcohol, tabaco, and marijuana are not a constitutional issue. They are unite state shared by a public which may create a United State Constitutional issue by freedom of religion as basic principle. Recreational, Religious, and medical uses of items can be seen as a publicly shared belief in united state. This is due to a process of consumption which can be set as a practice with no self-value or cost.

By the way law does not create immunity, so it cannot make drinking alcohol legal for this would be an immunity on principles that are not set in judicial argument as precedent. A crime is created by law and expressed wrong, not criminal. What makes a law legal, what purpose law serves, are to the common defense not equality.  A law may not be legal simply because it is voted on as needed. A lawyer fabricates justice from the judicial separation, justice can’t be described as a united state of the judicial separation process it is a desired decision. It is a product placed out for market by licensing of an Independent Territory as State by selection created by instructional program.

A united State of the Constitutional judicial process of separation (court) is impartiality. Both sides of any argument have an achievable goal in the creation of their impartiality before the court, and its structure to the creation of a more perfect union. Simply said an Amendment on an Article of United States Constitution by state ratification should hold a united state as its focal point of declaration of independence to become an Article form the separation held as Amendment to basic principle and legal precedent.

To restructure the question asked in an constitutional way. Impartiality Vs. Justice which creates the more perfect United State as a goal of separation? 

TTKDB

@John_C_87

If I may ask where are you from?

John_C_87

@TTKDB ;
You did ask.....lol
And I am in the state of New Jersey, in the United States.

PotterWatch

The U.S. Constitution is perfect the way it is.  As the sole law of America, a law that the military swears an oath to protect same as the police and a law that every government official swears an oath to uphold, it is what keeps us free. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the government's power over us. If we allow it to be altered in anyway, then we have failed our fore fathers and their dreams. We would also have failed America herself. Luckily the founding fathers granted us the 2nd Amendment so should the government attempt this we can legally overthrow it and replace it with one that has America's best interests in mind. The Constitution is there to protect us, the American people. The moment we alter it, is the moment we're no longer free.

YeshuaBought

@John_C_87 Do you believe healthcare is a right?

John_C_87

@PotterWatch ;
The Military oath is to defend, preserve, and protect. Not uphold. While the judicial officers oath was to preserve, and protect as the Idea f both is to be set by domestic impartiality as a united state.

John_C_87

@YeshuaBought ;


As a Constitutional right? No, health care is not a basic principle, While safety is a declaration of Independence unlike general welfare which is a united state in U.S. Constitution.