Anything in the constitution you disagree with?

I mean sure it's mostly self evident truths, but it can't be all good. Is there anything in the constitution you disagree with?

edited 21st May '11 6:07:57 PM by joeyjojo

First off

Second, nice trolling there bro. This is A) meant for It Just Buges Me not yack fest and B) This topic is a train wreck waiting to happen.

My opinion:
Lock and roll.

typo lol :P

anyway it's not like it is set in stone, we all know that amendments happen[1]

edited 21st May '11 6:08:26 PM by joeyjojo

Which country's?'

Agreed

edited 16th Nov '10 5:15:58 AM by Beholderess

i don't really understand why you are ''ing parts of your own post but i refering the Good'old US of A. Pretty much every other modern constitution is based off it.

That's shorthand for "The post two spaces above mine."

This is not suitable for IJBM at all; it's not even something that bugs somebody. If anyone's interested in discussing this civilly I guess I could move it to OTC.

I dislike the current system of Congressional representation, which gives states with small populations too much power.

^ Which was funny, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution small states like Rhode Island were absolutely terrified of the tyranny of the majority brought on by larger states of the time like New York and Virginia. The resulting compromise of a population based House of Representatives and an all states are equal Senate was the solution to that problem.

If you have a better idea how to prevent a tyranny of the majority and still give the smaller population states enough say, then I'm all ears.

I oppose the existence of the second amendment.

Not so much the constitution but rather the size of congress and election rules. I would prefer a healthy expansion of the number of people so that the congressmen per capita is increased. I'd also like to put strict numbers on campaign spending, like a very low number (I would say something along the lines of no more than 180 million dollars for total campaign at a federal level [senate, house and presidential combined] though I should double check what it is right now).

Also, second amendment seems kinda pointless.

I don't think we need a third amendment, but that's just me.

Isn't that the one that says the government can't force you to house soldiers in your home?

It is. [Onion article here] Personally, I find it extremely unlikely that it will ever be used in practice, but I don't see any reason that it has to go, either.

I agree.

This article has a lot of potential to be completely overrun with arguments concerning the second amendment, so lets try to avoid that shall we?

edited 16th Nov '10 11:36:03 AM by ViralLamb

that's the bit prohibiting gun control right? nothing to said there that we haven't heard before.

I'm also vehemently opposed to the 18th amendment. VEHEMENTLY! :P

Tenth amendment.

It's effectively useless.

There's no practical way to limit campaign spending though. Money will always find its way through somehow.

If you have a better idea how to prevent a tyranny of the majority and still give the smaller population states enough say, then I'm all ears.

On federal issues, I don't see why states should have a degree of say disproportionate to their population. It's a non-question what Wyoming wants, for instance, the important thing is what 540,000 Wyomingans want, and I don't see why they should have any more or less say than 540,000 New Yorkers.

There's no practical way to limit campaign spending though. Money will always find its way through somehow.

You've kinda rationalised away all law and policing.

Most countries have an elections watch dog. Good oversight can eliminate a lot of black money. Maybe they're 3% over or 5% over. It's not going to be significantly more without even the most idiotic watch dog noticing.

edited 16th Nov '10 1:59:37 PM by breadloaf

While I 100% agree that campaign finance needs to be capped, I'll point out here that any watchdog organization will immediately draw accusation of political bias from whichever party loses the first major election under any such limit. Especially if a republican loses, since this sort of thing runs counter to their laissez-faire philosophy.

Not having a blurb about term limits for senators and representatives bothers me. We ammended it to add presidential term limits, why not those other guys?

Are we talking about the original constitution, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution, or our own interpretation of the document's current language?

Depending on the answer, I think I'd want to be clever and cite the three-fifths compromise as something I disagree with. I guess it was a necessary political move at the time, but it isn't really fair to allow greater representation to a state because they have more slaves.

Because they're the ones who would have to pass it.

The nineteenth amendment