Most Important US Constitutional Amendment?

Post Reply New Topic

I need help with bullying. But I can't find any existing bullying organization that helps a 47yo male.

If I was to find such an organization, I have to say that the problem I am having is that I have been stuck in a continuous situation of being a victim of an ongoing crime. Then they will tell me to report it to the police.

The problem IS the police and the government. I have been denied my 14th Amendment rights since I turned 17 in 1983.

My 14th amendment rights have been violated by the police. They don't recognize my rights as a crime victim and have always put the rights of other people before me. The police have committed crimes against me by targeting, stalking, harassing, and bulling me.

James B. Martin has been the District Attorney of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania since 1998. At some point during the time he has been in office I lived in Fountain Hill where I was relentlessly targeted by the Fountain Hill police. Now when I travel through Fountain Hill I am still stalked by the Fountain Hill police.

The Fountain Hill Police are criminally negligent for targeting me. The chief of the Fountain Hill police is criminally negligent. James B. Martin is criminally negligent because he is the person at the top who has responsibility over the behavior of the police.

It has been impossible for me to have any kind of a life because of this ongoing police targeting. There has to be a federal investigation of the crimes of police, police chiefs, and district attorneys.

I know I have so much PTST from being bullied by the police for 30 years, and being denied the existence of any agency to report this police targeting to.

And then there's the matter of how PTST carries over into gun rights. Are we going to deny the gun rights of the survivors of school, theater, and mall shootings?

I know that I am an introvert and that I have been profiled by the police because of that.

Gun rights may be the very root of the issue. The police target me over and over and over again and twist it around to use it against me by making it look like the pattern is my fault.

The 1st Amendment. Without that it wouldn't even be worth living in this country.

The 2nd Amendment I would like to see repealed. It serves no modern day purpose, other then giving the wacko gunnuts toys to play with.

The 4th Amendment I also think is important. But it's so watered down by stupid unconstitutional supreme court rulings, that it is worthless anyway. Thanks to the Republicans "war" on drugs, and their "war" on terrorism, and any other fake wars they can start so they can take away more of our rights.

I'd also like to see the the 22nd Amendment repealed. It's just reactionary crap.

All the rest are fine.

These amendments are necessary but not sufficient for liberty and some degree of justice to work out.

If the 2nd and 22nd amendments can be repealed what’s to stop them from repealing the ones you hold dear?

DOH, absolutely nothing. Article Five specifically allows for it. The 18th Amendment was repealed and I think most people would agree that it was good that it was.

I'd go with the 1st Amendment. It has the most influence on the practical freedom of people. I mean.... I understand that the 14th gives it a lot of it's teeth, but the work is still done by the 1st amendment.

The 2nd Amendment though? No, it's irrelevant. Suggesting it's importance so highly seems absurd:

1) Other first world nations with high levels of rights and high political stability lack the 2nd Amendment, so it does not appear to be necessary for the qualities of rights and stability. In fact, given how power works in modern societies, most of the necessary power is exercised by voting, by public dissent, by spreading ideas, and all of the rest, such that we don't need guns unless the system collapses, and if it does we'll probably already be in a civil war.

2) In any situation where the 2nd Amendment comes into play, the political situation will have necessarily degraded to the point where our rights and our political welfare are unsafe. During a Civil War or a post-revolutionary government, we cannot guarantee the maintenance of any form of freedom and the outcomes may be as bad or worse than the original dictatorship.

3) The situation where the 2nd Amendment comes to play in US politics in a desirable manner is not as likely as the situation where it comes to play in US politics in an undesirable manner. So, if there is a possibility of gun owners intervening in US politics in a positive manner, there's also a possibility of intervention that is negative as well. And... given the strong political biases and sometimes questionable grip on reality that a # of gun owners hold, as well as the low need for guns for stability(from 1 ) and the low benefits of revolution(from 2 ), we should expect that gun owners will find more false positives than false negatives, suggesting that if this *really* is a political force, it will be a negative one. Especially since "when to rebel?" is a really grey area question.

4) It's probably not a political force at all. So, from 3 ) we don't get the level of expected false positives we'd get from a group that could independently influence US politics in the way they brag.

The set of gun owners is also not organized enough to act as a countervailing force anyway, so if the NRA in Boston wants to overthrow the US that doesn't mean that the NRA in San Francisco feels the same way or will align. And if they don't agree, then given that different people will have different thresholds on when to rebel, we'll have early terrorists who will then justify a popular crack-down on gun-owners which will then prevent the gun rebellion before it starts.

Worse, if undesirable political changes occur, they will also likely occur with other supporting political changes long before it is clear that rebellions should occur. So, if the US starts becoming a police state, they will increase military forces, domestic spying, and all of the rest in advance of becoming clearly tyrannical such that vigilant gun owners will already be crippled or overwhelmed before the civil war starts. Also given how the US system works, the government is more likely to become tyrannical with the support of the people or a good portion of them, meaning that our vigilant gun owners will likely just be terrorists rather than a "people's revolution".

-----------------
So, no, the 2nd Amendment isn't that big of a deal. I don't mean to suggest it should be repealed as that's not politically viable and the US has too much of a gun culture to simply rip it out of the ground anyway. However, to people who seriously think that "the 2nd Amendment guarantees my rights", seriously give me a scenario that will trigger the popular gun revolution WITHOUT triggering false starts that will lead to a crack down, WITHOUT possibly causing false positives on when to start the revolution, AND that will be reliably identified as such by enough of the people to be a general revolution, AND that is politically plausible given how real political actors work.(So, a tyrant that goes around shooting people at random is very implausible. A politician who puts people in internment camps is plausible, but also in history such leaders have been massively popular, like FDR and Hitler.)

DOH, my point is that if rights can be hacked away to suit whatever's in vogue at the time then why even have a constitution.

First.
One of the things that makes me despair these days is that even the opposition seems to not give a damn (or even to support!) about the administration tapping reporter's phones and clamping down on even benign, helpful leaks.

I'm going to go out on a limb & say the 14th amendment. It was a tossup between that & the 1st amendment, but the 14th amendment gave a vast array of amendments real teeth at the State level and helped curtail the power of local bullies.

Exactly. To say nothing, that if all supposed 4.5 million members of the NRA did manage to all somehow or other get organized with all their guns, to take on the United States Government, they would never have a chance to fire one single shot. They would all be wiped out within hours by smart bombs falling on them, for which they would have no defense.

If it wasn't for the 1st Amendment, the gun owners wouldn't even have their gun ownership rights as they have them today. All of the current gun rights came about from a 150 years of intensive lobbying from the NRA. They got their 2nd Amendment rights by exercising their 1st Amendment rights. Not the other way around.

Words are a million times more powerful then guns.

If I were to draft a new constitution (I feel that we were not supposed to keep relying on it, nor was it made to work much beyond the 13 colonies, especially not for mass expansion and empiricism.), I think I'd start with some Unenumerated rights based in common sense, rationale, and logic. These ground rules wouldn't be open to negotiation or amending, but they wouldn't have much need, such as freedom of speech.

From there, let's go down the list and see...

I don't think the right to bear arms is something that should be dictated by a constitutional amendment, as there are simply too many pitfalls and loopholes. Weapons evolve and really, anything can be considered arms, even ones own. I would rather leave this up to states to decide/squabble.

In this day and age, the Third Amendment is more or less utterly pointless, but there might be a footnote/musing/mumbling about it.

The fourth amendment I would consider fairly critical, and in dire need of additional provisions to account for new technologies.

The fifth amendment would likely be shorted, with parts of it (self incrimination, double jeopardy) moved to another document for better management.

Six and Seven would also be moved to other documents, as my judicial system would be a combination of multiple systems, and would as such, need better clarification for use under such systems. (For example, I've toyed with the idea of adopting parts of the Japanese trail system, its seems quite elegant.)

Eight would need further clarifications, I think there would need to be more specifications, such as to what an 'excessive' fee is.

Nine would have been covered in the opening,

Ten in its current state is bog useless, but I'd likely have something similar to it; within reason and decency, as otherwise the government would be trapped in a box.

Eleven seems rather useless but I think it'd be revised to provide common sense provisions over what you can and cannot sue the powers that be over. The law and lawmakers should not be immune to question. (On the other hand, I barely understand what this one really means.)

Twelve might not really apply considering that I would want to have a federated council rather than a single executive power.

Thirteen, while a relic of the past, would likely be covered by the ground provisions.

Fourteen would be there in basic form, but may not last long, as I would be pushing for global citizenship, rather than national. Not for 'one world union', but rather, 'one world without borders', or something to that effect. The clauses, like many of these additions would be on another document.

Fifteen would be expanded upon to clarify and include disabilities, creeds, and so on.

Sixteen would be handled in a separate ball of hornets itself.

Seventeen may not matter, as I wouldn't have 'senators' and 'congress', I'd have regional parliaments. And a system of proportional representation most likely, rendering the entire thing moot.

Eighteen and Twenty-one were dumb mistakes and wastes of paper. In their places would be provisions from preventing such dumb decisions.

Nineteen would be expanded upon and would likely include provisions such as equality of pay, rank, and benefits.

Twenty would be moot, since there wouldn't be a president, nor congressmen. Also, I'm not entirely sure I really understand this one.

Twenty Two would be under advisement, and likely revised to allow for more re-elections, but there still would be a sensible maximum limit.

Twenty Three wouldn't matter, as Washington D.C. would no longer be the capitol, I'd have it moved to a more central and less vulnerable position.

Does Twenty Four even really matter? I didn't realize that there was such a thing as poll taxes.

Twenty Five would be revised, seeing as once more, Federal Council.

Twenty Six would likely not be an amendment, and instead carefully given to the states to decide.

Twenty Seven wouldn't exist, as I'd rather be able to regulate and punish the salaries on the spot. I'm evil like that. c:

I would want to look over the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, the Child Labor Amendment, and failed amendments such as the Blaine Amendment, the Ludlow Amendment, and both amendments proposed (People's Rights Amendment and the The Saving American Democracy Amendment) as a result of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Not only that, but I'd also see to it that stupid proposed amendments such as Federal Marriage Amendment, the Anti-Miscegenation Amendment, and the Human Life Amendment wouldn't have a snowball's chance in a Neutron star, not at all.

Who needs freedom of speech when you've got the internet?

Yes there were poll taxes and the 24th Amendment was needed, and probably still is needed. It also told the Supreme Court to straighten up their act and stop making discriminatory rulings. If SCOTUS had done their job and ruled poll tax unconstitutional based on the 14 Amendment, the 24th Amendment wouldn't have been needed,

I think we need another Amendment to reiterate the 4th Amendment too, and make the SCOTUS stop giving the police more powers.

"Poll taxes appeared in southern states after Reconstruction as a measure to prevent African Americans from voting, and had been held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1937 decision Breedlove v. Suttles. At the time of this amendment's passage, five states still retained a poll tax: Virginia, Alabama, Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi. The amendment made the poll tax unconstitutional in regards to federal elections. However, it was not until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) that poll taxes for state elections were unconstitutional because they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

There wouldn't be any internet without freedom of speech. At least not an internet like we know it.

Ahh, I see. I was actually reading their summaries from Wikipedia, but I tried to look at one of the actual articles, and suffered a TL;DR:. It doesn't help that was written nearly three hours after my bedtime.

It's probably the 14th amendment, for that truly made the Constitution a relevant document for all Americans. Before the 14th amendment, most states interpreted the Constitution as relevant only to the federal government. The Bill of Rights only protected you from federal authorities, and states could do whatever they wanted to do. The 14th amendment made it abundantly clear that the Constitution applied to all people either born in the United States or within its territory. It was part of the transition from "these United States" to "the United States."