US Bill of Rights
- Thread starter JWPlatt
- Start date
^^ I might be tempted to vote for the Ninth.
People are definitely selective in the Rights they support-- freedom of religion over freedom from religion, or the restriction against cruel and unusual punishment over the right to bear arms. Like everything else, it's all about what benefits them personally.
The Preamble and the Bill of Rights are what define American values, yet most people know nothing about either.
People are definitely selective in the Rights they support-- freedom of religion over freedom from religion, or the restriction against cruel and unusual punishment over the right to bear arms. Like everything else, it's all about what benefits them personally.
The Preamble and the Bill of Rights are what define American values, yet most people know nothing about either.
There's nothing wrong whatsoever with liking some Amendments better than others. Enough people disliking something is how things change in a democracy. I understand that the Eighteenth Amendment was really unpopular.
I'd rate the Third Amendment at the bottom. 
Federalists believed that an enumerated bill of rights would result in people believing those were their only rights. The 9th and 10th Amendments were more or less a cop to them, signifying that we do have other rights even if they're not specifically mentioned.
Anti-Federalists believed that enumerating rights was the only way to protect them: if they aren't set in stone, an overreaching government would claim they don't exist.
Both turned out to be partially right (and partially wrong.)
Judging by how much money and effort are spent protecting them, the Second and First Amendments are clearly the most popular (or the most staunchly defended, at least.)
Federalists believed that an enumerated bill of rights would result in people believing those were their only rights. The 9th and 10th Amendments were more or less a cop to them, signifying that we do have other rights even if they're not specifically mentioned.
Anti-Federalists believed that enumerating rights was the only way to protect them: if they aren't set in stone, an overreaching government would claim they don't exist.
Both turned out to be partially right (and partially wrong.)
Judging by how much money and effort are spent protecting them, the Second and First Amendments are clearly the most popular (or the most staunchly defended, at least.)
I had to memorize the Preamble for junior high Social Studies once. Fortunately, this was in the time of Schoolhouse Rock, so I had a study aid for it on Saturday morning.
I first heard it on that episode of Star Trek when I was about nine. I thought it was so inspiring that I went to the library to read the whole Constitution-- needless to say I was pretty disappointed until I got to the Bill of Rights. 
My opinion on this has changed over the last few years. I'm against amending the Constitution in any way that further limits people's rights. Amend it to extend protections, yes.
^ Absolutely. I completely agree.
Unfortunately a lot of people seem to think, if you protect minorities you limit the rights of the majority ( to discriminate ).
Of course it's wrong to amend the Constitution to limit rights. That's antithetical to the whole concept. And the 18th Amendment wasn't just a boneheaded idea, but it was completely inappropriate to deal with it on a Constitutional level.
What we really need is an Equal Rights Amendment that's worded in such a way that it makes discrimination impossible not just for any of the stupid ways that people divide each other up today, but for any of the stupid ways that people will think of to divide each other up in the future.
And election reform, of course.
What we really need is an Equal Rights Amendment that's worded in such a way that it makes discrimination impossible not just for any of the stupid ways that people divide each other up today, but for any of the stupid ways that people will think of to divide each other up in the future.
And election reform, of course.
^All offices should be limited to 2 terms... period. This would eliminate career politicians... hopefully. Even those who get into politics for high ideals, become corrupted by either money or power when they are in office for long periods.
This should be coupled with a limit on the amount spent by each campaign to obtain that office. It would be on a graded scale dependent upon which office they aspire to gain. For instance (this is just an example... the dollar amounts are irrelevant here):
President = $2,000,000 per campaign = 4 year term X 2 terms
Senator = 1,000,000 per campaign = 6 year term X 2 terms
Representative = 250,000 per campaign = 2 year term X 2 terms
Each campaign would be allowed to match private donations dollar for dollar through a Federal Campaign Fund, supported by tax dollars. ALL campaign donations would be required to be disclosed, NO EXCEPTIONS.
An Amendment to the US Constitution would ensure that this is the law of the land.
This should be the Holy Grail of campaign financing... as such, it may be just a pipe dream. Hopefully, one day people will say, "Enough is enough!" and force such legislation.
This should be coupled with a limit on the amount spent by each campaign to obtain that office. It would be on a graded scale dependent upon which office they aspire to gain. For instance (this is just an example... the dollar amounts are irrelevant here):
President = $2,000,000 per campaign = 4 year term X 2 terms
Senator = 1,000,000 per campaign = 6 year term X 2 terms
Representative = 250,000 per campaign = 2 year term X 2 terms
Each campaign would be allowed to match private donations dollar for dollar through a Federal Campaign Fund, supported by tax dollars. ALL campaign donations would be required to be disclosed, NO EXCEPTIONS.
An Amendment to the US Constitution would ensure that this is the law of the land.
This should be the Holy Grail of campaign financing... as such, it may be just a pipe dream. Hopefully, one day people will say, "Enough is enough!" and force such legislation.
Term limits: awful idea. Well-intended, but awful.
Campaign spending limits: nice in theory. Good luck enforcing it in this age of Super PACs and other nonsense. Candidates would just funnel the money into other "unaffiliated" organizations that nevertheless produce ads in support of them.
I can't even take seriously the idea of a Constitutional Amendment. Not in 2015 with the government and states so divided.
Campaign spending limits: nice in theory. Good luck enforcing it in this age of Super PACs and other nonsense. Candidates would just funnel the money into other "unaffiliated" organizations that nevertheless produce ads in support of them.
I can't even take seriously the idea of a Constitutional Amendment. Not in 2015 with the government and states so divided.
I have mixed feelings about term limits. On the one hand, I like the idea of eliminating career politicians, but on the other hand I think the people should be able to vote for whoever they want to. And some career politicians have done a really good job. I'm fairly happy with how that stands now.
When I talk about election reform, I want two things:
1) Elimination of the Electoral College. That way everybody's vote counts.
2) A ranking system of voting, so that you get to name your second choice. That way people can vote for independent and third-party candidates without throwing their vote away. This will break the back of the two-party system.
There's two things that are preventing America from fulfilling her potential: The Right Wing and the Left Wing. What we need is a system that undermines the ideological base rather than weaponizes it.
Two terms in the House is just four years, which is the same as just one Presidential term and isn't even one Senate term. Unless you'd like to strengthen the executive branch, weaken Congress, and strengthen the Senate relative to the House, a uniform two-term limit for Congress is ridiculous.
In any case, any Amendment enacting term limits would change the balance of power. For it to be responsible to ratify such an Amendment (or any Amendment, for that matter) one should posses a convincing argument that things would not change for the worse. I'm not seeing that right now, in the case of any new term limit Amendment.
In any case, any Amendment enacting term limits would change the balance of power. For it to be responsible to ratify such an Amendment (or any Amendment, for that matter) one should posses a convincing argument that things would not change for the worse. I'm not seeing that right now, in the case of any new term limit Amendment.
In Germany we have a 2 vote system.
Your first vote is for your local candidate who will go into parliament. The winner of your voting district will go directly to parliament no matter what.
The second vote is considered the more important one.
The second vote goes directly to the party, not an individual candidate.
Though each party releases a list of parliament candidates.
The top candidate is the chancelor candidate as well.
the number of candidates on the list that go to parliament depend on the percentage of total votes the party receives.
If a list candidate already got into parliament directly through the first vote the next one down on the list takes his second vote place assuming not all won seats are already covered by direct candidates.
If a party receives more votes than their second vote result would allow, overflow seats in parliament are created and the total number of seats is adjusted. (this can cause some interesting exotic results and can actually change majoritys. This has happened in the past and is somewhat controversial.)
A party has to achieve at least 5% of total votes to receive any seats.
Candidates winning directly are excluded from the 5% rule.
Any number of partys can enter the election as well as theoretically independent candidates (i think, not sure on this one at this time).
Since "only" 5% are required even regional partys happen to go in as is the case with the CSU, which only exists in Bavaria) which in practice though is always allied with the CDU due to mostly similar ideologies and policies.
A party rarely achieves a 50%+ of the total votes, so coalitions to form a goverment are the norm even great coalitions have become a necessity between the CDU/CSU and the SPD, which would be akin to Reps and Dems having to form a government with other parties in the opposition.
The majority party in the coalition usually appoints the chancelor.
is this what you have in mind?
The system is far from perfect but in my view a lot more fair and democratic than the American system, where your federal government gets elected by the states, not the people directly.
^Well one quick fix for the US when it comes to Presidential elections is to simply go for the popular vote, so you don't have issues such as in 200 where the winner of the electorial college actuall is the loser in the popular vote.
But under the college system could a state in theory split it's college votes depending on the percentage vote recieved by the candiates? So if candidate A recieved 60% of the vote they would get 60% of the college votes?
But isn't the federal government elected by the people in the states with each state having a number of representivites based on size of the population in each state?
And no form of democracy is perfect, if a system suits someones view point they are unlikely to vote for change until it doesn't suit them. Isn't one of the issues that can arise under the US system is that the executive and legistaltive branchs can be controlled by different parties? Where as under the German system or the UK system the executive is the same as the legistaltive.
But under the college system could a state in theory split it's college votes depending on the percentage vote recieved by the candiates? So if candidate A recieved 60% of the vote they would get 60% of the college votes?
But isn't the federal government elected by the people in the states with each state having a number of representivites based on size of the population in each state?
And no form of democracy is perfect, if a system suits someones view point they are unlikely to vote for change until it doesn't suit them. Isn't one of the issues that can arise under the US system is that the executive and legistaltive branchs can be controlled by different parties? Where as under the German system or the UK system the executive is the same as the legistaltive.
All merits aside, a reactionary change for the sake of an anecdotal or uncommon issue isn't a good idea. First, you ask whether The Framers foresaw such a situation and preferred that the majority could be overruled by the minority. See my OP about protecting the minority from the majority.
Similar threads
