If you could make a new amendment to the constitution what would it be??

[CoffeeSaint]

I'd like to see something making a certain level of education mandatory. The comments people have made about immigrants being able to read, write, and speak English? I'd like to see the same requirement applied to all citizens, first. I'd like to see all citizens go through self-defense classes. I'd like to see all citizens go through parenting and sex ed classes. I'd like to see all citizens forced to travel, either around the US in different areas, or around the world as much as possible, to experience how other people live so that we could broaden our tiny little horizons and stop thinking everyone on Earth is our enemy. I'd like to see everyone qualified in CPR and first aid, and able to swim.

But I have no idea how to word that into an amendment, since I would not want to see citizens stripped of rights because they didn't meet my or any other arbitrary standard. So I'll just say I'd eliminate the 2nd Amendment.

[Cephus]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Or, better yet, since marriage is nothing more than a religious ceremony, take the government entirely out of marriage.

But of course, marriage is a lot more than a religious ceremony. You get a lot of legal rights and obligations from marriage. The real answer should be, take marriage away from religion, the've only managed to screw it up.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint I'd like to see something making a certain level of education mandatory.

There already is. See the SCOTUS case Wisconsin v. Yoder.

The comments people have made about immigrants being able to read, write, and speak English?

They are racist, hypocritical, and just plain dumb. Unless you are 100% of British descent, the odds that your forefathers could have gotten here (and thus your existence) under this requirement are slim to none.

I'd like to see the same requirement applied to all citizens, first. I'd like to see all citizens go through self-defense classes. I'd like to see all citizens go through parenting and sex ed classes.

Well, much like other educational initiatives, you can lead a horse to water...

I'd like to see all citizens forced to travel, either around the US in different areas, or around the world as much as possible, to experience how other people live so that we could broaden our tiny little horizons and stop thinking everyone on Earth is our enemy.

FORCED to travel?
1) How would you accomplish this? Aside from the massive taxation needed to pay for it, are you going to handcuff people and throw them on planes?
2) What makes you think travel would accomplish what you say? Everywhere I have traveled to (including internationally) has pretty much confirmed what I already thought. You can't make people interact with others.

Face it, that sentiment is merely wishful thinking on your part.

I'd like to see everyone qualified in CPR and first aid, and able to swim.

ehh... questionable value. The chances you'll ever have to use any of these for livesaving are miniscule. Good to know, yes. Required? not so much.

But I have no idea how to word that into an amendment, since I would not want to see citizens stripped of rights because they didn't meet my or any other arbitrary standard. So I'll just say I'd eliminate the 2nd Amendment.

Let me guess... Because inanimate objects are evil and kill people? :rolleyes:

[kubedawg]

read, write, and speak English? Why is that so much to ask? If I were to go to another country, it'd be in my best interest to learn that specific country's language. It's not racist unless you put a face to the person you allow into the USA. Are you talking about Mexico? I'm talking about anyone world-wide who'd like to gain citizenship here... Hypocritical? Just because one doesn't use proper grammar in every sentence they write or say does not make one hypocritical. You still get the message, even if you have to decypher their post or ask them to repeat themselves.

And we base our thinking on something that happened a couple hundred years ago. That's just dumb, why? Because things change over time. I'm all for people coming here to the USA, as I'd like to visit a lot of other countries at some point in time, and hey, maybe even find a nice home in Japan somewhere.

Having people read, write, and talk in basic English would not be a bad thing to incorporate. Look at it this way, racism is bound to happen anywhere in the world, but if we do this, then once a person has qualified by learning our basic language here, less people would be able to judge them for their actions. Sure, people still have cultural backgrounds, but an understanding of the english language and maybe even our history, too, would help the people wanting to come here for whatever reason. Benefits can only come of something like this.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: tivodan1116 There already is. See the SCOTUS case Wisconsin v. Yoder. They are racist, hypocritical, and just plain dumb. Unless you are 100% of British descent, the odds that your forefathers could have gotten here (and thus your existence) under this requirement are slim to none. Well, much like other educational initiatives, you can lead a horse to water... FORCED to travel? 1) How would you accomplish this? Aside from the massive taxation needed to pay for it, are you going to handcuff people and throw them on planes? 2) What makes you think travel would accomplish what you say? Everywhere I have traveled to (including internationally) has pretty much confirmed what I already thought. You can't make people interact with others. Face it, that sentiment is merely wishful thinking on your part. ehh... questionable value. The chances you'll ever have to use any of these for livesaving are miniscule. Good to know, yes. Required? not so much. Let me guess... Because inanimate objects are evil and kill people? :rolleyes:

Okay, I'd like to add an amendment banning you, because you're stinky and dumb.

Damn, you take this crap seriously. As I said, I see no way to force people to meet my admittedly arbitrary standard, and so no, I didn't consider the logistics of the law I was proposing, including taxation and the enforcement of my travel clause. I was merely describing a direction I would like to see society go in, because I personally see education as important, and I would like to see people pursue knowledge both in the classroom and through personal experience -- hence the idea of mandatory travel. And of course that is wishful thinking on my part -- do you seriously think I'm trying to start my grass roots campaign to amend the Constitution with a five-minute post on this forum?

My comment about the second amendment was flippant, as I showed with the smiley; there's no way on God's green earth I'm getting into what I hereby label as the Stupidest Debate In The World: namely, whether it is guns that kill people or people that kill people. You're for the 2nd Amendment, I'm against it; let's leave it at that.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: kubedawg read, write, and speak English? Why is that so much to ask? If I were to go to another country, it'd be in my best interest to learn that specific country's language. It's not racist unless you put a face to the person you allow into the USA. Are you talking about Mexico? I'm talking about anyone world-wide who'd like to gain citizenship here... Hypocritical? Just because one doesn't use proper grammar in every sentence they write or say does not make one hypocritical. You still get the message, even if you have to decypher their post or ask them to repeat themselves. And we base our thinking on something that happened a couple hundred years ago. That's just dumb, why? Because things change over time. I'm all for people coming here to the USA, as I'd like to visit a lot of other countries at some point in time, and hey, maybe even find a nice home in Japan somewhere. Having people read, write, and talk in basic English would not be a bad thing to incorporate. Look at it this way, racism is bound to happen anywhere in the world, but if we do this, then once a person has qualified by learning our basic language here, less people would be able to judge them for their actions. Sure, people still have cultural backgrounds, but an understanding of the english language and maybe even our history, too, would help the people wanting to come here for whatever reason. Benefits can only come of something like this.

Anyone who comes here and needs to speak English, learns to speak English. It really isn't that hard to gain a working vocabulary, even if it is only a half-dozen phrases, and anyone who is here for more than a week can pick it up -- just like an American tourist in Europe can learn "Where is the bathroom?" and "How much is this?" in three or four different languages. I don't see why we care if people speak more than basic English; the only time it comes up is when immigrants have to deal with the government, and there, most English speakers require translators, too -- we call them "lawyers." The only reason I usually hear for why people need to learn English is because someone had to deal with an irate customer at a shop or a restaurant, or someone was an irate customer at a shop or restaurant, and could not communicate. There's a solution to that that is far easier than mandating English fluency: if you own the place, throw the customer out; if you are the customer, go out the door. Problem solved, and through the proper, American method of allowing the market to determine value.

[kubedawg]

A lot of people do take this debate forum seriously, and it's often hard to decypher sarcasm unless specified in some fashion.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: kubedawg A lot of people do take this debate forum seriously, and it's often hard to decypher sarcasm unless specified in some fashion.

I wasn't being sarcastic about wanting some kind of education amendment; I was brainstorming possibilities. Perhaps I should have sat down and thought about the long-reaching consequences of such an amendment, and the exigencies of trying to enforce/implement it, but I just didn't take this particular topic that seriously -- which was what I meant. I wasn't expecting a critique of my ideas.

I was being sarcastic when I said I would ban Tivodan for being stinky and dumb; he is emphatically not dumb, and I've never met him so can't speak to his stinkiness. If offense was taken, I apologize.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Anyone who comes here and needs to speak English, learns to speak English. It really isn't that hard to gain a working vocabulary, even if it is only a half-dozen phrases, and anyone who is here for more than a week can pick it up -- just like an American tourist in Europe can learn "Where is the bathroom?" and "How much is this?" in three or four different languages. I don't see why we care if people speak more than basic English; the only time it comes up is when immigrants have to deal with the government, and there, most English speakers require translators, too -- we call them "lawyers." The only reason I usually hear for why people need to learn English is because someone had to deal with an irate customer at a shop or a restaurant, or someone was an irate customer at a shop or restaurant, and could not communicate. There's a solution to that that is far easier than mandating English fluency: if you own the place, throw the customer out; if you are the customer, go out the door. Problem solved, and through the proper, American method of allowing the market to determine value.

Because too many people already get lost in translation. Too many problems are caused by someone either wanting something, or working somewhere, there are an infinate amount of situations where people who don't speak English where both parties are lost in translation.

Anywho, it is important, but seeing English is the toughest language to learn in the world, I think it's important that our new-to-be citizens get a head start.

And if someone can't speak a lick of English if I'm supposed to be serving them, how am I supposed to know what they want? And vice versa, if it's an employee who can't speak English fluently, how am I supposed to trust they get my order correct? And I'm not going to another place that's 5 miles out of my way. I'm already @ the place I want to get what I need. Why should the customer be punished(eg, going somewhere else) for the employee who cannot speak English?

It would make it a lot better if we had a system like that. But using a food restaurant as an example is the thing you probably have to deal with most often, or most common.

[StrongHeartsWin]

My ammendment:

Non-human animals will not be the target for exploitation on the grounds and reasons of and for pleasure, entertainment, military or medical or scientific purposes and that our relations with them will involve the principle of equal consideration of interests.

[kubedawg]

So telling my dog to say sit, or roll over, or fetch, or anything else, would be against the law? Riiiight.. Medical and scientific purposes involve helping us find out how to heal animals better, even if it means killing one. This also has beneficial purposes for human life. What about seeing eye dogs? Will that be banned as well, under the medical documentation part of it? I guess no more animals in movies too. Wow, you just seem to suck the life outa everything, don't ya?

[The Dunedan]

No Person shall be held, arrested, tried, or indichted for any offence for which there is not a discrete, individual, and Human victim, nor shall any fine, fee, or tax be levied upon any but the same. Furthermore, if any Person shall be arrested, the Magistrate must issue a Warrant for same, exception being granted only in cases wherein the arresting authority witnesses the Crime taking place. The Magistrate's Warrant must be based upon the sworn testimony of witnesses, who must be Persons not affiliated with, nor Officers of, the Court. Furthermore, the Magistrate's Warrant must show in what way or ways a Person or group of People has been physically or financially harmed by the Person who is to be arrested.

[Fonceai]

@Dunedan

I like your amendment right up to the part where you say there needs to be sworn testimony from three witnesses.

You've pretty much just effed over most rape victims, assault victims, etc. Bascially any crime with only one or two witnesses, and crimes where there is psychological harm.

[The Dunedan]

Good catch; that was something I forgot to edit out. This thing went through several drafts.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Fonceai @Dunedan I like your amendment right up to the part where you say there needs to be sworn testimony from three witnesses. You've pretty much just effed over most rape victims, assault victims, etc. Bascially any crime with only one or two witnesses, and crimes where there is psychological harm.

I agree about screwing over the rape victims with his ammendment. In fact, that is how some Islamic laws are worded. Since there is seldom any witnesses more than the victim and the perp, few rapes are prosecuted in those countries with laws such as that.

[Fonceai]

The funny thing with victimless crimes, though, is that they can demonstrate in some way that there are financially victimized people.

I think.

[brien]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint I'd like to see something making a certain level of education mandatory. The comments people have made about immigrants being able to read, write, and speak English? I'd like to see the same requirement applied to all citizens, first. I'd like to see all citizens go through self-defense classes. I'd like to see all citizens go through parenting and sex ed classes. I'd like to see all citizens forced to travel, either around the US in different areas, or around the world as much as possible, to experience how other people live so that we could broaden our tiny little horizons and stop thinking everyone on Earth is our enemy. I'd like to see everyone qualified in CPR and first aid, and able to swim. But I have no idea how to word that into an amendment, since I would not want to see citizens stripped of rights because they didn't meet my or any other arbitrary standard. So I'll just say I'd eliminate the 2nd Amendment.

So I'll just say I'd eliminate the 2nd Amendment

Well it is a good thing you aren't in charge. How many other amendments would you just "eliminate"? I guess 230 years of ideology / philosophy of firearms ownership means nothing to you at all. Just toss 230 years of history, ideology, and philosophy out the old window, eh? What's next, the First Amendment?:rolleyes:

[The Dunedan]

I edited the Amendment to eliminate the 3-witness rule. I had walked away for a moment in the process of re-writing it and forgot, on my return, to remove that stipulation. There's also a clause which deals with financial crimes like embezzlement or other sorts of fraud.

[Fonceai]

Cool.

Good edit, Dunedan.

You've got my vote.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: brien Well it is a good thing you aren't in charge. How many other amendments would you just "eliminate"? I guess 230 years of ideology / philosophy of firearms ownership means nothing to you at all. Just toss 230 years of history, ideology, and philosophy out the old window, eh? What's next, the First Amendment?:rolleyes:

For you, yes, it is a good thing I'm not in charge, but I'd be happier if I was.
No, 230 years of tradition and ideology and philosophy, and propaganda and anachronism and paranoia, do not carry a lot of wieght with me against what I consider to be modern reality. I would keep the First Amendment because I think it is still useful and valuable; I do not think the 2nd Amendment is. But I know you and I (and most other people on here) simply disagree about that, so I won't try to argue for it. Feel free to consider me wrong.

Quote by: Kubedawg Because too many people already get lost in translation. Too many problems are caused by someone either wanting something, or working somewhere, there are an infinate amount of situations where people who don't speak English where both parties are lost in translation. Anywho, it is important, but seeing English is the toughest language to learn in the world, I think it's important that our new-to-be citizens get a head start. And if someone can't speak a lick of English if I'm supposed to be serving them, how am I supposed to know what they want? And vice versa, if it's an employee who can't speak English fluently, how am I supposed to trust they get my order correct? And I'm not going to another place that's 5 miles out of my way. I'm already @ the place I want to get what I need. Why should the customer be punished(eg, going somewhere else) for the employee who cannot speak English? It would make it a lot better if we had a system like that. But using a food restaurant as an example is the thing you probably have to deal with most often, or most common.

I don't agree that people should be forced to learn, as you say, one of the most difficult languages in the world simply because you don't want to drive another five miles out of your way to find an English-speaking waiter. I don't think that the free market is a good way to determine the value of all things, but in this case, I think it works just fine: if you don't want to deal with a waiter who can't speak English, stop going to that restaurant; if enough people feel the same way, then the manager will get rid of the non-English speaking waiter(s), and they will be forced to learn English by their own circumstances, rather than because you (or I) find it more convenient. If the loss of your business does not hurt the restaurant, then you just have to drive farther -- hey, I live in a town with NO good restaurants; I deal with it. I can't make a law forcing these people to realize their food sucks. If you have a business and your customers don't speak enough English, then hire a bilingual clerk -- or don't, and live with the loss of business. The inconvenience of dealing with customer/employee miscommunication is far less than the inconvenience (and expense) of forcing all immigrants to learn a certain amount of English.