What, if anything, do you think needs to be changed about the U.S. Constitution?

"What, if anything, do you think needs to be changed about the U.S. Constitution?"

You Americans need to:

- Sort out your obsession with guns and remove the "right to bear machine guns in the hands of lunatics".
- Curtail the powers of the President, who seems to be more powerful than the King (of England he replaced).
- Limit the cash flowing into political parties, thus addressing the risk that power can be bought, and allowing other parties to gain a foothold.
- Improve transparency in government.

Regards

originally posted by: PansophicalSynthesis
a reply to: imnotanother

Congress retains the right to tax as they see appropriate.

I have sympathy for your stance, but if we are not taxed, then our government can do less.

Read the third paragraph on where your income tax goes.


Congress tried to enact an income tax in 1894. The Supreme Court said that was unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court says something is unconstitutional it's unconstitutional. They tried again in 1913 and the Supreme Court said "The 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation". So if they didn't have it then, and they didn't get it. They don't have it. There is no constitutional basis for tax on the wages of Americans living and working in the fifty States of the Union. Period. End of argument.

"In substance, the [Supreme] Court holds that the Sixteenth Amendment did not empower the Federal Government to levy a new tax." - New York Times, January 25, 1916

President Ronald Reagan's Blue Ribbon Panel Grace Commission setup to investigate income tax reported: "100% of what is collected is absorbed solely on the interest of the federal debt . All individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel paid on the services tax payers collect from the government."

There is also a violation of the IV amendment with respect to the IRS.

If you go to the Treasury Dept you will notice a chart indicating zero income tax on wages earned . Capital gains and Corporations paid taxes. I'd offer the links but for some odd reason FIREFOX will not allow me to cut and paste.

I would therefore advocate doing away with the 16th and the IRS.
I would also disallow any anti-Second Amendment interference from the Federal Government ( NO Interstate Commerce Act ) Just another opinion which will change nothing.

a reply to: dazbog

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

As I stated earlier; Congress has the right to tax as they see appropriate. The Supreme Court, no matter its power and authority, cannot rule in violation of the constitution. The Constitution's power exceeds the Supreme Court's ruling. You're putting forth, not exactly, but in principle, the same argument that has been made against inter-racial marriage and gay-marriage. Just because some "higher power" deems it to be illegal or a malpractice, doesn't mean that the constitution cannot be deferred to.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes..."

"...from WHATEVER source..."

"...WITHOUT apportionment among the several states..."

"...without regard to ANY consensus or enumeration."

a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

The sixteenth Amendment was addressed twice. Correct, Congress may overrule ( not overturn ) the Supreme Courts ruling THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT LEGAL. Just as Congress relinquished their Constitutional mandate to coin money. That isn't kosher either.
So Congress can circumvent their sworn duty to uphold their responsibilities.


" The Supreme Court, no matter its power and authority, cannot rule in violation of the constitution."

NOR DID THEY ! They stated the 16th Amendment conferred no new powers to tax. If Congress cares to ignore their ruling it's on them BUT the actions of Congress are in direct violation of the letter as well as the spirit of the law.

If you feel it is okay for Congress to circumvent the founding Fathers intent. fine by me.

The Op has asked what amendment or changes to the US Constitution. After giving some thought there are several that I would make.

The first would be a 2 phased amendment. The first part would put term limits on all those who serve in government, 2 terms in office and then they have to either find another position or go elsewhere. The next would be a limit on the pay, where it would be an average of what all that in their district makes. And after leaving office, no benefits at all. None, once they serve their time, they get no perks for being there. And they have to follow all of the laws that they pass, and any crimes that they commit gets them the max penalty under the applicable laws. That means if they cheat on their taxes, then they get the worst of it, than say the average tax payer.


The next change, would be that all judges would no longer be voted on, but appointed, and can not be allowed to have any political affiliation.

And finally, I would put in point, where if there was an election in one state, no one from another state may go in and campaign, or spend money to influence said on that election. That means say Bloomberg who lives in New York, will not be allowed to get involved with an election out in Minnesota.

originally posted by: PansophicalSynthesis
True. Sometimes all of this replying makes my head a bit loopy, but I do my best to reply to the content as it is presented. You did not specify the substance, just a smell.

Either way, exigent circumstances would come into play. Both alcohol and marijuana are illegal. Like I said, you are committing a crime. You cannot construe your constitutional rights in a way that invalidates crime. That's your fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be an American, and I assume you'll never change your mind. If so, I'm not willing to further this part of our discussion. I'll never argue for making legit crime legal through citing constitutional rights. Once you commit a crime and are caught, you give up many of your rights. That' the point of being punished. If you had nothing in your vehicle, then there should be no problem. Public Safety is a big concern within law enforcement these days. I am also not accusing you of a crime. As I said, exigent circumstances.

I must not be explaining this clearly. I was pulled over for "driving suspiciously". When I opened my window to talk to the cop he said he smelled alcohol. I don't drink, in the nearly 10 years I owned that car there had never been so much as a drop of alcohol in the vehicle. Alcohol is illegal when you're behind the wheel, but in order to be breaking the law it actually has to be there. The next stage involved me going back to the officers car where he had me blow in a breathalyzer, which of course came back as a 0.0. After that I was kept in the car while he searched my vehicle because he was adamant I had booze there. When he was done he had found nothing illegal at all and sent me away without a warning or a ticket. This is the best police story I have, because it doesn't end with being beaten or having my pet murdered... just some rights trampled.

It goes right back to what I said, in theory you have rights but in practice they do everything they can to get around them. Law Enforcement sees your rights as nothing more than a shield for criminals to use to escape punishment.

Your outlook and understanding of economics is corrosive. If you're finishing "10 hours of work in 4 hours", then it's not 10 hours of work, it's 4 hours of work. This part of the discussion is nothing but a matter of perception regarding the work-load. You're asking for higher wages and less work. That destroys the economy. That's the problem with today's generation. Today's youth expects a sense of entitlement and hand-outs. Expects to be given everything they'll ever need for doing nothing or minimal work. Those are the traits of socialism.

Where did I say I finished in 4 hours? I got paid for 4 hours, but I put in the full 10. That's called working off the clock 60% of the time because you want to get the work done. I wouldn't call that a poor work ethic.

My entire goal and work-ethic at every job I've has has been about my productivity and my value. I do as much work as I can in the time allotted. I do not complain. If I want to be payed more for the amount of work that I do, then I should find another job. That's my thought process. Not one of victimization, one of self empowerment.

Mine is a little different. I work at a place because I want to do the work, I want to do something productive. I don't expect to be paid tons but I do expect to be paid what the law says I should be, if my employer sees fit to pay me more than that then great. I also expect that if it's an hourly position that I get paid for every hour I'm working. As I've learned though, those are pretty high expectations to have.

That's entirely untrue. You are protected in the EEOC from retribution/revenge. If you are fired for reporting an employer, then you can sue. Just be sure to document the events as well as possible and as legitimately as you can.

They call it something different, revenge firings are very difficult to prove. All an employer has to do is say they asked you to do X and you didn't do it. Now they've got their reason. Sooner or later you won't do that X.

originally posted by: PansophicalSynthesis
Given the context of the circumstance I was in reference to. I'm not into playing semantics and taking things out of context.

if you want to have an adult conversation, i would suggest you drop the attitude, there's no need for it.

it's not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of a statement either being factually correct, or not. context is important, i'm with you on that. but in that statement, you left out an important operative part.

I never said anybody asked me to

ok, good to know we both agree..

I was just stating my position within the discussion...

so was i.

Well, if he smells alcohol, the potential legal implications are beyond a field sobriety test. You don't have to be drunk.

how so? if an officer claims to smell alcohol, then the first step should be a field sobriety test...if you have any in your system, THEN they search the car...that's how it ought to work.....

if that's how it worked, you'd probably find that officers would be less likely to pull the "i smelled alcohol" routine, as an excuse to toss someone's car in a fishing expedition..

It's illegal to have open alcohol containers in your vehicle.

yes, i know it's illegal to have open alcohol containers in your car. and, for the most part, i agree with that....

Smell something or see something. It's not a violation of rights

it is, when they're lying, so they can search someone's car, in the hopes they'll find something to make it worth their while..

yes, sometimes it's legit....like if they see drugs out in the open, by all means, bust 'em..or if they see open bottles out in the open, by all means, bust 'em....

this happened to a friend of mine once....he was on his way home from work, and he had a backpack in his back seat....he got pulled over for a busted tail light. officer asked him about his bag, he told him it was just books. officer didn't believe him, told him he smelled weed, and asked him to step out of the car. he tells him he's gonna search the car, my friend protests, the cop tells him that he can either shut up, and let him search the car, or he can get locked up. so facing that, he lets the cop do his thing...the cop searches the bag, then when he didn't find anything, he tossed the car. still didn't find anything, so he writes my friend a ticket for the tail lamp, and another one for not wearing a seatbelt (which was B.S.), and another one for speeding (which he wasn't doing)...since it would be his word against the cop, he ended up just paying it, because it would have cost MORE to fight it.

but I understand, you're probably just outright anti-cop and anti-authority.

don't presume to know me. i actually wanted to be a cop, at one point. for reasons i'm not going to get into with you, that didn't work out...

i have no issue with authority, and no issue with cops, in general....i dislike abuse of authority, and crooked, or crappy cops.....in case you don't read the boards, there are lot of both....

It's a cop's job to enforce the law

yes, that's supposed to be their job...there was a time when they were called peace officers, and their job was to keep the peace, and to protect and serve....not anymore though....over the last few decades, they've gone from being protectors of the people, to a municipal revenue collector...nothing more than armed thugs, shaking down the public...

now, don't get me wrong, they do still do some good....arresting scumbags, and acting as a deterrent to crime, in some cases, and there are communities, where the police are still really good people, and don't do screwed up things...but those are the exception, not the rule.

not to cover his eyes, put ear plugs in his ears, cotton balls up his nose, all but entirely rendering his senses inert just so that you can be found innocent.

nobody said they should do that...what was being said is that they shouldn't be using excuses to toss people's cars....you can make up a story about a smell....a bag of weed, or an open bottle of vodka? you can't make that up..

If you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't worry.

and that idiocy has been used to justify more violation of rights, and more evils, that i can even list..

innocent until proven guilty.

I can't agree with your choice of words. You use "majority", where it's more logically appropriate to place "some".

when you've seen and experienced the crap i have, then you can critique my choice of words..

Your use of wordage reveals a purely anti-cop bias.

no, it really doesn't....i'm sorry if the truth burns your eyes.

i've had more than enough run-ins with crappy cops, to be able to speak with a modicum of authority on the topic...

as i said, there are some cops that are still good people, but nearly all the ones i've ever had the displeasure of interacting with, represented varying degrees of "bad"

I can't have an honest discussion with you while you possess that mentality.

i guess it's a good thing i don't possess that mentality, isn't it?

so we can proceed...alternatively, you are free to disengage at any time.

However, to address some of the content. It's my opinion that seat-belt laws should be done away with for adults. It's absurd to tell me that I can commit a crime against myself. I do not believe in crimes against the self, only against others.

i can understand why they think they're a good idea, and i agree to a point...i mean, high speed impact, unsecured passengers in the back seat...who the hell wants all those bodies flying around the passenger compartment? it gets messy, and increases the chances of someone getting hurt or dead....i get why seat belts exist, and i get why wearing them is the law....but then i remember that they didn't always exist, and we didn't lose generations of people, because they didn't have them...so maybe we don't NEED them, but they're a good idea -shrug-

it's one of the rare situations where i'm torn between the belief that it's a pretty good law, vs my belief that it should be a personal choice..

You were not diligent and strong enough in pushing for legal recourse. Had you documented what was going on, reported it and took appropriate action, you'd of been fully protected. Yes, what they were doing may have been wrong, but the fault is on you if you didn't follow and take procedures to protect yourself. The law is set up for you, it's up to you to actualize it. That's in the past now.

again, don't presume to know me, or my situation.

there was nothing i could do, because they did it in such a way where there was nothing TO document. you weren't there, you have no idea what occurred. don't sit there and call me a liar.

a reply to: Daedalus

The reply was not directed at you to begin with. Second off, you took the conversation out of context and tried to make me look stupid.

I'm not responding to your previous reply. Not even reading past the first 2 statements. Adults understand the context of conversations, and when they have doubts, they ask questions.

a reply to: Aazadan

I understand. You experienced an incident where it appeared, or may have even been true that an officer abused his or her power. Police are not perfect, and not all of them understand their limitations.

In my first reply I was just trying to explain the point of view of law enforcement.

I'm not completely for or against either side, because every incident is different and should void of pre-existing bias.

So, are you proposing that exigent circumstances be redacted?

This would mean that no one could ever be searched for any reason. That might be even more dangerous.

a reply to: dazbog

Okay. So we are clear. You want the 16th gone. Now let's go over some things that this would incur.

You do realize that removing income tax may lead to removing sales tax, before we know it, there may be no more taxes.

This would mean that we'd have no police force, no military, and pretty much most branches of government would shut down.

If that is what you want and envision, then could you please explain a little bit more as to why, and what other visions that you may have regarding abolition of the 16th?

Nothing needs to be changed about the Constitution.

Most of you can barely interpret it and/or don't read it properly, how could anyone hope to repair something they don't understand?

they should put a sign in front of it that says "just walk away and pretend you saw nothing" ... "live longer and be happier"

originally posted by: PansophicalSynthesis
a reply to: dazbog

Okay. So we are clear. You want the 16th gone. Now let's go over some things that this would incur.

You do realize that removing income tax may lead to removing sales tax, before we know it, there may be no more taxes.

This would mean that we'd have no police force, no military, and pretty much most branches of government would shut down.

If that is what you want and envision, then could you please explain a little bit more as to why, and what other visions that you may have regarding abolition of the 16th?

" Other visions " Cute ! Would you please reread this statement.

President Ronald Reagan's Blue Ribbon Panel Grace Commission setup to investigate income tax reported: "100% of what is collected is absorbed solely on the interest of the federal debt . All individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel paid on the services tax payers collect from the government.

This would tend to make your second and third statements invalid.

Our Government has and enormous number of venues for collection of taxes.
One example
Airlines collect a 7.5 % federal air transportation excise tax on sales of tickets and remit the proceeds to
U.S. Treasury.

Look at your utility bill & Internet Service provider. A percentage goes to the fed. There are literally hundreds of obscure Fed taxes
that are frequently unnoticed. Estate and gift taxes, Tariffs on imported goods. The ATF took in $23.5 billion in FEDERAL taxes on alcohol, tobacco, weapons and ammo in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2011,( most resent data published )

"No Police Force, No military ? Really !?

You may not be old enough to remember, but when one would write a ck for income tax due the cancelled ck.
was stamped " Deposit Federal Reserve Bank. To this day all tax on wages earned goes to pay interest on the
Federal Dept. And our government seems to be doing quite well with their borrowed fiat money.

Your statements are indicative of a profound misunderstanding of Government revenue sources.

have a good day Amigo. < I actually mean that

I'm gone.

a reply to: dazbog

Okay. Well, I asked what your vision of America would be after repealing the 16th amendment.

You replied by repeating a quote that I already read, then you stated that my understanding of government revenue is eschew.

I suppose my hope for furthering our conversation was misguided.

Can't have a convo with someone who has a juvenile interpretation of the world. Yes, police, military, government. It perpetuates itself from tax money. I'm not into going around the web and copying Link X, Y, and Z for every statement that I make. If you don't understand where tax money goes, then this conversation is moot.

Further, it reveals a poor understanding of your comprehension of our government. The police force provides a service. They do not create products and commodity. Therefore they bring in no revenue outside of tickets. Ergo, they cannot pay for their own bills with their own profit. Thus, government departments with such functioning relies on tax money to stay alive.

I see that asking an honest question, like what about the constitution needs to be changed, seems to attract a majority of anarchical, anti-government, anti-cop juvenile like thought processes.

My intent, my aim and my goal isn't to create anarchy, just to create discussion on how to better our current situation, in a rational, reasonable, and logical way that doesn't equate to anarchy.

Anarchy is the default escape philosophy for criminals and thugs, and those who have been influenced by them. I hope you change your life. Best of luck to you. Have a great day as well, and I REALLY mean that.

originally posted by: PansophicalSynthesis
I understand. You experienced an incident where it appeared, or may have even been true that an officer abused his or her power. Police are not perfect, and not all of them understand their limitations.

In my first reply I was just trying to explain the point of view of law enforcement.

I'm not completely for or against either side, because every incident is different and should void of pre-existing bias.

So, are you proposing that exigent circumstances be redacted?

This would mean that no one could ever be searched for any reason. That might be even more dangerous.

I'm proposing that just like there's escalation of force procedures which in theory prevent a cop from responding to every situation by firing their weapon, there's an escalation in infringing/suspending rights. I know for a fact that the cop was making up the alcohol smell but that's not something I can prove, so lets take the cop at his word. The proper procedure there is to give me a field sobriety test. If I pass it and he sees no alcohol openly sitting in the car then I should be free to go. Passing the test and then searching my car further just because the officer wants to go fishing and see what turns up is not ok.

A search should require a reasonable suspicion that can be documented. A smell from a source that there's not even proof exists is not something that can be documented.

originally posted by: PansophicalSynthesis
I see that asking an honest question, like what about the constitution needs to be changed, seems to attract a majority of anarchical, anti-government, anti-cop juvenile like thought processes.

My intent, my aim and my goal isn't to create anarchy, just to create discussion on how to better our current situation, in a rational, reasonable, and logical way that doesn't equate to anarchy.

I said it before and I'll say it again, aside from the representation issues which we need to return to now that technology allows for it the only thing the constitution needs is to also define rights between corporations and the people. We currently do this not through the constitution but rather through contract law. Contracts however are only fair when both sides have equal bargaining power and the corporations currently have too much leverage. Other than that it's more about enforcement rather than needing to add something else.

originally posted by: PansophicalSynthesis
The reply was not directed at you to begin with.

i am aware of that.

Second off, you took the conversation out of context and tried to make me look stupid.

i did no such thing. i made a factual observation...it was not meant as an attack. i'm sorry you chose to take it that way.

I'm not responding to your previous reply. Not even reading past the first 2 statements. Adults understand the context of conversations, and when they have doubts, they ask questions.

translation: "don't feel like reading all that, can't be bothered to defend my position"

Concession Accepted.

a reply to: Aazadan

I think a partial solution, or at least I'm putting forth an idea, would be to document all searches. Then we'd have more data regarding individual officers and their tendencies.

This also shouldn't be a nationwide implementation. There must be localized and circumstantial exceptions. For instance and example: the border, or a localized state of emergency, or a fugitive or materials on the loose.

Cutting out search and seizures altogether, or only under strict procedures and basis, would be harmful.

As for your last statement. I agree. I've stated this in other posts in other threads as well. I believe all of the problem (and thus where the solution can be found) is arising within the legislative branch of the federal gov. This includes law making and law enforcing.

Finally, I think there are some issues that we just cannot fix, or that do not need to be fixed, and are just a result of baseless individual opinion.