Different Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

Call me an evil conservative, but these would be ones I want

. Abolish all abortion rights unless demanded by a doctor for the health of the mother
. Abolish marriage in legal lexicon, replace it with civil unions

The second one could solve the whole same sex marriage debate. I personally think marriage is a religious issue, and should be left up to each individual house of worship. These civil union would have all the same rights as a married couple currently has.
 
Call me an evil conservative, but these would be ones I want

. Abolish all abortion rights unless demanded by a doctor for the health of the mother
. Abolish marriage in legal lexicon, replace it with civil unions

The second one could solve the whole same sex marriage debate. I personally think marriage is a religious issue, and should be left up to each individual house of worship. These civil union would have all the same rights as a married couple currently has.

All the more reason I oppose single issue amendments. On what grounds do you use the US constitution to ban a medical practice? The only logically consistent rationale would be to that it impinges on a fundamental human right. Thus, pass an amendment recognizing the fetus as a human being and extending it the basic civil right of "life", without even mentioning abortion. Although I oppose this, "Right to Life" amendments at least stem from a logically coherent ethical system and have antecedents in previous amendments extending basic rights. "Anti-abortion" amendments do not.

I have less problem with your other amendment, but in practice, it would be virtually impossible to ban the term "marriage" from all local, state, and federal legal systems. Also, under your amendment, would "civil unions" be extended to unmarried hetrosexual couples, or other groups of people living together in pairs or larger groups who wish their "union" (sexual or otherwise) to be given legal status equivalent to that of the "traditional" family? The whole push behind civil unions is gay rights, not an over-riding need to redefine marriage. If you favor extending full rights to gays, the more honest aproach would be to craft a new amendment extending equal protection of the law to all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, period. Then they have the right to get married in a civil ceremony, period, and religious groups can follow their own mandates when blessing or recognizing such unions.
 
I'm all for term limits on Congress. Even for putting the selection of Senators back to the State Assemblies. My hope is that it will weaken The Party and the other The Party.

Most of the proposed ammendments of the late 20th and 21st Centuries have a little too much in religous overtones in them.

Those two amendments will only serve to strengthen the party as an organization. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Term limits reduce the independence of individual members, and putting Senator selection back to State Assemblies will just make them party appointees, without any separate power bases.
 
Those two amendments will only serve to strengthen the party as an organization. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Term limits reduce the independence of individual members, and putting Senator selection back to State Assemblies will just make them party appointees, without any separate power bases.

I like the idea of having the candidates be elected by a straight popular vote and then chosen among by the state legislature.
 
Yeah, nevermind the fact that no Government has any right to be taking any income from anyone's pocket. Tax the land, not the people.
 
People had more money before that amendment.

Really??? You are aware that the richest people in the US at that time had the equivalent of a few billion dollars today--no chump change, but not much compared to say Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. And that the poor and working class was both comparatively poorer and proportionally larger than it is today, right? And that per capita real GDP today is enormously larger than it was before the 16th Amendment passed? And that taxes today are ridiculously low compared to the 1950s, '60s, and '70s? Why, one might think that the vast bulk of the people had actually gotten substantially richer in real terms since the late 1800s. Musn't have that, can we.
 
Top