- Stay Connected
My New Constitution
The only thing I would change are the Amendments:
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 2
The right of the people to keep and bear any arms, shall not be infringed by any powers, be they Federal, State, or local.
Amendment 3
No soldier shall, at any time be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner.
Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This right shall not be subject to the sex, race, age, or orientation of the persons to be searched.
Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use at any time.
Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment 7
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment 8
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed.
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10
The powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The United States may not engage in any action they believe is implied by their delegated powers.
Amendment 11
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade.
Amendment 12
Congress shall not levy any tax on the incomes of citizens of the United States, nor on business therein. Nor shall the United States or any State therein levy any poll tax.
Amendment 13
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Amendment 14
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States.
Amendment 15
The right of the people of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of; race; color; sex; or age, exceeding 16 years.
Amendment 16
The right of the people to a civil marriage shall not be abridged on account of; race; color; gender; or age, exceeding 16 years.
Amendment 17
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade.
**from the original Constitution, the 12th, 20th, 25th Amendments are observed.
Anonymous
October 26, 2010 at 3:18 pm
You spelt constitution wrong.
dimitri halikias
April 29, 2010 at 8:17 pm
This might just be a minor technicality, but there is a distinct possibility that under Amendment 14 slavery could be used as a legal punishment.
Doron Tauber
April 30, 2010 at 6:29 am
i noticed that yesterday. but I think that the way they said it meant that they could only use involuntary labor as a punishment, like community service or working on a chain gang
Devin Doherty
April 29, 2010 at 5:50 pm
When I saw the title of this article I said to myself, “oh sh@!”. Cuz stuff like this usually riles people up. However, it didn’t seem so bad, so I approve.
You know I was reading about probable cause and basically Police aren’t allowed to search your car without a warrant of probable cause right? Well an officer can just say, “Look, your car is crappy and your skin is black, that’s good enough for me,” and have enough “cause” to do anything.
I just thought it was kind of funny.
Jackson Fritz
April 29, 2010 at 6:23 pm
No they don’t need a warrant of probable cause. A warrant is a document signed by a judge, making any search listed on the warrant legal. Probable cause means that if a cop sees a shotgun in your backseat after pulling you over for speeding, he/she has the right to search your car if you have no gun license.
But I agree that cops take it too far with racial profiling.
Doron Tauber
April 30, 2010 at 6:31 am
not that I approve of racial profiling, but in most cases, minority people commit more crimes than whites. statistically speaking. same for children of single mothers. they make up most of the prison population.
Aaron W.
April 30, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Racial profiling is not nearly as much of a problem as it is made out to be. Policemen (for the most part) don’t look at the color of your skin, but rather what neighborhood of a city you are in, your age, what clothes you are wearing, and your demeanor. A 50-something black man wearing a nice suit and carrying a briefcase is much less likely to be subject to suspicion by police than is a 19-year old, scowling, unshaven white man wearing loose jewelry and ripped, baggy clothes. Socioeconomic profiling is much more of a problem.
Devin Doherty
April 30, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Oh shoot. Look what my comment does. Maybe I should just shut up.
Also I meant warrant OR probable cause.
But that’s my error.
Aaron W.
April 23, 2010 at 3:39 pm
I was responding mainly to dimitri’s comment.
Doron Tauber
April 24, 2010 at 8:49 am
oh
well then ^^.
Aaron W.
April 21, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Private security contractors do not have the same kind of unfailing loyalty to the government as a government-run military. If they are dissatisfied with what the government asks of them, they can just find a different client. But the military can’t do that. Also, since mercenaries are not as willing to die for their cause as enlisted soldiers, and usually do not fight with the same tenacity, they often don’t get the job done as well.
Doron Tauber
April 22, 2010 at 6:09 am
i’m not saying we need to do that. I’m saying the government has a responsibility to protect the citizens through the national defense, the domestic defense, and the court system. if this is going to be achieved through the military paying private security contractors, so be it. if it’s going to be achieved best by our volunteer force, so be it.
dimitri halikias
April 13, 2010 at 10:22 pm
why the military and police? why not use private security contractors?
Doron Tauber
April 13, 2010 at 10:41 pm
because governments are established to protect the citizens. if deemed necessary and efficient, they could use the money they would use on the troops to hire private security contractors
dimitri halikias
April 13, 2010 at 10:48 pm
then why not protect citizens from diseases or natural disasters? We both agree that when the free market is allowed absolute liberty it produces the optimal end result, then why isn’t it government’s responsibility to contract out to the private sector for defense? Wouldn’t that provide the most cost-effective, efficient, and productive security for america’s citizens?
dimitri halikias
April 13, 2010 at 10:51 pm
My only point is that you see government’s role very limited because you think that the private sector can provide a better service. If you really believed that held true in all situations, then why not be an anarcho-capitalist?
Doron Tauber
April 13, 2010 at 11:14 pm
because I believe that government, in moderation, is good. people set up governments to protect their interests. so if the government sticks to protection of individual rights, then it’s good in my book.
Doron Tauber
April 13, 2010 at 11:19 pm
I believe that the Government has to exist to protect the individual rights of its citizens. this complete protection cannot be brought about in any anaro-system. it is the responsibility of the government to protect us. the government could hire private contractors for defense, but we need a government behind us. also, the court system needs to be federal instead of in the private sector. that is one thing the government must not cede.
Doron Tauber
April 13, 2010 at 11:13 pm
the military protects them in the case of a natural disaster. and private industry is always more equipped to make a quick and effective cure for a disease. no State doctor has ever come up with a solution for a disease. so if the government can afford it, then go ahead with private defense. but the government is still responsible for their effectiveness, because they would be on the dime of the Government.
dimitri halikias
April 13, 2010 at 10:08 pm
So then do you support a national sales tax?
Doron Tauber
April 13, 2010 at 10:17 pm
yes. to fund the military, police, and court system. nothing else.
Olivia Robinson
April 28, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Roads and schools?
Doron Tauber
April 28, 2010 at 8:16 pm
nope