ADDED: After inventing that exercise, I happened upon this old quote from Robert Bork, from his 1987 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
[I]f you had an amendment that says ‘Congress shall make no’ and then there is an ink blot and you cannot read the rest of it and that is the only copy you have, I do not think the court can make up what might be under the ink blot.Ah, but what if you had to say what was under the ink blot? What would you say?
पोस्ट्स
५१ टिप्पण्या:
Easy, 10th amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the judge.
Why lie about it?
Your link doesn't include the amendments. So that's not the Constitution, is it?
Change 35 to 60 for President
Amendment 20: The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
Changes to: The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of November, ...
The outgoing administration should not have any more time than absolutely necessary to muck things up for the incoming administration; after the election has been held.
2nd Amendment. Changed "regulated" to "armed".
"A well-armed militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That way I can finally start saving up for my own personal F-16. I'd settle for an F-4 from the boneyard if I could get it running again, but damn if an F-16 Fighting Falcon wouldn't look pretty in my driveway.
Bonus: my street is a straight line that's just long enough for me to actually take off in the thing, though I'd need to sweep it down good first to avoid turbine FOD.
"Your link doesn't include the amendments. So that's not the Constitution, is it?"
That was not intentional.
I put a different link.
Of course the amendments are now part of the Constitution.
"...in order to form a more perfect...you...nyun!"
No. It's fine.
Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 6, Last Sentence, replace "thirds" with "tenths".
Don't let them get too comfortable.
Well-hung militia would work, too. Might be sexist.
article II section 3. Change "give" to "mail". No more televised states of the union.
Congress shall make law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty - as now mandated by Congress - we are free at last from insufferable shitlibs and athiest rhetoric.
It might cause other problems, but at this point better the devil I don't know.
And it's not like we aren't already there anyway, so I'm just flipping the positions.
"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."
Change to:
"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the Start of their next Session."
Really, I'd like to change it to "at the End of their Recess" but that would require two changes not just one.
I need 2 words
Article XIV (Amendment 14 - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)
1: All persons born to citizens or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside
Drill SGT wins.
A stronger 10th Amendment is needed to keep the federal government's fingers out of everybody's business -- personal and for profit.
"The powers not specifically delegated..." is likely not strong enough to overcome the will of an FDR or Woody Woo.
Perhaps an internal citation back to the Second Amendment would be useful.
What will exist under the ink blot will always be whatever needs to exist there to increase the power of whichever branch of government is controlled by liberals at the time. This game is too easy.
The language is as good as it could be. It is the mischievously twisted interpretations that is the problem, and it is our own fault for letting the rascals get away with it.
@The Drill SGT
Your change would wreck the main thing the words were needed for... but they're not needed for that purpose anymore... so....
16th amendment. Change "incomes" to "sailboats".
Not that it will make much difference to the "living constitution" that promotes "active liberty," and deviating slightly from the rule of the game:
"All powers not delegated . . ."
"Congress only shall make no law . . ."
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, as understood at this time, . . ."
"Notwithstanding the independent power of Congress and the Executive to say what the Constitution means, the judicial power shall . . ."
"to regulate actual commerce . . ."
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Change "every SECOND year" to "every FOURTH year". I hate that Reps are basically always campaigning.
It's a great theoretical exercise, though limiting it to one word is difficult:
Here goes:
Art 1, Section 2:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
It's moot today, but 200 years ago, I would have changed "three fifths" to "two fifths" or even "one fifth(s)". My thought is that this would have diluted even more the voting power of the Southern states, and, may have ratcheted down the tensions between the North and South over the "peculiar institution" of slavery. My hope is that this would have lead to an easier transition from a half-free, half-country to a full free country, with much less bloodshed than the Civil War, and the many unfortunate historical ripple effects thereafter.
Article 4 Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government...
to
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican form of government...
"[I]f you had an amendment that says ‘Congress shall make no’ and then there is an ink blot and you cannot read the rest of it and that is the only copy you have, I do not think the court can make up what might be under the ink blot."
Bork lacked imagination (or acted as if).
Of course, Prog courts can make up anything they damn well please. Why, they just found a "right" to SSM under the due process ink blot.
In fact for Progs, it's ink blots all the way down, to be deciphered as needed.
I don't understand the logic. How would reducing the political clout of the South make the south more likely to want to stay in the Union - or even have joined it in the first place.
I get this is a rhetorical conversation: my own example would not have passed convention. But if you're trying to make a historical argument that it would have led to a peaceful transition from slavery, I'm afraid I don't see it.
"salary larger than the minimum wage, while in session."
"Emperors." That leaves Obama without an identity.
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of trade; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I consider freedom of the press to be the same as freedom of speech, so I substitute trade for press.
One word? Tough, but here goes:
The Congress shall have power...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
Changes to:
The Congress shall have power...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and between the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
I tried to shoehorn in "significant" but because "Commerce" comes in the previous clause, it wouldn't work. The Commerce Clause as it stands is the clause that swallowed the constitution. The intention of this change is to prevent congress and the courts from using incidental interstate effects to justify regulation of intra-state activities (like regulating a motel because some portion of the guests live in another state, or telling a farmer that he can't have a vegetable garden for personal use because the head of lettuce he grew affected interstate commerce when he didn't buy it).
All I need is a period.
Congress shall make no law. Period.
1) If interstate can be read by a committed SCOTUS -- at the urging of a grasping president -- to mean within a state, and
2) a) If commerce can be read to include actions that neither involve a transfer of goods nor services and
b) do not incur the exchange of money
Then it is impossible to carefully enough draft a Constitution that will limit a determined political class with Will to Power.
It cannot be done.
XXI gives you options if you change eighteenth, with popular substitutions like second or nineteenth.
Amend the 10th by adding the f-word and exclamation point:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are Fxxxing reserved to the States respectively, or to the people!
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
I would change "We the people" to "We the pepples so it could be pronounced like Zorro's whip wielding brother Bunny Wigglesworth in "Zorro, the Gay Blade".
"Remember, my people, there is no shame in being poor, only dressing poorly!"
Change "citizens" to "suckers".
Considering that there are about 40 fatal flaws in the Constitution, changing one line seems useless to me. You still end up with a failed government.
"Congress shall make no broccoli"
I hate broccoli.
Perhaps just an emphasis.
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
The party of the second was easily excised in the standard format.
I know, I know
Change We the people to....
We the Justices.....
Did I win?
I salute Sebastian and tim maguire for trying to limit the Commerce Clause, which is obviously the source of most of the mischief we have in recent years. However, I think this can't be done with a single word change.
I would opt instead for strengthening the Delegated Powers doctrine:
Change the final sentence in Art I, Sect 8 to:
"To make ONLY laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
I admit this is another case where more than one word is needed, and really the original intent was clear enough to any honest reader. But emphasizing the limits of Congress seems like a worthy hill to die on.
Can you cover up a penumbra with an ink blot? If a clause is dormant, can an ink blot wake it up?
A question for Professor Althouse:
Article III, Section 2 of The Constitution reads, in part, "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Does this language require a law requiring the President's signature or is it a unilateral power reserved to the Congress?
Wait... we have a Constitution? Who knew?
How big is the ink blot? Size of 3 letters? 4? 5?
If 3, it could easily be 'law'. I would search diligently for any other use of 'Congress shall make no' in the Constitution and give the permutations. Then just how big is that blot?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or inhibiting the free exercise thereof
Change one word in 1787 that I think would have made us a better nation? How cool it would be to make the country more like me before I was born! My suggestion would probably have kept it from being ratified. Change one word today? I'm not sure the SCOTUS would much care about a one word change at this point.
Without my question being answered, I would change "Brearly" to "Duffy" (David Brearly from New Jersey). Now there would be a something to bring up with friends over a beer: Did you know some dude from New Jersey signed the Consitution with my name?
Art I, Sec. 8, para. 3: change first "and" to "not."
3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, [not] among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; ....
I'd like to limit the breadth of the interstate commerce clause, but unfortunately I'm not clever enough to do it with one elegant word.
It would take more than one word, but perhaps to keep the intent without the abuse:
Give Congress the power to arbitrate between the states, provided their is a conflict between states and those states decide among themselves that they cannot come to a solution and ask Congress to arbitrate.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा