The Constitution has been amended 27 times in the last 240 years. If you don't count the first ten (which were really part of an unwritten compromise to ratify our Constitution), and you disregard the amendment we wasted to get rid of another amendment, we've really only changed the Constitution 16 times. Read the following article and explain which proposal you would support for our 28th Amendment.
The 28th Amendment
Some of the proposed Amendments were alright. I think one that should have became an amendment was The Star-Spangled Amendment, but that's just mainly nationalism.
ReplyDeleteWhat I really want to know though is were The Purge Amendment is?
-Jonathan Maly P3
I accidentally put P3
DeleteXD
-Jonathan Maly P2
I believe that the Star-Spangled Amendment contradicts Amendment 1 of the constitution, the practice of free speech.
ReplyDelete-Chika Ezeh P2
I think the amendment that should be passed is the star-spangled amendment because destroying the flag is very disrespectful and partakers should be prosecuted.
ReplyDelete-Cassidy Latham p.2
One Amendment choice really interested me. After reading, re-reading, and researching the Non-Personhood Amendment, I've come under the impression that if you are Pro-Choice you'd vote no on this amendment, if that is so I would vote no to this amendment as well. I didn't really like any of the sixteen choices for the 28th amendment, however I did like the concept of the Star-Spangled Amendment, however I feel it is much too restricting to our liberties to pass.
ReplyDelete-Alyssa Urbina p.2
One amendment that should be passed is the equal rights amendment. It mentioned that it could be rebooted as a gay-equality amendment which should also be passed. I also believe the star-spangled amendment should be passed because it promotes nationalism.
ReplyDeleteMary B. P3
I feel like the no-term-limits amendment proposal may not be the best idea because there might be other capable or more insightful candidates that could provide a new perspective on issues that have gone unresolved. In my opinion, having a variety of people's visions for the world would be beneficial in the sense that one president may address an issue that's been set aside or never mentioned before. Whether their terms were bad or good, every president would be able to provide us information on what we should and shouldn't do for specific issues. Side note: I also think it's not a good idea because it's human nature for people to possibly abuse power if given too much leeway.
ReplyDelete-Britney Koh P.3
I believe the star spangled banner amendment must be passed because people disrespecting our country is terrible and something must be done to them and then i believe the abortion amendment must be passed because abortion is absolute wrong killed a human life and people dont understand that its a person they believe that because its not born its not alive but it is and youre choosing to have it killed.
ReplyDeleteNoah gentry period3
I do agree completely with your stance on both these issues, but passing the star spangled banner amendment is not only unconstitutional, because in several court cases the precedent was set through the tenth amendment that the first amendment freedom of speech is interpreted as freedom of expression, but also promoting tyranny of the majority. I agree with you that it's absolutely wrong to do, but just because a majority feels something is offensive or should not be done, does not give us the right to ban it. If that is passed, it would cause a slippery slope were that could be used in court along with the tenth amendment to allow the majority to ban anything they find "offensive", which would indefinitely lead to tyranny of the majority and banning anything the majority doesn't agree with. Though I do believe there is a special place in hell for anyone that burns the American flag, I do not believe that ammendment should be passed
DeleteIssa Sweis per. 2
Does this count as credit btw Cav?
DeleteIssa^
DeleteTypically, responding to other students' posts does not count for credit. I'd like to see your response to the blog prompt as well.
DeleteOn a side note, though you're correct that burning the flag is currently a protected form of speech, an amendment to the Constitution reversing this policy cannot, by nature, be unconstitutional as you have stated. Once an amendment is added to the Constitution, it IS the Constitution, so there is no such thing as an "unconstitutional" amendment. That would be like saying a part of the Constitution is unconstitutional.
Oh, I didn't look at it that way. You're absolutely right, my bad. But I still completely stand by what I said that it will lead to tyranny of the majority and should not be passed. But, said that, I am disgusted by anyone that would do something as horrendous as burning our flag.
DeleteI think that the amendment limiting congressional terms should be passed as it would allow for diversity of opinion during congressional debate and restrict re-election of congressman which citizens do not find appealing.
ReplyDeleteMatthew W.P3
I believe that the non-personhood amendment should be passed because of the incredible influence money has over politicians. Its ratification may lessen the amount of politicians being pushed around by big business and maybe encourage them to vote in favor of the public good. The other amendment worth contemplating is the equal rights act, however, it won't have much effect because misogynistic gender stereotypes require an entire restructuring of mindsets, not a simple rewriting of the rules.
ReplyDeleteSarah Hidayat p2
I feel like the Star Spangled Banner Amendment should be passed. If you hate America to the point where you want to disrespect the flag then you should leave the country. There is no point for you to be here if you hate America that much. I feel that if you do disrespect the flag then you should either be put in jail or have to pay a fine. Also I believe that the D.C.-statehood amendment should be passed. It is not fair that Washingtonians have to pay taxes, but they don't have representation. Isn't that one of the main reasons why the colonies wanted to leave the British Government? Because they were getting taxed, but they didn't have representation in parliament.
ReplyDeleteTyla Jones P3
While abortion is still a controversial subject with years of debate surrounding it, I believe the addition of the Personhood Amendment would have been the right step towards preserving human life as well as initial conception. We as United States citizens have a firm belief in natural rights, which proclaim life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are granted these rights and as such should protect them.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Slmani P. 2
I believe an amendment that should have been passed is the Balanced Budget Amendment because of the problem of having such large deficits in our governments legislatures should not be taken lightly. The GDP of the US is up at the moment but once we see the numbers go down the legislature should be held accountable.
ReplyDeleteFelipe De La Rosa P.3
When reading the article, the schwarzenegger amendment actually blew my mind since it the Constitution never actually banned naturalized foreign-born Americans to become president. It's really neat but concerning how America is today, I would not see a foreign-born American to hold office at this time.
ReplyDeleteRonald Law P.2
P.S. I hope this works...
See Article II Section 1 Clause V: "No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President." The Constitution does, in fact, ban foreign-born citizens from assuming the office of President.
DeleteOh man, then the article was incorrect in a way.
DeleteRonald Law P.3
messed up on the periods sry
The article correctly mentioned that if a foreign-born individual became a naturalized citizen BEFORE the ratification of the Constitution, then he is still eligible to run.
DeleteHere's the entire "natural born" clause with my omission from the previous post: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Thank you for clarifying that up. It didn't make too much sense until now.
DeleteRonald P.3
The Schwarzenegger Amendment was the one that peaked my interest the most. Individual rights are extremely important and lie at the core of American culture. When immigrants are restricted from running for president, they are not given equal rights as all other US citizens. This restriction is unjust because the person in question can never fulfill the requirement of being born in the USA. The "naturalized citizen" restriction unfairly infringes on the rights of these American citizens. About 40 percent of the population growth in the US comes from immigration, so the United States should not prevent hard-working people from running, for each indivdual has the right to run, and the American people have the right to choose who they will elect for president, even if he/she is an immigrant.
ReplyDeleteJacob Ortega P.3
Aswell, the original purpose of the natural-born-citizen clause was an attempt to allay concerns that foreign aristocrats would immigrate to the new nation and use their wealth and influence to impose a monarchy on the new nation. This was a long time ago in the 1700s when the US was a new country and it was feared that the European colonial powers would immigrate to the United States and take control. This is no longer applicable as monarchy is completely dying out and European colonialism for all practical purposes no longer exists. Immigration has drastically changed. While immigration during the formation of the United States involved European colonials fighting for power, legal immigration today involves immigrants arriving in the US to make a better life for themselves. The conditions under which the law was written no longer exist.
DeleteJacob Ortega P.3
I completely agree.
DeleteI think we should definitely instill term limits to the congressmen. The president was set with term limits due to fear of the power being with one person for too long would lead to a something of a monarchy. But the thing about our government is, the congressmen arguably have more power than the president. The president can't pass anything by himself, were as the congress can pass anything, and if the president vetos, they could still pass it with 2/3rd majority. Firstly, it would make it difficult for special interest groups to corrupt the government. With the constant shuffling out of congressmen, it would make it near impossible for the special interest groups to buy votes on all the bills that get circulated through since all the members are changed more constantly. Also, congress often passes laws that solely benefit them and are inimical for the average citizen. If we limit their terms, they might feel more obliged to pass laws benefitting the every day citizen instead since they would not specifically reap the benefits of passing a law affecting only congressmen(laws affecting them are put into place on the following term normally). But I do feel the only way for this to be affective is if we take away many of the congressmen's benefits, such as their special healthcare plans for life and pensions. Then, and only then, would congressmen actually vote on laws that benefit the average citizen.
ReplyDeleteIssa Sweis per.2
*where
DeleteYou make some strong arguments, but unfortunately you only have to look as far as your own state to see that enacting term limits for legislators does little to counter-act the influence of special interests.
DeleteCalifornia voters, through the initiative process, enacted term limits on state legislators back in the '90s. To me, it has still been business as usual since then.
I actually did not know about that in California, thank you for informing me. Upon further research, I do agree that it has not changed much at all in itself, which is why I proposed in my reasoning above taking away many of the post-term benefits for congressmen, which in my opinion would lead to better voting on many acts, since they would be directly affecting them as they would the average citizen. What is your opinion on that proposition? I know, realistically, it could never get passed, because no congressman would willingly give away a life of personal benefits in exchange for a better government that works more for the people, but if, theoretically, it was passed.
DeleteIssa Sweis per. 2
I don't share your perspective of our Congressmen only passing laws that benefit themselves, particularly after they retire. Therefore, stripping them of their benefits would not be the solution for me. The solution for more responsive Congressmen is to change the way that states apportion their representatives by getting rid of the single-member district system with gerrymandered lines and replacing it with an at-large proportional system that rewards seats in Congress based on a state-wide popular vote. I'll explain this more in class . . .
DeleteI believe that the equal rights amendment should be passed because our Declaration of Independence gives examples of the unalienable rights that our Creator gave us including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that the government needs to protect them. There is no reason why women should be discriminated against just because of their gender; they are no worse or better than men and are capable of having the same occupations as men like being an engineer or a doctor.
ReplyDeleteMary Saba P2
I believe that a repeal of the Twenty-Second Amendment would be beneficial to American security; if a president is efficiently fulfilling his/her duties in office they should be permitted to serve over the exceeded amount. Also, if ever America was in midst of a crisis, familiarity and a consistent figure is in some cases best while enduring crucial circumstances.
ReplyDeleteMyana (period 3)
I would take the D.C.-Statehood Amendment into consideration for our 28th Amendment. I don't think that the District of Columbia should necessarily become a state of its own, but I do believe that it should be given full representation in Congress, just like the 50 states. The issue of "taxation without representation" was a major catalyst in the American Revolution, and it is an issue that people are concerned with in Washington, D.C. In order to resolve the problem and ease the citizens' dissatisfaction, I think that the District of Columbia should be given full representation in both houses of Congress.
ReplyDeleteI also support the Star-Spangled Amendment. Even though burning the flag is currently protected under the Constitution, I just think that burning the flag is an act of complete disrespect and disloyalty to the nation. I don't think that people should be forced to pledge their allegiance to the flag, but I don't think that people should be permitted to burn the flag either. :)
-Susi Le, P.2
It's just a flag . . . If I can't make you pledge your allegiance to it, then I shouldn't be able to ban you from burning it.
DeleteOut of all the amendments I believe that there are two amendments that should be passed. The first one I think should be passed is the equal rights amendment because I think that it is unfair that women are treated differently and are discriminated against just because of their gender.Women should be treated as an equal. The other amendment I believe should get passed is the non-personhood amendment because I believe in preserving human life. I don't think that it is right to just get rid of a life.
ReplyDeleteShannan Martinez P.3
I would support the Congressional Collar Amendment. I would support it because I believe it would reduce the possibility of having a T.O.M. in Congress. If Congress members have an unlimited term limit, it may be like if the president was unrestricted on term limits. A majority could overtime pack its members into both the House and Senate and allow for an environment where the T.O.M. will flourish. Setting term limits for Congressmen/women will also allow for new Congress members to cycle through, letting new ideas and opinions come through the legislative branch. So, if there were Congress members who we very resilient on approving or compromising on a proposal, the proposal would not just get abandoned as once new Congress members come in, they may bring a new way to compromise or view the issue at hand. This is why I would support the Congressional Collar Amendment; it will further prevent a majority from forming in Congress and it will also allow new ideas and opinions to flow/cycle through Congress.
ReplyDelete-Mark Yu Period 3
In my opinion, I think the equal-rights amendment should be ratified because all people, including gay people, deserve to be treated with respect. The pledge of allegiance itself states that there should be "liberty and justice for all".
ReplyDeleteSahar Yazouri P.2
To add to what I said before, It is completely ridiculous that women aren't treated equally especially if they are capable of doing a job successfully. Many women are not paid as well as men which violates their rights as American citizens. Working women get paid about 77% of what men typically get paid.
DeleteSahar Yazouri P.2
I've always struggled with these statistics. You are right about the 77%, but I do not believe it can all be attributed to sexism and discrimination. A lot of factors contribute to this number; let's talk in class.
DeleteThe 77% doesn't take into account the career choices, level of education, hours worked, or many other factors. As an article by Forbes list says "Using the statistic that women make 78 cents on the dollar as evidence of rampant discrimination has been debunked over and over again. That statistic doesn’t take into account a lot of choices that women and men make—education, years of experience and hours worked—that influence earnings. If we want to have a fruitful discussion about a gender wage gap, we should have it after the comparison is adjusted for those factors." Also as renown author Hannah Rosin stated "The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than “77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.” The latter gives the impression that a man and a woman standing next to each other doing the same job for the same number of hours get paid different salaries. That’s not at all the case. “Full time” officially means 35 hours, but men work more hours than women. That’s the first problem: We could be comparing men working 40 hours to women working 35."
DeleteIssa Sweis per. 2
Oh, sorry Mr. Cavanough, didn't see your response before I posted
DeleteI agree most with amendment limiting private campaign donations. Many wealthy corporations can donate vast sums of money and expect at least a favor or two in return. When a company donates millions of dollars to get you elected and asks you for a favor, it can be very hard to turn down. Campaign donations essentially a legal way to bribe politicians, and I think this should be greatly limited.
ReplyDeleteAustin Yuan, P2
As we'll learn this semester, corporations are banned from donating even a single penny to a politician's campaign. Furthermore, they can't even legally donate any money to a political party. So why do corporations get criticized so much for their supposedly strong influence over elections? We'll separate fact from fiction this semester.
DeleteThe Personhood Amendment, although slightly controversial in today's society, may be a beneficial addition to the constitution. Preservation of life should be practiced, in my opinion, and a fetus should not be held responsible for faulty contraceptives nor be denied the opportunity of experiencing a fulfilling life. If human rights are considered to be inalienable and endowed by a creator, then why is it that the unborn are so often disregarded?
ReplyDelete- Tanner R. (Period 3)
I support the repeal of the twenty-second amendment to allow a president to serve more than two-terms in office. I support this because if our country were to be in the midst of crisis, a change of president could possibly make things worse.In addition, if our country was in a good place and progressing with the current president, there would be no sense in changing the system.
ReplyDeleteKamrin Entrikin p.3
An amendment choice that really caught my eye was the Non-Personhood amendment. Those who are Pro-Choice would vote no on this. The amendment was too vague and could have been interpreted to ban all abortions, regardless of the situation. I believe that women should not be robbed of their rights to make personal healthcare decisions and that politicians should stop interfering with their decisions. Another amendment that should be passed is the equal rights amendment. It's not fair to be discriminated against because of an extra chromosome. Being a woman shouldn't be an excuse to overlook a person's capabilities, even if it's an "important government issue".
ReplyDeleteAngie Perez P3
The non-personhood amendment is one I would agree with for the 28th amendment; I agree with the proposition that corporations AREN'T people, & so it wouldn't make sense for them to be given human privileges like "free-speech" protections. The constitution was created & compromised in order to protect the mundane minority & their rights. To give these same human rights to corporations is so ironic; why should rights given to the ordinary human to protect it from debased corporations, also be given to the same corporation in which citizens need to be protected from? It undermines the reason why the amendment was created in the first place, & some may argue, the mundane human may never successfully fight against dominant corporations augmented with money. The people simply just don't have the same economic status as flourishing businesses.
ReplyDelete-Eunice Choi p. 2
This is a tough one for me. On the one hand, I could care less if corporations spend their profit trying to influence elections. If the American people are ignorant enough to be swayed by political ads paid for by corporations, that is their own fault. Remember, corporations can't give any money whatsoever to candidates or parties; they primarily operate in the media/television arena.
DeleteOn the other hand, I agree with you that the First Amendment should not apply to corporations. The Framers did not intend this. What's more, whose speech is it? The CEO's? The board members? I can tell you right now that when the California Teachers' Association starts spending millions of dollars over the next few months on television ads to try and influence people's votes with my union dues, they are NOT speaking on my behalf. So whose speech is it?
We love to criticize corporations because of their profit potential, but unions and other wealthy interest groups are just as guilty and benefit just as much from a 1st Amendment interpretation that grants free speech to corporations AND unions AND interest groups. Democrats fail to point this out when criticizing corporations.
Due to my morals and personal beliefs, I believe that the Personhood Amendment is one that should be passed. As many have said already, life is life and should be preserved. This may be questioned since it is such a controversial subject, but all life is valuable. One should always have the opportunity to live without question.
ReplyDeleteMarina Leyvas-Bruce per. 2
I believe that foreign born people who immigrate to this country an become citizens should have the same rights as any citizen regardless of where they came from.
ReplyDeleteDaniel Enriquez p.2
The Schwarzenegger amendment totally intrigues me. I understand why people would shoot it down. Immigrants aren't born here, right? So, how on earth could they govern us if they are not even be brought up here? The fact of the matter is though that as Americans we have so many rights we are born with that we're not even aware of or don't know the full extent to because they are ours. so why learn ALL of them, I just need the basics. But immigrants study our Constitution and they know it intimately unlike us. That's why they want to come here. It's because that document protects them and they know how it protects them. So technically, immigrants are the people that know more about our government and what America's all about better than a vast majority of us. Shouldn't they be able to have the power in office if they are so in a sense, qualified for the position? Yeah, I'd vote to give them the opportunity to do so.
ReplyDelete~Micaela Fiedler P.2
I would like to see the non-personhood amendment passed, even though a multitude of people would disagree. Regardless of how the fetus is conceived, I believe that we have no right to determine whether or not it should be aborted. All life is precious, born and unborn. The biological parents should be able to determine whether or not to raise the child, due to various situations. However, abortion is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy. Homicide is the deliberate and unlawful killing of another being. For pro-choice advocates, does that mean homicide is justifiable as well?
ReplyDelete"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.."
If we are "created" equal, then an unborn child should be treasured just as equally as everyone else.
-Johanna Oen p. 2
I believe the campaign-finance amendment should be passed for the reason of how the elections would run differently. With a limitation on the private contributions of big money, the political views may not be forced around as easy. The slight implication of bribery could change and the politicians may vote more in favor of the people. I also believe the Armageddon amendment was a pretty interesting subject. If at some point a catastrophe like this ever did occur there is no telling what could happen. Seems like a bit of chaos could happen. On the other hand, it could be completely figured out quickly. It is slightly off to look ahead to death such as that though.
ReplyDeleteCollin Chouinard P.3
Once reading the article, I think that the Congressional Collar Amendment should be passed. I agree,what if America makes a bad choice and elects a horrible president? They shouldn't be allowed to run again if they were that terrible with running this country. It's like if America really did vote Trump into the White House, what if he really goes through with his anti-immigration propositions? Then what? Should we, the people allow him to run again after the end of his term? I think not.
ReplyDeleteStephanie Lam P.3
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe amendment that I would support is the equal rights amendment, because although women have been given many rights in the United States, they still are not considered equal to a man. This includes in our society and in the work place, where women only get paid .72 cents to every man's $1, no matter how well she does her job. I would also support if this amendment was rebooted as a gay-equality amendment as Friedman states, because although they are now allowed to get married, they can still be fired from the workplace in many states solely for their sexual orientation.
ReplyDelete-Jacinda Clay, P.2
I support the proposal of equal right and not just because I'm a women. Its because this proposal can not only help stop discrimination against women but also can help stop discrimination against gays, lesbians,transgenders and people of other races. In the article it stated "what good will it accomplish?" today we still see people getting discriminated and worst because of their race or gender, with this proposal it will insure equal rights for everyone.
ReplyDeleteAnarika Camba p2
I personally like the no-more-term-limits amendment. I like it because it means that if there's a president who's doing a good job and most of the nation likes them they can stay for more than 2 terms. Although I know it's not gonna happen, I wish this amendment was enacted for Obama )':. Also I like the equal rights amendment, hopefully if it gets passed it'll finally be able to do something about the wage-gap.
ReplyDeleteScarlett Álvarez
P.3
I support the D.C Statehood amendment because they treated supposedly like a state, yet do not have full rights that a state would have. They don't have voter representation in Congress.
ReplyDeleteAlejandro Martinez p.2
*are
DeleteIn my opinion, the personhood amendment should be greatly considered as a possible 28th amendment in the Constitution. The arguments about abortion have been going on for years and I feel it is finally time to settle the conflict. While I am a very strong believer in allowing a woman to do what she wishes with her own body, it is unjust to practically murder another body that's growing inside of you as a result of your own or another person's (in the case of rape) mistakes. Despite it being unborn, that baby is still alive and growing and as human as the rest of us. Who are we to decide that one life is more valuable than another?
ReplyDeleteAbby Salmon P. 2
The Schwarzenegger amendment appeals to me the most because banning foreign-born Americans to run for president should not not be in continuance. Since the ratifying of the Constitution, America has changed. The fear of a foreign-born American rising to power to create another monarchy no longer exists, since monarchies are slowly fading into non-existence. Immigrants coming to America are not trying to attain more power, instead they're seeking refuge and a better future. Banning such people would stomp on the belief that all are created equal.
ReplyDeleteAnnie Arevalo P3
i think the star spangled amendment should be passed because the flag is a big part of our nation and for anyone to want to burn is just disgraceful.
ReplyDeleteTayari Venable per.2
I believe the campaign-finance amendment should be passed. With this amendment, candidates would be able to spend more time listening to "the people," then just the wealthy public funders. Additionally, this amendment would allow candidates to have a better quality campaign. I also agree with the no-more-term-limits amendment because if a president has been successful and able to better America, why not allow them to continue the trend? However, instead of a no term policy, I believe there should be an extended amount of terms.
ReplyDeleteBianca Alonso-Bermudez P. 2
I personally think that the amendment I would pick would be: equal rights in terms of gender equality and marriage equality. Especially as a female member of the lgbtq+ community I would like to marry who I want, and I've come to realize that connections to these two oppressed minority groups are not being helped nearly enough from a legal standpoint. The only other amendment that truly interests me is the non-personhood amendment. While I don't personally think I would get an abortion, it is important to make the service available for women because it is in no way acceptable to dictate what a woman can or can not do with her body, especially when it is typically male representitives proposing that the service is unconstitutional.
ReplyDelete#NoUterusNoOpinion
-kieran jackson p.3
I would support Marco Rubio's proposal that, “Congress shall make no law that imposes a tax on a failure to purchase goods or services." I believe common sense says that people shouldn't have to be punished or pay for something that they don't do, or buy in the case of health care. If you are trying to conserve money by not purchasing health care, you should not be robbed of that money by extra taxes.
ReplyDeleteJoel Bolton Per.3
Out all of the amendments I saw the one that seemed interesting was the Arnold Schwarzenegger one it made me think that even if you were not born here that should not be a reason for you not to make a difference in politics. There are plenty of people who are foreign born and still contribute to the nation and thats one of many reasons why they should not be denied the right at becoming president
ReplyDeleteJason Jones p.3
Out of the 16 amendment ideas, I would pass the Schwarzenegger amendment on the condition that the immigrant seeking to become president has to have lived in the United States for a certain number of years. He or she has to have lived here long enough to embrace American values and to be educated in how the government works. I feel that prohibiting immigrants from the office of president is not beneficial for this country because due to their experiences, immigrants can bring new ideas to our government that natural-born citizens have not thought of. Also, the United States is a big melting pot, and immigrants make a large portion of Americans, so excluding them from the presidential office means excluding many talented, hard-working individuals from being able to lead this free nation.
ReplyDeleteSusu Le P. 2
I've believe that passage of the Star Spangled Banner amendment is probably the best one to pass. I know that some folks may think that it is sad that I think this amendment is the one that needs to be passed, but it is ultimately the only one on that list that isn't fairly asinine. The rest like the abortion one at this point, are too far stretched and complicated. I know that as long as I live and as long as freedom is still around, I will be flying my red white and blue proudly and no one shall disrespect it.
ReplyDelete-Grant Sipos Per. 3
I am glad that the adam & even amendment never made it to state legislatures. I personally do not understand why the state legislatures tried to get involved in people's personal lives. Why does someone's personal love life affect everyone to such a degree that an amendment had to be made to ban certain forms of love? If that is how someone chooses to live their life or if that is how they were made then who is Congress to tell them no that's not allowed? Therefore I'm glad the amendment didn't make it to congress and gay marriage was later legalized.
ReplyDeleteCarissa Martinez P. 3
Out of all possible amendments taken into consideration for the 28th amendment, the Non-Personhood Amendment appealed to me the most. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to ensure rights and liberties to all American citizens; it was not intended to grant corporations the same liberties as people. If corporations are granted the same rights as people, they could potentially abuse them to fulfill their selfish interests rather than benefitting the community. Gradually, these corporations could gain national prestige and have a wider influence in society. This is an outcome the framers did not want since allowing corporations to gain prestige could eventually result in the subordination of citizens’ rights.
ReplyDeleteRoberto Martinez P.2
I believe that repealing the two-term limit would be an effective way to preserve tranquility in America. If the current president has served his/her 8 years and not only kept things running smoothly, but also enhanced our Union, why bring an abrupt end to a good thing? By enabling quality presidents to continue their strong leadership may be more beneficial than bringing in a new face, if they were to win. While this limit was originally placed by Washington, FDR broke it, not once, but twice, and arguably was one of the more effective presidents, though not always moral. And if the long-lasting president was to overstep their boundaries and lean more towards a tyrannical rule, impeachment is always an option.
ReplyDeleteKristina Heisser p. 3
My Favorite amendment to possibly be the 28th is the Arnold Schwarzenegger amendment because, even if you weren't born on american soil it doesn't mean you aren't just as patriotic as some other political leaders. Since Arnold was very popular as governor in California, why shouldn't he be allowed to go higher in his field? All because he was born on different soil. Soil is the same everywhere but all that matters is loyalty to the country you have been living in and leading in. So why does it matter in which land you were born in as long as you are a U. S. Citizen that is familiar with politics and succeeding with your career and LOYAL you should be allowed to go into higher office.
ReplyDeleteViktoria Kuladzhyan P.2
I thought an interesting amendment was the gore amendment. Yet although I do not think that we need to abolish the electoral college I do believe the system should be revised. As it stated in the article, which stated how George W. Bush was able to become president due to the flaws of the electoral college, it is possible to lose the popular vote yet still become president by winning the electoral college. One flaw I believe for sure should be fixed is how the electoral votes are given. If the majority votes for a certain nominee, all the electoral votes of that state are given to the nominee. Even if the margin was a difference of .1%, the winner still gets all the electoral votes. And hence safe and swing states were born. California for example is a safe state. California is known to always vote towards a democrat, so a republican vote seems almost worthless. Yet in Florida, which is a swing state, there is an equal support of both parties, so a vote here appears to be much more important than that of a vote California. Which to me comes across as unfair since the electoral votes across the country do not seem to be equally dispersed. So even though you may put in a vote on who you like to become the president, it appears to ultimately rely on the electoral votes. An amendment to try and fix this flawed system could potentially be a good idea, since even shown in the past that you can win the presidency without winning the popular vote.
ReplyDelete*Christian Lopez p.2*
The proposal that I would support would be the equal rights amendment. It should be passed because it is a start for creating equality for all genders. It would be controversial but it is not a statement of women are higher up than men, but rather a statement of women and men are human beings and all humans should be treated equally.
ReplyDelete-Emberly Reyes P.3
i believe the equal rights amendment should be passed because I find it highly illogical to deny a person of certain rights due to their sexual preference. I also believe that the star spangled banner amendment is contradictory to the first amendment of free speech yet it should still be passed because burning the flag a country you live in is not only disrespectful but it also makes absolutely no sense.
ReplyDeleteAlexya See p.2
Think I could really get behind "The Schwarzenegger Amendment" because to be a true American you shouldn't have to be born here. They should have the same right to pursue their "American Dream" as a birth citizen does. I understand the point of having a President with nations best interest at heart. So I would put a residency minimum of say 20 years and has to be a citizen as well to run for office. Think a person who spent this much time here and went through the process of citizenship deserves the right to try and become President.
ReplyDeleteEshawn Singh P.3
Of all of the amendments, the one that stood out to me as a relavent amendment to pass was the Schwarzenegger amendment. This is because, in my opinion, anyone shoiluld be able to be a part of our government system. Although I do believe that this would be a great amendment, I strongly feel that it would need to come with clear cut, strict guidelines regarding requirements for eligibility. The reason for this is that if you are an immigrant wanting to be a part of the US government, your record of american patriotism and ideals needs to be proven/ demonstrated. Like I said, I think everyone should get the opportunity to participate, but i do strongly feel that the WAY you participate is by showing that you understand the american form of democracy and how it is important to your decision making process.
ReplyDelete-Reese Jones
P.3
People say that the star spangled amendment should be passed and i agree somebody who is trying to destroy the flag should receive jail time because its disrespectful but if someone talks bad about the flag they shouldn't receive any jail time because of amendment 1 which is freedom of speech they can say anything.
ReplyDeleteTyree Baker p.2
I find two amendment proposals very interesting. I support the balanced-budget amendment, by requiring the government to follow in the footsteps of forty-five states who have already required their legislatures to balance their budgets, the government would be less inclined to overspend and focus more on cutting down the deficit. The gore amendment also sparks my interest but I would be very hesitant to bind electors to the national popular vote. The framers created the electoral college for a reason. To combat the inevitable ignorance that the majority of citizens will have. While in todays world, information is much more easier to get but one would also have to worry about whether the information is bias or credible, especially if it has to do with the country's future. The reality is that most people don't have time to sit down to find accurate, non-bias, reliable information about the candidates, assuming that the person is even searching for the truth and not believing everything they read, and that binding electors to the popular rule would take down one of the securities set by the framers to prevent T.O.M.
ReplyDeleteAnthony Noyola P.2
The campaign-finance amendment very interesting in my opinion and I believe it is one that should be passed. Of course if I understood it correctly, I believe this would be a better solution for our elections on presidents since it allows our states to publicly fund for their campaign and "limit private campaign contributions". If it puts a limitation, then it may prevent bigger corporations, companies, or wealthy people who pay for these candidates to run, from giving them financial support that in the long run makes a huge contribution on who wins or not. Which it would be a good thing to prevent that because I'm sure these wealthy individuals do not look out for the best interests of the people but simply for them selves.
ReplyDeleteSammie Soto P. 3
is very interesting*
DeletePersonally I would support the proposal for Congress to have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. The flag of the United States has many different meanings to this country and each time someone damages it or burns it, it takes some meaning away from what it stands for. The American flag represents a nation that didn't fall even in the darkest and hardest of times for example: the War of 1812. By burning a flag that people pledge their allegiance to day after day and a flag that rightfully belongs to the United States of America disrespect is showcased on every level.
ReplyDeleteLauren Casillas p.2
It seems a lot of people share the same opinion, but I'd support the equal rights amendment over any of the others. I see no reason why, with how far we've progressed as a nation, we shouldn't have already achieved equality among ALL of our country's citizens. Equality among gender (and/or sexuality, as the article mentioned) would be a huge step toward the age-old idea that we're all created equal.
ReplyDelete-Adrienne Sanchez p.2
The proposed amendment that speaks the most to me is probably the schwarzenegger amendment. I think immigrants make up the backbone of this nation and it seems a little unfair to prevent them from holding perhaps the most significant position in our country just because they were born somewhere else. Many American citizens were born somewhere else but moved to the U.S. at a very young age and are fully Americanized and familiar with our culture. Of course there still need to be restrictions, as someone should not be able to live their whole life in another country or culture and come to the U.S. with the sole intention of running for office.
ReplyDeleteOne amendment that I strongly disagreed with was the Star-Spangled amendment. I think it is a violation of freedom of speech/expression and it sets a bad precedent that could potentially cause a slippery slope of banning unpatriotic acts. Burning the flag does not actually harm anyone, it is more of a symbolic statement the same as someone writing a book or other form of media about their discontent with the nation which is protected under the first amendment.
-Adam "Yung Patriot" Witkowski P.3 ++ <3
For the record I do not support burning the flag and I find it majorly disrespectful I just think banning the simple defacing of a symbol shows insecurity as a nation and borders a little to closely to fascist policies much love to everyone in America TYBG
Delete-Adam "Lil Trap Lord" Witkowski P.3 ⁽˙³˙⁾
I myself could fully get behind the star-spangled amendment. I have always found it disgusting when people who continue to live in this country disrespect their home in such an awful manner. I believe if you hate America so much that you choose to burn the flag you should simply just leave the country. Putting this law into action would stop this immense disrespect and only the unpatriotic would feel this amendment's wrath. This law shouldn't impact any true Americans…only those who can only feel hate for this great country.
ReplyDelete-Colton Lynch P.3
I believe that the amendment we should pass would be the star spangled amendment. I believe this because as a patriot I see any defilement of our flag as disrespectful. Members of our military sacrifice their lives to protect the freedoms of this nation and our flag is a symbol of that sacrifice. Since its adoption our flag has been symbolic of freedom and innovation and I strongly believe that the people of this nation should respect it. No one is doing any good by destroying our flag, in fact they are only furthering the idea that Americans have no respect for themselves or any other nation. So let's prove everyone wrong and pass this amendment
ReplyDeleteJoseph Murad p. 2
The amendment that caught my attention was the equal rights amendment. There are so many women surpassing expectations in the work force. There should not be a "wage gap" just because we happened to come out of the womb female. I personally know many exceptional women that go above and beyond in their work place. Someone who works their a** off should be paid what they deserve. Otherwise we as women aren't even being recognized for our efforts. Gender equality is a big issue that still is an issue today not just in the workforce but also in society. As for another amendment, I would want to choose the personhood one, but there's just too many various opinions on it and whether women who get abortions are doing the right thing or not. Obviously people have religious preferences on the issue also, and thats perfectly ok. We are all subject to our own opinions. As for how I feel, only women who have been raped, and can be proven that that is the situation, should be allowed to get an abortion. Having a baby coming from the man that was disgustingly insane enough to violate you in that way is sadly but truly only a reminder of the terrible event. Ultimately it is up to that woman. As for women who just "accidentally" got pregnant, that is not an excuse. We all know what stops it and what prevents us from getting pregnant. Those women i would say need to learn from their mistakes (not calling the child a mistake FYI).
ReplyDeleteChloe Pena P. 2
I personally agree with the Arnold Schwarzenegger amendment. American politics should not be exclusive to those born here. Allowing immigrants into the highest offices would take away from their sense of homelessness. This would be a step towards accepting immigrants and treating them like citizens rather than foreigners.
ReplyDeleteTasmia Hussain P.3
Although I did could not get behind any of these possible amendments fully, the one I could most get behind would be the Schwarzenegger Amendment. This possible amendment would allow foreign-born Americans to hold higher positions in office. It is a well known, and universally accepted, fact that America is a land of immigrants. We are the melting pot of our Earth. People come here to make better lives for themselves because they believe that America will give them the chance to do that. It may not necessarily state it so obviously, but it can be assumed that people come to America because they like what America stands for and the unique opportunities this land can offer. They came to that realization on their own and decided on their own to become a citizen by themselves. These people already believe in America, and believe in what it can give to those who reside here. Their love and respect for this country is no different from a natural born citizen, and they deserve the right to hold higher positions in office.
ReplyDeleteWho are we to say no to the very people who truly make up our land of opportunity? Who are we to deny them the positions of higher power because they weren't born here? Who are we to disregard their right when they have every last bit of respect and vision for what America could be as someone born here?
I guess you could argue that maybe they are coming here with bad intentions, or influences from another land may "ruin" American ideals but there are bad intentions in everyone and there isn't much harm in having knowledge on how other places work.
ashley abalos p 2
I found the personhood to fetuses very interesting. I believe that this should be voted no for many reasons, mainly due to the fact that it should be left in the hands of the female.
ReplyDeleteChika P2
The Campaign finance amendment spoke out to me the most of all of these. I feel that the involvement of huge corporations that contribute to these campaigns allow nominees to be influenced by companies so they can get an upper hand budget wise from their competitors. This also allows companies like the Tobacco and other big dirty companies to have a bigger influence in government affairs which leads to, in my eyes, a corrupt government that is blinded by greed and iou's to deal with big companies from holding power in the white house.
ReplyDeleteI'm also for and against the no more term limits for the reason that we need limited time in the presidential office to not allow corruption of power over time and to allow the president to not get the feeling of been there done that and also over stay his welcome. But what would be good for a non limited presidency would be that once we receive a president who's actually making a huge positive impact can stay in office for longer if the people enjoy his work so we can avoid a presidential nomination like this years where both nominees have a bad track record or none at all and truly won't make a bigger impact then the one before him/her.
- Antonis Panagiotis Christodoulou :)
I believe that we, as Americans, must, ironically, oppose the Star-Spangled Amendment. The courts have already protected flag burning as a measure of free speech, and as the article notes: it is unfair to ban flag burning but allow the display of the Confederate flag. Burning the flag is not something I may personally espouse, but it does have a truly symbolic purpose: it represents a person's resentment, frustration, anger, disappointment, and sense of betrayal towards America. And considering the plethora of divisive issues that cause controversy, such negative feelings towards the government are quite common in some form.
ReplyDeleteThe amendment that I do support is the "Campaign-Finance Amendment". It would fix the rotting mess that's campaign finance right now in America. After all, why elect a candidate with actual political ability, electability, solid values, and honesty when you can buy your nearest neighborhood senator with donations from a super-PAC? The amendment would keep money neutral and fair and avoid the "influence" from key lobbying groups in Congress, examples being Silicon Valley for the Democrats and the Koch brothers for the Republicans.
Donald Trump P. 45
First of all, banning/adding legislation to limit abortion would not make it stop, or make abortion safer. This is seen through the fact that 78000 women a year die from unsafe abortions. Along with this, 90% of abortions are perfomed during the first trimester, the fetus being barely over an inch long. Some argue that abortion is murder because the fetus is human. This is simply incorrect. A fetus is not a human just because it has human DNA. My toe is composed of human DNA but that does not make my toe a human being. The pro-life argument is pointless since most abortions occur in the first trimester and a brain doesn't even begin to form until the third trimester. People talk of morality but women have a moral right to decide what happens with their body, not the government. Some try to argue that abortion is a human issue not a women issue but in the end it affects women disproportionately. You can't be for women's rights and believe they shouldn't have the right to choose. If this was reversed and men were the ones who became pregnant, this wouldn't even be a discussion right now.
ReplyDeleteI found the parenthood to fetus weird but cool. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about it, though.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa Fejeran 2
Both the top-down strategy and the bottom-up strategy have not proved useful as the statistics from the government show. Niether way has been more successful than the other as no matter what immigrants are going to find a way into the US. With that being one program is ultimately more humane than the other and that being the bottom-up strategy. Although this this strategy has no extreme punishment whatsoever for immigrants coming illegally it does not hurt any individuals. The top-down strategy has pretty much thrown away money and not even solved any of the issue. A compromise of the two may be the best solution for the controversial topic however we would not know unless put into effect. In the end wasting money on a program that's not going to be effective is not very smart.
ReplyDeleteCollin Chouinard
P.3
I find myself conflicted with both viewpoints on the matter of Citizens United from Abrams and Neuborne. Abrams point of view is more correct in the logic of the constitution with the First Amendment and that it in no way should be limited. However reading into the article and reading your post on how the corporations may not hold the same beliefs or completely represent of every person in the corporation, I'm not sure if they should be counted as a "person". The more money that is spent on presidential elections does not mean that the candidate has an automatic increase of chance in winning though. Therefore I'm torn between the two. In that matter though I do lean more towards the constitution and the first amendment with Abrams.
ReplyDeleteCollin Chouinard p.3