DUers, Can you really love America and want to modify the constitution?

[Billy Burnett]

Not sure if I want to kick it old school, or new school.

[hlthe2b]

1. I dare say Adams and Jefferson would want to modify...

after seeing today's RETHUGS and teabaggers....(not to mention what has become of our system of justice).

[Hawkowl]

2. Anti War Profit Amendment

I would like to see the next amendment outlaw any company from making any profit, or paying any dividends that supplies the "Defense Department" in time of war. Furthermore, I would limit all private salaries of said companies to the government civil service pay scale. So for example the CEO of GE could not make any more than the President of the USA and no backdoor stock options. Although I guess he could have a private jet and limo with some dark shaded security guys.

[DinahMoeHum]

3. Ahem, we have constitutional amendments for that purpose.

Thank you.

[Billy Burnett]

5. Yes, but I've heard some arguments posing the question ...

.. of Repugs claiming their love for America (in that "strict constitutional constructionist" way) but yet hate America as it currently is (the GOPer cretins seeking to alter the 1st and 14th Amendments, supported by some public opinion polls as sweeping the nation).

Interesting argument.

I've heard Thom Hartmann and some other of the "professional left" try out this malconstruction.

[kiva]

9. It's about how the constitution is being interpreted and enforced.

In period between the end of reconstruction and the modern civil rights movement, many people who supported equal rights would likely have said that they loved the American Constitution (especially the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments) but hated the country as it was at that time.

The Constitution was written to be amended, hence the process listed within the Constitution itself.

[Igel]

20. There is no conflict.

Strict constructionism is how you interpret the text; it is not living, it is not all that malleable.

The strictest of constructionists would argue that the text describing how to amend the Constitution is, in fact, part of the text and should be taken at essentially face value.

So, here's a question. The Equal Rights Amendment. Did its sponsors love America?

[The_Commonist]

4. Absofrikkinlutely!

That's what the amendment process is all about.

[vixengrl]

6. I think the Teabagger relationship with the Constitution

is a little like that of a woman who falls for a rebel, then procedes to change him. "No more smoking, be home by eleven--and you can't elect your own senators anymore."

They like the idea of it all, and to some extent the playing dress-up and feeling like a Revolutionary War hero. The messy reality of the Bill of Rights, though--too scary. Sure, Americans have made positive changes to the Constitution, so it's possible to be a real American and work for changes--

But I think the trend should be towards "more perfect union", more freedom, stronger democracy. And I'm not sure how many of them have the historical perspective of why these changes aren't whimsically made.

[SoxFan]

7. Term limits for the House members

Not a popular position here, but it's how I feel. The committee system is a mess, too many members are joined at the hip with favored industries or interest groups. I say limit House members to 10 years and keep the blood flowing.

The Senate should be left alone. I see value in having the Senate serve as the institutional memory and more staid, deliberative body.

[boppers]

8. My first thought was term limits, too.... for all positions, though.

From Supreme Court to Dog-catcher, leaving people in positions of power encourages abuse.

[SoxFan]

19. I generally agree

I always found it strange how opposition to term limits became the default "liberal" position, with a few exceptions like Jerry Brown and pre-shark jump Ralph Nader.

The US Senate is the one place where I tend to see some value in longevity. There's something to be said about having a Ted Kennedy or a Dick Lugar around. These people bring a sense of perspective and rationality to the place.

[Arkana]

11. Shorten Senate terms to four years and limit it to three terms.

I think the House having elections every couple of years is good enough. The American House of Lords has been more of a problem.

[Arkana]

10. Yes. It's a living document--there's a reason 27 Amendments have been made since.

[Dr Morbius]

18. Absolutely. America is not about the Constitution.

The Constitution is a document designed to allow people to govern themselves. As times change, governments should be redesigned to suit the times. That's why the Constitution has provisions to allow changes to itself.

[JVS]

12. Yes.

Duh!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. Hell no! Votes for women and repealing slavery are unamerican! N.T

[niceypoo]

14. Modifying the constitution and replacing it with GOP talking points are two different things

[saltpoint]

15. I could get behind a Constitutional Convention to

make some modifications -- provided we here at DU get to choose the delegates.

That seems fair.

[AngryAmish]

16. Sure. Everyone who wanted the ERA did not love America.

[Alcibiades]

17. Yes, it's in the Constitution

Read Article Five.

[crazylikafox]

21. Yes. Eliminate the House of Lords. Uhhh.... Senate

[CBGLuthier]

22. Yes, of course you can.

What a silly notion.