Actions for Freedom

Conversations on more than 50 actions to expand freedom in the United States

Amend the Constitution


Amend the Constitution

Assesses proposals being offered to amend the Constitution.

Members: 8
Latest Activity: Feb 19, 2012

Amend the Constitution

The Constitution should be changed only when there is a critical need for systemic change in the way government operates. The 27 amendments that have been ratified, even the 17 since the Bill of Rights, have greatly advanced the cause of justice in the U.S.

Two or three well chosen amendments could drastically change the way Washington operates. These changes are not likely to come from our elected political officials (President or Congress) or from the judiciary (Supreme Court). They must come from citizens like us.

At this website we assess the amendments that are being proposed. Several of them, if ratified, would facilitate resolution of many of the other issues discussed at this site.

Join this “Amend the Constitution” group to be part of this discussion.
Below are amendments that are being discussed
The first four are recommended by this author.

1. Term limits for Congress (Join this group also)
2. Remove special interest money from campaigns (Join this group also)
3. Clarify the powers reserved to the states or to the people (Join this group also)
4. Repeal Amendment Two-thirds of state legislatures could repeal any law of Congress. (Join this group also)
5. Apply the same laws to members of Congress as to citizens (Under the Discussions tab)
6. Limit federal spending to 20% of GDP (Under the
Discussions tab)
7. Balanced budget amendment
8. Allow Americans to use gold as currency (See "The Gold Standard" under the
Discussions tab)

Another group, “Amendment Process” discusses how amendments can be accomplished. Join that group also.

Discussion Forum

Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment 1 Reply

In view of the fact that the federal government is increasingly over-stepping its authority and encroaching on the States powers, an effective remedy could be to repeal the provisions of…Continue

Started by Richard Brackett. Last reply by Richard Brackett Feb 19, 2012.

Balanced budget amendment 5 Replies

As of April 4, 2011, a Balanced budget Amendment, "...which has the backing of the entire Senate GOP conference, would cap spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product and permit the…Continue

Tags: taxes, spending, budget, amendment, Constitution

Started by Daniel Dyer. Last reply by Daniel Dyer Jul 8, 2011.

Scott Turow calls for Constitutional amendment, NY Times OP-ED, August 18, 2010 1 Reply

e-mail to letters@nytimes.comTo the Editor:Re: “Blagojevich and Legal Bribery” (OP-ED, August 18)I agree with Scott Turow that “the Constitutional amendment this nation most urgently requires is one…Continue

Started by Daniel Dyer. Last reply by David Heikkinen Aug 18, 2010.

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Amend the Constitution to add comments!

Comment by Lawrence on May 12, 2011 at 10:52pm
Our constitution does not exist with the present administration. The people have laid back and let our leaders abuse all of our rights. When 2012 comes I pray we still have a constitution.We defend other countries freedom and turn a blind eye on our own people.
Comment by don charbonnier on August 19, 2010 at 9:28am
There is no doubt in my mind the system is broken. Elected officials are only concerned with re-election. Professional politicais were never envisioned or expected.
Don Charbonnier
Comment by Richard Brackett on May 27, 2010 at 9:03pm
Rob Jagger commented on your link:

"Does the 17th ammendment invoke term limits? The problem with our elected representatives is that they treat their positions like lifetime appointments and gerrymander districts just to make sure. I suppose being appointed by a body that is 90% from within the legal profession would continue to ensure that their appointments would be similarly skewed. I see some problems - Rob"

Thanks Rob.
No, there are no term limits in the 17th amendment. But if Senators were chosen by the state's legislatures, then any Senator would only serve until the next election when his or her party no longer controls that state's legislature.

I agree that having all lawyers in the Senate is not optimal, but at least if a Senator served at the pleasure of his or her State Senate, he or she would have to consider that state's powers before drafting legislation ceding those powers to the federal government (like mandating health coverage or telling people which light bulbs they must use).

It's much more likely that the House of Representatives will
include people from various business and professional backgrounds.

Best to you and Dilys,
Dick B.

Members (8)


© 2019   Created by Daniel Dyer.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service