Hard To Choose
The poll at this site is a tough choice! There are four all but equal amendments in degree of urgency. And one on that is utterly trivial and, if passed, would be as much a joke from this far out in its future as prohibition is looked at from our time.
Repealing the 17th is one of my favorite ideas.
I was mystified by the need for declaring the Constitution the supreme law of the land. After all, any citizen with a brain knows that is already the case. It simply is. But I guess maybe it has to be stated explicitly to avoid creative circumventation from the forces of evil and/or ignorance.
Eliminating seizure without due process is a good idea. Even though in my humble opinion - which must make it a fact - it already is unconstitutional, and the folks who do so or make doing so possible should be, er... I dunno, thrown in jail or something. Sort them out later. In a few years.
Eminent domain is, I suppose, a necessary evil on rare occassions. When I first heard of the concept, when I was a kid, I was aghast; horrified. I had thought we had a good government or something. Thus my concluding it might sometimes be needed is quite a change for me. However, there are way too many trivial abuses, and making matters clearer would be worthy. This also applies to partial seizure in the form of regulation, by the way. If a regulation is imposed that takes away most of the value of you property, without being honest enough to take the property outright, that is still a taking. Not that I need point that out, as a brain is required to learn to read, and you are reading this. Given the presence of a brain, you already knew that.
I still don't know which to vote for out of the
five four! Sheesh. My wife likes repealing the 17th, despite the merits of the others and the spite value of that other one that we shall not name. I am inclined to agree with her, but damn, it's a tough choice.
A remark on the Bricker Amendment - it would prevent treaties from superseding the Constitution, which they probably do now.
I think the Bricker Amendment is pointless and unnecessary.
How to reform Eminent Domain without destroying it:
Any property taken under Eminent Domain cannot be transfered to a private party without first having been offered back to the original owner for the amount the owner was paid for the property. This shall not carry forward through inheritance.
This way the government can still take property for legitimate government uses (roads, etc), but they can't take my land and give it to Wal Mart. City revitilization my ass.
Byna, Had as mell and got noing to take it many ore!
A dandy idea about the return clause; Of course, the government taxes the money it pays you when it takes your property, so they'd have to repay the taxes, too, or else you might not be able to afford it...
In reality, they'd simply "lease" the land to Walmart, instead of handing over the title.
I think it would be more realistic to simply restrict the use of eminent domain to a few specific purposes, such as roads and other infrastructure, recognizing that there's little else where the government actually must have a particular plot of land. And it's only where a particular plot is needed, where normal purchasing breaks down.
Personally, I go for the repeal of the 17th. No immediate benefits, probably, but the long run change would be massive.
"I was mystified by the need for declaring the Constitution the supreme law of the land. After all, any citizen with a brain knows that is already the case. It simply is. But I guess maybe it has to be stated explicitly to avoid creative circumventation from the forces of evil and/or ignorance.
Well, I used to think the same about marriage