How to Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Articles: How to Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments


Blog: Radio Host Mark Levin suggests the States call an Article Five Amendment Convention

Repealing these would be a good start.

Just off the top of my head, I'd like to add the 26th and the 14th also.

 

[mrjarrell]

That's a stupid idea. Constitutional conventions can't be called to just address one or two things. Anyone appointed as a delegate can propose amendments. You want to see what happens when a delegate proposes getting rid of the 2nd? These things are fraught with danger for the Constitution and Rights, enumerated or not. It's certainly not worth the risk just to satisfy a few people who have it in for a certain amendment. If you want to get it done, in a less dangerous fashion, then propose that congress offer an amendment that repeals the 16th and/or 17th. The ConCon is just too dangerous in this day and age.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Repealing the 14th without first passing a new amendment to enforce universal application of the Bill of Rights on state governments would be folly.

And what do you have against 18 year olds voting?

 

[Redhorse]

Yeah, I'm not 21 and I enjoy being able to vote. I made it a point to go vote in the last election section because I was barely old enough to do so. You don't have to be 21 to know how to vote. To be honest I don't like this idea because I prefer to directly vote for my senators instead of letting someone else pick them for me.

 

[giovani]

I would just like to see a poll tax implemented again , even if its only 1 cent.

the stipulation being, you have to be off of all government subsidies before you can pay it.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I got no problem with returning the Senate to representing states and their interests as opposed to being the House of Representatives Lite, or with returning the purse strings of the federal government to the states so that the feds can't tax individuals directly, but I have no truck with the 14th or the 26th in and of themselves.

As for giovani's idea, screw the poll tax in and of itself. Just require each local election board to develope a 100 question pool of current events (things that happened since the last election was held) questions, roughly equally split between international, federal, state, and local events, a randomly selected ten of which must be answered by each prospective voter. If you don't get at least 6 of them right, you don't get to vote.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yep. I agree a ConCon would not be advisable but that's not what the author's proposing. I'll admit that I'm not sure if his proposal is constitutional, but as he states, if it were, it would be another avenue to amend the constitution.

Along with the "commerce clause", I see the 14th amendment--or it's misuse as one of the primary tools progressives have used to advance their agenda. It's one thing to say the BoR's apply to the states but any more it's used as a hammer to drive the federal .gov in all areas they have no business.

The 18 year old thing...we're all too stupid at that age. In fact, if I had my way, nobody would vote before about age 32 and only if you owned a material interest in real property.

 

[CathyInBlue]

In fact, if I had my way, nobody would vote before about age 32 and only if you owned a material interest in real property.

If we're gonna get into that kind of qualifier, make it 25 y.o.a., and I'm with you. At 25, you've had the opportunity to perfect your professional education to the MS level and been in a career position for a year.

 

[firehawk1]

That's a stupid idea. Constitutional conventions can't be called to just address one or two things. Anyone appointed as a delegate can propose amendments. You want to see what happens when a delegate proposes getting rid of the 2nd? These things are fraught with danger for the Constitution and Rights, enumerated or not. It's certainly not worth the risk just to satisfy a few people who have it in for a certain amendment. If you want to get it done, in a less dangerous fashion, then propose that congress offer an amendment that repeals the 16th and/or 17th. The ConCon is just too dangerous in this day and age.

THIS... BIG time!

Once you "open it up" anyone can propose anything. As stated, in this day and age with the fringe lunatics we have VERY dangerous.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I feel compelled to mention that Indiana just this year made it felonious for our delegates to a ConCon to step outside of the purposes for which we send them. You know… should we ever send any.

 

[Expat]

It isn't a ConCon, as most people mean it. The delegates are limited to proposing Amendments that must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. If you read the reasoning for and the discussion on the Article 5 convention, it was put in the Constitution for just the times we live in now, a run away Federal government that is usurping more power than they were given. Libertarian talk show host Mike Church has been advocating this for several years now.

 

[IndyBeerman]

The ConCon is just too dangerous in this day and age.

A Con-Con with today's crazy a++ liberals would be a VERY dangerous thing concerning our core rights as we know them.

 

[kludge]

I'm 100% for repealing the 16th and 17th. They are the root cause of nearly all of our problems for the last century.

A Constitutional Convention is out of the question though.

 

[mrjarrell]

Article 5 only gives you 2 options. Call a ConCon or just propose an amendment in the normal course of congressional duties. There are no other options. Any congressperson could propose an amendment to repeal any previous amendment, (as was done with prohibition). The latter option is the safest. The ConCon is just too dangerous. If the talking head in the op is dedicated to getting rid of these amendments then he should get someone to bring forth the amendments he wants. Surely someone wants these two things gone?

 

[hornadylnl]

For all the *****ing about those who stay home on Election Day, now we want more to stay home?

For those who want to increase voting age, are you proposing to increase the minimum draft age and not collect taxes from those under the new voting age? Our founders seemed to take issue with taxation without representation.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

For all the *****ing about those who stay home on Election Day, now we want more to stay home?

For those who want to increase voting age, are you proposing to increase the minimum draft age and not collect taxes from those under the new voting age? Our founders seemed to take issue with taxation without representation.

My children paid taxes when they were minors.

 

[88GT]

The 19th would be a better option.

 

[hornadylnl]

My children paid taxes when they were minors.

Something that I've never agreed with.

Sure, some think that by further restricting voting by age, property ownership, etc, they can hurt their political opponents. I guess to hell with those newly disenfranchised who would have voted our way.

 

[level.eleven]

The 19th would be a better option.

Why is that? I've honestly never heard an argument against this amendment.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Something that I've never agreed with.

Sure, some think that by further restricting voting by age, property ownership, etc, they can hurt their political opponents. I guess to hell with those newly disenfranchised who would have voted our way.

Nope. I believe those without should not be able to vote themselves what those that have have. Young people, even if they're the smartest kids in their schools, are ignorant or more delicately: inexperienced. There's nothing wrong with allowing young people time to learn how the real world works. We do it in many other fields of endeavor.