CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:9
Arguments:11
Total Votes:9
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 You say you'll change the Constitution well you know... (8)

Debate Creator

Rotbart(101) pic



You say you'll change the Constitution well you know...

If you could amend, omit, or alter in any way the US Constitution, what would it be? Which article, or already existing amend meant and why? Or do you think the document is 100% perfect in its original or present form.

 

Guidlines: let's keep this civil, and fact-based. This is not an opportunity for party-line name-calling or dog whistle words. Therefore, if you want to make (for example) an amendment, please provide some kind of citation, and a fact-based reason for that. If you can use a historical primary source (like a Federalist Paper), or a statistic, or some kind of reason, it would be even better! 

 

 

Add New Argument
2 points

Tort reform laws placing caps on damages both compensatory and punitive are unconstitutional.

It is unconstitutional to route money outside the US through the banking systems of other countries.

It is unconstitutional to hire employees outside the US.

There is a 2 term limit on all house representatives and senators.

The US Chamber of Commerce must disband or report all financial records as well as a list of members to the public. (i know the USCoC isnt an actual government agency but still)

1 point

I am with you on all counts except the term limits for Congress. The reason is, firstly, if the congressman is not representing their constituents the way they want, they have the power of voting them out I office, so we have a system in place for that. If the constituency thinks they are doing a great job, why replace them? I think the argument for term limits is made by people that don't agree with other people's representatives, not their own (eg: someone from Mississippi who is a polarized "conservative" might like this idea because Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders would be replaced). Secondly, and most importantly, when this has been tried at the state level, it serves to empower lobbyist and special interest groups further over the chambers because they become the "memory of the chamber" when there are no Senior Congressmen who "know what happened last time we tried that." I have a friend who was an aide to a California State Assemblyman, who told me (after term limits were passed), that the elected officials would actually ask corporate lobbyists for advice on how to do their job. That's is a most unsavory biproduct of what I feel is an emotion fix to a problem that could otherwise be fixed by simplyl voting.

thousandin1(1931) Clarified
1 point

Wouldn't all that apply equally to the office of the president? Do you feel that term limits should be removed from the presidency?

AveSatanas(4433) Disputed
1 point

The reason is, firstly, if the congressman is not representing their constituents the way they want, they have the power of voting them out I office, so we have a system in place for that.

That is such a rare occurance though it would be much simpler just to put a term limit. We need to cycle these people out.

If the constituency thinks they are doing a great job, why replace them?

To keep a fresh group pretty much. We have these old fucks claiming to represent the beliefs of milenials and so on.

Secondly, and most importantly, when this has been tried at the state level, it serves to empower lobbyist and special interest groups further over the chambers because they become the "memory of the chamber" when there are no Senior Congressmen who "know what happened last time we tried that." I have a friend who was an aide to a California State Assemblyman, who told me (after term limits were passed), that the elected officials would actually ask corporate lobbyists for advice on how to do their job. That's is a most unsavory biproduct of what I feel is an emotion fix to a problem that could otherwise be fixed by simplyl voting.

then why the fuck run for the job? The way i see it the lobbying and special interest groups are far more influential when they can guarantee on having a guy who will vote their way consistently. When you have a fresh guy in every 4 years its alot harder to manipulate the game. You have guys in there on their 11th + term recieving millions from special interest groups and voting against public will. We need to keep things fresh. I would argue that there are far more congressmen not voting the way their people want them to than there are ones who vote the right way. If you keep people cylcled out you have people from a generation representing people who are part of the same generation. Not 80 year old fucks who are super christian anti-gay bigots claiming to represent liberal minded pro-lgbt 20 year olds.

Amarel(5556) Disputed
1 point

Many of the reforms seem very protectionist in nature. There's not a very good track record for protectionist economic measures.

1 point

I would make the "necessary and proper" clause a little more explicit. This because having a Constitution which is supposed to limit government reach only to have a clause that essentially says "never mind" doesn't make sense.

I would also illuminate or restructure the 16th Amendment so that it reflects it's original implementation (which was a low percent). This because taxes are a disincentive. It's not a good idea to disincentivise the production of wealth. We already know this which is why poorer people have a smaller tax burden and cronies have loopholes. Lowering the income tax while eliminating loopholes isn't only good for the economy, it's just.