We haven't had a meaningful Constitutional Amendment in a hundred years

Full human rights and voting rights for DC.

You acknowledge that the 18th had a major impact while it was in effect, so how could you not consider the 21st to be meaningful?

L L wrote:

Looking back at the latest amendments, most of them haven't had much of an impact on the country.

...

19 (1920) Women can vote - Pretty major amendment. Doesn't change every day life but changes politics...

To post dismissively of the 19th amendment as apparently not a meaningful constitutional amendment staggers the imagination. Women constitute roughly half of the population. As such, the 19th amendment is arguably as significant as the Constitution itself which gave the other half the right to self-determination.

L L, maybe you haven't noticed -

In the olden days, if the people didn't like something in the constitution, you went through the process of changing it. They weren't perfect about it, but for the most part, if it was a worthwhile change they would rally enough support to amend the constitution and get it ratified.

Nowadays, if you don't like something in the constitution you just ignore it.

Just saying 18 and 21 cancel each other out.

It doesn't affect us now.

So 18 would be major to us now and I guess 21 is major because without it we would still be dealing with 18.

Post dismissively of the 19th amendment?

It said it was pretty major.

At 94 years, old it doesn't quite hit the 100 for the headline.

Yes. It's meaningful, so it hasn't been quite 100 years.

I was also kind of separating voting amendments from those that affect how we go through the course of our life.

Even with everyone eligible, we still only have half of the people vote.

I'd say an amendment which gives women the same voting rights as men does a lot to effect "how we go through the course of life." It can affect one's sense of self, and ceertainly changes trhe emphasis on issues of concern to them.

Instead of focusing on new amendments, we should try to protect the ones we already have. The 4th amendment is gone and liberals are trying to crush the 1st and 2nd.

The administrative end runs of the past 2 POTUS have been amazing.

An army of lawyers in DC working around every aspect of every law, which spawns new laws, makes it unclear as to whether any thing is actually legal or illegal.

Further, there is so much division that it seems impossible for 38 states to agree on anything. The odds of any amendment passing is now virtually nil. There was some chance of ERA passing, but a wide array of morons defeated it for reasons I never really understood.

thank GOD for the 22nd Amendment

3 or more terms of Obama...?

End of the world as we know it

Amendment #24 making obstructions to voting unlawful was huge. Along with Brown vs the Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act it was the culmination of the end to Jim Crow and the rejection of Reconstruction. It's an area of law still in active dispute. Several states declined to vote on that amendment at the time (one voted it down) and it's not without coincidence that it's in these same states that the fight continues.

The #19 amendment (women's suffrage) failed to pass in several states at first but later re-visited and passed unanimously.

Yo!!!! wrote:

thank GOD for the 22nd Amendment

3 or more terms of Obama...?

End of the world as we know it

DAMN YOU OBAMA!!!

This poor feller wants his country back!

As someone observed, enforcing the amendments we already have would be nice. Take the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" SCOTUS (9-0), in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947). [emphases mine]

Return all but essential government powers to the States, including personal taxation, education and healthcare.

Ban government subsidies/funding of large multinationals (align with EU regulations).

Criminalize lobbying.

Define and guarantee human rights using internationally accepted rules, protecting the rights of all people on American soil, including visitors, immigrants and prisoners. This includes additional scrutiny of death penalty cases to avoid executing the innocent and a ban on executing children.

Ban military intervention unless it's sanctioned by the UN or there is a direct threat to US soil.

Ana Theist wrote:

As someone observed, enforcing the amendments we already have would be nice. Take the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment:

So when did we set up state church? I must have missed that.

17th Amendment had a big impact. It needs to be repealed. State Governments no longer have a representative in the Federal Government, so the Federal Government keeps growing and pushing unfunded mandates on the states.

What is the point of adding anything to the constitution when the government either ignores it or interprets it out of existence?

There is no use pretending that the supreme court is a group of honest, objective judges. They're political appointees. As bad as other government officials can be, at least they aren't protected by the false aura of honor that the supreme court enjoys. And they don't serve for life. The supreme court is the constitution's biggest mistake and the next meaningful amendment will curtail its power.

Bad Wigins wrote:

What is the point of adding anything to the constitution when the government either ignores it or interprets it out of existence?

There is no use pretending that the supreme court is a group of honest, objective judges. They're political appointees. As bad as other government officials can be, at least they aren't protected by the false aura of honor that the supreme court enjoys. And they don't serve for life. The supreme court is the constitution's biggest mistake and the next meaningful amendment will curtail its power.

I find your combination of ignorance and stupidity to be fascinating.