This conversation is closed.

Modify the U.S. Constitution to include "for citizens."

The U.S. Constitution should be updated to include "for all citizens" in the first paragraph whereby the rights of the citizens are protected. No other country guarantees our rights when we go there. Why should we allow others who manage to get into America to have the same rights as the citizens? Do they pay taxes?

The world has changed. It is now time to close our borders and unite as Americans. Until the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is updated to state that only "citizen" rights are protected, then we will continue to have problems. We shouldn't be providing a safe harbor for anyone who gets in. We've lost control of America. We've lost control of our government. We've lost control of our education system. We've lost control of our health care system.

Why are we allowing terrorists to have the same rights as American citizens?! I mean, we are ACTUALLY trying terrorists in our court systems! This is treasonous! I love my country! I support our military! This is wrong!

America, we need to unite as a people. We need to come together. Updating the U.S. Constitution would be the first step in ensuring the survival of capitalism and America.

  • thumb
    Jul 20 2012: Freedom and justice for all, not just "us" or special groups. If you don't have freedom and justice for all you don't really have it for anyone.
    • thumb
      Jul 25 2012: This is interesting, because I started to wonder what protection, I as a alien would have in the USA. Just to clarify I said alien as in nonresident not EXTRATERESTIAL LIFE FORM.
  • thumb
    Jul 20 2012: It's easy to claim special rights, but for most U.S. citizens, their citizenship is merely an accident of their birth, not something that any of us earned in any way. One of the things that makes the U.S. worth loving is its dedication to justice, due process and equality.
  • Jul 19 2012: Mr. Hamilton,

    Please note the wording of the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
    presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
    forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall
    any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
    shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived
    of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
    taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Note the use of "person" rather than citizen. Our founding fathers chose this word carefully based on the concept that our rights are human rights; that all humans have these rights, regardless of their citizenship. Unfortunately their wisdom is not shared by our current career politicians, or by you.
  • thumb
    Jul 19 2012: Please allow for a second opinion. The Constitution is a very well written document. The problem is not that it needs to be ammended it needs less interpertation and more enforcement. Even though there are papers available that explain what the intent was and the conversations that surrounded the writting of the Constitution they are by and large disregarded in favor of political ambition.

    The Constitution allows for the Federal to engage in four areas and all other powers and decisions were to be administered by the several states. In writings the representatives were volunteers to serve and then return to their states and new representatives come forth. We have allowed the members of congress to become career politicians who have voted themselves priviledges, pay raises, and exemption from the very laws they confer on the citizens thus making them a ruling class.

    We now face Executive Orders that by pass Congress. That was never the intent of the Constitution. The power plays we are seeing are politics in the truest form. To by pass Congress and make citizens outside of the federal mandates required is to secure voters to ensure party dominance.

    The most fundamental right is that of the vote and we still maintain that. What is being spoke of is anarchy and that is not the way. The proper way is the return to a Constitutional government and stop the runaway train toward socialism.

    All the best. Bob.
  • Jul 21 2012: This topic is very delicate. I agree that this situation has to be addressed. I don't think that changing the constitution will change anything in the US or in the world. I would like to hear comments from experts on this topic.
  • Jul 19 2012: The Constitution is a mission statement, to all who read it. Its committing itself to a standard. Why would you believe in the words only if they apply only to itself(I am a born-citizen of several generations of born-citizens by the way)? Closing boarders goes both-ways, and you'd be surprised how globalized our country is should those global economic input and outputs were removed. Why should our definition of justice be different for outsiders? The shameful thing is that it is already different. I don't see what good self-pride and conviction does when it is completely internalized.
  • Jul 19 2012: You are all kidding, right?
  • thumb
    Jul 19 2012: We are trying terrorist see there's a problem they are pows taken during a war as enemy combatants why are we trying them ? We are so far out of control what rights we have surrendered we will never get back and damn little chance of getting those that were takein back. With the mistakes previous generations have made and the new generations will make we are about screwed. To many bleedinghearts have to much control. I have said for over 30 years we should shut our borders and pull all troops back to our soil and mined our own bussiness and was toldby many that was wrong thinking theworld wanted and needed US to protect against whatever well here we are loved by few hated bya few more and overrun with politicans that sells.US in a minute.
  • thumb
    Jul 18 2012: .

    quote: 'Why are we allowing terrorists to have the same rights as American citizens?'

    Oh, I must have got something wrong, I thought this was already solved by Guantanamo Bay ...
  • thumb
    Jul 18 2012: Sounds good to me, taking back your constitution from other collective interests seems sensible to me - With due respect to your Supreme Court allowing companies to have the same rights as individuals simply allows some of your citzens to have more than one share of the pot. The fact that this abomination slid in on the backs of human rights legislation (addressing historical unfairness) is actually perverse.- but then I am Canadian and proudly so, and not American.
    • thumb
      Jul 19 2012: Aw come on Deb your not a real Canadian you live in Nigera Falls ... Your a boarder hopper and we are glad to have you.

      I find it very funny that the Supreme Court votes Constitutional issues along party lines. That makes our founding fathers really smart to write a document that would withstand time and align with parties that did not even exist at the time. Awsome.

      See long answer above. Sippin tea with me and Bobby Magee ... LOL

      All the best Bob.
      • thumb
        Jul 19 2012: Bob! How are you feeling, amigo"?
        I wonder if you know that there used to be a tea ad in Canada where prominent Brits (like the queen) would sip a cup of tea and discover that it was only available in Canada" The tag line was :"Only in Canada, you say?"
        The great news and the downside is that most of what we discuss effects us both North America wide. I do love the States and its people. Why do you think I spend so much time on TED? In fact, I am convinced that much of what your founding fathers wrote (with due respect to the French with whom many of those thoughts started) is the pinacle of human political thought even today.
        Yes, that is the legacy and the horror of it all.
        I did not ever really see lying as something a tea partier would vote to protect. Can you expand on your answer so that I can understand it better, Bob?
        Finally, I do live in Niagara Falls Canada but I raised my kids and lived my married life in "the prettiest town in Canada" that is Niagara-on-the-Lake. I moved here to be in my daughter's school district after the divorce so that she could continue her bilingual education. Now I have a house and my daughter goes to school in Quebec.
        IN closing this answer out, I want you to know how very much I appreciate you and most of the Americans I have met. My former sister in law and her children are people I still love but you sure do have wonkie ideas sometimes!
        • thumb
          Jul 19 2012: When did I refer to lying as something a tea partier would vote to protect?

          "Wonkie". Would the be Willie Wonkie and the chocolate factory.

          What was the name of the "only in Canada tea"?

          Your a tea lovin AMERINADAN.

          All the best. Bob.
      • thumb
        Jul 19 2012: Hey there Bob, it is Tetely tea, I think, shall I send you some? Although I loved Willie WonkA and the chocolate factory, Wonkie is a British word and since Canadians followed the biblical edicts against rebelion, we still are aware of those words even though we were awarded our sovereignty without blood shed- how many lives did your independence cost Bob? Was it your civil war that lost the most lives of any combat in history?

        Still hoping for that expansion along with the answers to my questions.
        PS I adore Abraham Lincoln too but JP Morgan and some others - not so much and neither did Lincoln.
        • thumb
          Jul 19 2012: We have tetely here.

          I don't kinow where I made the lying statement. Help me to find it and I will respond.

      • thumb
        Jul 19 2012: this is the part that I am hoping you will expand upon please, Bob.

        "I find it very funny that the Supreme Court votes Constitutional issues along party lines. That makes our founding fathers really smart to write a document that would withstand time and align with parties that did not even exist at the time"

        Are you sugggesting that they were clairvoyant? I agree that sometbing very special happened when those guys were writing those documents. Do you think it was simply a convergence of intelligent minds, the educational system of that time or something else?. I would be fascinated to read what you think. I still do also wish to know if you are well.
        • thumb
          Jul 19 2012: I are well. Thanx for asking. I find it interesting that 5 democrats vote one side of the issue and 4 republican appointed supremes vote the other way. One would think that the Constitution would be the focus not the party that appointed you. A good example is the last issue of Obama care. That the federal government can force a individual to purchase anything is beyond me. Further if the person refuses to buy the insurance they will be punished by either jail or a fine. Now the supreme court rename the program a tax. I have completely lost faith in that system. Doesn't anyone understand that the fed will help the states the first year and then bail costing the states trillions of dollars to maintain the program. Can a state file for bankrupcy.

          Any way thanks for the reply. I am braced for the Ameridain libber to assult the guy that is always right. LOL. See ya. Bob.
      • thumb
        Jul 19 2012: Are we referring to the same case, Bob?. I am pasting in the details so we can ensure that we have a constructive dialogue:

        The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a federal law that makes it a crime to lie about receiving a military medal, ruling it violated constitutional free-speech rights.

        By a 6-3 vote, in a case about how far the government may go to prosecute false claims about military honors, the high court handed a setback to the Obama administration over the "Stolen Valor Act" that Congress adopted in 2006.

        "The nation well knows that one of the costs of the First Amendment is that it protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the court's main opinion, speaking for himself and three other justices.

        While statements by a California man falsely claiming he had received the congressional Medal of Honor were "contemptible," Kennedy said the right to make those statements was protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech and expression.

        The ruling rejected the administration's argument that the military medal law was constitutional and that the government has a strong interest in protecting the integrity of awards to war heroes.

        Opponents said the law swept too broadly, suppressed speech and covered innocent bragging, satire and even false statements that cause no harm such as those at issue in the case by a serial liar who held local political office in California.

        The military medal law targeted people who falsely claimed, verbally or in writing, that they had received such an award. Violators could have faced up to six months in prison, or up to one year for elite awards, including the Medal of Honor.

        The ruling was a victory for Xavier Alvarez, who was elected to a California water board in Pomona and at a 2007 board meeting had introduced himself as a retired Marine who won the country's highest military decoration.

        Alvarez never received Medal of Honor and never served in the m
        • thumb
          Jul 20 2012: All right I have my gloves and a hammer and am ready for a construction dialogue.

          As a retired military member I think those who lie about military honors have no honor and need to be shot ... but I am soft on the subject. However, telling a lie is not a felony and I agree with the court that the Feds are out of line here. If they are serving in the military and wear a non earned medal then it is a offense covered by the UCMJ and they should be punished accordingly by the military.

          If we punished all politicians that told lies to their constituates then the prison industry would be thriving. There are white lies, grey lies, and damn lies. None law.

          Perhaps the answer is to have each canidate fill out a bio and sign it stating it is true and the punishment for lying on the bio being disqualification from the race.

          Wish I had a great answer but I don't. It do make me PO'd. Gloves off ... hammer down.

          All the best. Bob.
      • thumb
        Jul 19 2012: That was the end of June Bob and that article was done by Reuters.
      • thumb
        Jul 20 2012: Bob I find it disturbing that supreme court judges identify themselves as democrat or republican. What happened to an independant judiciary? Down here our equivalent judges are appointed by agreement between the current PM and the governor general who is the Queen's rep and was generally appointed during the previous PM's time. They also must retire at 70, so generally have fairly short reigns.
      • thumb
        Jul 20 2012: I just read some more. I find it equally disturbing that of 9 judges 6 are catholic and 3 are jewish. What about atheists? So much for Jefferson's "wall of seperation between church and state" If your an atheistic cummunist you wouldn't see many friends in the court!
      • thumb
        Jul 20 2012: I am a bit surprised by all of this. I am convinced that anyone who lies about something as serious as their military service is a person who has no business having political office. Once the police were allowed to lie to suspects, we began to encounter this slippery slope and lying cannot be defended by the state in my own value system. I was hoping you would illuminate more of the party line assertion, Bob. My own take is that if the Obamma administration was in error about insisting on honest portrayal of one's service record people from the other side of the aisle would take this as an example of the kind of common ground which might lead to greater unity. What would Cappra and other directors who gave the world a vision of 'America the good" have said about what has become of America when lying is enshrined in law?. Someone important (cannot remember who at his moment said that "America is great because she is good, If America ever ceases to be good she will also cease to be great."
        I think this is what is happening in our time. Thoughts, Bob or anyone?
    • thumb
      Jul 19 2012: When it's high time to deconstruct the corporate model, the corporation instead becomes an individual with inalienable rights. Perverse, yes, and utterly disgusting. I felt the same way when Bush "won" his election. Having failed to vote at the time I take 1/299,000,000th responsibility, but a lot of us relearned how to get off our duff and vote (for the remaining good it will do).
      • thumb
        Jul 19 2012: V Alexander, Thank you for this comment.
        I am delighted when anyone who previously neglected their right to vote is stirred to action. For me it means that they relearned some of the power and control over their own lives rather than succoming to 'learned helplessness". The only way to defeat 'leared helplessness' is to just take back the power that was taken from you and apply yourself to the problem. The past is behind and the future is brighter.
        The way you framed your experience demonstrates a sort of morality tale for the country. Good for you V. Alexander!
        • thumb
          Jul 20 2012: Thanks, Debra...once the shame passes, it isn't so bad. :)

          Not to butt in anywhere, but saw this and just had to pluck it out of context: "... In short, laws such a[s] the SVA only succeed in circumventing our traditional Republican values." :)
      • thumb
        Jul 20 2012: Butt in? As you might have noticed i am so excited about the chance to communicate with everyone of these facinating people that i NEVER stand on such ceremony. Delighted to share this time with you!