A proposal for a constitutional amendment is in congressional commitee right now.  This amendment intorduced by Jesse Jackson and friends would if passed and ratified restrict congress and the states from making any laws restricting any form of contraceptive.  This would be easily skewed to include all forms of abortion. \n\nBecause amendments usually have seven years to get passed and ratified, we have no way of knowing who might come into office and get this passed and ratified.\n\nIf you think this is wrong, please write to your representatives and let them know that you do not want this bill to ever leave committee!
120339
If you don't agree with contraception don't use it.  If you don't agree with abortion don't have one.  What I don't understand is why you want the government to impose your beliefs on other people.
607213
It's really amazing to me how many people don't see the freight train hiding being their little conservative posterboard...\n\nDo you know why China can mandate abortions and force sterlizations? Because reproductive choice is not a guaranteed right.\n\nAs soon as Casey is overturned (for those who forget: Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992) we've lost freedom from government intereference in reproductive choice.\n\nIt's not about abortion. It's about who gets to make the decisions. Right now, it's the individual. But if the Supreme Court decides that reproductive rights are not fundamental rights, and thus subject to state regulation, try to imagine what could happen.\n\nNew York could pass a law saying that anyone making less than $30K per year cannot have children, and must abort any pregnancy, because they obviously cannot support them financially. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected. It's up to the states to decide.\n\nSouth Dakota has already outlawed abortion, even in the case of rape or incest or permanent harm to the mother. Then, they decide that they have too little population, and require every female under the age of 28 who is not celibate to have at least one child. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected.\n\nOr North Carolina or Texas decides that convicted felons should never have children, and starts imposing mandatory sterilization as part of criminal sentences. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected. Let the states decide. Right?\n\nOnce the right to reproductive privacy is taken away by the court, it will be decades before it can be reestablished. Conservatives better start praying, if they get their wish, that during that time they don't become the minority under a legislation that decides to require abortions. Because, once that right to personal choice is lost, the government will always be able to decide whether you can have children or not.\n\nDo people really want to live in a country where state legislatures can decide who can be pregnant, and who cannot, and who must?  Do people really have that much trust and faith in government that they think the legislature will always make the right choices? Because we'll be stuck with those decisions.\n\nWhy can't people understand that freedom of choice is not a minority value, even if the majority happens to disagree with the minority's choice?
148805
I'm for it, and most Americans are, at least those who understand what it is all about.\nThe problem is, as it's a constitutional issue, we need to make an amendment. That requires that two thirds of the States need to approve it.\nThose States with low population numbers, will vote against it, as it isn't to their advantage.\nIt has been suggested, that each  of the most populist states, eg, California, New York, change their constitution, to give all their votes to the winner. That way, they will get around the smaller States, and for once, the candidates, will  have to spend more time and money getting their votes.
153930
I think that the proposal of the constitutional amendment a while back that would have banned gay marriage is a disgrace to our political system.  There are currently 27 amendments.  Not one TAKES AWAY a right.\n\nIf any given Church wants to refuse to marry same-sex couples they have every right to do so.  They also have the right to refuse to marry people based on religion, race, height, weight and the color of their shirts.  Churches are allowed to discriminate all they want.  They're effectively like private clubs in that regard (I know that many Churches are welcoming of everyone, but they're not legally required to be).\n\nThe government, however, is NOT allowed to discriminate against certain groups.  There is no reason why same-sex couples should not be allowed ot be legally married.  I think we should give same-sex  couples and their children the same rights as everyone else.  Legalizing same-sex marriage wouldn't hurt anyone, but banning it sure would.\n\n__________\njonny: Really?  Which amendment would that be?\n\njdfnv: The legal intitution of marriage has nothing to do with religion.  It may go against the Christian Church (although the issue of homosexuality in the bible is not nearly as simple as people make it out to be) to marry gay couples, and they won't have to.  However, it does NOT go against the principles of the GOVERNMENT.  Last I checked, being married in a courthouse by a justice of the peace had NOTHING to do with the Christian Church.  Furthermore, not all Americans are Christian.  If you're not Christian, you shouldn't be bound by the moral principles of the bible (or misinterpretations of said moral principles).  That's the first amendment.  If your religion recognizes same-sex marriages then in order to protect your first amendment right to freedom of religion the government MUST recognize those marriages as equal to the marriages sanctioned by the Christian Church.  The Bible has no legal standing in the United States of America.
243715
No way!\nIt's time America stood up and supported this great document.\nIf we did, there would be less government control in our lives.\n\nTry this:\nhttp://constitutionparty.com
84733
Since the Electoral College is specifially provided for in the U.S. Constitution, if you don't like it your lawful choices are:\n\n1) propose and campaign for an amendment to the Constitution (2/3 vote in each house of Congress + majority vote in 3/4 of the state legislatures)\n\n2) whine\n\nNote that your alternative of having some sort of nationwide referendum (if I've read you correctly) is not one of the options.\n\n(Incidentally, I don't think you have a ghost of a chance of changing it anytime soon.  Too many of us believe in the FEDERAL system and don't want everything decided by a few big population centers.)\n\nAlmost forgot to answer the first question -- yes, the American people WERE allowed to vote for the Electoral College system, at least as much as for anything else in the Constitution, THROUGH their representatives (in each state) who voted to ratify the Constitution.  (That's called a representative --or, if I dare say it, 'republican' form of government, and it's the one we've had for over 200 years.)
529848
First, there would need to be a Constitutional Amendment passes to change the way the President and Vice President is selected. This usually takes a couple years to do. It could be done faster, but it would need to be approved by 3/4 of the states, and a lot of them are smaller and benefit from the electoral system more than they would from a popular vote. So you need to convince them that it is needed.\n\nAfter that, Congress would then need to work out all the various details on doing a national popular election. As it is now, that is left to the States. There are very few laws on the federal level dealing with elections. And after this, I'm sure there would be several states fighting these laws in court for a few years, claiming the new laws were unconstitutional because they infringe on the State's rights.\n\nWe have less than two years before the next election. I don't think that is enough time to get all this done. A better idea (and quicker) is to convince your state legislators to change the way they distribute their votes. Most states (48 of them) give all electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote in the state. Get your state to change it to distribute it more proportional to the popular vote (unless you already live in one of the two states that do something like this).
557872
Dude, calm down.\nFirst of all, the Constitution and its amendments are not laws.  If something contradicts the constitution it is deemed unconstitutional.  Not illegal.\nSecond.  Bush can't write a bill let alone pass a bill.  Did you ever hear that School House Rock song "I'm Only A Bill". . .Only Congress can pass law and write bills.  The president can either sign it, veto it, or ignore it.  Learn some civics.  What you are referring to is Executive Order 13198 (and a handful of others subsequent to this one) executed on January 29, 2001.  And before you go jumping off a bridge, read them carefully.  They don't say what you apparently think.\nThird.  You are incorrect about your interpretation of the Supreme Court rulings regarding whatever specific faith based initiative you are stuck on.  If the Supreme Court has ruled and it exists, you must be wrong.  QED.\nFourth.  Saying that you don't mind as long as ALL religions are represented is a very cute way of avoiding saying what's really in your heart.  If we represent ALL then we really are representing NONE.\nLast.  There are numerous things that are better done by religious and other community organizations (as opposed to the government).  For example, the Catholic Church does a wonderful job providing adoption services for disabled orphans.  A better job than the government.  The church avoids some of the thornier issues regarding church/state by separating its adoption services from its core purpose (to grossly paraphrase, a requirement for receiving federal money).\nBut really dude, calm down.
222049
There's no such thing as a national referendum. There's no process to do something like that. In order to make any substantial change to the way government operates in the US, Congress would have to pass an amendment to the constitution by a 2/3 majority and 3/4 of the states would have to ratify it.
618277
It's shameful that we would need an amendment to remind the SCOTUS that the Forth Amendment means what the words say it means, the probable cause means probable cause and not reasonable suspicion and so on ... yet this seems to be the case.\n\nI'd definitely like an amendment that spells out the "Constitutional privacy" I learned about in High School Civics class. This Constitutional privacy was the other side of Constitutional obligation. The two of them together defined the limits of government power, something we today are in sore need of.\n\nObligation: If activity infringes your rights, then the government MUST act to protect your rights. If it refuses to do so, citizens can take the legislative and/or executive branches to court, where the judiciary can MAKE the government do its job.\n\nPrivacy: If your activity does NOT infringe on the rights of others, then the government MAY NOT interfere to curtail that activity. If it does, citizens can take the legislative and/or executive branches to court, where the judiciary can MAKE the government respect your right to privacy.\n\nNote on obligation: This does not mean that government can or should guarantee that you will never be robbed, only that government has an obligation to consider theft to be a crime and to take reasonable measures to prevent theft, to apprehend and punish theives.\n\nNote on privacy: There are cases where government can interfere in public activity, but must "butt out" where the activity is in private between consenting adults. Sexual behavior is a good example.\n\nNote on both: True, we have many laws that violate this principle. For instance, some say that "No beer sales on Sunday" violates this principle. That these laws have not (as yet) been successfully challenged and repealed does not negate the principle.
76545
See abortion.  Somehow the courts decided this issue and the states were left with their mouths agape.  One can blame the national government for not having the intestinal fortitude when it came to abortion.  That's what one gets when we elect gutless lawmakers.
320011
It's not a question of whether they want to outlaw abortion.\nLook at the calendar. There's a mid year election coming up. Roe V. Wade isn't a law, it's a court decision. I'm not for abortion. Pro-choice is a nice word for I wish I hadn't chosen to have sex and get pregnant. But there's a principle here. I am sick and tired of the issues that matter to Americans being pushed aside instead of being solved.AFTER the election, abortion will be just be another hot issue that no one, I mean no one wants to touch. Same as immigration. 70 to 90 percent of the American people want the borders secured. Mexican American citizens want the border secured. 6000 national guardsmen? What are they thinking? I rather do nothing than spend money on stupid political posturing. Same as rebuilding New Orleans. Doesn't matter which side of the aisle they sit, the important stuff gets pushed aside and we just go on down the road at 3 bucks a gallon. The only time things really get done is when the reporter does the big investigative report that Congress just gave itself another pay raise and didn't tell anybody.
117413
The constitution was intended to restrict the actions of the federal goernment.  Any powers not given to the federal government nor denied to the states shall be invested in the states or in the people.\n\nThe constitution limits federal power to needs of the nation as a whole.  Laws which directly affect the lives of individuals are supposed to be left to the states.  That would include abortion.
356487
All it proves is that they have enough people that want to see it on the ballot. That doesn't prove that the majority wants it to be legal. In fact, polls consistently show that Americans hold pro-life viewpoints in most pregnancy cases, and that viewpoint continues to grow. Remember, Roe v. Wade wasn't voted on by the people, either. It was the result of action be liberal, activist Supreme Court justices.
435492
Check this site out;  It will outline the steps to take to get an  Amendment passed. not only the salary irks me but the free medical care and 15,000 a month retirement they receive,\nConstitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net \nFacts and Information about amendments to the U.S. Constitution ... Constitutional Amendments. Amending the United States Constitution is no small task. ...www.usconstitution.net/constam.html \n\nYou can do it. You would have to get enough singatures to get the issue on the november ballot or call for a special election..  It's called a Constitutional   Amendment.
654934
But if the people don't even know about an issue, how can they have an informed opinion about the bill?  The actions of congress are online, and you can keep up with them, and email your opinion to your representative at any time of day.\n\nWho would propose laws in your scheme, without representatives?  All 298,444,215 of us?  That could lead to a lot of votes.\n\nDo I think our countries laws should be decided as snap-decisions by inattentive members of the public - like American idol? NO
268621
The Constitution has a total of 27 amendments. The first ten, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, were ratified simultaneously. The following seventeen were ratified separately.\n\nTo learn more about the amendments click here\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Amendments